PROJECT

MANAGEMENT
JOURNAL
Research Quarterly, Volume 38, Number 1 M A R C H 200 7

5 21 32 44 55
Computational Project Manager On Faith, Fact, Applying Traits Project
Modeling of Leadership and Interaction Theory of Categorization,
Project Behaviors and in Projects Leadership to Prioritization, and
Organizations Frequency of Use Joana G. Geraldi and Project Management Execution Based
Under Stress by Female Project Gerald Adlbrecht Dean R. Gehring on Six Sigma
John Dillard and Managers Concept: A Case
Mark E. Nissen Charlotte Neuhauser, PMP Study of
Operational
Improvement
Project
Joo Y. Jung and
Sang-Gyu Lim

61 74 87 97 110
The Changing A Multi-Phase How Generic Are Project Team Organizational
Bias of Project Research Program Project Management Performance: Culture
Management Investigating Knowledge and A Study of Restraining In-house
Research: Project Management Practice? Electronic Task Knowledge Transfer
A Consideration Offices (PMOs): Lynn Crawford and and Coordination Between Project
of the Literatures The Results of Phase 1 Julien Pollack Communication Managers—
and an Application Brian Hobbs, PMP, François Chiocchio, PMP A Case Study
of Extant Theory and Monique Aubry Pernille Eskerod and
Stephen A. Leybourne Hans Jørgen Skriver

Making Project Management Indispensable for Business Results™

Published by
PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
JOURNAL
The Professional Research Journal of the Project Management Institute
Volume 38, Number 1
MARCH 2007
3 From the Editor
Christophe N. Bredillet, PhD, MBA, Ingénieur EC Lille

PAPERS

5 COMPUTATIONAL MODELING OF PROJECT ORGANIZATIONS UNDER STRESS

John Dillard and Mark E. Nissen

21 PROJECT MANAGER LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS AND FREQUENCY OF USE BY FEMALE PROJECT MANAGERS
Charlotte Neuhauser, PMP

32 ON FAITH, FACT, AND INTERACTION IN PROJECTS

Joana G. Geraldi and Gerald Adlbrecht

44 APPLYING TRAITS THEORY OF LEADERSHIP TO PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Dean R. Gehring

55 PROJECT CATEGORIZATION, PRIORITIZATION, AND EXECUTION BASED ON SIX SIGMA CONCEPT:

A CASE STUDY OF OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Joo Y. Jung and Sang-Gyu Lim

61 THE CHANGING BIAS OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH: A CONSIDERATION

OF THE LITERATURES AND AN APPLICATION OF EXTANT THEORY
Stephen A. Leybourne

74 A MULTI-PHASE RESEARCH PROGRAM INVESTIGATING PROJECT MANAGEMENT OFFICES (PMOS):

THE RESULTS OF PHASE 1
Brian Hobbs, PMP, and Monique Aubry

87 HOW GENERIC ARE PROJECT MANAGEMENT KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE?

Lynn Crawford and Julien Pollack

97 PROJECT TEAM PERFORMANCE: A STUDY OF ELECTRONIC TASK AND COORDINATION COMMUNICATION

François Chiocchio, PMP

110 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE RESTRAINING IN-HOUSE KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER BETWEEN PROJECT MANAGERS—
A CASE STUDY
Pernille Eskerod and Hans Jørgen Skriver

123 Cover to Cover—Book Reviews

Kenneth H. Rose PMP

128 Index of Authors

130 Calendar of Events

131 Notes for Authors

132 Index of Advertisers

 PROJECT MANAGEMENT JOURNAL
EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD
Rick Bilbro, The Innova Group, Inc.;
Tomas Blomquist, Umeå University, Sweden;
Pierre Bonnal, CERN Accelerator and Beams Dept.;
David Bonyuet, PMP, Delta Search Labs;
Dan H. Cooprider, Creative People Management;
Steven V. DelGrosso, PMP, IBM;
J. Davidson Frame, University of Mgmt. & Technology;
Ken Hartley, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Gary C. Humphreys, Humphreys & Associates;
Peter Kapsales, Belcore;
Young Hoon Kwak, The George Washington University;
Alexander Laufer, Technion-Israel Inst. of Technology;
William Leban, PMP, DeVry University;
Ginger Levin, University of Wisconsin-Platteville
Rolf A. Lundin, Jonkoping University;
Fred Manzer, PMP, Center for Systems Management;
Peter Morris, University College, London;
Ralf Müller, Umeå University, Sweden;
Michael Okrent, Agilent Technologies Inc.;
Blaize Horner Reich, Simon Fraser University.;
Paul B. Robinson, The Eastern Management Group;
Arnold M. Ruskin, PMP, Claremont Consulting Group;
Richard L. Sinatra, PMP, Potomac, MD;
James Snyder, Springfield, PA;
Anders Soderholm, Umea University;
Paul Solomon, PMP, B-2 Earned Value
Management Systems;
Charles J. Teplitz, University of San Diego;
Janice Thomas, Athabasca University;
Zeljko M. Torbica, PMP, Florida
International University;
Terry Williams, University of Strathclyde;
Graham M. Winch, The University of Manchester.
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
Frank T. Anbari, PMP, The George
Washington University;
Karlos Artto, Helsinki University of Technology
(HUT), Finland;
David Cleland, University of Pittsburgh;
Lynn Crawford, University of Technology, Sydney;
Brian Hobbs, Université du Québec à Montréal;
Toshihiko Kinoshita, Waseda University;
Mark E. Nissen, Naval Postgraduate School;
Asbjørn Rolstadås, Norwegian University of
Science and Technology;
Dennis P. Slevin, University of Pittsburgh.
PUBLICATION & MEMBERSHIP
The Project Management Journal (ISSN 8756-9728/03)
is published quarterly (March, June, September, December)
by the Project Management Institute. The Journal is printed
in the USA by Cadmus Magazine, Richmond, VA.
Periodical postage paid at Newtown Square, PA 19073 USA
and at additional mailing offices. Canadian agreement
#40030957. Postmaster: Send address changes to Project
Management Institute, Headquarters, Four Campus
“PMI” is a trade and service mark registered in the United States and other nations; “PMP” and the PMP logo are registered certification marks in the United States and other nations;
“PMBOK” is a trademark registered in the United States and other nations; and the PMI logo, “PM Network”, “Project Management Journal”, “PMI Today”, and
“Building professionalism in project management.” are trademarks of the Project Management Institute, Inc.
Editor
Christophe N. Bredillet, PhD, MBA,
Ingénieur EC Lille
PMI PUBLISHING STAFF
Publisher
Donn Greenberg; donn.greenberg@pmi.org
Contributing Editor
Roberta Storer; roberta.storer@pmi.org
Project Management Journal Associate
Natasha Pollard; natasha.pollard@pmi.org
Publications Planner
Barbara Walsh; barbara.walsh@pmi.org
Bookstore
www.pmibookstore@pmi.org
General e-mail:
pmipub@pmi.org
Journal in print:
pmjinprint@pmi.org
Book Review Editor
Kenneth H. Rose, PMP
Contributing Editor
Lisa M. Fisher
Boulevard, Newtown Square, PA 19073-3299 USA;
tel: +1-610-356-4600, fax: +1-610-356-4647.
The mission of the Journal is to provide information
advancing the state of the art of the knowledge of project
management. The Journal is devoted to both theory and
practice in the field of project management. Authors are
encouraged to submit original manuscripts that are derived
from research-oriented studies as well as practitioner case
studies. All articles in the Journal are the views of the
authors and are not necessarily those of PMI. Subscription
rate for members is $14 U.S. per year and is included in the
annual dues.
Claims for undelivered copies must be made no later
than two months following month of publication. The
publisher will supply missing copies when losses have been
sustained in transit and when the reserve stock will permit.
PMI is a nonprofit professional organization whose
mission is to serve the professional interests of its
collective membership by: advancing the state of the art
in the leadership and practice of managing projects and
programs; fostering professionalism in the management of
projects; and advocating acceptance of project
management as a profession and discipline. Membership
in PMI is open to all at an annual dues of $119 U.S. For
information on PMI programs and membership, or
to report change of address or problems with your
subscription, contact:
© 2007 Project Management Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Project Management Institute Global Operations
Center, Four Campus Blvd, Newtown Square, PA 19073-
3299 U.S.A.; tel: +1-610-356-4600; fax +1-610-356-4647
customercare@pmi.org; mailto: customercare@pmi.org
Web site: www.pmi.org
PMI Regional Service Centre: Europe - Middle East
- Africa (EMEA), 300, Avenue de Tervueren
B-1150 Brussels, Belgium; tel. +32-2-743 15 73; fax +32-
2-743 15 50; e-mail: emea-servicecentre@pmi.org
mailto:emea-servicecentre@pmi.org
PMI Asia Pacific Service Centre, #03-01, Rex House
73 Bukit Timah Road; Singapore 229832; tel. + 65 6330
6733; fax. +65 6336 2263; E-mail: asiapacific-sc@pmi.org
mailto:asiapacific-sc@pmi.org
PMI Representative Offices, Beijing, China
Washington, D.C.
EDITORIAL & ADVERTISING SERVICES
Address manuscripts and other editorial submissions,
advertising and mailing list rental inquiries, and requests
for reprints/bulk copies/reprint permission to: Project
Management Institute, Publishing Department, Four
Campus Boulevard, Newtown Square, PA 19073-3299
USA. tel: +1-610-356-4600, fax: +1-610-356-4647; e-mail:
pmipub@pmi.org
Unless otherwise specified, all letters and articles sent
to the PMI Publishing Department are assumed for
publication and become the copyright property of PMI if
published. PMI is not responsible for loss, damage, or
injury to unsolicited manuscripts or other material.
READER SERVICES
Photocopies. Project Management Journal has been
registered with the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Consent is given for copying of articles for personal or
internal use, or for the personal use of specific clients.
This consent is given on the condition that the copier
pays through the Center the per copy fee stated in the
code on the first page of each article for copying beyond
that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the U.S.
Copyright Law. The appropriate fee should be forwarded
with a copy of the first page of the article to the
Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive,
Danvers, MA 01923 USA (tel: +1-508-750-8400; fax:
+1-508-750-4744). The fee indicated on the first page of
an article in this issue will apply retroactively to all
articles published in the journal, regardless of the year of
publication. This consent does not extend to other kinds
of copying, such as for general distribution, resale,
advertising and promotion purposes, or for creating new
collective works. Special written permission must be
obtained from the publisher for such copying.
Permissions. Requests to reprint articles published
in Project Management Journal must be made in writing to
the publisher.
Reprints. Individual articles may be purchased
through the Knowledge & Wisdom Center
(www.pmi.org/k&wc)
Glossy Reprints. Requests for glossy reprints of
individual articles in quantities of 100 or more can be sent
to pmipub@pmi.org.
Bulk Copies of Current Issues. Copies of the
current Project Management Journal can be obtained in
quantities of 25 or more. Orders must be placed 40 days
prior to date of issue. The cost is $5.50 per copy plus
shipping.
Back Issues. Back issues are available on request at
$20 each. Call +1-610-356-4600 for availability.
 FROM
Christophe Bredillet, PhD, DSc, MBA, Ingénieur EC Lille
The Link Research—Practice: A Matter of “Ingenium”
(Part 3)
ontinuing the discussion from the previous
C “Letter From the Editor” (PMJ, December,
2006), I would like to introduce some burning
issues that should be considered, in my view, with a
greater attention in order to support sound transla-
tions between project management research and
practice. I will address first the contextual and situa-
tional changes in business environment and, sec-
ond, the implications in terms of research
approaches and relationship with practice.
Dramatic Changes in Our Environment
Five main trends can be outlined: rapidly increasing
global interconnectedness; increasing domination
of market forces and private sector; an increasingly
turbulent, complex, and chaotic environment;
advances in technology decreasing the cost of exper-
imentation; and organizations’ scarcest resources
becoming the dreamers, not the testers, yearning for
significance—success is no longer enough. Thus, the
old paradigm no longer works given the dramatic
changes taking place in society, the economy, and
technology (Adler, 2006).
A Need for a New Perspective in Management
It is now quite obvious that financially successful
companies and a peaceful, sustainable world cannot
coexist by simply applying yesterday’s approaches to
business. New approaches are needed that transcend
time, are universal in appeal, and are holistic in
nature. We need to move beyond the classical man-
agement perspective—science based on deductive
knowledge, quantitative paradigm, and positivist
epistemology, “evidence-based management”
(Rousseau, 2006, p. 256)—seen as the “best way” to
consider management as an art perspective—based
on inductive knowledge, qualitative paradigm and
constructivist epistemology. Exclusive reliance upon
deduction to generate new knowledge can discour-
age “speculative thoughts” and thus preclude us
from engaging in the “disciplined imagination” that
is essential to good theory development (Weick,
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
THE EDITOR
1989, p. 516). As Tung (2006, p. 508) suggested
extending Mintzberg’s observation into the context
of leadership:
“… the measure of good management practice
is not whether it is based on evidence or not,
but whether it is useful or not in guiding the
leader/practitioner to adopt the best course of
action in the face of managing complexity and
chaos that are characteristic of today’s business
environment.”
From Traditional Firms to “Design Shops”: A New
“Old” Perspective
As a consequence of the previous development,
some authors are considering that organizations
have to change from traditional work patterns to
something called “design shops”:
“Design shops work on projects that have
defined terms; whereas a traditional firm sees
itself as engaged on ongoing task. The tradition-
al firm treats its activities as an ongoing assign-
ment even though it is really a bundle of
projects. As a result, it ends up with big budgets
and large staff; whereas, for a design firm, it’s all
about solving ‘wicked problems’” (Dunne &
Martin, 2006, p. 513).
It is quite interesting to see that these new
management developments are coming to the
same conclusions that Ansoff, Declerck, and Hayes
(1976) described in the 70s, which led to a well-
known differentiation between entrepreneurial
visions, situations, and activities exemplified as
“projects” and ongoing visions, situations, and
activities exemplified as “operations.” These two
different kinds of situations (operations and proj-
ects) are involving different world views grounded
on and in the same time leading to a specific sys-
tem “paradigm, epistemology, ontology, and meta-
physics” (Yolles, 2006, p. 123).
In terms of sound research approaches and rela-
tionship with practice, this involves recognizing
three main aspects linked to the nature of projects
and project management.
3
 The Polysemic Nature of the Concept of “Project”
The concept of a project is generally apprehended by list-
ing its intrinsic/idiosyncratic characteristics. Four main
perspectives supported by four selected definitions, cho-
sen to demonstrate the range of different perspectives
(meanings, sense) in the apprehension of the project con-
cept, can be emphasized: an instrumental perspective
(PMI, 2004), a cognitive perspective (Turner, 1993), a
strategic and value creation perspective (Ohara, 2005),
and a political perspective (Declerck, Debourse, &
Navarre, 1983).
This polysemic nature (Boutinet, 1996) is at the
source of two underlying visions, which have evolved
with the development of project management: “opera-
tions” situations: materialist—positivist—quantitative—
Have; and “entrepreneurial/projects” situations:
immaterialist—constructivist—qualitative—Be.
Tensions and Paradoxes
These two visions appear to be consubstantial with the
concept of management of projects underlining the “ten-
sions and paradoxes in project management.” Boutinet
(1997) showed that “the figure of the project can consti-
tute today a suitable reference in the management of the
organizations and makes it possible these last to create
and to innovate by using several parameters,” which it
organizes in a paradoxical way. Indeed “to speak about
paradox, is deliberately to fit in a way of thinking uncom-
mon, founded on a non-traditional logic, that of unex-
pected, fuzzy and uncertainty in particular.”
These considerations lead me to suggest an integra-
tive epistemological position on project management.
An Alternative Epistemological Perspective
After reviewing Polanyi (1958), I propose an alternative
epistemological perspective both to positivism and con-
structivism. I have no intention of separating personal
judgment from scientific method. I argue that, especially
in project management, knowledge creation and produc-
tion have to integrate both classical scientific aspects and
“fuzzy” or symbolic aspects. A “reality” can be explained
according to a specific point of view and also can be con-
sidered as the symbol of a more general “reality”
(Guénon, 1986). I argue that the “demiurgic” character-
istic of project management—through projects, man
builds reality—involves seeing this field as an open space,
without “having” (Have) but rather with a raison d’être
(Be), because of the construction of real by the projects.
It could be considered to be a fundamental explanation
of the pre-paradigmatic nature of this field: the dominant
paradigm, source of well-established theory(ies) is NOT
to find, the deep nature of project management implies
this paradox of being built on moving paradigms reflect-
ing the diversity of the creation process by itself.
Thus, project management can be considered as both
an art and a science, in their dialectic and integrative
dimensions, and thus according to the two main world-
views in relationship to specific situations and context.
4 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Therefore, there is no “one best way” of addressing
the systemic learning loop “research—practice.”
Imagination, creativity, improvisation, classicism, “evi-
dence-based” rationalism … everything is possible and of
interest as far as in coherence with the kind of situation
and the purpose of the investigation. This is probably
why research in project management encompasses vari-
ous schools of thoughts (Söderlund, 2002).
Ordo ab chaos
Christophe N. Bredillet
References
Adler, N. J. (2006). The arts & leadership: Now that
we can do anything, what will we do? Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 486–499.
Ansoff, H. I., Declerck, R. P., & Hayes, R. (Eds.).
(1976). From strategic planning to strategic management.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Boutinet, J-. P. (1996). Anthropologie du projet (4th
ed.). Paris :Presses Universitaires de France.
Boutinet, J-. P. (1997). Tensions et paradoxes dans le
management de projet. Les cahiers de l’actif, 266–267
Declerck, R. P., Debourse, J. P., & Navarre, C. 1983. La
méthode de direction générale: le management stratégique.
Paris: Hommes et Techniques.
Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and
how it will change management education: An interview
and discussion. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 5(4), 512–523.
Guénon, R. (1986). Initiation et réalisation spirituelle.
Paris: Editions Traditionnelles.
Ohara, S. (2005). P2M: A guidebook of project & pro-
gramme management for enterprise innovation (November
2001, Rev. 3, October 2005). Tokyo: Project Management
Association Japan.
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press
Project Management Institute. (2004). A guide to the
project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide –
third edition). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management
Institute.
Rousseau D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as “evi-
dence-based management”? Academy of Management
Review, 31(2), 256–269.
Söderlund, J. (2002). On the development of project
management research: Schools of thought and critique.
Project Perspectives, 8, 20–31.
Tung, R. L. (2006). Of arts, leadership, management
research: A commentary on Nancy Adler’s “The arts &
leadership: Now that we can do anything, what will we
do?” Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4),
505–511.
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disci-
plined imagination. Academy of Management Review,
14(4), 516–531
Yolles, M. (2006). Organizations as complex systems: An
introduction to knowledge cybernetics. Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Pub., Inc.
COMPUTATIONAL MODELING OF PROJECT
ORGANIZATIONS UNDER STRESS
ABSTRACT
Building upon prior research on enter-
prise centralization and knowledge
dynamics, this paper uses computational
methods to assess the behavior and proj-
ect performance of different organization-
al designs in varying environments. The
results reinforce contingency theory and
suggest particular characteristics of dif-
ferent project environments that make
one form relatively more or less appropri-
ate than another. Practically, the answers
to the research questions have direct and
immediate application to project/portfo-
lio managers and senior executives.
Theoretically, broad classes of organiza-
tions are generalized and prescribe a
novel set of organizational design guides.
Keywords: computational organization
theory; computational model
©2007 by the Project Management Institute
Vol. 38, No. 1, 5-20, ISSN 8756-9728/03
JOHN DILLARD, Naval Postgraduate School
MARK E. NISSEN, Naval Postgraduate School
Introduction
he world of project management encompasses some of the largest and most
T complex of human endeavors: space flight, mass transportation or large plant
construction, and weapon system development for national defense. And the
accompanying risk of unfavorable outcomes within these projects runs the range
from inconsequential to loss of life, or even national security. Conceptually, the
field of practitioners widely believes that investments in project control fall upon a
line of diminishing return. While meetings, reviews, and reports will help to meas-
ure progress, reveal variance from plans, and determine corrective action, there will
be associated costs and subtraction of effort from the actual work to be performed
(Wysocki, 2003). The general paradigm has been that organizational control meas-
ures demand project resources, but buy down risk (visualized in Figure 1).
What organizational approaches are available to commission and execute large
complex projects? And which, if any, are most appropriate? On what basis should
portfolio managers or senior executives choose among competing organizational
forms? What evidence supports claims of superiority for one organizational
approach versus another? Questions such as these are difficult to answer through
most research methods employed today (e.g., case study, survey, action) to study
project organizations.
If only the organization could be changed and evaluated—for example,
through the assessment of several alternative organizational structures—then the
relative performance of the new organizational designs versus the current form
could be assessed and evolution recommended for the best performer. But clearly
the set of problems and actors in the changed organizations would differ from those
associated with the original and with each other; that is, there is no way to impose
controls over such a study (e.g., internal validity is compromised). This is perhaps
one reason why so many project management research efforts produce so little new
knowledge. Alternatively, such controls can be imposed easily through laboratory
experimentation. But the simplified nature and laboratory context of experiments
fails to capture the size, scope, and complexity of the project organization (e.g.,
external validity is compromised). Thus, contributions to knowledge via laboratory
research might also be thwarted. However, by combining the best features of labo-
ratory experimentation (e.g., experimental controls) with field methods (e.g., large-
scale and complex behaviors), one can design and conduct a study of project
organizations that reflects both internal and external validity.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L 5

Figure 1: Perceived relationships among project
cost, control, and risk (adapted from Wysocki,
2003)
This is the approach of computa-
tional experimentation: using sophisti-
cated and validated computer models
of organizations to assess the behavior
and performance of different organiza-
tional designs. Computational organi-
zation theory (COT; see Carley &
Prietula, 1994) provides a set of meth-
ods and tools to enable this approach.
In particular, using the methods and
tools associated with the Virtual
Design Team (VDT, 2005), computa-
tional models of organizations are
driven by well-accepted organizational
theory and validated by extensive and
repeated field studies (Levitt, Cohen, &
Kunz, 1994). This provides consider-
able confidence that computational
results reflect the likely behaviors and
performance of the project organiza-
tions they model and emulate.
The research described in this
paper involves the application of VDT
methods and tools to study project
executing organizations. In particular,
the authors model and simulate the
behavior of organizations associated
with major weapon system programs
in the Department of Defense (DoD),
but could apply the methodology to
any unit of analysis in any commodity.
Both the answers to and insights into
how such organizations can be
changed to improve performance are
provided. Some of the key organiza-
tional design variables of interest per-
tain to the bureaucratic nature of the
organization and follow from recent
research to investigate centralization
6 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
(Dillard, 2003). For instance, factors
such as centralization, formalization, spe-
cialization, hierarchical layers and the
like can be manipulated—individually
as well as in combination—under con-
trolled and replicated conditions to
assess the performance of project
organizations in different forms. This
follows complementary research using
computational organization theory
(COT) in the domain of military com-
mand and control (Nissen & Buettner,
2004). Considerations, such as the
number, frequency, and level of
progress reviews, adaptability and flex-
ibility of project organizations, and
risk versus project duration of pro-
grams, are primary in this study. The
key research question is: How can
organizations responsible for major
programs be redesigned to improve
performance?
The significance of this approach
is twofold. First, answers to the
research question have direct and
immediate application to portfolio
managers and senior executives. Such
answers address a serious and imme-
diate problem, revealing insights into
the behaviors of major project organ-
izations that are too complex and
dynamic to be well understood
directly. The answers illuminate the
kinds of changes organizations can
make to balance competing perform-
ance measures (e.g., adaptability and
flexibility vs. project risk and dura-
tion). They can explain—in a theoret-
ically grounded manner—many
different cases of project success as
well as failure. They can also provide
overarching theory to help promote
the former and obviate the latter in
future programs.
Second, this research project
demonstrates the efficacy of a new
approach to studying project organi-
zations. It enables leaders, policy-
makers, and analysts to answer “how
much” questions such as: How much
centralization, formalization, and
specialization is best? What amount
of outsourced procurement would be
ideal? What level of concurrency
between development and produc-
tion provides the best combination of
cost, schedule, performance, and risk?
Such questions are not well answered
today, and leave decision-makers with no
reliable means to address such questions.
The remainder of this paper
begins with a focused review of the lit-
erature relevant to this study. A discus-
sion of the research design and
description of the computational
model developed follows and is
intended to represent and emulate the
project organization. The paper then
turns to discuss results of the computa-
tional experiments and is followed by
conclusions, implications, and recom-
mendations for future research, along
with a rich set of references for deeper
exploration into the research on which
this paper builds and contributes.
Background
This focused review of the literature
relevant to the study is organized into
three parts: (1) the project organiza-
tion, (2) organization theory, and (3)
computational experimentation.
The Project Organization
Of particular interest to the authors is
the realm of DoD program manage-
ment, where research and develop-
ment dollars are expended to invent or
advance warfighting capabilities.
Although U.S. weaponry is considered
some of the best in the world, the
major acquisition projects to acquire
them are often fraught with cost and
schedule growth. These projects fail at
times to meet specifications or to pro-
vide the capabilities desired. Since the
implementation of the Goldwater-
Nichols Act legislation in the late
1980s, major defense acquisition
organizations (e.g., program manage-
ment offices) have operated under a
three- to four-tiered decision structure
(e.g., where several project offices
report into one program executive offi-
cer [PEO], acting as a “portfolio man-
ager,” and then up to a senior
acquisition executive, and often into
yet another level of decision-making).
Project managers lead program
management offices (PMO), which
vary greatly in size. A typical range of
assigned workers is generally between
50 and 100 individuals dedicated to
the day-to-day efforts. An expanding
network of other government agency
players, multi-tier industry contractors,
and other participants can multiply
this figure many times. Although all
stakeholders represent different parts
of the enterprise, in this paper, the cen-
tral managing organizational entity is
referred to as the project organization.
At the PMO level, several alterna-
tives for the organization exist. In most
cases, the offices are comprised of per-
manently assigned “core” personnel,
and temporarily assigned, co-located
“matrix” personnel on loan from com-
modity systems research and develop-
ment centers (often known as systems
commands [SYSCOM]). These person-
nel are typically arrayed by functional
area within the PMO as shown in
Figure 2. A significant number of on-
site support contract personnel may be
present as well. Above this structure,
depending on the size of dollar invest-
ment or interest, are one or even two
levels of decision authority that may
act to alter, halt, or allow the project to
continue on its current plan.
A concept also pertinent to the
introduction of the project organiza-
tion is that of the work and organiza-
tional hierarchy. Nobel Prize winner
Herbert Simon (1981) argued, from
his observation of complexity in things
both natural and artificial, that com-
plex systems evolve from simple sys-
tems. And they do so more rapidly
when there are stable intermediate
Figure 2: Typical DoD program management office structure (adapted from DAU, 2004)
forms or subsystems (like modules or
“units of action”). Moreover, he argued
the resulting evolution into the com-
plex system will be hierarchic, includ-
ing systems such as organizations
(Simon, 1981). But an important
observation was made by Koestler
(1989), who studied hierarchies in
social organizations. He noted that
subsystems exist only as entities rela-
tive to their positions in the hierarchy.
He proposed the word “holon” to
describe the hybrid nature of individ-
ual organizations within larger organi-
zations/systems. Holons are unique
and self-contained wholes to their sub-
ordinated parts. But at the same time,
they are also dependent parts when
seen from above in the hierarchy (or
“holarchy” as Koestler termed struc-
tures consisting of them). He viewed
holons as autonomous, self-reliant
units, which have their own independ-
ence, and which cope with contingen-
cies without asking higher authorities
for instructions. Practical examples
might include “skunk works,” special
operations teams, high-performing
self-directed work teams, etc. Yet, they
remain subordinate ultimately, subject
to control from higher authorities.The
term seems somewhat analogous to
edge in the conceptualization of edge
organizations (Alberts & Hayes, 2003).
Such concepts of unit knowledge,
empowerment, and relative autonomy
within organizational structures are
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
key to the design of various organiza-
tions for experimentation.
Organization Theory
Classic organization theory holds that
organizational structures must change
in response to contingencies of size,
technology, environment, and other
factors. Indeed, it is accepted widely
that when faced with uncertainty (a sit-
uation with less information than is
needed), the appropriate management
response should be either to redesign
the organization for the task at hand or
to improve information flows and pro-
cessing (Galbraith, 1973). Van Creveld
(1985) applied this same principle to
command and control of combat ele-
ments in war. He argued that the com-
mand structure must either create a
greater demand for information (verti-
cally, horizontally, or both) and
increase the size and complexity of the
directing organization, or it must
enable the local forces to deal semi-
independently with the situation. His
central theme was that decentralized
control is the superior method of deal-
ing with uncertainty, whether with the
task at hand or with transformation of
the organization itself. Research by
Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gaustafson
(1986) showed further that as com-
plexity and uncertainty increase, hier-
archical management control, and
vertical communication strategies are
considered inferior to less formal
organizations with horizontal commu-
nication channels.
Another classical concept of sys-
tems theory is Ashby’s Law of Requisite
Variety (Ashby, 1960). This states
loosely that the internal capabilities of
a system must be as diverse as those
required by its environment in order to
cope with the variety of challenges
imposed by it. Organizational evolu-
tion and survival are dependent upon
requisite variety, particularly in envi-
ronmental contexts that are dynamic
and unpredictable. This suggests too
that the organization’s structure and
control strategy must be matched to its
environment to enhance performance.
Open and flexible management styles
and processes are often required for
dynamic market and technological
7
conditions. Further, research by
Morgan (1997) indicated that any
incongruence among management
processes and the organization’s envi-
ronment tend to reduce organizational
effectiveness.
What the cumulative research
appears to support is that, for large,
complex hierarchies that operate in
today’s environment of program com-
plexity, evolving requirements, and
rapidly changing technology—decen-
tralized control and empowerment
should be an organizational strength.
Notwithstanding such cumulative
research, however, organizational
hierarchies persist (Leavitt, 2004).
Indeed, for DoD programs in particu-
lar, the current control structure has
remained relatively stable since the
late 1980s. Although the structure is
arguably flatter and more streamlined
now than it was in the 1970s and
before, it remains fundamentally hier-
archical, centralized, and rule-driven.
Only through the major reform initia-
tives of the 1980s and 1990s did the
project organization’s “chain of com-
mand” become as streamlined as it
now is (Packard Commission, 1986).
Computational Experimentation
Drawing heavily from Nissen and
Buettner (2004), throughout the era of
modern science a large gap has persist-
ed between laboratory and field
research. On one side, the laboratory
provides unparalleled opportunity for
controlled experimentation. Through
experimentation the researcher can
manipulate only a few variables of
interest at a time and can minimize the
confounding associated with the myri-
ad factors affecting complex systems
and processes in the field (Box, Hunter,
& Hunter, 1978; Johnson & Wichern,
1992). However, the limitations of lab-
oratory experimentation are well
known (Campbell & Stanley, 1973),
and are particularly severe in the
domain of project management. These
limitations center on problems with
external validity, since laboratory con-
ditions can seldom replicate the com-
plexity, scope and scale of the physical
organizations and systems of interest.
Experiments also include problems
8 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
with generalizability. Many experi-
ments utilize samples of convenience
(such as university students) instead of
working professionals. This practice
calls into question how closely the
associated experimental results are rep-
resentative of actual behavior in opera-
tional organizations. These same
concerns also pertain to analytical
methods (e.g., mathematical analysis,
optimization; see Chiang, 1984; Lapin,
1985). Most such methods use theoret-
ical concepts as variables, not opera-
tionalized constructs. And of course
analytical models do not involve real
people, systems, and organizations.
On the other side, field research
provides unparalleled opportunity for
realism (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). The
researcher in the field can study full-
scale artifacts in operational environ-
ments (Yin, 1994) and can minimize
the abstraction away from working
people, systems, and organizations
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967). However,
limitations of field research are also
well known (Campbell & Stanley,
1973), and are particularly severe in
the project management domain as
well. In field research, the limitations
center on problems with internal
validity. Field research affords little
opportunity for controlled experimen-
tation (cf. Cook & Campbell, 1979).
Also, confounded results—often from
the myriad influences on complex sys-
tems and organizations that cannot be
isolated in the field—make it difficult
to identify and trace the causes of dif-
ferential behaviors.
As implied by the name, computa-
tional experiments are conducted by
means of computer simulation. As
such, they offer all of the cost and time
advantages of computational analysis;
however, computational experiments
go beyond most simulations. Rigorous
experimental designs are employed to
capture the benefits of laboratory
experimentation. The variables affect-
ing physical systems and organizations
in the field can be isolated and exam-
ined under controlled conditions. This
also addresses the internal validity and
confounding limitations of field
research. Yet, computational experi-
ments can be conducted at a fraction
of the cost and time required to set up
and run experiments with human sub-
jects in the laboratory. Further, through
external validation, computational
models can demonstrate fidelity emu-
lation of the key qualitative and quan-
titative behaviors of the physical
systems and organizations they repre-
sent. This addresses the problems with
external validity and generalizability,
previously noted.
Figure 3 illustrates the essential
elements of computational experi-
mentation as a research method. The
top of the figure includes a shape to
depict the bridge metaphor associated
with this method, as it spans a wide
gap between laboratory and field
methods. From the left side of this
“bridge,” two arrows represent inputs
to describe the behaviors of computa-
tional models. Organization theory,
which is predicated upon many thou-
sands of studies over the last half cen-
tury, provides the basis for most such
behaviors. Behaviors pertaining to
organizational factors such as central-
ization, division of labor, task inter-
dependence, function, coordination,
formalization, technology, and infor-
mation processing are well captured
from organization theory. Where
extant theory does not adequately
address a behavior of interest (e.g.,
knowledge flows), ethnographic and
like immersive field studies
(Bernard, 1998) are conducted to
understand the associated organiza-
tional behaviors. Because organiza-
tion theory is general and not based
on any single organization, the associ-
ated behaviors have broad applicabili-
ty across organizations in practice.
This provides for the generalizability
attainable through the method of
computational experimentation.
From the bottom of the “bridge,”
an arrow represents the use of comput-
er models to represent organizations
and to emulate their key behaviors.
Some variety exists in terms of specific
implementations, but most computer
models adhere to standards, norms,
and conventions associated with the
COT field. The central goal is to devel-
op computer models that emulate the
key behaviors of organizations and to
Figure 3: Bridge method (adapted from Nissen & Buettner, 2004)
use such models to examine alterna-
tive methods of organization and coor-
dination. As such, COT shares a focus
on many factors of importance in proj-
ect management.
From the right side of the “bridge”
in the figure, one arrow represents a
requirement in this approach for
model validation. Through validation,
the organizational behaviors emulated
by computer models are examined and
compared with those of operational
organizations in the field. This step is
essential, for it provides confidence
that the behaviors emulated by com-
puter models have sufficient reliability
to mirror faithfully the behaviors of the
operational organizations they repre-
sent. This provides for the external
validity attainable through computa-
tional experimentation. It is important
to note, not all COT models are sub-
jected to such validation. Many
researchers use computational models
to conduct theorem-proving studies,
which are valuable in their own right to
demonstrate various aspects of organi-
zation theory. But without validation,
researchers have difficulty making
claims that such theory mirrors the
behavior of organizations in the field.
Hence, validation represents an impor-
tant characteristic to distinguish com-
putational experimentation as the
research method described specifically
in this paper from COT in general.
Finally, from the top of the
“bridge,” an arrow represents the use
of experimental controls in research.
Following the same, rich set of exper-
imental designs available to laborato-
ry researchers (e.g., full-factorial,
Latin Squares, blocking with replica-
tion), computational experimenta-
tion as a research method can be used
to control for myriad factors and to
manipulate just one or a few vari-
ables at a time (e.g., searching for
causality relations). Further, the same
experimental design and setup can be
replicated any number of times, for
instance, using Monte Carlo tech-
niques or other computational
approaches to introduce variation.
This provides for the internal validity
attainable through computational
experimentation. Combining these
“bridge” inputs—organization theory
and ethnography, computer models,
validation, and control—the method
of computational experimentation
can be understood in terms of, and
indeed inherits, the various proper-
ties of its constituent elements.
Also, Figure 3 illustrates the
bridging nature of computational
experimentation as a research
method. On the left side, analytical
and laboratory methods are depict-
ed, and their key advantages are
summarized (e.g., low-cost and fast
studies, good experimental control
and internal validity) and disadvan-
tages (e.g., poor external validity and
generalizability). On the right side
field methods are depicted in similar
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
fashion to summarize their key
advantages (e.g., good external
validity and generalizability) and
disadvantages (e.g., high cost and
time consuming, poor experimental
control and internal validity).
Notice from their relative advantages
and disadvantages how the two
classes of research methods comple-
ment one another. Field methods are
strong in the areas where analytical
and laboratory methods are weak,
and vice versa. As an alternative
research method, computational
experimentation mitigates weakness
of both classes. For instance, it
enables good experimental control
and internal validity as in laboratory
methods. It also promotes good gen-
eralizability and external validity as
in field methods.
Nonetheless, every research
method is flawed in some respects.
In this case, when used in isolation,
computational experimentation is
not as good as either method at its
best. For instance, because computa-
tional experimentation uses comput-
er models of people in organizations
instead of real people, it is weaker in
this respect than laboratory experi-
mentation is. This same use of com-
puter models instead of real people
also makes computational experi-
mentation weaker than field meth-
ods. This is why computational
experimentation is described as a
bridge method: it bridges the gap
9
between experimental and field
research methods, but it serves best
to complement, not to replace, such
methods.
Research Design
This discussion of the research design
is organized into three parts: (1) agent-
based modeling environment, (2)
computational organizational model,
and (3) experimental design.
Agent-Based Modeling Environment
In this section, current advances in
VDT research are built upon to
describe the agent-based modeling
environment used here for computa-
tional experimentation. Drawing heav-
ily from Nissen and Levitt (2004), the
stream of research associated with VDT
is summarized and its modeling envi-
ronment is described.
Virtual Design Team Research
The VDT Research Program (VDT,
2005) reflects the planned accumula-
tion of collaborative research over two
decades to develop rich theory-based
models of organizational processes.
Using an agent-based representation
(Cohen, 1992; Kunz, Levitt, & Jin,
1998), micro-level organizational
behaviors have been researched and
formalized to reflect well-accepted
organization theory (Levitt et al.,
1999). Extensive empirical validation
projects (e.g., Christiansen, 1993;
Thomsen, 1998) have demonstrated
representational fidelity and have
shown how the emulated behaviors of
VDT computational models corre-
spond closely with a diversity of enter-
prise processes in practice.
The VDT research program contin-
ues with the goal of developing new
micro-organization theory and of
embedding it in software tools that can
be used to design organizations in the
same way that engineers design
bridges, semiconductors, or airplanes:
through computational modeling,
analysis and evaluation of multiple,
alternative prototype systems. Clearly,
this represents a significant challenge
in the domain of organizations. Micro-
theory and analysis tools for designing
bridges and airplanes rest on well-
10
understood principles of physics (e.g.,
involving continuous numerical vari-
ables, describing materials whose
properties are relatively easy to meas-
ure and calibrate), and analysis of such
physical systems yields easily to differ-
ential equations and precise numerical
computing. (However, even within the
field of physics, Forrester [1961] point-
ed out that there are no proofs for any
such laws, but only practical confi-
dence that the laws are useful within a
bounded region.)
In contrast, theories describing the
behavior of organizations are character-
ized by nominal and ordinal variables,
with poor measurement reproducibili-
ty, and verbal descriptions reflecting sig-
nificant ambiguity. Unlike the
mathematically representable and ana-
lyzable micro-behaviors of physical sys-
tems, the dynamics of organizations are
influenced by a variety of social, techni-
cal, and cultural factors, are difficult to
verify experimentally, and are not as
amenable to numerical representation,
mathematical analysis, or precise meas-
urement. Moreover, quite distinct from
physical systems, people, and social
interactions—not molecules and physi-
cal forces—drive the behavior of organ-
izations. Hence, such behaviors are
fundamentally non-deterministic and
difficult to predict at the individual
level. Thus, people, organizations, and
business processes are qualitatively dif-
ferent than bridges, semiconductors,
and airplanes are; and it is irrational to
expect the former to ever be as under-
standable, analyzable, or predictable as
the latter. This represents a fundamental
limitation of the approach.
Within the constraints of this lim-
itation, however, we can still take great
strides beyond relying upon informal
and ambiguous, natural language tex-
tual description of organizational
behavior (e.g., the bulk of extant theo-
ry). For instance, the domain of organ-
ization theory is imbued with a rich,
time-tested collection of micro-theo-
ries that lend themselves to qualitative
representation and analysis. Examples
include Galbraith’s (1977) informa-
tion processing abstraction, March and
Simon’s (1958) bounded rationality
assumption, and Thompson’s (1967)
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
task interdependence contingencies.
Drawing from this theory base, sym-
bolic (i.e., non-numeric) representa-
tion and reasoning techniques are
employed from established research
on artificial intelligence to develop
computational models of theoretical
phenomena. Once formalized through
a computational model, the symbolic
representation is “executable,” mean-
ing it can emulate the dynamics of
organizational behaviors.
Even though the representation is
qualitative (i.e., lacking the precision
offered by numerical models), through
commitment to computational model-
ing, it becomes semi-formal (i.e., differ-
ent people viewing the model can agree
on what it describes), reliable (i.e., the
same sets of organizational conditions
and environmental factors generate the
same sets of behaviors), and explicit
(i.e., much ambiguity inherent in natu-
ral language is obviated). Particularly
when used in conjunction with the
descriptive natural language theory of
our extant literature, this represents a
substantial advance. Further, once a
model has been validated to emulate
accurately the qualitative behaviors of
the field organization it represents, it
can be used to examine a multitude of
cases (e.g., many more and diverse than
observable in practice) under con-
trolled conditions (e.g., repeating the
same events multiple times, manipulat-
ing only one or a few variables at a time
through repeated trials, and stopping
the action for interpretation). This
alone offers great promise in terms of
theory development and testing.
Additionally, although organiza-
tions are inherently less understand-
able, analyzable, and predictable than
physical systems are, and the behavior
of people is non-deterministic and dif-
ficult to model at the individual level,
it is well known that individual differ-
ences tend to average out when aggre-
gated cross-sectionally and/or
longitudinally. Thus, when modeling
aggregations of people in the organiza-
tional context (e.g., work groups,
departments, firms), one can augment
the kind of symbolic model from
above with certain aspects of numeri-
cal representation. For instance, the
distribution of skill levels in an organ-
ization can be approximated—in
aggregate—by a Bell curve; the proba-
bility of a given task incurring excep-
tions and requiring rework can be
specified—organization-wide—by a
distribution; and the unpredictable
attention of a worker to any particular
activity or event (e.g., new work task,
communication, request for assis-
tance) can be modeled—stochastical-
ly—to approximate collective
behavior. As another instance, specific
organizational behaviors can be simu-
lated hundreds of times—such as
through Monte Carlo techniques—to
gain insight into which results are
common and expected versus those
that are rare and exceptional.
Of course, applying numerical
simulation techniques to organizations
is nothing new (e.g., see Law & Kelton,
1991). But this approach enables us to
integrate the kinds of dynamic, qualita-
tive behaviors emulated by symbolic
models with quantitative aggregate
dynamics generated through discrete-
event simulation. It is through such
integration of qualitative and quantita-
tive models—bolstered by strong
reliance upon well-established theory
and commitment to empirical valida-
tion—which our approach diverges
most from extant research methods
and offers new insight into the dynam-
ics of organizational behavior.
Figure 4: VDT information processing view of knowledge work (adapted from Nissen & Levitt, 2004)
VDT Modeling Environment
Here a brief overview of the VDT mod-
eling environment is provided. The
development and evolution of VDT
has been described in considerable
detail elsewhere (e.g., Cohen, 1992;
Christiansen, 1993; Jin & Levitt, 1996;
Thomsen, 1998, Kunz et al., 1998;
Levitt et al., 1999; Nogueira, 2000;
VDT, 2005), so such discussion will
not be repeated here. The VDT model-
ing environment has been developed
directly from Galbraith’s information
processing view of organizations. This
information processing view has two
key implications (Jin & Levitt, 1996).
The first is ontological: we model
knowledge work through interactions
of tasks to be performed, actors com-
municating with one another and per-
forming tasks, and an organizational
structure that defines actors’ roles and
that constrains their behaviors. In
essence this amounts to overlaying the
task structure on the organizational
structure and to developing computa-
tional agents with various capabilities
to emulate the behaviors of organiza-
tional actors performing work.
Figure 4 illustrates this view of
tasks, actors, and organizational struc-
ture. As suggested by the figure, the
organizational structure is modeled as
a network of reporting relations, which
can capture micro-behaviors such as
managerial attention, span of control,
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
and empowerment. The task structure is
represented as a separate network of
activities, which can capture organiza-
tional attributes such as expected dura-
tion, complexity, and required skills.
Within the organizational structure, var-
ious roles (e.g., marketing analyst,
design engineer, manager) are modeled,
which can capture organizational attrib-
utes such as skills possessed, level of
experience, and task familiarity. Within
the task structure, various sequencing
constraints, interdependencies, and
quality/rework loops are further mod-
eled, which can capture considerable
variety in terms of how knowledge work
is organized and performed.
As suggested also by the figure, each
actor within the intertwined organiza-
tion and task structures has a queue of
information tasks to be performed (e.g.,
assigned work activities, messages from
other actors, meetings to attend) and a
queue of information outputs (e.g.,
completed work products, communica-
tions to other actors, requests for assis-
tance). Each actor also processes such
tasks according to how well the actor’s
skill set matches those required for a
given activity, the relative priority of the
task, the actor’s work backlog (i.e.,
queue length), and how many interrup-
tions divert the actor’s attention from
the task at hand. Collective task per-
formance is constrained further by the
number of individual actors assigned
11
to each task, the magnitude of the task,
and both scheduled (e.g., work breaks,
ends of shifts, weekends, and holidays)
and unscheduled (e.g., awaiting mana-
gerial decisions, awaiting work or
information inputs from others, per-
forming rework) downtime.
The second implication of this
organizational view is computational:
both direct work (e.g., planning,
design, management) and indirect
work (e.g., rework, coordination, deci-
sion waiting) are modeled in terms of
work volume. This construct is used to
represent a unit of work (e.g., associat-
ed with a task, a meeting, a communi-
cation) within the task structure. In
addition to symbolic execution of VDT
models (e.g., qualitatively assessing
skill mismatches, task-concurrency dif-
ficulties, decentralization effects)
through micro-behaviors derived from
organization theory, the discrete-event
simulation engine enables (virtual)
process performance to be assessed
(e.g., quantitatively projecting task
duration, cost, rework, process quality).
Clearly, quantitative simulation
places additional burden on the mod-
eler in terms of validating the represen-
tation of a knowledge-work process,
which generally requires fieldwork to
study an organization in action. The
VDT modeling environment benefits
from extensive fieldwork in many
Figure 5: VDT organizational model screenshot
12
diverse enterprise domains (e.g., power
plant construction and offshore
drilling, see Christiansen, 1993; aero-
space, see Thomsen, 1998; software
development, see Nogueira, 2000;
healthcare, see Cheng & Levitt, 2001).
Through the process of “backcasting”—
predicting known organizational out-
comes using only information that was
available at the beginning of a proj-
ect—VDT models of operational enter-
prises in practice have demonstrated
dozens of times that emulated organi-
zational behaviors and results corre-
spond qualitatively and quantitatively
to their actual counterparts in the field
(Kunz et al., 1998).
Viewing VDT as a validated model
of project-oriented knowledge work,
researchers have begun to use this
dynamic modeling environment as a
“virtual organizational test bench” to
explore a variety of organizational
questions, such as effects of distance on
performance (Wong & Burton, 2000)
or to replicate classic empirical findings
(Carroll & Burton, 2000). Thus, the
VDT modeling environment has been
validated repeatedly and longitudinally
as representative of both organization
theory and enterprises in practice. This
gives us considerable confidence in its
results. Moreover, VDT is designed
specifically to model the kinds of
knowledge work and information pro-
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
cessing tasks that comprise the bulk of
project executing processes.
Computational Organizational Model
The VDT modeling environment was
used to represent work associated with
a three-tier project organization. This
follows the previous discussion, and is
representative of many DoD environ-
ments today. VDT is capable of model-
ing large, complex, operational
organizations in great detail. And it
has been demonstrated repeatedly to
well emulate the associated behaviors
of organizations in the field. But using
a high-level model as such helps us to
maintain the focus of this expository
paper on techniques of VDT modeling
and computational experimentation,
which represents the authors’ primary
contribution, and not to get lost in the
details of the organization itself. The
VDT representation is described and
then illustrates how a full-factorial
computational experiment can be per-
formed upon it.
VDT Organizational Model
Figure 5 presents a screenshot of the
VDT project organizational model. The
model is comprised of five develop-
mental system projects (i.e., denoted as
lightly shaded boxes). Both concurrent
and sequential projects/tasks are
depicted in the model, and interde-
pendencies are represented among
them. The model depicts a simple and
abbreviated series of coordinated
research and development efforts,
which are aligned to deliver an
advanced strike capability, integrated
into a mobile platform, and subse-
quently enhanced with a progressive
block of capability. It is but a represen-
tative subset of what could be a larger,
more complex, and more detailed rep-
resentation of such a program.
The coordination links (i.e.,
denoted by light dashed lines) con-
necting the coordinated tasks or proj-
ects denote reciprocal task
interdependencies (Thompson, 1967),
which suggest they must be coordinat-
ed closely in both planning and execu-
tion. For example, integration of strike
capabilities into a mobile platform
requires coordination among engi-
neers for interface and configuration
control of hardware, software, and
other factors. VDT emulates the added
coordination effort associated with
such reciprocal task interdependencies.
The rework links (i.e., denoted by dark
dashed lines) connecting tasks from
different mission phases denote
sequential task dependencies, which
suggest the predecessor activities must
be accomplished effectively in order
for the successors to perform well. In
the case of strike and mobility
enhancements, for instance, they
depend heavily upon success of the
initial strike and mobility platform
efforts. To the extent that such prede-
cessor work is not completed or not
accomplished effectively, certain
aspects may have to be redone to cor-
rect any major deficiencies.
The people icons depict organiza-
tions and are arranged in terms of the
command and control, or decision-
making hierarchy. People icons repre-
sent one or more human resources,
specified in full-time equivalents
(FTEs), which have particular capabili-
ties, skill levels, and roles. Where a
skilled actor’s capability matches that
required for a project task, the resource
is likely to perform it competently and
within the time required. If the actor
has greater or lesser skill, the time
required to perform the task can be
appreciably shorter or longer, and the
competency of performance can be
notably better or worse, respectively.
Where an actor does not possess the
required capability at all, the task will
be in jeopardy. Such relationships are
appealing intuitively and well reflect
many organizational behaviors.
A senior executive actor sits atop
the organization model and has a port-
folio manager reporting to him or her.
Reporting to the portfolio manager are
five individual PMOs (01 through 05)
with different roles and capabilities
within them. For instance, the icon
labeled “PM 01” is responsible for the
technological enhancement of the ini-
tial strike capability. Notice the VDT
representation includes a work task
structure and an organizational struc-
ture. The assignment links (i.e., delin-
eated by solid lines) denote which
organizational actors are responsible
for the various work tasks. Finally, a
dark trapezoid box is used to depict
recurring meetings (e.g., coordination
meetings, technical reviews, milestone
reviews) that must be attended by the
actors connected by links. Meetings
consume actors’ resources, but they
also contribute toward coordination.
All of the structural elements (e.g.,
work tasks, requirements, and interde-
pendencies; actor capabilities, skill lev-
els, and roles; organizational structure,
task structure, and meeting require-
ments) of this VDT model are devel-
oped by the authors. Such structural
elements would clearly be different for
each unique organization and process
model. VDT also includes several
dozen environmental variables with
“normal” values determined empiri-
cally by prior field research. These
include factors such as the level of
uncertainty and noise associated with
a project, the inherent propensity of an
organization to make errors, and rela-
tive concern for performance quality
associated with actors at different lev-
els of organizational hierarchy. These
and other environmental variables can
be changed where appropriate to
reflect a wide variety of different organ-
izations and contexts. Other factors
can be changed to reflect different
organizational designs. For instance,
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
the level of centralization and formal-
ization can be varied by changing
design variables. The corresponding
VDT model behaviors have been devel-
oped empirically. Such empirically
developed behaviors are capitalized
upon to design and compare new orga-
nizational models and subject them to
changing environments.
VDT also includes several per-
formance variables for comparison. In
addition to standard simulation meas-
ures such as project duration and cost,
VDT also includes measures such as
levels of rework, coordination and
delay, in addition to risk measures
keyed to various attributes of impor-
tance (e.g., tasks left undone, missed
communications, project-level errors).
Some of these performance variables
are often correlated with one another,
whereas others highlight tradeoffs that
must be made. For instance, where a
project is running behind schedule but
on budget, a manager can decide to
employ more resources. This often has
the effect of increasing the rate of
progress but also increasing the rate of
expenditure. Other tradeoffs such as
those between cost and risk or sched-
ule and coordination require balance
in a similar fashion. It is important to
again note, the extensive and longitu-
dinal validation of VDT provides con-
siderable confidence that the
organizational behaviors emulated by
the computational model will reflect
well those of operational organiza-
tions in the field.
Experimental Design
As appropriate for the cumulative
accretion of knowledge through
research, this study builds upon prior
work using VDT methods and tools to
examine alternate organizational
designs and environmental conditions.
For instance, Kim and Burton (2002)
used VDT to model projects with vary-
ing levels of task uncertainty and cen-
tralization, measuring the effects on
cost, schedule, and risk as dependent,
performance variables. They found a
relationship between organizational
structure and performance. And they
examined project risk, measuring of the
likelihood that outputs from a project
13
will not be integrated at completion,
or that the integration will have
defects. The study calls attention to the
impact of centralized control on orga-
nizational performance, in light of task
uncertainty. It also suggests that man-
agers should pay attention to such
aspects of organizational structure and
should consider the importance of
project quality in addition to prof-
itability alone. As another example,
Nissen and Buettner (2004) used VDT
to model command and control in
military missions. They modeled
organizations having varying levels of
bureaucracy, coordination, and knowl-
edge, measuring the effects on mission
duration and risk as dependent, per-
formance variables. They found a sim-
ilar relationship with organizational
structure and task performance and
overall risk, and they suggested that
organizational leaders must choose
and balance the performance measures
that are most relevant to environment
and desired outcomes.
In this study, the authors emulate
the behaviors of three different mod-
eled organizations, which vary in
degrees of hierarchy, centralization,
and formalization, and which are sub-
jected to different levels of environ-
mental stress. Briefly, the three designs
of organizations have the same
amount of work volume to perform,
with the same level of team experience
and individual skills involved. What
differs among them is their degree of
autonomy and empowerment, speci-
fied by several VDT constructs. As such,
the kind of prior research previously
noted is built upon, and prior research
is extended upon through the greater
number and variety of organizational
design changes and degrees of environ-
mental stress examined in this study.
Figure 5 reflects today’s project organi-
zation (labeled “typical”) with high
centralization, formalization, and
three layers of decision hierarchy.
In contrast to the typical organiza-
tion, Figures 6 and 7 depict two alter-
native organizations with fewer layers
of decision hierarchy and lower cen-
tralization and formalization. The first
modified organization (labeled
“decentralized”) has less hierarchy and
14
control overhead in its management
structure. Note the removal of the
“senior executive” position in the rep-
resentation, whose VDT role of project
manager has been delegated lower to
the portfolio manager, now labeled as
“leader.” As in reality, the supervision
structure in the VDT model is an excep-
tion-handling hierarchy. It is the chain
of command for information and deci-
sion about problems discovered in the
course of a project. Positions of PM 01,
02, and others still act within the VDT
simulation as subteam leaders, who
handle some exceptions and pass oth-
ers up the hierarchy for resolution.
The second (labeled “holonistic” in
Figure 7) modified organization has no
overhead management structure at all.
Here, each project manager position in
the figure remains designated a sub-
team leader within the VDT tool. The
various project managers communicate
with one another directly. Table 1 shows
the VDT settings for organizational
parameters to be tested.
Environmental stress is applied to
the three organizational designs via
the VDT constructs requirement com-
plexity, solution complexity, and task
uncertainty (appropriate to environ-
ments that project offices often face
with technology maturity, interoper-
ability requirements, etc.) as well as
higher noise (distractions) and
increasing functional and project error
probabilities. For the experiment, each
of these three factors is specified at two
levels: routine and stressed, shown in
Table 2. Hence, a full-factorial design
consists of six trials (i.e., three alterna-
tive organizational designs times two
different environmental conditions),
which is designated according to the
levels corresponding to a set of envi-
ronmental factors.
The dependent variables of partic-
ular interest in the project manage-
ment domain are examined: cost,
schedule duration, and project risk. Also
noted is the maximum position back-
log, rework volume, coordination vol-
ume, and decision wait time, as these
have implications for managers to con-
sider. Schedule is important to project
managers, and time is often viewed as
money, because of the staff that must
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
be paid as long as they are retained—
whether productive to the project or
not. Project cost is measured in thou-
sands of dollars, and pertains to
staffing costs only, as no material costs
are modeled in this experiment.
Project risk, as previously mentioned,
is represented as the likelihood of an
incomplete project outcome, which
relates directly to project quality.
Although every task within a project
may not be critical to project quality,
more tasks incomplete or defective
place the overall project at greater risk
of failure. Where lives are at stake, such
as in new pharmaceutical compounds,
new passenger aircraft, or defense
weapon systems involving lethality
and survivability, overall project risk
may be a difficult trade for managers
also concerned with project cost and
schedule.
A detailed explanation of both
Tables 2 and 3 can be found in the full
body of the authors’ work with the VDT
model at: http://www.nps.navy.mil/
gsbpp/ACQN/publications/FY05/PM-
05-007.pdf.
Experimental Results
In this section the results of the com-
putational experiment are reported.
Summarized in Table 3 is each of the
six trials in this full-factorial experi-
ment. The table includes measures for
project cost, schedule, and risk, in
addition to other metrics that can pro-
vide insight into organizational
dynamics (rework volume, coordina-
tion volume, and decision wait).
Examining these results, it is
shown that the baseline organization—
the typical organization in a routine
environment—completes the series of
projects in 556 days, at a cost of
$8,085,000 (US), with a project risk
index of 0.41. Although these are the
three primary success measures of any
project, the VDT simulation provides
more insight in terms of position back-
log (e.g., one actor got 26 days behind
in work at one point during the proj-
ect). The tool can also identify when
this occurs so that planners can split
tasks or assign more resources for spe-
cific tasks. Work volume refers to the
amount of effort expected to complete
all project tasks under ideal conditions
(e.g., no noise, errors, or miscommuni-
cations). Rework volume refers to the
simulated time needed for all positions
on a project to perform required
rework. Coordination volume is the
cumulative time positions spend dur-
ing a project processing information
requests from each other, attending
meetings, and other coordinative tasks.
Decision wait is measure of the cumula-
tive time spent by positions waiting for
decisions to be made in a project. These
values for this baseline case provide a
basis for comparison with results for
alternate organizational designs and
environmental conditions.
Comparing these results with
those obtained by the decentralized
and holonistic organizations in the
routine environment, key differences
are apparent. Decentralized and
holonistic organizations fare consider-
ably better in terms of both cost and
schedule, in the routine environment,
than their more typical counterpart
organizational design does. Program
schedule or duration is reduced some
23% (from 556 to 428 days) with the
decentralized organization and 27%
(from 556 to 407 days) by changing
organizational structure toward more
holonistic. Program cost is reduced
similarly by 42% (from $8,085,000 to
$4,674,000 [US]) with decentralized
and 44% (from $8,085,000 to
$4,565,000 [US]) with holonistic in
the successive design iterations.
However, project risk increases appre-
ciably in both alternative organiza-
tions, going up to 54% and then to
76%, respectively, in decentralized and
holonistic designs. Here, it is shown
that decentralized and holonistic orga-
nizational forms offer a combination

Figure 6: Decentralized organizational design and project work

Figure 7: Holonistic organizational design and project work

M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L 15

Table 1: Organizational design parameters
Table 2: Environmental parameters
of advantages (e.g., shorter schedule
duration, lower cost) and disadvan-
tages (e.g., higher risk) with respect to
the typical project organization in a
routine environment.
Upon examination of these orga-
nizational designs under stress envi-
ronments, it is found that the typical
organization suffers cost and schedule
growth in the 4% to 5% range (i.e.,
580 days, $8,561,000 [US], with a
slight decline in project risk [0.37]).
Table 3: Experimental results
16
Decentralized and holonistic organiza-
tions under stress perform better in the
cost realm with 22% ($6,708,000
[US]) and 42% ($4,973,000 [US])
reductions compared with the typical.
The decentralized design reveals longer
schedule duration (604 vs. 580 days),
but the holonistic organization shows
a 21% decrease (458 vs. 580 days).
Again, project risk climbs in stress
environments to 55% for decentral-
ized and to 76% for the holonistic.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Figure 8 illustrates the dynamic
relationship between cost and organi-
zational design. Notice, in the routine
environment, project cost decreases
abruptly with a shift from a typical to a
decentralized organizational form. But
negligible additional improvement
accrues to the holonistic design.
Alternatively, in the stressed environ-
ment, the decentralized organization
performs better than the typical does,
and the holonistic organization per-
forms better still. Notice also how
costs are higher, for every organiza-
tional form, in the stressed environ-
ment than they are in the routine one.
Figure 9 illustrates the relation-
ship between risk and organizational
design. Here a monotonic increase in
risk corresponding to progression in
organizational form from typical,
through decentralized, to holonistic is
observed. As costs decrease across
these alternative organizational forms,
risk increases in lock step. Unlike the
cost results, however, the stressed envi-
ronment appears to exert little influ-
ence in terms of risk.
Interpreting these results, the less
centralized, formalized, and hierarchical
organizational designs perform better in
terms of cost and schedule, but with
accompanying project quality risk.
Interpreting these results further, where
schedule and cost are of primary concern
to all project managers, decentralized
control, especially in stressed environ-
ments, may provide a more cost effective
approach. Alternatively, where project
risk or quality is paramount, formalized
procedures, vertical information flows,
and centralized decision-making typical
of bureaucratic organizational forms can
be seen as superior. This reflects a funda-
mental tradeoff between performance
measures and organizational design, as
conceptualized generally in terms of con-
tingency theory (Lawrence & Lorsch,
1967). And as Kim and Burton (2002)
Figure 8: Relationship between cost and organizational design
Figure 9: Relationship between risk and organizational design
noted, the theory is actually extended by
the evidence of risk coming into play
with a more rapid and inexpensive proj-
ect solution afforded by empowered
actors with relevant information at their
organizational edge.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
The DoD, like sponsors of projects
in the FDA’s pharmaceutical arena and
in the FAA’s commercial aviation arena,
is averse generally to risk due to the
safety and survivability aspects of many
of its developmental systems. Indeed,
the modeling here can be viewed as
confirmation of DoD’s varying levels of
decision hierarchy correlating to esti-
mated program dollar thresholds
(stratification of project categories I
though IV) as a means of addressing
cost risk (USD [AT&L], 2003).
However, and just as important to illus-
trate, high levels of bureaucracy place
considerable stress on project organiza-
tions and come at their own cost. Are
40% program cost growth and 25%
schedule growth commensurate with
20% to 50% program risk reduction?
Might a commensurate amount of risk
be alleviated through a less expensive
means? Clearly, tools such as VDT pro-
vide a new way of gaining insights into
these important program considera-
tions, particularly when forming organ-
izations for the management of large
and complex projects.
Conclusion
Building upon prior research on orga-
nizational centralization and knowl-
edge dynamics, the authors employ
computational methods to assess the
behavior and performance of differ-
ent organizational designs in varying
environments. The results reinforce
the contingency theory and suggest
particular characteristics of different
project environments that make one
form relatively more or less appropri-
ate than another. Practically, answers
to the research questions have direct
and immediate application to proj-
ect/portfolio managers and senior
executives. Theoretically, broad class-
es of organizations were generalized
and a novel set of organizational
design guides was prescribed.
In this study, the VDT modeling
environment was used to represent
and emulate the behavior of a proj-
ect organization. Although the typi-
cal organization modeled in this
study is representative of such organ-
izations in practice, the authors do
not claim to have experimented—
17
even computationally—with an oper-
ational organization. Rather, the
authors experimented computational-
ly with a high-level organizational
model, illustrating the method, use,
and utility of the approach for exposi-
tion. The authors then conceptualized
and modeled two alternative project
organizations, manipulating key fac-
tors of their organizational designs.
They were subjected to two environ-
mental contexts, routine and stressed,
comparing their performance in terms
of cost, schedule, and risk.
In routine circumstances, the
experimental decentralized and holon-
type organizations outperformed typi-
cal hierarchies in measures of cost and
schedule. Under high stress from task
uncertainty, noise, and error probabili-
ty, the decentralized and holon-type
organizations completed the same
project work volume as well or faster,
and for less cost than their centralized
counterpart. In both environments,
however, the less formal organization-
al structures yielded a higher project
quality risk.
The findings are similar to those
of other VDT researchers who find the
relationship between organizational
performance improvements and
increasing project risk from decentral-
ization in environments of uncertainty
(Kim & Burton, 2002) and worker
knowledge (Nissen & Buettner, 2004).
They offer an extension of contingency
theory to include risk as a dependent
variable for organizational structures
and project outcomes. The results
reveal the same relational patterns of
performance capabilities among the
three organizational designs and
across differing stress environments.
They underscore complex interactions
between organizational design factors,
and suggest fundamental tension and
decision tradeoffs between important
performance measures such as project
cost, schedule, and quality/risk.
The results provide several impli-
cations for managerial practice and
application of organization theory
regarding the relationships between
organizational structure and perform-
ance. Understanding when bureaucra-
cy is relatively beneficial and how this
18
rigid organizational form can nega-
tively influence project cost (and posi-
tively impact project risk) is important
for managerial practitioners today.
The apparent implications are that
adopting a decentralized structure in
accord with contingency theory alone
may not lead to higher unit perform-
ance, because it might instead produce
poorer project quality. But it is insuffi-
cient to only assume that more
bureaucracy alleviates risk with atten-
dant costs, or that managers must sim-
ply choose either fast and cheap, or
better quality results.
In the early 1990s, with a goal of
shortening development times, reduc-
ing cost, and increasing numbers of sci-
entific missions flown, NASA adopted
a “faster, better, cheaper” approach to
project management. This manage-
ment philosophy was implemented in
spite of an old project management
adage that project managers could have
any two of these performance out-
comes, but not all three (Spear, 2000).
This maxim is supported somewhat by
the findings of Carley and Lin (1997)
regarding decision accuracy in organi-
zations under time pressure. After the
several unmanned mission failures,
and ultimately the February 2003
Columbia disaster that claimed the
lives of seven astronauts, an analysis of
NASA failures blamed a more risk tol-
erant culture as an organizational cause
of the accident (NASA, 2003).
Project managers will spend proj-
ect resources on many things, and
must balance the cost of control versus
the cost of risk. The lessening of cen-
tralized control may purchase some
amount of cost and schedule, but for
naught if the customer is not satisfied.
And in commodities such as aviation,
pharmaceuticals, construction, space
flight, and defense—where lives can be
at stake—this is an important trade
that traditionally tends toward avoid-
ing project risk. So is a growth of 40%
in program cost and 25% in schedule
satisfactorily offset with 20% to 50%
program risk reduction? Or might a
commensurate amount of risk be alle-
viated through a less-expensive means?
A better understanding of this
important relationship can serve some
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
benefit to senior executives and project
managers. Because perhaps for the first
time, the authors’ work supports and
empirically quantifies this relationship
with statistics that could be validated
with future research and additional
field work. The relationships suggest
that there is likely an optimal organiza-
tional design for control, risk, and cost
and schedule in each unique endeavor,
and these results with this tool help to
shape that hypothesis (Figure 10).
Even with simple models, it is
shown that project performance can
be examined with various organiza-
tional designs and under differing
environments. Perhaps for the first
time—or at least to an extent
unachievable heretofore—it is shown
how managers can gain fundamental
insights into the inherent project
tradeoffs, in advance of making project
decisions. The practical significance
should be apparent immediately.
These experiments support propo-
sitions that information processing is a
primary organizational activity and is
associated with project cost and dura-
tion (i.e., the more information pro-
cessing a project requires, the more
costly and lengthy the project
becomes). Certainly, there is attendant
benefit to the information processed as
well. However, the additional measure
of project quality risk is critical for
many types of projects, and its emerg-
ing relationship from these studies and
this most recent work begin to shape a
Figure 10: Relationships among project cost,
control, and risk
new hypothesis: that perhaps there is
an optimal organizational design solu-
tion, relative to cost, duration, and risk.
If managers can ascertain early on the
criticality (and tolerable level) of proj-
ect quality risk, they can perhaps select
along a continuum the level of organi-
zational hierarchy and centralization
needed to control project outcomes.
Or, reframing the question, how much
will added bureaucracy cost to allevi-
ate risk? The key point is, the answer
will differ—necessarily—for every
project. A one-size-fits-all manage-
ment policy is naïve, given such knowl-
edge and the authors’ ability to
emulate organizational performance
as illustrated in this paper.
Building upon the VDT constructs
introduced in this paper, one day
researchers may even develop tech-
niques for design optimization based
on project objectives (e.g., speed vs.
risk) and environment. Leaders, man-
agers, and researchers may develop the
capability to design organizations,
work processes, and technologies
using computational techniques com-
parable to those employed for design-
ing airplanes, bridges, and computers.
That day is not yet here. But through
research along these lines, we can both
foresee and accelerate it. Meanwhile,
the centralized control that dominates
current thinking and policy in many
enterprises merits reexamination in
light of this study. Such control impos-
es costs as well as accruing benefits. It
is now known how to measure and
compare them: via computational
experimentation.
References
Alberts, David S., & Hayes, Richard
E. (2003). Power to the edge. Washington,
DC: CCRP.
Ashby, W. R. (1960). An introduction
to cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.
Bernard, H. R. (1998). Handbook of
methods in cultural anthropology Walnut
Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Box, G. E. P., Hunter, W. G., and
Hunter, J. S. (1978). Statistics for experi-
menters: An introduction to design, data analy-
sis and model building. New York: Wiley.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C.
(1973). Experimental and quasi-experi-
mental designs for research. Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Carley, K. M., & Lin, Z. (1997). A
theoretical study of organizational per-
formance under information distortion.
Management Science, 43(7), 976–997.
Carley, K. M., & Prietula, M. J.
(Eds.). (1994). Computational organiza-
tion theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Carroll, T., & Burton, R. M. (2000,
December). Organizations and com-
plexity: Searching for the edge of
chaos. Computational & Mathematical
Organization Theory, 6(4), 319–337.
Chiang, A. C. (1984). Fundamental
methods of mathematical economics (third
edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cheng, C. H. F., & Levitt, R. E.
(2001, Nov 3–7). Contextually chang-
ing behavior in medical organizations.
Proceedings of the 2001 Annual
Symposium of the American Medical
Informatics Association. Washington,
DC.
Christiansen, T. R. (1993).
Modeling efficiency and effectiveness of
coordination in engineering design teams
(Doctoral dissertation, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Stanford University). Published as Det
Norske Veritas Research Report No. 93-
2063, Oslo, Norway.
Cohen, G. P. (1992). The virtual
design team: An object-oriented model of
information sharing in project teams
(Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, Stanford University).
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T.
(1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design
and analysis issues for field settings.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Defense Acquisition University
(DAU). (2004, February). Program man-
agers’ toolkit, 13th edition (Ver. 2.0).
Delbecq, André L., Van de Ven,
Andrew, & Gustafson, David. (1986).
Group techniques for program planning, 2nd
edition. Madison, WI: Greenbriar Press.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S.
(Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative
research (pp. 500–515). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dillard, J. T. (2003). Centralized
control of defense acquisition programs: A
comparative review of the framework from
1987–2003. Naval Postgraduate School.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Forrester, Jay W. (1961). Industrial
dynamics (Chp. 13). Waltham, MA:
Pegasus Communications.
Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing
complex organization. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Galbraith, J. R. (1977).
Organization design. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L.
(1967). The discovery of grounded theo-
ry: Strategies for qualitative research.
New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Jin, Y., & Levitt, R. E. (1996). The
virtual design team: A computational
model of project organizations.
Computational and Mathematical
Organization Theory, 2(3), 171–195.
Johnson, R. A., & Wichern, D. W.
(1992). Applied multivariate statistical
analysis (third edition). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kim, J., & Burton, R. (2002). The
effect of task uncertainty and decen-
tralization on project team perform-
ance. Computational & Mathematical
Organization Theory, 8, 365–384.
Koestler, A. (1967). The ghost in
the machine. London: Arkana Books.
Kunz, J. C., Levitt, R. E., & Jin, Y.
(1998). The virtual design team: A
computational simulation model of
project organizations. Communications
of the Association for Computing
Machinery, 41(11), 84–92.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W.
(1967). Organization and environment:
Managing differentiation and integration.
Boston: Division of Research, Harvard
Business School.
Lapin, L. L. (1985). Quantitative
methods for business decisions with cases
(third edition). San Diego: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Law, A. M., & Kelton, D. (1991).
Simulation modeling and analysis (sec-
ond edition), New York: McGraw-Hill.
Leavitt, H. J. (2004). Top down.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Levitt, Raymond E., Cohen,
Geoffrey P., & Kunz, John C. (1994).
The “virtual design team”: Simulating
how organization structure and informa-
tion processing tools affect team perform-
ance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
19
 Levitt, R. E., Thomsen, J.,
Christiansen, T. R., Kunz, J. C., Jin, Y.,
& Nass, C. (1999). Simulating project
work processes and organizations:
Toward a mocro-contingency theory of
organizational design. Management
Science 45(11), 1479–1495.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A.
(1958). Organizations. New York: John
Wiley.
Morgan, Gareth. (1997). Images of
organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. (2003, August). Columbia
accident investigation board report.
Government Printing Office.
Nissen, M. E., & Buettner, R. R.
(2004). Computational experimenta-
tion with the virtual design team:
Bridging the chasm between laborato-
ry and field research in C2. 10th
International Command and Control
Research and Technology Symposium,
Stanford, CA.
Nissen, M. E., & Levitt, R. E. (2004,
January). Agent-based modeling of
knowledge flows: Illustration from the Engineering, Stanford University).
domain of information systems Thompson, J. D. (1967).
design. Proceedings Hawaii International Organizations in action: Social science
Conference on System Sciences, bases in administrative theory. New York:
Waikoloa, HI. McGraw-Hill.
Nogueira, J. C. (2000). A formal USD (AT&L). (2003, May 12).
model for risk assessment in software Department of Defense Directive
projects (Doctoral dissertation, 5000.2. Operation of the defense acquisi-
Department of Computer Science, tion system. Washington, DC: USD.
Naval Postgraduate School). Van Creveld, Martin. (1985).
Packard Commission. (1986). A Command in war. Boston: Harvard
quest for excellence, final report to the University Press.
president. Washington, DC: Packard VDT. (2005). The Virtual Design
Commission. Team Research Group available at
Simon, Herbert A. (1981). The sci- http://www.stanford.edu/group/VDT/
ences of the artificial (second edition). Wong, S. S., & Burton, R. M.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (2000, December). Virtual teams:
Spear, T. (2000, July). NASA faster, What are their characteristics, and
better, cheaper task final report. impact on team performance?
Available at http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/ Computational & Mathematical
msp98/misc/fbctask.pdf Organization Theory, 6(4), 339–360.
Thomsen, J. (1998). The virtual Wysocki, R. K. (2003). Effective
team alliance (VTA): Modeling the project management (third edition).
effects of goal incongruency in semi-rou- Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.
tine, fast-paced project organizations Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study
(Doctoral dissertation, Department research: Design and methods (second
of Civil and Environmental edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

JOHN DILLARD joined the Naval Postgraduate School faculty in the fall of 2000 with extensive experience in the field of
system development and project management. His research focuses on defense project management policy changes, and
implications. He began his career in program and contract management while serving in the U.S. Army, after attaining a
MS in systems management from the University of Southern California. Retiring at the rank of Colonel, he has been involved
with a myriad of defense technologies and system concepts that have evolved into fielded products, such as the battle-
proven Army Tactical Missile System and the Javelin Antitank Weapon System. He was the product manager for the Joint
Advanced Special Operations Radio System, and in 1998 was appointed to head Defense Department’s contract
administration in the New York metropolitan area. Also as an adjunct professor for the University of California at Santa
Cruz, he teaches courses in project management and leadership to Silicon Valley public and private industry professionals.

MARK E. NISSEN is associate professor of information systems and management at the Naval Postgraduate School. His
research focuses on knowledge dynamics. He views work, technology, and organizations as an integrated design problem
and has recently concentrated on the phenomenology of knowledge flows. His publications span information systems,
project management, organization studies, knowledge management, and related fields. In 2000 he received the Menneken
Faculty Award for Excellence in Scientific Research, the top research award available to faculty at the Naval Postgraduate
School. In 2001 he received a prestigious Young Investigator Grant Award from the Office of Naval Research for work on
knowledge-flow theory. In 2002 he spent his sabbatical year at Stanford integrating knowledge-flow theory into agent-
based tools for computational modeling. Before his information systems doctoral work at the University of Southern
California, he acquired more than a dozen years’ management experience in the aerospace and electronics industries.

20 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
PROJECT MANAGER LEADERSHIP
BEHAVIORS AND FREQUENCY OF USE
BY FEMALE PROJECT MANAGERS
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to deter-
mine the most important leadership and
managerial behaviors for project man-
agers as perceived by female project
managers and to ascertain the frequency
with which these behaviors are practiced
by female project managers.
A survey instrument of leadership
behaviors was submitted to female proj-
ect managers, representing a variety of
industries, team types, and sizes. The
respondents were asked to rate each
behavior as to its importance for an
effective project manager to exhibit and
to indicate the frequency of use by
female project managers.
Even though much of the literature
on effective leaders indicates the impor-
tance of transformational behaviors, the
results of this study show that the
respondents do not attach as much
importance to transformational leader-
ship behaviors as they do managerial
skills and transactional leadership
behaviors. They also use transactional
leadership behaviors and managerial
skills more frequently than transforma-
tional leadership behaviors.
Keywords: female project managers;
leadership; management skills
©2007 by the Project Management Institute
Vol. 38, No. 1, 21-31, ISSN 8756-9728/03
CHARLOTTE NEUHAUSER, PMP, Madonna University
Introduction
roject managers have a two-pronged responsibility in managing a project:
P the technical components of the project—plans, schedules, budgets, statis-
tical analysis, and monitoring and control involved in the various knowl-
edge areas and processes—and managing the people in such a way to motivate the
team to successful completion of the project goals. Suggesting that project man-
agers are now, more than ever, being looked to as the people “who are going to
implement the corporate strategies and objectives rather than just reporting status
on a disaster” points out the significance of the project manager (Kloppenborg &
Opfer, 2002, p. 18).
A plethora of research and corresponding literature on leadership and man-
agement skills and behaviors exists, but a much smaller cadre of literature specif-
ically addresses leadership in project managers. Morris (2003) suggested that
project management research should address in a theoretical context how core ele-
ments work together to deliver successful projects, with one of the most important
core elements as the leadership of the project team. In fact, according to Zimmerer
and Yasin (1998), organizational effectiveness requires project managers to com-
bine their technical competency with the effective display of leadership.
Thamhain (2003) reported results that define four essential conditions for
building effective project teams: a professionally stimulating work environment,
good project leadership, qualified personnel, and a stable work environment; but
in the past, most organizations rewarded their project managers for efficiency
measures that stressed the technical rather than managerial or leadership-based
aspects of project management. This emphasis on the technical, rather than on the
combination of technical with leadership aspects, is no longer acceptable in
today’s world (Yasin, Martin, & Czuchry, 2000).
The present study was undertaken to ask female project managers to deter-
mine the most important leadership and managerial behaviors for project man-
agers to use and to ascertain the frequency with which these behaviors are
practiced by female project managers.
Research studies into the 1990s concluded there were no differences in the
leadership styles between the genders, but in 1990 an article entitled “Ways
Women Lead” by J. B. Rosener was published in the Harvard Business Review, which
caused scholars to revisit the prior conclusions. Successive studies (Bass, Avolio, &
Atwater, 1996; Eagly & Johnson, 1996) reported some significant differences,
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L 21
though small, and to this date no clear
cut conclusion has been reached. In
the same way, there are no conclusive
findings on effective leadership styles
in either men or women in the project
environment.
In the past women have been
underrepresented in management,
especially in the traditional project-
based industries of construction and
engineering (Gale & Cartwright, 1995),
yet the interest of women in project
management is growing as evidenced
through the increasing numbers in the
Women in Project Management Special
Interest Group (WiPMSIG) of the
Project Management Institute.
Through a review of general and
project management leadership litera-
ture and a survey, this project
addressed the following:
• Identified through a literature review
a list of general leadership and man-
agerial behaviors
• Designed a survey instrument incor-
porating the behaviors identified in
the literature review
• Determined, using a sample of
female project managers, the degree
of importance of recognized leader-
ship behaviors to the general project
manager population
• Determined the degree to which
these behaviors are used by female
project managers as perceived by
female project managers
• Determined if variables, such as
length of project experience, type of
organizational structure, or industry
affect perceptions of leadership
behaviors and managerial skills.
The research questions to be addressed
included the following:
• To what degree are commonly recog-
nized leadership and managerial
behaviors viewed as important for
project managers?
• To what degree do female project
managers use these leadership/man-
agerial skills as perceived by female
project managers?
• How do female project managers
perceive males view female project
managers and how do females
perceive themselves as project
managers?
22
• Are perceptions of the respondents
affected by the industry, size of proj-
ects, type of project structure, and
number of years as project manager?
Review of General Leadership Literature
Leadership is one of the most written
about, talked about, and studied phe-
nomenon in the literature and around
the water coolers of organizations.
Some research has focused on behav-
iors associated with task versus people
(Blake & Mouton, 1978), some on
emotional intelligence (Goleman,
Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002), some on
traits (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991), some
on contingencies (Fiedler, 1967), and
some on two contrasting management
styles: transformational and transac-
tional leadership (Bass et al., 1996).
Transformational/Transactional
Leadership
The concept of transformational leader-
ship was first introduced by Burns
(1978) but refined and developed by
Bass (1985). Transformational leaders
develop positive relationships with sub-
ordinates for the purpose of motivating
performance that accomplishes specific
goals. Translating this into project man-
agement terms, team members are
encouraged by transformational leaders
to focus on the interests and goals of the
group rather than on their own needs
and interests. According to Bass and
others (Avolio, 1999; Avolio & Bass,
1988; Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1993a,
1993b), transformational leaders
achieve successful individual and group
performance by performing one or
more of the following:
• Exhibiting charismatic behaviors and
serving as role models
• Intellectually stimulating their workers
• Inspiring by persuading their work-
ers to accept the mission and its
attainability
• Meeting the emotional needs of
their workers through individual
considerations.
A second type of leadership iden-
tified by Bass (1985) is transactional
leadership, a set of behaviors that
clarify the team members’ responsi-
bilities, the expectations the project
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
leader has, the tasks that must be
accomplished, and benefits for the
members if they comply. This style is
based on the exchange of a reward to
the member for effort and perform-
ance. One of the primary factors of
this style of leadership is called con-
tingent reward or a positive reinforc-
ing interaction between the project
manager and the team members.
The research and writings of Bass
and associated scholars show that
managers that emphasize transforma-
tional leadership are perceived as
more effective and satisfying by their
subordinates than transactional lead-
ers. In addition, transformational
leadership has a positive effect on the
organization’s productivity and finan-
cial results. Tracey and Hinkin (1998)
found that transformational leader-
ship correlated with the management
attributes of clarifying, inspiring, sup-
porting, and team-building. In addi-
tion, Burke and Collins (2001)
investigated the relationship between
selected management skills and sever-
al leadership styles, including trans-
formational leadership, and found
that the managerial skills of commu-
nicating, delegating, personal adapt-
ability, time management, problem
analysis, and decision-making corre-
lated with transformational leader-
ship. In other words, these behaviors
are frequently exhibited by those
people identified as transformational
leaders. Supporting the attributes
identified by Bass is a study by
Brown, Richmond, and Rollin, and
reported by Salopek (2004), which
found vision topped the list of criti-
cal leadership competencies across all
levels, experience, and personality
types. Ranked also in the top five are
strategic thinking, relationship build-
ing, execution, and people develop-
ment. The study also rated
adaptability, optimism, empathy, and
self-awareness as more important
than all other general leadership
attributes presented.
In addition, there is a set of recog-
nized skills and behaviors, which fall
neither under transformational nor
transactional leadership and called
managerial skills.
Review of Project Management
Leadership Literature
Even though Turner and Mûller (2005,
p. 57), in their literature review, report-
ed that “rarely does the literature on
project success factors specifically or
overtly mention the project manager
and his or her leadership style and
competence,” Lechler (1997), as
reported by Hauschildt, Gesche, and
Medcof (2000), found in his review of
44 studies that the success of a project
is much more dependent on the
human factor (project leadership, top
management support, project team)
than on the technical factors. He also
found that the human factor increases
in importance as projects increase in
complexity, risk, and innovativeness.
Focusing on the leadership factor,
Goodman (1993) emphasized that the
project manager’s two major functions
are the ability to provide leadership to
integrate the project system and to pro-
vide leadership to the project team;
consequently, he argued the project
manager must depend on negotiation
skills and, to a lesser extent, on tech-
nical skills. Keegan and DenHartog
(2004) found no correlation between
the project manager’s leadership style
and the team’s commitment and moti-
vation, whereas they did find this link
between the line manager and
employees. Even though their results
do not confirm a link between trans-
formational leadership and project
success, they suggested the leadership
style of project managers should be
transformational. It may be they have
taken this stand as general leadership
research has found that transforma-
tional leadership is correlated with
more satisfied employees and a posi-
tive effect on productivity and finan-
cial results and because there is, as yet,
little research literature directly related
to transformational leadership in
project managers.
Jiang, Klein, and Chen (2001)
found that leadership, communica-
tion, and networking skills top the list
of competencies for project managers.
This same study found that project
manager performance had a direct
relationship with project outcomes,
which confirms the critical role of the
project manager’s leadership on proj-
ect outcomes. In addition to these
competencies, Gushgar, Francis, and
Saklou (1997) supported the impor-
tance of communication for the proj-
ect manager.
In an earlier study, a survey (Jiang,
Klein, & Margulis, 1998) asked IT proj-
ect managers to rank 18 system analyst
skills in order of importance to project
success. The rank order was: (most
important to least) interviewing,
directing, managing, speaking, listen-
ing, writing, cooperation, patience,
leadership, sensitivity, diplomacy,
training, empathy, organization, com-
munications, politics, sales, assertive-
ness, and nonverbal skills. Frame
(1994) suggested the set of skills, listed
as those for IT project managers, may
apply to project managers regardless of
industry, context, or functional focus.
Anderson and Tucker (1994) iden-
tified desirable project manager attrib-
utes to be strong human relations,
leadership, technical, and administra-
tive experience, and Berger (1996)
identified presentation skills as an
increasingly important skill for a proj-
ect manager.
The Project Management Institute
conducted a Member Needs Assessment
Survey in 2000 and found that the three
top capabilities that will be most
important to people in the profession
are leadership skills (vision and moti-
vating others), people skills (getting
along with others), and management
skills (directing and managing others)
(PMI, 2001). It is apparent from the lit-
erature that leadership is an important
factor in project success and deserves
more attention.
Review of Gender Leadership Literature
Research on gender stereotyping sug-
gests that men continue to believe that
female managers, compared with male
managers, lack leadership and other
managerial qualities (Heilman, Bloci,
Martell, & Simon, 1989; Martell,
Parker, Emrich, & Crawford, 1998).
Along these same lines, a report by the
Conference Board of Canada (2000)
showed that 69% of women executives
believe that not being taken seriously
at work is more of a problem for
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
female managers than their male col-
leagues. Fifty percent of the women
feel female managers are perceived as
having less organizational commit-
ment and professional capability than
their male counterparts.
There is a body of research that
suggests that men and women exhibit
different leadership and interpersonal
communication styles. Rosener (1990)
found that women tend to use trans-
formational leadership more than
men. Arguments, however, have been
presented that show that men and
women tend to stereotype their own
behavior according to cultural views of
gender-appropriate behavior (Billard,
1992). Gale and Cartwright (1995)
made the point that project-based
industries, such as construction and
engineering, tend to be inherently
“masculine” in orientation, which may
have an effect on the way female proj-
ect managers view appropriate behav-
ior. Furthermore, there may be
under-representation of women in
some industries, especially in project-
based organizations, which may cause
gendering of the project management
discipline in such a way that some men
may find that women do not “fit in.”
Mulenburg (2002) also stated that
project management has been a male-
dominated field with an absence of
gender-related studies. He asks the
question of whether or not gender
makes a difference in a project manag-
er. A study, such as this one, may add
new insights into the perceptions of
women of the leadership/managerial
behaviors that should be exhibited by
project managers and which, in fact,
females practice. More studies that
expand on this study will ultimately
provide an answer to the question that
Mulenburg poses.
Instrument Design and Sample Selection
An inventory was constructed that
included a broad array of specific
behaviors required of effective leaders.
The instrument behaviors are represen-
tative of many of the studies previous-
ly cited, as well as behaviors identified
(48 of the 50 behaviors) by Martel and
DeSmet (2001), who derived their
behaviors from the Managerial
23
Practices Survey (Yukl, 1989, 1994; Five demographic questions, the ties, such as organizing and
Yukl, Wall, & Lepsinger, 1990). Martel results of which are shown in Tables 2- planning efforts the team will
and DeSmet added additional behav- 4 and Figure 1, were identified perform, but dedicates majority
iors through three categories (intellec- through a panel of experienced project of time and effort to multiple
tual stimulation, upward influence, managers. projects or different activities.
and modeling) influenced by the 1. The type of industry (financial services, Team members are real perform-
Managerial Leadership Questionnaire manufacturing, mining, construction, ers, dedicating nearly their full-
(Bass, 1998; Hater & Bass, 1988; transportation, computers/telecom- time effort to project.
Trempe, Rigny, & Haccoun, 1985; Yukl, munications, real estate, aerospace, • Light project manager/light proj-
1994). Additional influence behaviors government, health care, chemicals ect team—project participants
were identified by Yukl and Falbe and pharmaceuticals, education, pro- and project manager dedicate
(1990), and humor was identified as a fessional services, other) only a limited portion of time to
leadership behavior as it may shape the 2. The project organizational structure: a specific project.
climate and informal social relations • Heavy project manager/heavy 3. Size of project team (less than 5 mem-
among the team members, promote project team—project manager bers, 6–10, 11–20, 21–50, over 50)
increased creativity, and facilitate learn- and core team dedicate nearly all 4. Number of years respondent in proj-
ing (Barbour, 1998; Hatch & Ehrlich, of their time to the project. ect environment (less than 2 years,
1993; Heath, 1997). Each of the behav- • Heavy project manager/light 2–5 years; 6–10 years; 11–20 years,
iors in the instrument is associated project team—project manager over 20 years)
with leader effectiveness and holds a dedicates nearly all his or her 5. Job title of the respondent
prominent position in current leader- time to project, but team mem-
ship theories. Because each of the bers support project only when The respondents were clustered
behaviors had been tested for construct specific support is required. into eight industry categories, concen-
validity in the studies previously men- • Light project manager/heavy trated in the heavy project
tioned, this survey instrument was test- project team—project manager manager/heavy project team structure,
ed only for content validity by a panel plays key role in project activi- and with teams of 6–50 members.
of five experienced certified Project
Management Professionals (PMPs).
The behaviors for this survey were
classified under three major cate-
gories: transformational leadership,
transactional leadership, and manage-
ment skills, based on the works of
Yukl (1989, 1994). The transforma-
tional leadership category includes
attributed charisma, intellectual stim-
ulation, inspirational motivation,
individualized consideration, and
influence. Transactional leadership
focuses on contingent reward, and
managerial skills include conflict reso-
lution, time management, and delega-
tion. Table 1 shows the group
categories, the number of questions
for each group, and an example of a
question from the group.
The sample of 62 respondents was
self-selected from the WiPMSIG mem-
bership. The survey was sent to all
members who access the WiPM Yahoo
site. The survey instrument was returned
through e-mail to a secure site, and the
data were recorded anonymously in an
Excel file. The statistical tests used to
analyze the data were descriptive statis-
tics, the t test of significance, and the
Pearson product-moment correlation. Table 1: Question categories and examples

24 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Most of the respondents had more than
two years and less than 20 years of
experience in a project environment.
Ninety-five percent of the respondents
held the title of project manager.
The respondents were asked the
degree of importance of 50 behaviors
that project managers should exhibit to
be effective leaders. Each behavior was
assessed on a 4-point Likert scale
(absolutely vital, important, somewhat
important, or less important). There was
an effort to force the respondents to
differentiate between levels of impor-
tance. For each of these same behaviors,
the respondents were asked to indicate
the frequency of use by female project
managers on a 4-point Likert scale
(almost always, frequently, sometimes,
rarely or never). The final four questions
of the survey addressed the respon-
dents’ perceptions of general effective-
ness of female project managers.
Table 2: Industry of respondents N=62
Figure 1: Percent of respondents in each project structure
Results of the Study
Most Important and Least Important
Behaviors for Project Managers
Those behaviors perceived as the
least important for a project manager
(somewhat important to less impor-
tant) were only in the transformation-
al leadership group, which included
intellectual stimulation, influence,
inspirational motivation, and individ-
ualized consideration. This means
these behaviors were viewed somewhat
or less important for a project manag-
er to exhibit.
The behaviors identified as the
most important (absolutely vital and
important) were found in all three cat-
egories of transformational, transac-
tional, and managerial. The important,
specific behaviors focused on individu-
alized consideration, attributed charis-
ma, delegation, and contingent
reward. The least important behaviors
are completely represented by the
transformational style of leadership,
while the most important are repre-
sented by behaviors in transformation-
al, transactional, and managerial
styles. Yet, the transformational style is
one that is recognized in the general
leadership literature as very effective.
Table 5 shows the most important and
the least important behaviors that a
project manager should use if he or she
is to be effective.
It is interesting to note that
although vision was assessed as the
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Table 3: Team size with which respondents worked
Table 4: Project experience by respondents
least important behavior by this sam-
ple of project managers, the Brown,
Richmond, and Rollin study (cited in
Salopek, 2004), and the PMI study
(2001) found vision as one of the most
critical leadership competencies. This
may be especially noteworthy as this
sample of females, even though very
small, tended to be more senior in
experience and working with projects
of heavy project manager and team
involvement, which we might think
would increase the importance of
vision. This was also the question that
varied the most among the respon-
dents as it had the highest standard
deviation of 0.8885 with a mean of
3.81 (somewhat important leaning
toward less importance).
The behavior that had the least
variation in agreement by the respon-
dents was “delegates to team members
the authority to make important deci-
sions and implement without addi-
tional approval,” with a mean of 2.92
(somewhat important but approach-
ing the important rank) and a standard
deviation of 0.3876. Thirty-eight of the
50 questions had standard deviations
that ranged between 0.5 and 0.6.
When all behaviors were identi-
fied according to the three major
groups (transformational, transaction-
al, managerial skills), we find that the
mean score of each group lies between
“somewhat important” to “less impor-
tant” for project managers. No mean
scores fell within the important or
vitally important range.
25
Table 5: Most important and least important behaviors for effective project managers
Exhibited Behaviors by Female
Project Managers
Comparing the group mean scores of
desired behaviors for project man-
agers and the degree to which these
are used by female project managers
(Table 6), contingent reward behav-
iors appear to be more important for
project managers than influence
behaviors. This is interesting consid-
ering a typical response heard from a
project team member is that “we’re
overworked and don’t have enough
resources.” Influence behaviors are
those that would assist the project
team to acquire what it needs to
accomplish the goals of the project,
yet this group of respondents rated
26
influence as the least important
behavior. At the same time contin-
gent reward behaviors are logical
behaviors for project managers as
they reflect the clarification of goals
and benefits for team members.
This sample perceived that
females use transformational leader-
ship attributes (attributed charisma,
influence, inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, and individ-
ualized consideration) less often,
whereas other studies show females
are more likely than males to indi-
cate that they use transformational
leadership style (Burke & Collins,
2001). The individualized considera-
tion group is the third most impor-
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
tant group for effective project man-
agers, rated between important and
somewhat important by these respon-
dents, yet they perceived they use
these behaviors “sometimes” and
was ranked as the least used group of
all leadership behaviors. If female
project managers do not tend to use
transformational leadership style as
frequently as others in general man-
agement, it may mean that female
project managers adapt to the style
of leadership advocated by the
PMBOK® Guide (PMI, 2004), which
has been shown to lean toward the
masculine leadership style (Buckle
& Thomas, 2003) or the more
transactional style.
Table 6: Important behaviors and exhibited behaviors by group
Frequency of Behavior Use by Female
Project Managers
The respondents were asked to assess
the behaviors of the effective project
manager in terms of the frequency
these behaviors are used by female
project managers (Table 7). It is clear
that women project managers see
other female project managers using
transactional behaviors and manageri-
al skills more than transformational
behaviors. A point to note is that one-
third of the least used behaviors fall
within the influence group, a transfor-
mational leadership behavior.
In a study by Thamhain and
Gemmill (1974), authority was ranked
as the most important influential
method used by project managers, fol-
lowed by work challenge and expertise.
The use of authority resulted in lower
project performance and less disagree-
ment and involvement among project
personnel. At the same time these proj-
ect managers who used work chal-
lenges and expertise as influence
methods were perceived as more high-
ly effective on project performance.
Subsequent studies showed challeng-
ing work, management knowledge,
and authority as the most important
influence methods, although they var-
ied in order of importance among the
studies (Sotiriou & Wittmer, 2001).
Comparing these findings with those
of this study, expertise is one of the
least used behaviors by female project
managers, and challenging work is one
of the most used behaviors, yet still
only “sometimes” used. This does not
seem to be congruent with the previ-
ously mentioned studies nor the com-
mon understanding that the technical
component of project management, as
reflected by expertise and the PMBOK®
Guide, carries a lot of weight.
A coefficient correlation statistic
was applied to the behaviors to deter-
mine the relationship between the
desired behavior and the perceived fre-
quency of use of the behavior. Thirty-
nine of the 50 behaviors showed a very
high or high correlation between
desired behaviors and used behaviors.
The less important it was, the less fre-
quently it was used; or the more
important it was, the more frequently
it was used. Eight showed a moderate
correlation and three showed a weak
correlation. Of the three behaviors
with a weak correlation, they were less
desirable but more frequently used,
and two of these three were classified
as influence behaviors.
The final four questions of the sur-
vey dealt with perceptions of the
respondents toward female project
managers and women’s perceptions of
men’s attitudes toward women. Table 8
shows the questions, the results in
scores, means, and standard deviations
of each. The questions each had four
alternative responses—1 (strongly
agree), 2 (agree more than disagree), 3
(disagree more than agree), and 4 (strong-
ly disagree).
The sample of this study had a
stronger belief that they are weaker
project managers than they believe
men perceive them to be. Comparing
that response with the perception of
this group that women have less com-
mitment and professional capability
than men seems to point out a rein-
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
forcement with their self-perception of
less competence. This could be related
to Turner and Mûller’s (2005, p. 57)
statement that “many project managers
do not recognize themselves, their lead-
ership style, or their competence as a
connection to project success.” This
result could also be related to the fact
that they believe men do not take them
seriously. In some ways, these findings
negate the findings of other gender
stereotyping research that suggests that
men continue to believe that female
managers, compared with male man-
agers, lack leadership and managerial
qualities (Heilman, Bloci, Martell, &
Simon, 1989; Martell et al., 1998), as
these respondents believe men perceive
them to be stronger project managers
than they themselves believe.
This study strongly supports other
research, however, especially that of the
report by the Conference Board of
Canada (2000), that showed 69% of
women executives believe that women
are not taken seriously at work, and that
50% of women feel women managers
are perceived as having less organiza-
tional commitment and professional
capability than their male counterparts.
Interestingly, the research indicates that
women believe this is how they are per-
ceived by others, but this study showed
that women actually believe this is true
about themselves.
Limitations of the Study
As always with self-reported data there
is a possibility of perception error and
bias. There may be differences between
self-reported behaviors and actual
exhibited behaviors. Also the study was
27

Table 7: Most and least exhibited behaviors by female project managers
a convenience sample of women
belonging to the PMI WiPMSIG and
self-selected through the WIPM Yahoo
group e-mail. Because the sample was
self-selected and limited in size, the
results cannot be generalized across the
entire project management population
nor even across the entire female project
management population. In fact, some
statistical tests were impossible to use on
the demographic data, especially that
related to the industry of the respon-
dent. The study does, however, expose
information not readily available from
other sources. The results of this study
must be viewed with caution because of
the sample size; however, it may provide
a methodology that can be replicated
with a larger sample and including men.
Summary and Implications
This study has investigated the desired
behaviors for an effective project man-
ager to use and the frequency with
which these behaviors are used by
females, all from the perspective of
28
female project managers. PMI, in its
literature and leadership conferences,
has focused on the importance of lead-
ership for project managers. Yet, when
much of the current research literature
is examined, we find leadership dis-
cussed in general terms. Some of the
general management literature, howev-
er, has attempted to identify exactly
what is meant by leadership. Using the
categories, definitions, and classifica-
tion schemes developed and tested by
the general management scholars, the
authors are able to address leadership
behaviors with specificity in this study.
In addition, women are taking on
more roles in project management,
and little research has been conducted
on female project managers. This study
may help us take a look at the desir-
able leadership behaviors of a project
manager from a female perspective.
This may lead us to take another step
and assess male project managers to
determine whether there is any differ-
ence in the importance they attach to
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
the same set of behaviors. It may also
be advantageous to assess male percep-
tions on the frequency with which they
exhibit the behaviors and then com-
pare with those of the females. Because
these studies are relying on reports by
respondents, an additional study
observing the behaviors in relation-
ship to the type of project, success of
the project, and the gender of the proj-
ect manager may add to the project
leadership knowledge base.
Because each individual team
member comes to the project team
with a set of beliefs, values, and cogni-
tions in place, the set of behaviors
identified in this survey instrument
may be useful to begin a dialogue with
team members in how they see the
desired behaviors and exhibited
behaviors; i.e., what levels of behaviors
seem to be those most wanted with
any certain project group at any certain
time (Muscarella, 2004). An under-
standing of team member expectations
for leader behaviors may also be of
value in optimizing the style of leader
involvement with subordinates
(Vecchio & Boatwright, 2002).
Prior research results show condi-
tions for building effective project
teams include a professionally stimu-
lating work environment, good proj-
ect leadership, qualified personnel,
and a stable work environment
(Thamhain, 2003). Because of this
study and others, the current study
focused on attempting to grasp exactly
what is meant by effective project
leadership by identifying a list of gen-
eral leadership and managerial behav-
iors. The set of 50 behaviors were
classified into three leadership/mana-
gerial groupings: transformational
leadership, transactional leadership,
and managerial skills.
An instrument of these behaviors
was submitted to a group of 62 women
project managers representing a variety
of industries, project team types and
sizes, and number of years employed
in the project environment. The
respondents were asked to rate each
behavior as to its importance of use by
an effective project manager. None of
the mean values of the behaviors rated
higher than 2.4913 in importance on a
Table 8: Results of perceptions of women toward men and women (N=61) percentages
4-point Likert scale, with 1 equaling
vital importance and 4 equaling less
importance. The most important behav-
iors included those from all three
groups, with the behavior of “meets the
emotional needs of the team mem-
bers” as the most important. The least
important behavior with a mean value
of 3.8196 on the 4-point scale, with 3
as somewhat important and 4 as less
important, was “describes a clear and
appealing vision of what can be accom-
plished with team members’ coopera-
tion and support,” yet, this has been
identified as one of the most critical
leadership behaviors (Salopek, 2004).
The respondents were also asked
to indicate the frequency of use of each
behavior by female project managers.
The behavior used most frequently was
“recommends promotions for excep-
tional performance” with a mean value
of 2.3728 with 2 equal to frequently
and 3 equal to sometimes. The least fre-
quently used behavior was “earns the
respect of others by demonstrating
competence in personal task perform-
ance,” with a mean value of 3.2542.
Even though much of the litera-
ture on successful project managers
indicates effective leadership is vital to
the success of projects, these results
show that women in this study do not
attach as much importance to the
transformational leadership behaviors
as they do managerial skills and trans-
actional leadership.
The results of this study pose sev-
eral questions, then, for study:
• Does project management
require a different style of leader-
ship than general management?
• Do female project managers view cere assessment of one’s own strengths
important leadership behaviors and weaknesses. With the knowledge
differently than males? of what is important and where we
• Do female project managers use stand, we can then be prepared to
different leadership behaviors move forward.”
than males?
• Can these findings be replicated References
with a larger and more diverse Anderson, S. D., & Tucker, R. L.
sample? (1994). Improving project manage-
ment design. Journal of Management in
More study should be conducted Engineering, 10(4), 35–44.
to determine the degree to which the Avolio, B. (1999). Full leadership
organizational culture, structure, and development: Building the vital forces in
environment affects these perceptions organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
versus a lack of knowledge, experience, Sage Publications.
and training. It is perplexing why Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988).
female project managers view other Transformational leadership, charis-
female project managers as weaker ma, and beyond. In G. Hunt, B.
than their male counterparts and yet Balaga, H. Dachler, & C. Schriesheim
do not perceive males viewing females (Eds.), Merging leadership vistas (pp.
as weaker. Because leadership is irrevo- 29–50). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon
cably proven to be important to the Press.
success of projects, it is incumbent for Baker, B. (2002). Leadership and
further research to be conducted to the project manager. PM Network,
determine desirable concrete leader- 16(12), 20.
ship behaviors and frequency of use by Barbour, G. (1998). Want to be a
both female and male project man- successful manager? Now that’s a
agers. Finally, the respondents indicat- laughing matter! PM Public
ed that women perceive they are Management, 80(7) 6–9.
weaker project managers than they Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and
believe men perceive them to be. They performance beyond expectations. New
also believed that women project man- York: Free Press.
agers have less commitment to the Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1993a).
organization and professional capabil- Transformational leadership: A
ity than men. This could then be relat- response to critiques. In M. Chemers
ed to the fact that they believe men do & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory
not take them seriously. It is important and research: Perspectives and directions.
to find out whether these findings will San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
be replicated with a larger sample. Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1993b).
As Baker (2002, p. 20) said “… Transformational leadership and
The place to start is knowing which organizational culture. Public
traits are important, followed by a sin- Administration Quarterly, 17, 112–121.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L 29
 Bass, B., Avolio, B., & Atwater, L.
(1996). The transformational and
transactional leadership of men and
women. Applied psychology: An interna-
tional review, 45(1), 5–34.
Berger, L. (1996). Emerging role
of management in civil engineering.
Journal of Management in Engineering,
12(4), 37–39.
Billard, M. (1992). Do women
make better managers? Working
Woman, 17(3), 68–71.
Blake, R., & Mouton, S. (1978).
The new managerial grid. Houston, TX:
Gulf Publishing.
Buckle, P., & Thomas, J. (2003).
Deconstructing project management
guidelines to shed light on project
management’s softer side.
International Journal of Project
Management, 21, 433–441.
Burke, S., & Collins, K. (2001).
Gender differences in leadership
styles and management skills. Women
in Management Review 16(5-6),
244–456.
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New
York: Harper & Row.
Conference Board of Canada.
(2000). Creating high performance
organizations: Leveraging women’s
leadership, Worklife report.
Eagly, A., & Johnson, B. (1996)
Gender and leadership style: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108,
233–256.
Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of lead-
ership effectiveness. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Frame, J. (1994). The new project
management: Tools for an age of rapid
change corporate reengineering and other
business realities. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Gale, A., & Cartwright, S. (1995).
Women in project management: Entry
into a male domain? A discussion on
gender and organizational culture,
Part I. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 16(2), 3–8.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., &
McKee, A. (2002). The new leaders.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Goodman, R. S. (1993). Skills
required of effective project managers.
Journal of Management in Engineering,
9(3), 217–226.
30
Gushgar, S., Francis, P., & Saklou,
J. (1997). Skills critical to long-term
profitability of engineering firms.
Journal of Management in Engineering,
13(2), 46–56.
Hatch, J., & Ehrlich, S. (1993).
Spontaneous humour as an indicator
of paradox and ambiguity.
Organization Studies, 4(4), 505–526.
Hater, J., & Bass, B. (1988).
Superiors’ evaluations and subordi-
nates’ perceptions of transformation-
al and transactional leadership.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 73,
695–702.
Hauschildt, J., Gesche K., &
Medcof, J. (2000). Realistic criteria for
project managers. Selection and
Development, 31(3), 23–32.
Heath, R. (1997). Humor is seri-
ous business. Electric Perspectives,
22(5) 68–80.
Heilman, M., Bloci, C., Martell,
R., & Simon, M. (1989). Has anything
changed? Current characterizations of
men, women, and managers. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 74, 935–942.
Jiang, J., Klein, G., & Chen, H.
(2001). The relative influence of IS
project implementation policies and
project leadership on eventual out-
comes. Project Management Journal,
32(3), 49–55.
Jiang, J., Klein, G., & Margulis, S.
(1998). Important behavioral skills
for IS project managers: The judg-
ments of experienced IS professionals.
Project Management Journal, 29, 39–43.
Keegan, A., & DenHartog, D.
(2004). Transformational leadership
in a project-based environment: A
comparative study of the leadership
styles of project managers and line
managers. International Journal of
Project Management, 22(8), 609–618.
Kirkpatrick, S., & Locke, E. (1991,
March). Leadership traits do matter.
Academy of Management Executive,
44–60.
Kloppenborg, T., & Opfer, W.
(2002). The current state of project
management research: Trends inter-
pretations, and predictions. Project
Management Journal, 33(2), 5–18.
Lechler, T. (1997). Erfolgsfaktoren
des Projektmanagements. Frankfurt am
Main.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Martel, R., & DeSmet, A. (2001).
A diagnostic-ratio approach to meas-
uring beliefs about the leadership
abilities of male and female man-
agers. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86(6), 1223–1231.
Martell, R., Parker, C., Emrich, C.,
& Crawford, M. (1998). Sex stereotyp-
ing in the executive suite: Much ado
about something. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 13, 127–138.
Morris, P. (2003). Research trends
in the 1990s—The need now to focus
on the business benefit of project
management. In J. Pinto, D. Cleland,
& D. Slevin (Eds.), The frontiers of proj-
ect management research. Newtown
Square, PA: Project Management
Institute.
Mulenburg, G. (2002). Gender in
project managers: Are National
Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) women and
men project managers equal?
Proceedings of PMI Research Conference,
397–405.
Muscarella, T. (2004). Leader
evaluations: What do they really tell
us? Retrieved April 14, 2004 from
http://www.affinitymc.com/Leader-
Evaluations.html.
PMI. (2001, June). Survey reveals
members’ key needs. PMI Today, p. iii.
PMI. (2004). A guide to the project
management body of knowledge
(PMBOK® guide). Newtown Square,
PA: Project Management Institute.
Rosener, J. (1990). Ways women
lead. Harvard Business Review, 68,
119–125.
Salopek, J. (2004). Social intelli-
gence. T&D, 58(9), 17–19.
Sotiriou, D., & Wittmer, D.
(2001). Influence methods of project
managers: Perceptions of team mem-
bers and project managers. Project
Management Journal, 32(3), 12–20.
Thamhain, H. (2003). Criteria for
effective leadership in technology-ori-
ented project teams. In J. Pinto, D.
Cleland, & D. Slevin (Eds.), The fron-
tiers of project management research.
Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Thamhain, H., & Gemmil, G.
(1974). Influence styles of project
managers: Some project performance
correlates. Academy of Management
Journal, 17, 216–224.
Tracey, J., & Hinkin, T. (1998).
Transformational leadership or effective
managerial practices? Group & (2002). Preferences for idealized
Organization Management, 23(3), 221–35.
Trempe, J., Rigny, A., & Haccoun,
R. (1985). Subordinate satisfaction
with male and female managers: Role
of supervisory influence. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 70, 44–47.
Turner, J., & Mûller, R. (2005).
The project manager’s leadership style
as a success factor on projects: A liter-
ature review. Project Management
Journal, 36(1), 49–61.
Turner, J., & Mûller, R. (2003).
On the nature of the project as a tem-
porary organization. International organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Journal of Project Management, 21(1), Prentice Hall.
1–8. Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. (1990).
Vecchio, R., & Boatwright, K. Influence tactics and objectives in
upward, downward, and lateral influ-
styles of supervision. Leadership ence attempts. Journal for Applied
Quarterly, 13(4), 327–342. Psychology, 75(2), 132–140.
Yasin, M., Martin, J., & Czuchry, Yukl, G., Wall, S., & Lepsinger, R.
A. (2000). An empirical investigation (1990). Preliminary report on valida-
of international project management tion of the managerial practices sur-
practices: The role of international vey. In K. Clark & M. Clark (Eds.),
experience. Project Management Measures of leadership (pp. 223–238).
Journal, 31(2) 20–30. West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library
Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial lead- of America.
ership: A review of theory and Zimmerer, T., & Yasin, M. (1998).
research. Journal of Management, 15, A leadership profile of American proj-
251–289. ect managers. Project Management
Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in Journal, 29, 31–38.

CHARLOTTE NEUHAUSER, PMP, is professor of organizational behavior and management at Madonna University in Livonia,
MI. She earned her BS, MS, and PhD degrees from DePauw University and Wayne State University in psychology, and
business education, with concentrations in business, statistics, and research design. Her project experience includes
government-funded projects and leading trade missions to Europe. She also has led many international projects involved
with new program startups in China and Taiwan as dean of the School of Business at Madonna University. She has many
publications and conference presentations on project leadership and online education. She currently serves as vice
president of professional development for the PMI Great Lakes Chapter.

M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L 31
ON FAITH, FACT, AND
INTERACTION IN PROJECTS
ABSTRACT
Projects are and have always been com-
plex. However, complexity is hardly man-
aged or influenced. This paper discusses
the concept of patterns of complexity, the
minimal manageable “space” of complex-
ity. In order to appraise this pattern, com-
plexity was grouped in three types: faith,
fact, and interaction. Based on this typol-
ogy, 10 characteristics typically involved
in projects were defined. This resulting
pattern was quantitatively and qualita-
tively tested with eight projects through
the perspective of the project manager.
Based on these results, the set of charac-
teristics, as well as the method used to
assess its intensity, is discussed. The
results show that the pattern of complex-
ity embraces relevant characteristics to
support the situated management of proj-
ects, maintaining the holistic and strate-
gic view of projects. The predominant
type of complexity perceived by project
managers was the complexity of interac-
tion. This highlights the importance of
coordination in projects. However, the
coexistence of these three complexities
was a constant in projects.
Keywords: complexity; uncertainty; proj-
ect management
©2007 by the Project Management Institute
Vol. 38, No. 1, 32-43, ISSN 8756-9728/03
32
JOANA G. GERALDI, University of Siegen, Germany
GERALD ADLBRECHT, University of Siegen, Germany
Introduction
rojects are and have always been complex (Frame, 2002). However, even
P though projects and project management are usually associated with the
concept of complexity (Baccarini, 1996), both practitioners and academics
have difficulties accepting and treating projects as complex systems, and tend to
reduce the management of projects to the application of tools such as PERT, WBS,
earned value, etc.
This paper forms part of a larger study on complexity and competences in
projects (Geraldi, 2006; Geraldi & Adlbrecht, 2006a; Geraldi & Adlbrecht, 2006b;
Geraldi & Harvey, 2006). The concept of pattern of complexity—the minimum
manageable unit of complexity—is central to this study. The pattern of complex-
ity comprehends the concentration of different characteristics of complexity in a
certain location (i.e., activity, department, technical system, etc.) or in the inter-
face between locations (Geraldi & Adlbrecht, 2006a). The main idea of this con-
cept is to look at the project and its issues holistically, e.g., to consider not only
the problems with the schedule, but also its causes and impacts in other charac-
teristics of complexity, such as dynamic, uncertainty, multiculturality, etc.
In order to “pragmatically” unfold the pattern of complexity, three groups of
complexity are proposed: the complexities of faith, fact, and interaction (Geraldi &
Adlbrecht, 2006a). Ten characteristics of complexity were deduced from these groups.
This paper progresses the concepts underlying these three complexities both
theoretically and empirically, and looks at how these complexities vary in the
course of projects based on the perspective of the project manager. The paper
commences with a short literature review on the typologies and characteristics of
complexity. Thereafter, the concepts of complexity of faith, fact, and interaction
are defined, described, discussed, and anchored with approaches of complexity
proposed in the literature and the previous experience of the authors in manag-
ing projects (Ginzburg, 1989). Subsequently, the intensity of these complexities
and its variations during the course of the project are empirically appraised in
eight engineering and construction projects. Finally, the paper concludes by pic-
turing the challenges posed in the current set of instruments and tools proposed
in the project management literature, and refining the authors’ further research
intentions on the subject.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Conceptualizing Complexity: Brief Literature Review
Complexity is being used as an umbrella term associated
with difficulty and inter-connectedness. As complexity refers
to concepts such as uniqueness, variety, and unpredictabili-
ty, the definition of complexity in itself is deemed to “kill”
the soul of complexity (i.e., Malik, 2003). Thus, academics
are sensing the difficulty of defining complexity. Morin
(2000, p. 45) used the definition of an eight-year-old child
to proclaim this difficulty: “Complexity is a complexity that
is very complex.” However, a vague understanding of com-
plexity hampers the scientifically serious approach of the
subject (Casti, 1994).
Originally, the term complex stems from the Latin cum
(together, linked) and plexus (braided, plaited). The Oxford
dictionary defines complexity as “consisting of parts” and
“intricate, not easily analyzed or disentangled.” Simon
(1962) argued that “in [complex] systems the whole is more
than the sum of the parts, not in an ultimate, metaphysical
sense but in the important pragmatic sense that, given the
properties of the parts and the laws of interaction, it is not a
trivial matter to infer the properties of the whole.” (Further
definitions can be found in Stüttgen, 1999, p.18.)
Apart from such a “definition,” complexity is usually
characterized by, among others: a large number of elements
(Patzak, 1982) or variables (Ashby, 1957); heterogeneity of
these elements and the variety of these relationships (Ashby,
1957; Klir, 1991; Simon, 1982; among others); variety of
goals, perspectives, cultures, etc.; difficulty (Frame, 2002);
uncertainty (Williams, 2002); dynamism (Kallinikos, 1998;
Patzak, 1982); uniqueness (Klir, 1991); lack of clarity
(Reither, 1997), or low degree of definition of goal, scope,
and methods (Crawford, 2005).
Other authors avoid the description of systems and
“define” a complex system by its behavior, such as non-lin-
earity, emergence, positive feedback loops, self-regulation,
emergence, irreversibility, unpredictability (Cramer, 1988;
Coveney & Highfield, 1996; Luhmann, 2005; Perrow, 1999;
among others).
The explicit study of complexity in projects is relatively
new. Payne (1995) defined complexity when analyzing the
multiple interfaces of projects. Baccarini (1996) explicitly
addressed the complexity of projects as organizational and
technological complexities. Similarly to Rapoport and
Horvath (1986) and Kallinikos (1998), Williams (2002)
distinguished two complexities: the randomness (or uncer-
tainty) and the structural complexity. Shenhar and Dvir
(1996) indirectly approached this subject when proposing
the typology of projects based on technological uncertainty
and system scope, as the higher the technological uncertain-
ty and the higher the system scope are, the more significant
are the randomness and structural complexity, respectively.
In the study on project manager leadership, Turner and
Müller (2006) asked seven project managers to define the
characteristics defining complexity in projects. The most
mentioned ones were size of project, number of depart-
ments involved, number and type of stakeholders, location,
and form of contract.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Some authors offer management solutions for either
one or the other type of complexity. For example, Austin,
Newton, Steele, and Waskett (2002) studied the structural
complexity, and proposed the ADePT (analytical design
plan technique), which is based on the sequential applica-
tion of the design process model, information dependence
table, dependency structure matrix analysis, and project and
discipline design programs (schedule). The group at
INSEAD focused on the management of uncertainty in proj-
ects. Pitch, Loch, and De Meyer (2003) proposed three main
strategies for a project to deal with uncertainties: learning,
instructionism, and selectionism and related them with the
management systems (planning, coordination and incen-
tives, and controlling). Sommer and Loch (2004) deepened
the analysis of how learning and selectionism strategies
function and their consequences in terms of costs and flexi-
bility. Macheridis and Nilsson (2004) allied these two com-
plexities with the project dimensions and constraints.
The literature on complexity in projects widely accepts
grouping complexity into structural complexity and uncer-
tainty, and proposes management models for these two dif-
ferent situations. This paper rehearses the projects and their
complexity and rethinks the grouping widely used in the lit-
erature. This reflection builds the foundations of the pattern
of complexity.
Pattern of Complexity
The next sections will review and further elaborate the con-
cept of pattern of complexity. While exploring the concepts,
the hypotheses to be tested in the empirical work are raised.
The pattern of complexity is the minimum manageable
context of complexities within a project. This is defined
similarly to the concept of complexity used here: the pat-
tern of complexity is built up of an interrelated and dynam-
ic set of characteristics of complexities. The main idea is
that the management of complexity should take into
account not only singular characteristics of complexity, but
rather its pattern.
On one hand, the holistic management of complex sit-
uations is relevant, but on the other it is impossible to con-
sider all characteristics of complexity: first, the “ontological
complexity” is not analyzable (adapted from Granger,
1974). When confronted with complex situations, individu-
als perceive only part of these m sets of characteristics.
Moreover, each individual embedded in a certain context is
deemed to perceive complexity differently and rate it differ-
ently (Jaafari, 2003). Consequently, both the set of charac-
teristics and the intensity of these characteristics are
dynamic and constructed (e.g., Malik, 2003). Second, and
more pragmatically, project managers have to act and make
decisions under high time pressures and stress (Aitken &
Crawford, 2006). Consequently, they do not have either the
time or the energy to extensively reflect about daily complex
situations. Thus, the ontological set of characteristics
impacting/forming complexity cannot be determined, and
the set of relevant characteristics and their impact on the
project is only potentially determinable post factum (even if
33
still subjectively). Thus, the ideal pattern of complexity can-
not be determined. However, it is predicted that experienced
project managers will rate some characteristics (Hypothesis 8)
or groups (Hypothesis 0) as being more intense than others.
Thus, based on the previous experience of the authors
and the literature on projects and complexity, the paper pro-
poses a limited set of 10 characteristics derived from three
types of complexity (Ginzburg, 1989). By this means, the pat-
tern of complexity offers a management horizon between the
impossible holistic management and the isolated manage-
ment of each complexity characteristic. These types of com-
plexity and characteristics are explored in the next section.
Although the characteristics are predefined, the interrela-
tionship between them is left completely open. The interrela-
tionship of these characteristics modifies the intensity of the
pattern of complexity in nonlinear forms, as “complex sys-
tems can produce, in constant conditions, more complex
Figure 1: Complexity of faith vs. complexity of fact
forms of behaviour than can the simple” (Ashby, 1957,
p. 48). Studies in complexity imply that the “function” corre-
lating these characteristics varies according to the context, and
can be hardly anticipated (Luhmann, 2005, Perrow, 1999;
Simon, 1982; among others). Moreover, even with a limited
number of characteristics of complexities, the number of pos-
sible alternatives (combinations and intensities) is too high
and empirically hardly analyzable or pragmatically applica-
ble. Thus, the interrelation of characteristics is to be analyzed
by the agent facing complex situations.
It is important to stress that the pattern of complexity is
not intended to model or explain complexity. Moreover, it
does not have the ambition to be a perpetual solution, as it is
taken for granted that ontological and perceived complexity is
historically dynamic.
The aim of this concept is to support project managers to
reflect pragmatically, but still “holistically,” about complexity
in projects and about how they could act in order to positive-
ly navigate complex situations. This model can be also used in
research to scientifically identify a set of characteristics typi-
cally present in complex situations in projects. As argued by
Gell-Mann (1996), one concept of complexity only is not
enough to explain our perceptions and interaction with this
phenomenon, and clustering aspects of complexity is helpful
to appraise the subject, and consequently enables a “genuine
science” of complexity (Casti, 1994).
Thus, the model does not intend to offer “solutions,”
but rather approaches to appraise complexity.
Consequently, the pattern of complexity does not kill com-
plexity, nor reduce it, but rather encourages thinking and
acting and learning in complex situations (Geraldi, work
in progress).
Unfolding Complexity
The “typology” of project complexity proposed here draws
upon the widely accepted model in the literature: uncer-
tainty and structural complexity. As discussed in Geraldi
(2006), these concepts are expanded here to the concepts of
complexity of faith and complexity of fact, respectively.
Complexity of faith is related to, for example, uncertainty,
34 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
creativity, dynamism, and flexibility, while complexity of
fact refers to, for example, interdependence and concurren-
cy, constraints, and quantity of information. Figure 1 illus-
trates these types of complexities.
Furthermore, a third type of complexity is proposed, the
complexity of interaction. The next sections discuss these con-
cepts and portray the hypotheses posed for the empirical study.
Complexity of Faith
Complexity of faith refers to the complexity involved in cre-
ating something unique, solving new problems, or dealing
with high uncertainty. Tasks executed by functions such as
sales and research and development are typical examples of
high concentrations of this type of complexity. The tasks
comprising this kind of complexity are vague and cannot be
solved with “off-the-peg” solutions, with predefined proce-
dures or answers. Thus, one will be trying different
approaches, and learning by doing; consequently, first
attempts tend to have to be modified and the scope will
constantly change. Hence, rework should be not only
acceptable but even expected.
A situation characterized by such complexity has a very
large horizon of possibilities (Bakhtin as cited in Geraldi,
1991), in other words, there are only few constraints, and
many options, and hence, many decisions have to be made.
However, one does not have enough information to decide
which of the large range of possibilities the most adequate
option is. Actually, in extreme cases of complexity of faith,
the situation is still so undefined that there are no more
appropriated options, as the “success” will rather depend on
what the team makes out of the decisions, and how the envi-
ronment changes in time than the decisions themselves.
As the tasks and their possibilities of execution are still
open, people dealing with such complexities have an insuffi-
cient amount of factual information available; consequently,
one has to trust prognosis and intuition to decide what is to
be done, how to do it, how much it will cost, how long it will
take, etc.—hence, the term complexity of faith. Therefore,
complexity of faith is not characterized by insufficient time
to analyze a great amount of information, but rather by the
lack of factual information to be analyzed, and, thus, the
necessity to create possibilities and solutions.
Nevertheless, time is a relevant constraint. There is not
enough time to create and test many possibilities, and the
longer it takes to make decisions, the higher the probabili-
ty of missing the opportunity behind the decision. Time or
timing plays a relevant role as well, not to analyze a great
amount of information, but to create and test new possi-
bilities. Thus, complexity of faith decreases in the course of
the project (Hypothesis 1).
The concentration of this type of complexity depends
on previous know-how 1 about the activity to be executed.
The perception of the possibilities and the ability to local-
ize information supporting a certain activity vary according
to the organizational and individual competences. Thus,
the lower the previous experience with a certain problem,
the fuzzier the horizon of possibilities and consequently,
and the higher the complexity of faith (Hypothesis 2).
In situations characterized by complexity of faith, the
organization should be flexible and management should
be based on principle and faith; that is, one does not know
that it will work, but has faith in it, or at least “cynically”
pretends to have faith. Thus, more than uncertainty, such
situations rely on the faith on the success of a project. The
idea of optimism and leadership of project managers are
the closest attitudes to those of a priest, as would be the
case in extreme cases of complexity of faith.
In extremely turbulent situations such as project crises,
where every stakeholder doubts the feasibility (Barnes,
2006) or success of the project (or even considers its revo-
cation) (Laufer & Hoffman 2000), neither optimism nor
uncertainty is enough to describe the complexity of the
project; faith is needed; i.e., faith represents the extreme sit-
uation characterizing this type of complexity.
Consequently, project managers will act as priests, convinc-
ing the team and stakeholders to have faith in the project.
This faith can be cynical; i.e., one does not have to strongly
and blindly believe in the project, but rather to act as if one
does, and be very convincing in wearing this “mask.”
Typical examples of extreme positions of complexity of
faith are absolute religious opinions, or the self-sacrificing
behavior of soldiers in hopeless situations. These examples
are very extreme, and we are not arguing that project man-
agers should lead their team and sacrifice themselves for
the project, but it is usually necessary to create an environ-
ment of faith, as the team knows that the project will never
get further than the plans without this positive behavior
toward the success of the project awarded by faith.2 Thus,
complexity of faith tends to be intensified in crises
(Hypothesis 3).
In order to characterize this group of complexity, the
authors chose three characteristics: dynamic, customization,
and level of immaturity. Although the latter tends to be con-
stant, the first two characteristics vary according to location and
time. These characteristics will be explored in the next section.
1 The know-how being referred to here does not refer to the retention of “competences” that barriers
creativity and the ability to understand the singularities of the task, which leads to stagnation of the system.
2 The concept of faith and control is to be explored in further publications.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Complexity of Fact
In contrast to complexity of faith, complexity of fact refers to
the complexity in dealing with a huge amount of interde-
pendent information. Here, the employees do not have
enough time to collect, analyze, and internalize informa-
tion, and have to make decisions and act without properly
understanding every piece of information necessary. The
challenge here is to keep a holistic view of the problem and
not to get lost in the immense amount of details. However,
as these details represent work to execute and constraints to
consider, someone has to think about them. Thus, locations
with such complexity demand delegation and this is often
supported by computer-aided instruments. In such an envi-
ronment, mistakes are almost inevitable, but they are very
expensive, and, hence, should be avoided. Such complexity
is particularly present while managing the production, pro-
curement, and logistics of a project. Thus, complexity of fact
tends to increase in the course of the project (Hypothesis 4).
When the complexity of fact is too high, the possibili-
ties and interrelations become so fuzzy that, if not well
assisted by adequate tools and competences, the system will
have similar characteristics as would be the case in high con-
centrations of complexity of faith. The concentrations in the
region up to the border of becoming complexity of faith rep-
resent the coexistence of both types of complexity. Thus, the
characteristics comprising the complexity of fact up to a cer-
tain level induce a higher concentration of the characteris-
tics comprising the complexity of faith.
Thus, when complexity of faith and fact coexist, the
characteristics of the complexity of faith tend to be per-
ceived more intensely (Hypothesis 5).
This group of complexity will be characterized by the
number of sources, their interdependency, and the size of
the order. Just as in the complexity of faith, the first two
characteristics vary in time and location, whereas the last
one remains constant.
Complexity of Interaction
Apart from these groups, one can identify another relevant
subgroup of complexity that influences both the complexity
of faith and fact. This subgroup of complexity is usually
present in interfaces between locations, such as politics,
ambiguity, multiculturality, etc. This will be termed com-
plexity of interaction. A high complexity of interaction can
be signalized, for example, by a high number of e-mails,
phone calls, meetings, and misunderstandings. This com-
plexity will be characterized by transparency, multiplicity of
reference, and empathy (these characteristics will be
explored in the next section).
The complexity of interaction emerges between two or
more locations. If a plant engineering company considers the
project as a location (on a large scale), the main interactions
would be with the client, the company’s organization itself,
the partners, and the environment and institutions (i.e., gov-
ernment, banks, etc.). At each of these interactions, one will
find different intensities of transparency, multi-reference,
35
and empathy. The same is true for small scales, e.g., a depart-
ment and its interactions with other departments or compa-
nies. However, the complexity of interaction is also to be
found inside a location, and not only at its interaction. For
example, a department itself has certain transparency, multi-
reference, and empathy intensities. Thus, complexity of
interaction is present throughout the project, but tends to
increase its complexity in the course of the project
(Hypothesis 6).
Moreover, the intensity of complexity of interaction
tends to grow in critical project situations, as the active gov-
ernance of projects, especially in crises, demands interaction
with different actors (Hypothesis 7). This hypothesis is sup-
ported by Harvey (2005). This author empirically indicated
an increasing amount of data exchange by e-mail (in kilo-
bytes) near deadlines or when issues were threatening the
project. However, Harvey focused on the quantitative meas-
urable data. This paper looks at the variations of the inten-
sity of complexity of interaction based on the perception of
the project manager, so that it embraces all other types of
communication means that were not included in the analy-
sis provided by Harvey.
Characteristics of Complexity
Figure 2 indicates the resulting set of characteristics used
here to unravel complexity, and how they are correlated with
the groups of complexity previously mentioned. The
“amplitude of responsibility” was the only item not explic-
itly mentioned in the next section as belonging to one of the
complexities. This is because this characteristics can be influ-
enced by the previous experience of the company with the
particular scope (set of responsibilities), and the type of
scope, e.g., feasibility, supply, turnkey, BOT, etc. Geraldi and
Adlbrecht (2006a) discussed these characteristics in detail.
The characteristics suggested to unravel complexity do
not vary a great deal from the characteristics discussed in the
Figure 2: Correlation between groups and characteristics of complexity
36 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
literature. The authors decided to disregard “difficulty” as a
characteristic as it is too broad of a term that is already cov-
ered by other characteristics, such as “uniqueness” and
“dynamics.” Moreover, “uncertainty” is represented by
“dynamics” and “uniqueness/customization,” as “uncer-
tainty” is again too broad and less homogenously interpret-
ed in project-driven organizations than “dynamics” and
“uniqueness/customization.” The characteristic “variety” is
again considered within “uniqueness/customization.” Apart
from these characteristics, the authors added the character-
istics of the complexity of interaction, which were not men-
tioned in the set of papers used from the literature.
The authors did not predict the characteristics that
would be perceived as most important. On the contrary, it is
believed that, even though they tend to follow the trends
previously mentioned, their importance changes from proj-
ect to project (Hypothesis 8).
Translating Characteristics to the Project
Management Environment
In order to “assess” the complexity of projects, the authors
“translated” the broadly defined characteristics to terms well
accepted in the environment of project managers. This trans-
lation was intended to reduce misunderstandings in the
assessment of complexity, and increase the project orienta-
tion of the characteristics. Table 1 shows this translation.
As one can see in the table, some of the characteristics
were already very well defined, such as in the case of the size
of the project, whereas others were more specified, such as
the dynamics into change orders (dynamics during the proj-
ect), and variations and options (during the tendering and
engineering phase).
Empirical Study
This set of characteristics proposed to define the complexity
of projects was checked by means of a multiple-choice ques-
tionnaire with eight project managers of different facilities of
a Multi-National Plant Engineering Company. All project
managers had at least five years of experience in projects and
were finishing their certificate in the internal project academy
of the company. Thus, Hypothesis 2 could not be tested; this
is to be realized in future research.
The projects analyzed were either large rebuilds (three
projects) or new machines (four projects). The variation of
complexity according to the type of the project will be dis-
cussed in a future paper, with a larger and more heteroge-
neous sample.
In the questionnaire, the project managers were asked to
evaluate the complexity of their current project as high (+1),
medium (0), and low (-1) for three different phases: engi-
neering; procurement, production, and assembly; and logis-
tics, assembly on site and ramp up. Thus, this study focused
on the execution phase of the project. The authors are cur-
rently carrying out further studies on complexity analyzing
both the sales and execution phase.
In order to verify if this questionnaire gave a good inter-
pretation of the complexity of the projects, the authors also

Table 1: Translating characteristics to the project management field
carried out semistructured interviews following the multiple-
choice questionnaire with these eight project managers.
The hypotheses posed in the last section are summarized
in Table 2. Hypotheses 3 and 7, analyzing the perceived com-
plexity in crises, are to be analyzed with greater detail and
supported by further empirical research, and consequently,
will be tested and discussed in future papers.
Analysis of Results
The results regard the complexity perceived by the project
managers in their current projects. According to the results
of the last question, the projects in the sample were consid-
ered to be not especially more or less complex than the proj-
ects usually undertaken by the company.
Intensities of Faith, Fact, and Interaction
Figures 3 and 4 display the intensity of complexity of fact,
faith, and interface during the course of the project on aver-
age and the total intensity of the pattern of complexity in
each project, respectively.
High-Low-Medium Trend
Figure 3 indicates that the intensities of all three groups of
complexity develop in similar patterns, starting with higher
intensities in the engineering phase; this intensity subse-
quently drops during the production and procurement phase,
and increases again in the phases on site.
Figure 4 indicates that the different project managers
rated their projects with different absolute intensities, even if
all projects except one (project 5) were rated as equally com-
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
plex with respect to other projects. The different absolute val-
ues were not related to the type of project, i.e., there was no
significant different between rebuilds and new machines. This
implies that project managers tend to perceive complexity dif-
ferently. However, the results regarding project 5 lead to dif-
ferent hypotheses. Project 5 was in its very beginning, and was
considered the most complex project. The project rated all
characteristics as very high, achieving almost the maximum
value for intensity of complexity possible in the survey. This
result implies that very complex projects are indeed rated
highly. This result also implies that, in the beginning of the
project, projects are understood as more complex than proj-
ects that are more advanced or almost finished. Thus, the sur-
vey will be repeated using a Likert scale and with a greater
sample with different projects and different generically per-
ceived levels of complexity in order to, first, check the rela-
tionship between project perceived complexity and the
intensity of the pattern of complexity, and second, to assess
how the expected intensity of complexity varies in the course
of the project. Another interesting study is to relate the per-
ception of complexity and the experience of the project man-
ager and the company with the type of the project.
However, even if the absolute intensities were different
from project manager to project manager, all projects fol-
lowed similar trends. In projects 2, 3, and 8, the intensity
of complexity dropped slightly in the end phase. In proj-
ects 4, 6, and 7, the complexity in the last phases of the
project was clearly higher than in the procurement and
production phases, and in project 7 it was even higher
than in the first phase.
Coexistence of Complexities of Faith, Fact, and Interaction
Figure 3 indicates that, in contrast to that which was fore-
cast in Hypotheses 1 and 4, the intensity of complexity of
faith does not continually sink, while complexity of fact
continually grows in the course of a project. The discussions
next will elucidate the reasons for such behavior.
Table 2: Hypotheses
37
 This behavior has consequences for the necessary com-
petences of project managers. As briefly previously men-
tioned, each complexity demands a different type of
management and manager competence.
Intensity of Interaction is Higher Than Fact
That is Higher Than Faith
Figure 3 also indicates that the complexity of interaction is per-
ceived to have the greater intensity in all phases of the project,
followed by the complexity of fact and complexity of faith, in
this order, confirming Hypothesis 0. Thus, the results imply
that the complexity of interaction is the most relevant type of
complexity for project managers. This implies that the heart of
the project management function lies indeed in the interaction.
Hence, Hypothesis 6 was only partly supported. The com-
plexity of interaction was indeed present in all phases of the
Figure 3: Pattern of complexities variation in the course of the project
Figure 4: Pattern of complexity per project
38 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
project, but its intensity did not grow, but rather decreased, in
the production and procurement phases, and grew again on
site, but still did not reach the high intensity of the beginning
of the project.
Moreover, Hypothesis 5 was not confirmed, as the com-
plexity of faith was lower than that of fact in all phases of the
project. This could be interpreted in two forms: first, the
complexity of faith does not “blind” complexity of faith,
denying the prepositions of Hypothesis 5. A second alterna-
tive interpretation is that the projects analyzed did not have
enough complexity of faith that the latter would affect the
perception of the complexity of fact. The indices of the inter-
views point to the second interpretation: the first reason for
this interpretation is that the projects were not rated as espe-
cially complex. The second reason is that aspects at the very
beginning of the project—feasibility and sales, when the
complexity of faith is to be the highest—were not (struc-
turally) empirically tested. Thus, the probability of a first
phase of the project containing a higher complexity of faith
than complexity of fact is high.
Overall Drop of Intensity of Complexity in the Procurement Phase
This drop of complexity in the second part of the project
implies that either the project managers in the company
interviewed are not very much involved in the production
and procurement phase, and, consequently, do not perceive
the complexity of this phase, or, due to the lower uncer-
tainty related to the procurement and production tasks, the
overall perceived complexity is lower.
The Highest Intensity of Complexity was at the Beginning of
the Project
Even though the complexities grows in the third phase of
the project, the complexity during engineering is still per-
ceived by project managers as being more intensive. This
enforces the importance and complexity of the first phas-
es of the project.
The high complexities of faith and interaction were
rather expected, but the high complexity of fact was not. A
possible explanation for this was obtained in the inter-
views. Although undesired, the client and perhaps the
engineering consultancy are actively involved during the
engineering phase. It is in this phase that “open options”
are defined, some new features are demanded from the
machine, and some relevant inputs from the client are
necessary, such as the configurations of parts of the con-
tract that he or she is responsible for, detailed documents
of the current machine (in the case of rebuilds), etc.
Moreover, the first documents are delivered to the client
in this phase, granting the right for the first payments.
Thus, the project manager is responsible for the coordina-
tion of the engineering activities, and for securing the
delivery of documents on time. This means that the proj-
ect manager coordinates various departments and compa-
nies responsible for the different parts of the machinery.
This leads to a high perception of complexity of fact right
from the beginning of the project.
Overall Increased Intensity of Complexity on Site
The involvement of client and consultancy are also high
during the phases on site. The client is usually present on
site and usually controls the work of the plant engineer-
ing company more carefully. Moreover, as the company
studied does not undertake turnkey projects (according
to the results of question 2), the client and plant engi-
neering company have a higher number of physical and
schedule interfaces to deal with on site. The results of the
semistructured interviews indicate that the “work on site”
is characterized by high time pressure and stress. This
enlightens the higher complexity of interaction in this
phase (about 250% higher than the mean complexity of
fact and faith), and, consequently, the demand for soft
skills. Lastly, according to the open interviews, this phase
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
is labeled by unique and unpredictable issues that need
to be solved. This explains the reason for the growth of
complexity of faith.
This higher interaction with the client is absent during
the production and procurement phases. Even though
there are still change orders emerging during this phase,
the interface is not as frequent or intensive. The produc-
tion and procurement networks are managed by the pro-
duction and procurement managers who only report to the
project manager in the case of delays or changes in the
budget. Consequently, the perception of the project man-
ager of the complexity inherent in the production and pro-
curement phase tends to be lower. Further empirical
research involving employees dedicated to this phase is
necessary in order to reconnoiter the characteristics of
complexity of this phase.
Characteristics of Complexity
Table 3 shows the resulting ranking of the different charac-
teristics of complexity in three different phases of the project.
• Hypothesis 8 was confirmed, as even if the general rating
of complexity of faith, fact, and interaction was consistent,
the characteristics of the projects vary a lot from phase to
phase. Some examples follow:
• On average, the most important trigger of complexity, peo-
ple, was not rated as the most important factor by any of
the phases.
• As could have been expected, the variations and open
options were the most relevant characteristics of complex-
ity in the engineering phase, but were rated low in the
other phases.
However, some results are consistent:
• The most relevant aspects of phase b and phase c are in the
top four most relevant triggers of complexity in all phases.
• Except for the most relevant trigger, the other top five trig-
gers of complexity in phase a were considered as in the top
six of the phases b and c.
• The least important factor, company politics, was very con-
sistent, and this shows that this element is not relevant to
this company.
The importance of complexity of interaction was con-
firmed when analyzing the characteristics of complexity.
Indeed, the four most pertinent triggers of complexity were
people, internationality, multidisciplinarity, and client (in
this order).
Some results regarding each of the characteristics of
complexity were inconsistent, i.e., the results of the open
questionnaire were not in agreement with those of the struc-
tured multiple-choice interview. In the semistructured inter-
view, “low maturity level” was considered very relevant for
the engineering phase, as low maturity usually implies more
risks, more time, and possible delays. However, in the struc-
tured multiple-choice questionnaire, the low level of matu-
rity was considered the fifth least relevant trigger of
complexity for these projects.
39
Table 3: Ranking of the characteristics of complexity according to their intensities
The results imply that the intensity of new partners, new
technology, new processes, and even the low level of matu-
rity vary greatly from project to project, which might indi-
cate an inconsistent result. However, one can observe the
trend of decreasing intensity of these characteristics as the
project develops, as the uniqueness of processes, and part-
ners and technology diminishes as one learns and reduces
uniqueness during the execution of the project. This was
also confirmed in the interviews.
The results do not show any relation between the type
of project, the facility where the project is being undertaken,
and the intensities of complexity. The authors intend to fur-
ther investigate this potential correlation in different com-
panies in this sector.
Revising the Configurations of the Pattern of Complexity
This section questions the set of characteristics used in the
empirical research and subsequently discusses the methods
for appraisal of complexity in companies.
Some of the characteristics used were not sufficiently
defined. The “multi-reference” complexity should also take
into account the different standards, as these were men-
tioned as relevant in the non-structured interviews. The
complexity regarding “people” and “client” should be sub-
40 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
divided into “transparency,” “empathy,” and “multi-refer-
ence.” The subdivision “technological” and “commercial”
should be clarified, as the difference between commercial
and technological complexity was evaluated as important
for managing the pattern of complexity in the open semi-
structured interviews.
Moreover, apart from the three groups of complexity,
the authors felt the need to address characteristics of the
project separately. The type of project triggers the groups of
complexity, for example, the larger the size of the project,
the larger is the complexity of fact. However, in contrast to
the other groups of complexities, the type of project does
not vary according to the location and time, and, conse-
quently, these should be addressed separately. Table 4 shows
the result of this adaptation.
As far as the methodology is concerned, this study indi-
cated that the open questions are essential for understand-
ing the impacts and reasons for a certain pattern of
complexity. Thus, a combination of structured question-
naires and semi-structured interviews is shown to be an
appropriate approach. However, the use of the question-
naire in isolation can potentially be used to rate variation of
complexity in projects. Further studies are being carried out
to confirm this hypothesis.
Table 4: Revised pattern of complexity

M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L 41
Conclusion
This study further explores the concept of patterns of com-
plexity, the minimal manageable “space” of complexity. The
paper suggests and tests a method for assessing the percep-
tion of complexity in projects anchored with the concept of
pattern of complexity.
The pattern of complexity is formed from 10 character-
istics, which belong to three main types of complexity: faith,
fact, and interaction. Complexity of faith refers to uncertain
situations, complexity of fact is related to the structural com-
plexity, and the complexity of interaction concerns the com-
plexity of the relationship (from intercultural
communication to technical interfaces).
The pattern of complexity was assessed by eight project
managers in a plant engineering company. The empirical
study showed the following:
• Complexity of faith, fact, and interaction develop in simi-
lar patterns, namely starting very high, falling in the pro-
duction/procurement phase, and growing again in the end
phase (but still staying clearly lower than in the beginning
of the project).
• The complexity of interaction was more intense than that
of fact, which was more intense than that of faith.
• People, internationality, multidisciplinarity, and clients
were the most important triggers of complexity.
The association of semistructured interviews with ques-
tionnaires enabled a better comprehension of the problems
associated with managing complexity. However, the pattern
of complexity in itself has the potential to be a good indica-
tor of the level of complexity in a project.
Further quantitative research will be realized, first, to
check statistically the results obtained in this study and, sec-
ond, to confirm if the correlation between the patterns of
complexity is related to the overall opinion of project man-
agers about the overall complexity of their projects, i.e., type
of projects. Another ongoing study is the study of the corre-
lation between the pattern of complexity and the compe-
tences of the project manager. The authors are also working
on a framework proposing the synchronization of the com-
plexity of projects and the flexibility of the organization.
Moreover, a further paper is being developed on further
applications of the pattern of complexity as a tool integrat-
ing pragmatic, holistic, and reflective approaches to support
project managers to navigate their projects in the ocean of
complexity.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank the company and the interviewees for the
opportunity to undertake the research and for the interest-
ing discussions.
References
Aitken, A., & Crawford, C. (2006). Coping with stress.
Dispositional coping strategies of project managers.
Proceedings of IRNOP VII Project Research Conference, Xi’an,
China.
42 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Ashby, W. R. (1957). An introduction to cybernetics.
London: Chapman & Hall Ltd. Second Impression.
Austin, S., Newton, A., Steele, J., & Waskett, P. (2002).
Modelling and managing project complexity. International
Journal of Project Management, 20, 191–198.
Baccarini, David. (1996). The concept of project com-
plexity—A review. International Journal of Project
Management, 14(4), 201–204.
Bakhtin, N. (2003). Estética da criação verbal (P. Bezerra,
Trans. 4 ed.). São Paulo: Martins Fontes.
Barnes, M. (2006, October). Project management in
uncertainty—An integrated approach. Keynote speech at the
20th IPMA World Congress, Shanghai, China.
Casti, J. L. (1994). Complexification. Abacus Press.
Coveney, P., & Highfield, R. (1996). Frontiers of complex-
ity: The search for order in a chaotic world. Farber and Farber.
Cramer, F. (1988). Chaos und ordnung: Die komplexe
struktur des lebendigen. Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. Stuttgart.
Crawford, L. (2005). Senior management perceptions
of project management competence. International Journal of
Project Management, 23(1), 7–16.
Frame, J. Davidson. (2002). The new project management.
New York: Wiley & Sons.
Gell-Mann, M. (1996). Das Quark und der Jaguar. Vom
Einfachen zum Komplexen. Die Suche nach einer neuen
Erklärung der Welt. Piper. München.
Geraldi, J. (work in progress). Complexity and compe-
tence of project manager: Aligning pragmatic, holistic and
reflective approaches for realistic management of projects.
Geraldi, J. G. (2006, October). Patterns of complexity: The
thermometer of complexity. 20th IPMA World Congress on
Project Management, Shanghai, China.
Geraldi, J. G., & Adlbrecht, G. (2006a). Unravelling com-
plexities in engineering projects. EuroMOT 2006, 10–12
September, Birmingham, UK.
Geraldi, J. G., & Adlbrecht, G. (2006b). Synchronising
projects and competences: An empirical study conducted within
the German plant engineering industry. IRNOP, October, 2006,
Xi’an, China.
Geraldi, J. G., & Harvey, R. J. (2006, September). Project
management as company’s core competence. In M. J.
Gregory & Y. Shi (Eds.), 11th Annual Cambridge International
Manufacturing Symposium Proceedings, Cambridge, UK.
Geraldi, J. W. (1991). Portos de passagem. São Paulo:
Martins Fontes.
Ginzburg, C. (1989). Sinais: Raizes de um paradigma
indiciário. Mitos, Problemas e Sinais. Sao Paulo, Cia de Letras,
pp. 143–179.
Granger, G. G. (1974). Filosofia do estilo (S. A. Marton,
Trans.). São Paulo: Perspectiva.
Harvey, R. J. (2005). Data traffic as an indicator of proj-
ect progress: Earned information. 6. Praxisorientierter
Anwendertag zum Projektmanagement. VDI, Hamburg.
Jaafari, A. (2003). Project management in the age of
complexity and change. Project Management Journal, 34(4),
47–57.
Kallinikos, J. (1998, Aug.). Organized complexity:
Posthumanist remarks on the technologizing of intelligence.
Organization, 5, 371–396.
Klir, G. J. (Ed.). (1991). The facets of system science.
International Federation for Systems Research (Ed.) International
Series on System Science and Engineering. Plenum Press.
Laufer, A., & Hoffman, E. J. (2000). Project management
success stories: Lessons of project leaders. New York: Wiley.
Luhmann, N. (2005). Komplexität. Soziologische
Aufklärung, 3rd edition (1st Edition: 1970).
Macheridis, N., & Nilsson, C. (2004). Managing project
complexity—A managerial view. Working Paper Series. Lund
Institute of Economic Research.
Malik, F. (2003). Strategie des Managements komplexer
Systeme. Ein Beitrag zur Management-Kybernetik evolu-
tionärer Systeme. Haupt Verlag AG.
Morin, E. (2000). A Epistemologia da Complexidade. In
E. Morin & J.-L. Le Moigne (Eds.), A inteligência da complexi-
dade. Translation: Falci, N. M. Editora Fundacao Peirópolis,
2nd edition.
Patzak, G. (1982). Systemtechnik—Planung komplexer
innovativer Systeme: Grundlage, Methoden, Techniken.
Springer-Verlag.
Payne, J. H. (1995). Management of multiple simulta-
neous projects: A state-of-the-art review. International Journal
of Project Management, 13(3), 163–168.
Perrow, C. (1999). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk
technologies. Princeton University Press (First published by
Basic Books, 1984).
Pich, M. T., Loch, C. H., & De Meyer, A. (2002). On
uncertainty, ambiguity and complexity in project manage-
ment. Management Science 48(8), 1008–1023.
Rapoport, A., & Horvath, W. J. (1986). General system
theory. Abacus Press.
Reither, F. (1997). Komplexitätsmanagement: Denken
und Handeln in komplexen Situationen. Gerling Akademie
Verlag.
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (1996). Towards a typological
theory of project management. Research Policy, 25(4),
607–632.
Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity.
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6),
467–482.
Sommer, S. C., & Loch, C. H. (2004). Selectionism and
learning in projects with complexity and unforeseeable
uncertainty. Management Science, 50(10), 1334–1347.
Stüttgen, M. (1999). Strategien der
Komplexitätsbewältigung in Unternehmen. Ein trans-
diziplinäre Bezugsrahmen. Haupt.
Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2006, May). Matching the
project manager’s leadership style to project type. Proceedings
of the European Academy of Management, EURAM 2006
Conference, Oslo, Norway.
The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. (1993).
Volume 1. First Edition: 1933. Clarendorn Press, Oxford.
Williams, T. (2002). Modelling complex projects.
Chichester: Wiley.

JOANA G. GERALDI studied industrial engineering at the Federal University of São Carlos, Brazil. After a year of practical
experience in the IT Industry, she commenced her PhD at the Chair for International Project Management at the University
of Siegen, Germany. The dissertation studies the dynamics associated in the integration of heterogeneous organizational
units in projects and multiproject environments. The main topics of her research include edge of chaos, complexity,
flexibility, interfaces and competences in project-oriented companies, especially in the German Plant engineering sector.
She also acts as a management consultant for organizational design and project management and lectures project
management, computer-aided project management and soft skills at the University of Siegen.

GERALD ADLBRECHT completed his doctorate in mechanical engineering at the Technical University of Vienna. He currently
holds the Chair for International Project Management at the University of Siegen, Germany, is a visiting professor at the
University of Aston, U.K. and works as consultant in the Plant Engineering Branch, especially for strategic organizational
design and development of project management as core competence. He worked for 15 years as an engineering
consultant, responsible for several large projects mainly in the Middle East and Europe. His research interests are, among
others, project management competence, internationalization, organizational design of project-oriented companies, and
earned value.

M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L 43
APPLYING TRAITS THEORY OF
LEADERSHIP TO PROJECT MANAGEMENT
DEAN R. GEHRING, PMP, Kennecott Utah Copper

Introduction
ABSTRACT ignificant work as been completed by Sheldon (1942), Stogdill (1948),

This research investigates the validity of

the traits theory of leadership applied to
project management and determines how
it correlates to core project management
competencies. Previous published work
on traits theory of leadership primarily
deals with organizational leadership, and
not specifically with project leadership.
Consequentially, although the previous
work is useful in providing a good basis for
this paper, additional research is required
for application in the field of project man-
agement. The necessary data was gath-
ered via researching modern literature on
project leadership and through question-
naires sent to project managers with vary-
ing levels of project management
experience. The questionnaire was
designed to evaluate the individual’s
assessment of what core competencies a
project manager should possess. In addi-
tion to the questionnaire, an online per-
sonality assessment was used to
determine the participants’ Meyers-Briggs
(MBTI) personality type. The results of the
literature research and the returned ques-
tionnaires clearly indicate that certain
MBTI types have preferences that support
project leadership, specifically, ISTJ, INFJ,
INTJ, ENTP, ESTJ, ENFJ, and ENTJ, with INTJ,
ESTJ, and ENTJ being the types containing
the most traits that supported project
leadership competencies.
Keywords: leadership; traits; competencies;
personality
S Jennings (1960), Lester (1974), and Bass (1981) in studying of traits the-
ory of leadership as it applies to general management. It is generally rec-
ognized that the traits theory or “great man” theory, as it is sometimes known,
is not an effective method for determining the successful characteristics of a
leader. However, this author could not find any documentation of this theory
being applied specifically to project management. Therefore, this study was
directed at determining if project leadership required a core set of traits (or
competencies), and if so, if is possible to determine the personality type pref-
erences toward these traits through the use of a Meyers-Briggs personality type
indicator (MBTI). This study focuses on literature written by experts in the field
of project management in addition to a questionnaire being distributed to proj-
ect managers that included a self-assessment of their project management abil-
ities, an assessment of what they believed a successful project manager should
have, and a personality assessment to determine their personality type. The
results of these questionnaires were examined for clear patterns that indicated
distinct common traits.
This study has four distinct parts to evaluate the application of the traits the-
ory of leadership to project management. First, a standard of project leadership
competencies was established. Second, the standard was validated by modern
project leadership publications. Third, the validated competencies were com-
pared to MBTI personality descriptions to determine which personality types
supported these competencies. Finally, the personality types that supported
project leadership competencies were validated with further literature study and
a questionnaire.
The questionnaire was e-mailed to project managers worldwide. The project
managers were members of professional project management organizations
including the Project Management Institute, the Association for Project
Management, and a number of universities. Fifty-three project managers
responded from Australia, Canada, Cuba, England, Germany, Scotland,
Singapore, South Africa, and the United States.

©2007 by the Project Management Institute

Vol. 38, No. 1, 44-54, ISSN 8756-9728/03

44 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Leadership Theory Review
The science of management has been
studied for many years. Only in rela-
tively recent times has similar effort
been applied specifically to leadership.
As with most human studies, the sci-
ence of leadership does not have uni-
versal constants that can be measured,
dissected, and evaluated; therefore,
many aspects of leadership still remain
theoretical, difficult to implement and
the subject of debate.
Much of current work on leader-
ship relates to leadership as a subset of
management. Furthermore, a vast
majority of management and leader-
ship studies have been conducted in
corporate and general management
environments, and are often not
applied specifically to project situa-
tions. Although project management
uses many general management skills
such as, defining problems, planning
work, allocating resources, and con-
trolling tasks, these skills by them-
selves are not sufficient to control all
the complex elements associated with
management of personnel on a proj-
ect. Very simply, if you cannot get peo-
ple to use their skills appropriately,
they are of little use to the project. This
means you have to exercise leadership
(Lewis, 2001).
Projects have three basic character-
istics that create challenging leadership
situations. First, projects by their nature
are temporary endeavors and do not
provide a long timeline for continuous
leadership improvement—the project
group is assembled to focus on the goals
and objectives of the project, and not
leadership development. Second, proj-
ect managers are often placed as leaders
in a matrix organization, where the indi-
vidual members of the project team
report directly to a functional manager,
and are either temporarily assigned to
the project, or spend only part of their
time working on the project. In this sec-
ond situation, the project manager has
ultimate responsibility for the outcome
of the project, yet does not have direct
authority over the project team mem-
bers. Therefore, strong project leadership
is critical, as many of the personnel
management control tools are simply
not available. Finally, projects often
bring groups of people together
unknown to each other and the newly
formed group usually includes special-
ists motivated by the work itself and
their individual contributions.
Unfortunately, as Forsberg, Mooz,
and Cotterman (2000) noted, “Teams
of highly skilled technicians often
make costly errors simply because the
members fail to understand or follow a
disciplined, systematic approach to
project management.” Additionally,
the ad-hoc nature of project team for-
mation requires leadership skills not
often exercised by process or function-
al managers. However, when consider-
ing general leadership theories such as
path-goal, transformation, and behav-
ioral in light of project leadership, the
inherent flaw to these theories is that
they assume the project manager has
the necessary skills or competencies to
effectively use the theories. This sug-
gests that possibly the first, or most
important, leadership theory would be
to apply traits theory to project man-
agement, and select project managers
that possess the required traits to effec-
tively lead a project. A skilled project
manager should have the ability to
apply various approaches to project
leadership as required. As Pinto,
Thoms, Trailer, Palmer, and Govekar
(1998) noted, “Any project manager’s
ability to lead effectively is augmented
by his understanding of alternative
approaches to leadership.”
The traits theory is possibly the
first recorded theory of leadership. In
ancient times, scholars attempted to
capture the essence of great leaders,
particularly those characteristics, or
traits, that distinguished them from
their followers. Typically, traits were
viewed as personal characteristics of a
leader, such as intelligence, values, and
appearance. It was commonly believed
that leaders must possess superior abil-
ities that enabled them to effectively
control and influence their followers.
History is abound with examples
of societies that attribute leadership
ability to genetic traits that can be
passed through bloodlines of royal
families. One early example is found
through the ancient Egyptians, who
attributed three qualities of divinity to
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
their king: authority, discrimination,
and justice (Frankfort, Wilson, &
Jacobsen, 1949). Concepts similar to
this general idea of the “superior indi-
vidual” are what resulted in the idea of
the “great man” theory. In discussing
the great man theory, Wrightsman
(1977) noted, “A sudden act by a great
man could, according to this theory,
change the fate of the nation.”
Furthermore, in discussing leadership,
Jennings (1960) asserted that modern
(the 1960 view of modern) leadership
theory is based on the great man theo-
ry, and went on to argue that the great
man theory may have also had a time
dependant component, where the
individual had the right traits for that
point in history, sometimes called,
“the man of the hour” theory.
The great man theory began to
evolve as a formal leadership theory in
the early 1900s as social scientists start-
ed looking more closely at the traits of
these “great men.” These further and
more detailed studies lead to the term
“trait theory of leadership.” Essentially,
the traits theory of leadership expands
further on the concept of the great man
theory, by focusing on the personal
characteristics of the leader. During
this time leadership was largely mod-
eled after leaders that had a significant
impact on history, such as Frederick
the Great, Napoleon, Mussolini,
Churchill, Roosevelt, and Ford.
The study of leadership traits had
significant momentum in the early
1900s. In Stogdill and Bass’ (1981)
research, they identified that early the-
orists that attributed desired personali-
ty traits to effective leadership.
Furthermore, Jennings’ (1960)
research noted that by 1940 a summa-
rized list of 79 leadership traits had
been developed from approximately
20 leadership trait studies.
Many social scientists in the first
half of the 20th century spent consid-
erable effort attempting to discover
correlations between personal traits of
powerful leaders and the distinguish-
ing traits between leaders and follow-
ers. Unfortunately, later work
(including those by Adler & Rodman
[1991], Mullins [1999], Daft & Marcic
[1995], and Bryce, Gehring, & Jex
45
[2002]) indicated that these studies fell
short in two primary areas. First, it was
realized that none of the various stud-
ies attempting to identify common
personality, or physical and metal
characteristics of different or successful
leaders, were successful. Second, it was
also recognized that none of the stud-
ies were even successful at identifying
leaders from non-leaders.
In discussing the specific limitations
of the traits theory of leadership Mullins
(1999) noted two limitations:
• First, there is bound to be some sub-
jective judgment in determining who
is regarded as a “good” or “success-
ful” leader.
• Second, the lists of possible traits
tend to be very long and there is not
always agreement on the most
important.
When the traits theory of leader-
ship was unable to produce a unified
list of key traits, theorists started look-
ing elsewhere for their answers. It was
becoming more apparent that many
people, both leaders and non-leaders,
possessed similar traits. Additionally,
simply possessing a list of traits did
not guarantee leadership success.
Theorists were concluding that many
factors played into determining suc-
cessful leaders, including the specific
leadership situation. Varying situations
would require a different pattern of
traits, and the dynamic nature of lead-
ership meant that leadership could not
simply be a matter of passively pos-
sessing a combination of traits, but
result from a working relationship
among members of a group.
By the late 20th century, social sci-
entists gave little mention to the traits
theory, and typically only in terms of
why it was not a useful theory. Most
theorists agreed that there was not a
significant correlation between the
long list of traits and successful lead-
ers, or traits that could clearly distin-
guish leaders from followers. The
theory was abandoned, and replaced
by modern theories, which looked at
behaviors of the leader, and not the
traits they possessed.
By most accounts, the traits theory
of leadership is nothing more than a
46
stepping-stone in the pathway of lead-
ership study, and does not serve any
practical application. However, as
Jennings (1960) noted, in the midst of
the many trait studies, some correla-
tions were found, such as successful
executive’s desire for increased respon-
sibility and strong feelings of satisfac-
tion from completion of a task. He
also listed four possible reasons that
resulted in studies not finding a uni-
versal trait of leadership.
1. The studies were often limited to
school and college populations.
2. The experimental studies were dis-
tinctly unequal in merit and were
not properly controlled.
3. The studies were based on the pre-
vailing notion of leaders.
4. Rarely were undesirable traits included.
Jennings (1960) also noted that the
research data was confusing and even
the researchers of the time failed to
agree. Unfortunately, even when some
traits were found with predictive power,
most leadership researchers had already
abandoned the concept of leadership
traits (Boje, 2003).
The limitations and minor success-
es of the traits theory of leadership sug-
gest that in a targeted application, such
as project management, it may be possi-
ble to identify traits of successful project
leaders. Stogdill and Bass (1981) sup-
ported this when noting, “If the leader is
endowed with superior qualities that
differentiate him from his followers, it
should be possible to identify these
qualities.” This concept was further sup-
ported by comparing Stogdill’s traits sur-
veys that he conducted in 1948 and then
again in 1970. With respect to task-relat-
ed characteristics he found that both
surveys indicated that leaders are charac-
terized by a high need for achievement
and responsibility. They also exhibited a
high degree of task orientation and are
responsible and dependable in pursuit
of objectives. The predictive traits that
Stogdill noted could be applied in a
more focus leadership discipline, like
project management.
Project Leadership Traits
As noted earlier, the study of the traits
theory of leadership focused on the
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
personal traits such as intelligence, task
orientation, and flexibility. Similarly,
recent project management literature,
including Lewis (2001), Pettersen
(1991), and Whitten (1996), discusses
specific traits, skills, and competencies
required for successful project leader-
ship. To ensure consistency of terms,
the Oxford Dictionary (1998) is refer-
enced to establish a baseline as follows:
• Trait (n) — A distinguishing feature
or characteristic
• Characteristic (n) — Typically; dis-
tinctive, a characteristic feature or
quality
• Competence (n) — Ability; the stage
of being competent
• Competent (adj.) — Properly quali-
fied or skilled; adequately capable
• Attribute (n) — A quality ascribed to
a person or thing, a characteristic
quality
Unfortunately, these terms are
often used in inconsistent ways in proj-
ect management and leadership text.
For example when referring to “flexibil-
ity,” Bass (1981) and Pettersen (1991)
used “leadership trait,” Pinto et al.
(1998) used “leadership style,” Walker
and Peterson (1999) used “leadership
attribute,” and the Project Manager
Competency Development (PMCD)
Framework (PMI, 2002) used “leader-
ship competency.” The definition of
project manager competence is further
expanded by Crawford (1997) who
noted that “competence is generally
accepted as a term that encompasses
knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behav-
iours that are causally related to superi-
or job performance.” Additionally, in
his article, “Project Managers as Leaders:
Competencies of Top Performers,”
Gadeken (2000) noted, “Competencies
may include motives, traits, aptitudes,
knowledge, or skills.” Therefore, for the
purposes of this study, modern project
leadership publications were
researched to identify the traits, compe-
tency, characteristic, attributes, or skills
that are considered necessary for suc-
cessful project management. In this
work, similar to Gadeken’s definition,
these terms are referred to as competen-
cies, unless they are specifically refer-
enced otherwise.
 After thorough research, this
author believes that the Project
Management Institute’s (2002) PMCD
Framework is the most comprehensive
text defining project management
competencies. This is further support
by Zeitoun (2003) who noted, “The
industry competency standard set by
the Project Management Institute in
the PMCD Framework is a great mile-
stone in the direction of enhancing the
leadership attributes needed in project
managers of the future.” Therefore, for
the purposes of this study, the compe-
tencies listed in the PMCD Framework
will provide the baseline list of compe-
tencies required for project success.
It must be noted that although
competence can be defined as having
the required behaviors, knowledge, and
minimum skill necessary to perform
satisfactorily, it does not mean that the
individual will have excellent project
performance. The Project Management
Institute (2002) agrees that a “compe-
tent” project manager alone does not
guarantee project success. Project suc-
cess requires project management com-
petence, as well as organizational
project management maturity and
capability. Consequently, it is possible
to have a competent project manager
working within an immature organiza-
tion, which could result in an unsuc-
cessful project, or vice versa.
The PMCD Framework defines
project success as the extent to which
“the project is carried out as planned
in terms of objectives, time and finan-
cial constraints, and organizational
policy and procedures.” As noted earli-
er, project management competency
does not guarantee project success;
however, it is an important element.
Crawford (2000) presented a
review and analysis of research-based
literature concerning the criteria by
which project success is judged; the
factors that contribute to the success of
projects; and the knowledge, skills, and
personal attributes of project managers
that lead to achievement of successful
project outcomes. Her research clearly
demonstrates agreement that the com-
petence, or knowledge, skills, and
attributes, of the project manager are
critical to project success. Walker and
Peterson (1999) agreed, “There is a set
of attributes or characteristics pos-
sessed by leaders—that is possessed by
those that have the best chance of
becoming excellent project leaders.”
The PMCD Framework identifies
competency is three primary areas:
• Knowledge—What an individual
knows about project management
• Performance—What an individual is
able to accomplish while applying
knowledge
• Personal—How an individual behaves
when performing the activity; his or
her attitudes and core personality
traits.
For this study, the personal com-
petencies are used as the comprehen-
sive list of significant competencies
required for project success. To validate
this list, a study of modern project
leadership work, as well as question-
naire responses from project managers,
is reviewed to verify agreement, which
is presented later.
The PMCD Framework presents
personal competencies that are consid-
ered to best represent the personal
characteristics required of a competent
project manager in any nature or type
of project. They were derived from the
Competency Dictionary (known as the
Spencer model) developed by Spencer
(1993). The personal competencies in
the PMCD Framework are organized
into six units of competence represent-
ing groupings of distinguishing com-
petencies. These are as follows:
• Achievement and action
• Helping and human service
• Impact and influence
• Managerial
• Cognitive
• Personal effectiveness.
Within each unit, competencies
relating to similar actions or behavior
are grouped together to form the com-
petency clusters. Each competency
cluster is broken down into one or
more elements reflecting the level of
autonomy, drive, or urgency displayed,
related to the competency. For this
study, the competency cluster is used
as the final level of detail for trait com-
parison in other project leadership
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
publications. The elements within
each cluster provide a level of detail
that does not add value to this study.
The summary of the competency
unit, competency cluster (project lead-
ership trait) is found in Table 1.
To validate the PMCD Framework
competencies, work in project manage-
ment (published after 1990) was
reviewed and searched for statements
that supported the requirement for the
PMCD Framework competency and by
evaluating the questionnaire responses
of currently practicing project man-
agers (which is discussed later). Ten
publications on project leadership
were identified and used for this
research. The publications were
reviewed to determine what competen-
cies the authors identified as critical for
project success as compared to those
given in the PMCD Framework. The
research indicated that an insignificant
number of competencies were identi-
fied outside of the PMCD Framework
and therefore were not considered in
this study. A sampling of the validation
process is presented next and arranged
by unit of competence.
Achievement and Action
Pinto et al. (1998) supported achieve-
ment orientation by noting that,
“Effective leaders are task driven. They
understand that their number-one
priority is to complete the project.”
Helping and Human Service
Graham and Englund (1997) sup-
ported the customer service orienta-
tion competency cluster within the
helping and human services compe-
tency unit by stating a key character-
istic of a successful project manager is
to “… have [a] client-customer orien-
tation. Customer expectations and
problems continually change, so the
better the project manager under-
stands the customer situation, the
better chance that the final product
will solve customer problems.”
Impact and Influence
In listing project management compe-
tencies, Gadeken (2000) supported
the influence and relation-building
competency clusters within the impact
47
Table 1: Competency descriptions

48 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
and influence competency unit by
stating that “the best project managers
thrive on relationships and influence.”
Managerial
In Lewis’ (1997) book, Team-Based
Project Management, he supported the
teamwork competency cluster within the
managerial competency unit by noting
that team leadership is a key trait suc-
cessful project managers must possess.
Cognitive
Pettersen (1991) identified a list of pre-
dictors for identifying successful proj-
ect managers. Among those, he
supported the analytical thinking com-
petency cluster within the cogitative
competency unit by identifying that
“problem analysis” is a key predictor.
Personal Effectiveness
In his article in PM Network, Whitten
(1996) supported the self-confidence
Table 2: Competency clusters mentioned in recent project management literature
competency cluster within the person-
al effectiveness competency unit by
stating that a key attribute of a success-
ful project manager is the “ability to
believe in yourself.”
The summary of the review of
writing on modern project leadership
is presented in Table 2.
A percent agreement is calculated
based on the number of sources that
agree with the PMCD Framework com-
petency cluster and listed on the bot-
tom row. For example, conceptual
thinking had nine sources that agreed
with the PMCD Framework, for a per-
cent agreement of (9 sources + PMCD
Framework) / (11 total sources) = 91%.
This contrasts to developing others,
which was only listed in the PMCD
Framework, resulting in an agreement
score of 1/11 or 9%.
It is obvious from this analysis that
the authors that were reviewed did
address or support all the competencies
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
identified in the PMCD Framework. This
level of support, or percent agreement, is
then used to determine which competen-
cy clusters are significant for trait analysis.
Although somewhat subjective,
and in attempts to limit the study
scope, only those competency clusters
with a 45% agreement or greater are
considered as significant for effective
project leadership and include:
achievement orientation, concern for
order, initiative, information seeking,
interpersonal understanding, impact
and influence, organizational aware-
ness, teamwork and cooperation, team
leadership, analytical thinking, con-
ceptual thinking, flexibility, and orga-
nizational commitment.
Project Leadership Competency and Traits
It is generally recognized that person-
ality traits should lead to, or support
competencies, and that competencies
for project management have unique
49
qualities that differ from general man-
agement competencies. Pettersen
(1991) contends that, “It seems to be
accepted in the field that project man-
agers, who evolve within a context
made more difficult by the variety and
complexity of its activities, need to
develop skill different from those of
their colleagues in functional manage-
ment. Consequently, it becomes
extremely important for the organiza-
tion to take these particular require-
ments into account when selecting a
manager who will be able to bring his
or her projects to a successful conclu-
sion.” Additionally, Walker and
Peterson (1999) go on to say, “In order
to create a mutually successful corpo-
rate environment, it is important to
create an environment for success by
putting people into positions to suc-
ceed. Not everyone is destined to
become a project leader, any more
than everyone is destined to become
the CEO.”
As discussed earlier, having a spe-
cific personality trait does not neces-
sarily guarantee the development of a
leadership competency, or project suc-
cess. However, as Pettersen (1991)
asserted, “Personality may be defined
by a set of affective traits, which are
propensities to react in a certain way to
a given situation or stimulus.”
Furthermore, Lewis (2001) stated it
more simply, “When you have a strong
preference for something, you tend to
do it over and over, and in the process,
become good at it.”
When discussing project manage-
ment selection, Walker and Peterson
(1999) noted that for most organiza-
tions, the most natural thing to do is to
draft a technician or administrator
with a good reputation within the
organization to lead the project.
Because of this natural technical pro-
gression, most people become project
managers by accident. The term “acci-
dental project manager” is further
defined by Lewis (2001) who said,
“Accidental project managers are peo-
ple who have projects thrust upon
them, when they don’t fully under-
stand the role.” Walker and Peterson
(1999) also said that, “In many cases,
only with blind luck does an organiza-
50
tion get a person having the right apti-
tudes into project management.”
Accidental project managers typi-
cally have strong skills for understand-
ing the technical aspects of the project.
However, the technical part of a project
is often the smallest and easiest part
(Graham & Englund, 1997). The lead-
ership aspect of projects is the area of
skill that may be lacking for many
project managers. Furthermore, Pinto
et al. (1998) argued, “Project manage-
ment is a leader-intensive undertaking,
meaning that, for it to be successful,
project management requires the
efforts of individuals willing to engage
in the numerous and diverse activities
needed to promote project success.”
For projects and project managers to
be successful, it is imperative to recog-
nize that the skill set of project man-
agers is different from the skills
exercised in other professional disci-
plines (Graham & Englund, 1997).
Therefore, to increase the probability
of project management success, it is
important that the project manager
understand the leadership competen-
cies that are required, and what per-
sonality traits he or she has the
complements, or competes, with these
competencies.
Application of Meyers-Briggs
Type Indicator
Katharine Briggs and Isabel Meyers
developed the Meyers-Briggs type indi-
cator (MBTI). They based the indicator
on the work of Jung who studied
behaviors for many years (Hirsh &
Kummerow, 1990). Other MBTI instru-
ments have been developed, including
the Kersey sorter, and the Jung typolo-
gy test (JTT), which have been
designed to determine an individual’s
personality type, as defined by the
work of Meyers and Briggs. The MBTI is
commonly used in organizations
around the world to help people better
understand their personality type.
Furthermore, the MBTI is a tool that
helps people in organizations by
assisting in career choice and profes-
sional development, and understand-
ing and adapting to differences in
management style (Hirsh &
Kummerow). There are eight basic
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
preferences that are used to describe a
personality type, which includes:
Extraversion (E) Introversion (I)
Sensing (S) Intuition (N)
Thinking (T) Feeling (F)
Judgment (J) Perception (P)
These eight basic preferences com-
bine to define 16 personality types as
depicted in Figure 1.
The 16 base personality types
have different preferences that can be
considered as strengths and opportu-
nities as defined by Isachsen and
Berens (1988). These sets of prefer-
ences are compared to the validated
project leadership competencies dis-
cussed earlier to identify which per-
sonality types have preferences that
align with project leadership compe-
tencies. For example according to
Isachsen and Berens, the personality
type ISTJ is noted as having a strength
of being “organized” and “careful”
with a task description of being “task
oriented.” Additionally, they value
“responsibility, tradition, and accura-
cy.” The combination of these traits
support and aligns with the compe-
tency cluster concern for order, which is
defined in the PMCD Framework as “an
underlying drive to reduce uncertainty
in the surrounding environment.”
Therefore, the ISTJ personality type
has a preference for achievement ori-
entation. This contrasts to an ISTP per-
sonality type that, according to
Isachsen and Berens, has a strength of
being “spontaneous” and to function
best they need “variety.” Additionally,
they value “flexibility, challenge, and
Figure 1: Meyers-Briggs type indicator matrix
Table 3: Meyers-Briggs type indicator versus project leadership competencies
adventure.” Therefore, this personality
type does not have a preference for
concern for order.
Each MBTI personality type was
analyzed against the competencies list-
ed in the validated competency cluster
similar to the ISTJ and ISTP in the pre-
vious example. An “X” in the matrix
indicates when an MBTI has a charac-
teristic supports a project competency,
which is shown in Table 3.
No one personality type is a per-
fect match for all the competencies
listed. Arguably, one would have to
be superhuman to possess all the
traits identified in the matrix.
Although every type possessed at
least three competencies, it is clear
that some personality types possess
more than others and have many
more personality preferences that
align with the project leadership
competencies. For the purposes of
this study, seven personality types
(with a ranking of 6 or higher) are
considered to have a strong prefer-
ence, and therefore a natural prefer-
ence that supports competency for
project leadership, they are: ISTJ,
INFJ, INTJ, ENTP, ESTJ, ENFJ, and
ENTJ. These types plot as follows in Figure 2: MBTI personality types with project
the four-by-four matrix in Figure 2. leadership traits
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L 51
Table 4: Derived from Lewis (2002) comparison of Meyers-Briggs personality types versus project management phase
The results of the correlation
between the MBTI and the validated
competency matrix are further validated
by comparing to the work of Lewis
(2002) in his book, Project Leadership.
Lewis identifies which MBTI types would
be best suited for various phases of a
project, recognizing that not all types are
naturally suited for each project phase.
Table 4 correlates the phases of project
management as referenced by Lewis
(2002), definition, strategy, planning, exe-
cution, and control, to the personality type
that is best suited to excel in that phase.
An “X” in the box in Table 4 indicates
that, according to Lewis (2002), the per-
sonality type would have a natural pref-
erence for the corresponding phase of
project management. The MBTI types
that were identified as having a prefer-
ence for project management, as identi-
fied in the validated competency
matrix, are highlighted in the top row of
Table 4. The personality types that Lewis
(2002) argued have the strongest all-
around preference for project manage-
ment are highlighted on the bottom
row of Table 4.
When evaluating the strongest
personality types for project leader-
ship, those with a score of three or
greater, it is obvious that there is a
strong correlation between Lewis’
(2002) suggested strengths by type
and the work presented in this study.
Table 5 presents a summary of the cor-
relation between Lewis’ work and the
1 Note, this test was not validated and is subject to various biases, including but not limited to, anticipation of a “correct”
response, given the line of questioning in the questionnaire, gender and cultural variability.
52
types identified in the validated com-
petency matrix.
To further validate the traits
required for effective project leader-
ship, a targeted questionnaire was e-
mailed to various project managers
worldwide. The purpose of the ques-
tionnaire was to determine what
attributes of project management were
considered important to the individ-
ual taking the questionnaire, evaluat-
ed by his or her self-assessment of his
or her abilities, as well as what he or
she thought an expert project manager
would possess. Additionally, an online
personality test was administered to
see if there were any predominate per-
sonality types that were attracted to
project management.
Fifty-three people responded to
the questionnaire. The questionnaire
respondents that completed the
online JTT included the following
range of personality types: ISTJ, INFJ,
INTJ, ENFP, ESFJ, ENFJ, and ENTJ. The
numbers in Figure 3 indicate the num-
ber of people that responded that had
that specific personality type1.
The dark gray shaded boxes (ISTJ,
INFJ, INTJ, ENFJ, and ENTJ) are the
types respondents reported that
matched those identified by the vali-
dated competency matrix. Forty-six
out of 50 respondents (92%) that
took the JTT matched one of the per-
sonality types that were identified by
the validated competency matrix. The
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
lighter gray boxes (ENFP and ESFJ)
represent respondents that fell out-
side of the natural project leadership
types. The remaining light gray boxes
(ESTJ and ENTP) are types that are
identified in this study as being strong
natural project leaders, but did not
have any respondents that matched
these types. Overall this assessment
indicates a very strong correlation and
supports the types identified by the
validated competency matrix.
In addition to taking the online
JTT, the questionnaire respondents
also provided data for five key pri-
mary areas of project management,
including definition, planning,
implementation, control, and clo-
sure. In summary, it appears that
there is general agreement among the
respondents that the project areas of
Figure 3: Meyers-Briggs personality types with
project leadership traits identified by Lewis
(2002) and the validated competency matrix

Table 5: Comparison of Lewis (2002) and
validated competency matrix
definition, planning, control, and
closure require a management style
that places considerable emphasis in
these areas. The emphasis on these
areas correlate well with those dis-
cussed by Lewis (2002), specifically,
definition, strategy, planning, execu-
tion, and control.
Summary of Study Results
As Crawford (2000) noted, a specific
set of competencies are required to
ensure successful project manage-
ment. These competencies were fur-
ther detailed in the PMCD Framework
(PMI, 2002), where specific compe-
tencies clusters and units of compe-
tency were defined for project
managers in three competency areas:
knowledge, performance, and person-
al. A majority of these competencies
were validated through research of
project management literature, and
assembled in this study as the validat-
ed competency matrix and are
assumed to represent those specific
competencies that are required by
most project managers, in most proj-
ect situations.
The competencies required for
effective project leadership can be sup-
ported by certain personality traits.
Lewis (2001) noted, “When you have a
strong preference for something, you
tend to do it over and over, and in the
process, become good at it.”
Therefore, MBTI was used to identify
which MBTI types would have a pref-
erence for those traits that would sup-
port project leadership competencies.
The results were validated through
comparison to Lewis’ (2002) publica-
tion, and via questionnaire responses
of 53 project managers, and indicated
that the following MBTI types had
preferences that would support project
leadership: ISTJ, INFJ, INTJ, ENTP,
ESTJ, ENFJ, and ENTJ, with INTJ, ESTJ,
and ENTJ being the types containing
the most traits that supported project
leadership competencies.
The results clearly indicate that
there is an agreed-upon set of leader-
ship traits that, if possessed by the
project manager, improve the chance
of project success. Additionally, there
are tools, such as the MBTI instru-
ment that can be used in selecting
project leaders that have a natural
propensity for these traits. However,
simply having the predisposition for
project leadership does not mean a
project manager excels in all areas.
As many authors (Logue, 2003; Pinto
et al., 1998; Walker & Peterson,
1999) have discussed, it is possible
for project managers to develop their
leadership styles by understanding
their preferred methods for running
projects, and realizing that effective
leadership is critical in supporting
project success. Additionally, organi-
zations have an obligation to select
the best project managers, where
project leaders should be chosen
based on their leadership ability, as
well as for their technical expertise.
Furthermore, Walker and Peterson
(1999) go on to say:
“There is a set of characteristics
and a base set of skills that are neces-
sary in an individual if he is to
become a leader and not merely a
manager. The organization needs to
take a very difficult stand: not all the
people having an interest in project
management should be developed in
that direction. Rather, only those peo-
ple having the characteristics and base
skills should be trained/mentored.”
However, there is an ethical
dilemma as Daniel Robinson, director
of Graduate Education in the
Department of Educational
Leadership/Policy Studies at Iowa
State University and president of the
Association for Psychological Type,
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
says, “Part of the ethics of using the
MBTI is that it should not be used to
exclude. It should be used as part of
a battery of tests, and the results
should belong to the individual.”
Although it could be very tempting
for organizations to use the MBTI
instrument to exclude personality
types that do not fit the project
leadership mould, it would be dam-
aging to the intent of the instru-
ment, and could eventually be
circumvented. As Logue (2003)
pointed out, “People aren’t going to
answer questions honestly if they
believe it will be used against them.
Most test-takers can probably figure
out which questions measure intro-
version/extroversion.”
Conclusion
MBTI can be used by project managers
to help them better understand how
their personality type either supports,
or opposes, the traits required for
effective project leadership. This infor-
mation can be used by the individual
to develop training programs, and to
help them assess their “natural” fit in
project leadership. Organizations can
use this tool to help project managers
in a similar way; however, it should
not be used as an anonymous means
for excluding people from project
management roles.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank all
the professionals dedicated to the
advancement of project manage-
ment, specifically those who devoted
the time to research and publish
material that formed much of the
basis of this research. The author
would also like to thank those proj-
ect professionals who took the time
to complete and return the question-
naire that provided valuable valida-
tion to this work. Without the
generosity of Dr. Simon Kerbel, who
allowed the use of the online JTT,
obtaining critical personality type
information for questionnaire
respondents would not have been
possible, and Dr. Steven Yule,
University of Aberdeen, for his
advice and encouragement.
53
References
Adler, R. B., & Rodman, G. (1991).
Understanding human communication.
Fort Worth, TX: Holt Rhinehart &
Winston.
Bass, B. (1981). Stogdill’s handbook
of leadership. New York: Free Press.
Boje, D. (2003). Traits: The jour-
ney from will to power to will to serve.
http://cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboe/teach-
ing/338/traits.htm, University of New
Mexico.
Bryce, R., Gehring, D., & Jex, L.
(2002). Leadership—Why is the dia-
logue below the level of implementa-
tion. Paper for University of Aberdeen
MSc Project Management – EG5533.
Crawford, L. (1997). A global
approach to project management com-
petence. Proceedings of the 14th World
Congress on Project Management (pp.
10–21). Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Crawford, L. (2000). Profiling the
competent project manager. Proceedings
of the Project Management Institute
Research Conference.
Daft, R., & Marcic, D. (1995).
Understanding management, 2nd ed.
(pp. 423–424). Fort Worth, TX: The
Dryden Press.
Forsberg, K., Mooz, H., &
Cotterman, H. (2000). Visualizing proj-
ect management, 2nd ed. New York: John
Wiley & Sons Inc.
Frankfort, H., Wilson, J., &
Jacobsen, T. (1949). Before philosophy.
Baltimore: Penguin Books.
Gadeken, O. (2000). What the
Defense Systems Management College
has learned from ten years of project
DEAN R. GEHRING, PMP, PE, is the general manager of resource development for Kennecott Utah Copper, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Rio Tinto. He has his BS degree in mining engineering and MSc in project management.
54
leadership research. Proceedings of PMI
Research Conference 2000.
Graham, R., & Englund, R. (1997).
Creating an environment for successful
projects. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Hirsh, S. K., & Kummerow, J. M.
(1990). Introduction to type in organiza-
tions, second ed. Mountain View, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Isachsen, O., & Berens, L. (1988).
Working together, A personality-centered
approach to management. San Juan
Capistrano, CA: Institute for
Management Development.
Jennings, E. (1960). An anatomy of
leadership—Princes, heroes and supermen.
New York: Harper & Brothers.
Lester, D. (1974). A physiological
basis for personality traits—A new theory
of personality. Charles C. Thomas,
Publisher.
Lewis, J. (1997). Team-based project
management. New York: AMACOM.
Lewis, J. (2001). Project planning,
scheduling and control, 3rd ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Lewis, J. (2002). Project leadership.
New York: McGraw Hill.
Logue, A. (2003, Feb.). Perform,
lead, win. Successful project managers
consider soft skills from the start and
plan for smooth, efficient team interac-
tion. PM Network.
Mullins, L. (1999). Management
and organizational behavior, 5th ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Oxford Dictionary of English.
(1998). Oxford England: Oxford
University Press.
Pettersen, N. (1991). Selecting proj-
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
ect managers: An integrated list of predic-
tors. Project Management Journal, 22(2).
Pinto, J., Thoms, P., Trailer, J.,
Palmer, T., & Govekar, M. (1998).
Project leadership, from theory to practice.
Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Project Management Institute.
(2002). Project manager competency
development framework. Newtown
Square, PA: Project Management
Institute.
Sheldon, W. (1942). The varieties of
temperament; A psychology of constitution-
al differences. New York: Harper.
Spenser, L. (1993). Competence at
work: Models for superior performance.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Stogdill, R. (1948). Personal factors
associated with leadership: A survey of
literature. Journal of Psychology, 25.
Stogdill, R., & Bass, B. (1981).
Stogdill’s handbook of leadership—A sur-
vey of theory and research. New York: The
Free Press; London: Collier Macmillan
Publishers.
Walker, C., & Peterson, A. Are you
are project manager/leader or just man-
aging projects? Proceedings of the 30th
Annual Project Management Institute
1999 Seminars & Symposium.
Whitten, N. (1996). Attributes of
the successful project leader. PM
Network, 29.
Wrightsman, L. S. (1977). Social
psychology, 2nd ed. Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Zeitoun, A. (2003). The leader side
of the project manager. PM Global
Congress – Europe Proceedings.
PROJECT CATEGORIZATION,
PRIORITIZATION, AND EXECUTION BASED
ON SIX SIGMA CONCEPT: A CASE STUDY
OF OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
ABSTRACT
As the business environment changes, a
key element needed for sustaining corpo-
rate success is the ability to respond
proactively through operational improve-
ment. Corporations are paying increased
attention toward improving their opera-
tional management practices (Brown &
Eisenhardt, 2000). In the last two decades,
Six Sigma methodology has evolved with
growing momentum, creating billions of
dollars of value innovations in various
industries. In this paper, a new framework
using the Six Sigma methodology is pre-
sented that can help companies to better
categorize potential projects in a system-
atic way. This framework maps potential
projects in terms of process capability and
controllability as its performance indica-
tors. The applicability of this new frame-
work is illustrated in a case study of
operational improvement program man-
agement at a Fortune 100 company.
Keywords: project management; six
sigma; operational improvement
©2007 by the Project Management Institute
Vol. 38, No. 1, 55-60, ISSN 8756-9728/03
JOO Y. JUNG, University of Texas – Pan American
SANG-GYU LIM, Samsung Economic Research Institute, Korea
Introduction
roject categorization and selection is a critical step in project manage-
P ment as the decisions made in this phase impact all subsequent project
activities. Due to the uncertainties associated with candidate projects in
early phases, choosing the “right” project is a challenging task. This paper
introduces a new framework for categorizing, selecting, and executing candi-
date projects based on the Six Sigma concept. This framework is developed
based on the process-positioning map of system capability and controllabili-
ty. This framework is unique in that it adopts a new quantitative measure of
system controllability by comparing the existing process controllability distri-
bution to a known distribution. Based on this framework where the binomial
distribution is used as the reference distribution, a new project categorization
method is presented. This process-map-based categorization enables project
selection and execution direction in a systematic way. The applicability of the
framework is illustrated in the case study of a customer satisfaction improve-
ment program.
Project Categorization and Selection
Project categorization is a procedure where all candidate projects are evaluat-
ed on a set of criteria and then classified into various groups. Appropriate
project categorization facilitates achievement of multiple organizational goals
(e.g., long term, short term, internal, external, tactical, strategic, etc.) and pre-
vents projects from competing with each other on inappropriate categories
(Meredith & Mantel, 2003). Unless projects are correctly categorized, it would
be difficult to compare projects; a project needs to be compared with others
that are in same category. Project selection is described as a process where an
optimum combination of candidate projects is selected for implementation
based on the parameters that are considered as the most critical. Projects are
selected and assigned with appropriate targets, resources, and schedules dur-
ing the project planning phase and updated throughout the execution phase
(Smith & Reinertsen, 1998). Due to the uncertainties associated with project
costs, schedules, and performances in the early phase of projects, selecting a
particular project out of a potential pool of projects is a difficult task. For the
same reason, choosing a portfolio of projects is an even more difficult task.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L 55
 As the key decision-makers evaluate
new project proposals, various parame-
ters are considered for categorization
and selection criteria (Klastorin, 2004),
such as the following:
• Consistency with organizational goal
and mission
• Contribution to strategic objectives
• Mix of long-term and short-term
projects
• Impact of cash flows over time
• Impact of resource loading over time.
Numerous computer-based proj-
ect-selection decision-support tech-
niques are available, which aid the
project selection procedures
(Meredith, Shafer, & Turban, 2002).
The downside of these techniques is
that key decision-makers may be reluc-
tant to use them, possibly due to the
following reasons (Cooper, 1993):
• Input data requirements are too
complicated
• Inadequate treatment of uncertainty
and risk
• Failure to recognize interrelation-
ships among projects.
Operational Improvement (OI) Projects
In the midst of a globally competitive
business environment, OI projects have
received an increasing amount of usage
as a means of sustaining corporate suc-
cess. OI projects deal with making
changes to the existing system seeking
performance improvements. OI proj-
ects range from “continuous improve-
ment” (CI) to “reengineering” projects
depending on their characteristics and
complexities. Reengineering projects
focus more on business process
improvement, seeking radical changes
from existing systems (Hamel, 2000).
Typical reengineering projects involve
radical performance improvement, top-
down-based decision processes, and
shorter implementation durations.
Reengineering projects target business
areas that can rapidly generate quanti-
tatively measurable value to the busi-
ness (Holland & Kumar, 1995). CI
projects seek incremental improve-
ments over the longer implementation
periods and direct outcomes may not
be quantitatively measurable (Choi,
1995). Implementations of OI projects
56
usually accompany changes that chal-
lenge the established norms of how
businesses are conducted (Zammuto &
O’Connor, 1992). Organizations have
seen that the OI project successes real-
ized at other organizations cannot be
replicated unless they are prepared to
accept undergo changes specific to their
organizations.
The Six Sigma Approach
Six Sigma is a methodology that
“solves the right problem in the right
way by looking at the big picture sur-
rounding processes” (Breyfogle, 2003;
Hoerl, 2004). This “big picture” helps
to discover if a process variation is due
to “common” or “assignable” causes.
Because these two distinct causes have
different origins for variations, they
require different treatments that need
to be driven by the “voice of the cus-
tomers” (Breyfogle, Cupello, &
Meadows, 2001).
The well-known approach to Six
Sigma projects is the define-measure-
analyze-improve-control (DMAIC)
methodology (Walleck, O’Halloran, &
Leader, 1991). In solving a specific
problem, the DMAIC roadmap is valu-
able in that key features of process out-
put variables are analyzed in a
systematic way (Eckes, 2001):
• Define: Select the area (variable) to
be improved and set a realistic goal
• Measure: Determine how to measure
(assess) the existing condition
• Analyze: Find the root cause of the
problem while eliminating the past
assumptions
• Improve: Implement corrective action
and modify the process
• Control: Employ and sustain
improvements by monitoring and
controlling.
This DMAIC roadmap is a cyclical
improvement model; as problem areas
are improved, new standards are set
and further improvements are pursued
in a continuous loop.
Project Controllability and Capability
In a typical project, numerous subsys-
tems merge to form a total system
(Meredith & Mantel, 2003). To
improve the total system performance
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
quality, each subsystem has to be ana-
lyzed and prioritized for improvement.
Process indicators can be mapped,
which will help categorize and priori-
tize which subsystem should be select-
ed for improvement first and how it
can be done. For a project that is made
up of many similar subsystems, such as
similar manufacturing facilities at vari-
ous geographic locations, it is not
unusual to experience variations in
performances. For example, stratifica-
tions such as labor rates and the age of
the plant may exist at various manu-
facturing plants of a company. Process
positioning with respect to these strat-
ifications can suggest the direction for
improving the process. If the main
weakness is in controllability, it is
important to identify the assignable
cause, which can be done using a mul-
tivariate chart. If the main weakness is
in process capability, process optimiza-
tion tools such as design of experi-
ments (DOE) can improve the process.
The appropriate statistical tool needs
to be selected based on the process
indicator for each project.
A particular project can be defined
and categorized by using two process
performance indicators: capability and
controllability. Normally, process capa-
bility cannot be adequately assessed
until sufficient statistical control has
been established for a process.
However, a less strict definition of
process capability can be used for the
purpose of project categorization. In
other words, a process capability for a
project can be defined as the ratio of
what the system has to perform to the
existing variation (e.g., contract
requirements to process variation). In
the same example, where the reference
distribution is a binomial distribution,
project process capability can be
defined as the average defective rate,
provided sufficient data is accumulated
and available. With the variable data
and specifications, Cp (process capabil-
ity index) and Cpk (adjusted process
capability index) represent the process
capability in which the statistical distri-
bution is normal. An alternative way to
assess the process capability can be
finding out the “sigma level” from the
accumulated data distribution. These
concepts of Cp, Cpk and sigma level are
well known and widely used in the
industry.
Typically, controllability is meas-
ured by using control charts where con-
trol limits (driven by the process itself)
are used as acceptable boundaries while
investigating for existence of any trend.
However, this is not a quantitative
method and the assessment is based on
a qualitative observation to verify if all
data points fall within limiting condi-
tions or to check for existence of any
undesirable trend. In order to quantify
the controllability of a process, the coef-
ficient of control can be determined,
which is defined as the ratio of a process
standard deviation to a reference stan-
dard deviation.
The reference standard deviation
can be defined by a known process data
distribution. For example, a binomial
distribution is commonly used for
describing defective rate. Then, the
coefficient of control can be redefined
as the ratio of the standard deviation of
the process data to the standard devia-
tion of the binomial distribution of:
where 2 is 1 the average defective rate
and is the average number of data
points sampled. The coefficient of con-
trol reflects how process variation is
managed within the control limits;
when more data points fall outside of
control limit, the coefficient of control
increases and it is more likely that the
process is out of control. The quantita-
tive assessment of “controllability” by
calculating the coefficient of control is
a new concept that enables the visuali-
zation of the total process.
Project Categorization
A candidate project can be categorized
using two indicators: system capability
and controllability, as shown in Figure 1.
This simplified version of four quadrant
categorization for illustration purposes
can be elaborated to include a greater ciency improvement projects and
number of categories. The horizontal implementation of 5S (workplace-
axis represents the process capability. housekeeping) projects are good
Arbitrary names of “poor” and “good” examples of projects in this category.
are used for illustration purposes. If the • Projects categorized into “cell B”: These
defective product rate was used as an projects require a substantial amount
indicator for process capability, smaller of change to the existing system.
values would be better. Process control- They can be categorized as “plat-
lability, which can be measured quali- form-in need of better controllabili-
tatively from the control chart, is ty” projects. The project scope does
represented in the vertical axis. Again, not exceed the organization’s current
arbitrary names of “poor” and “good” capability, but the existing processes
are used for the purpose of illustration. lack the desired controllability (con-
Typically, if the time data contains any sistency) required by these projects.
point outside of the three-sigma limits, Benchmarking and transferring the
then the process may have an assigna- best practice across an entire organi-
ble cause (Breyfogle et al., 2001). When zation is a good example of a project
a project’s controllability and capacity in this category.
are known or they can be estimated • Projects categorized into “cell C”: These
from previous, similar projects, the projects also require a substantial
project can be categorized using a amount of change to the existing sys-
process positioning map as illustrated tem. They can be categorized as a
in Figure 1. “platform-in need of better capabili-
• Projects categorized into “cell A”: These ty” project. Their project scope
projects require the least amount of exceeds the organization’s current
change to the existing system. They capability, but the existing processes
can be categorized as “derivative” meet the desired controllability
projects where the project scope required by these projects. Long-term,
requires only incremental change to “stretch goal”-based Six Sigma
the existing system offerings. The improvement projects are good exam-
project scope does not exceed the ples of projects in this category.
organization’s current capability. • Projects categorized into “cell D”:
Existing processes meet the desired These projects require the most
controllability required by these amount of change to the existing
projects. Continuous improvement system. They can be categorized as
projects such as shop-floor-line effi- “breakthrough” projects. Their
Cell “B” Cell “D”
Poor
Platform Breakthrough
System Controllability
Good
Cell “A” Cell “C”
Derivative Platform
Good Poor
System Capability
Figure 1: Six Sigma based project categorization and execution direction
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L 57
 project scope exceeds the organiza-
tion’s current capability and the
existing processes lack the desired
controllability required by these
projects. Projects that deal with com-
pletely new product/process devel-
opment and reengineering projects
(e.g., introduction of enterprise
resource planning [ERP]) are good
examples of projects in this category.
Project Prioritization
After all candidate projects are catego-
rized, they can be prioritized for selec-
tion. A project can only be compared
with other projects that are in the same
category (i.e., same cell in this exam-
ple). A project in one category cannot
be compared with projects in other cat-
egories; commonly used comparison
criteria, such as “amount of risk”
would obviously prefer a derivative
project over a breakthrough project. A
company might have an entirely differ-
ent preference for a breakthrough proj-
ect for long-term strategic reasons.
The goal is not only to select the
best project from each category, but
also to select the best portfolio of proj-
ects as a whole. Academicians and
practitioners have studied and applied
various project comparison methods
so that an optimum portfolio of proj-
ects can be selected (Henriksen &
Traynor, 2000). Some of more widely
used project prioritization methods are
economic analysis (e.g., net present
value [NPV], internal rate of return
[IRR], etc.), numerical scoring, Delphi
and Q-sort (Meredith & Mantel, 2003).
It is difficult to achieve a strategic
approach for overall improvement
without considering the overall distri-
bution of the project characteristics.
Project Execution
• Projects positioned in cell A: These
projects can be executed with the
least amount of difficulty. The cur-
rent system already has enough
process capability and process con-
trollability to handle these projects.
These projects are better understood
by the existing system and require
smaller improvements. They are well
suited for Kaizen effort (continuous
incremental process improvement)
58
and the statistical process control
(SPC) can be used for monitoring
and controlling the deviation.
Execution of these projects mainly
deals with making incremental
improvements where the assignable
causes are being addressed over time
as needed (Montgomery, 1996).
• Projects positioned in cell B: For these
projects, improvement effort should
first focus on obtaining stable con-
trollability. A control chart can be
used to identify the assignable caus-
es and process noise analysis tools
such as a multivariate chart can be
used to discover if a significant strat-
ification factor is causing the varia-
tions. At the same time, it is
suggested that the adequacy of the
project goal be reinvestigated
because good process capability
exists despite poor controllability.
• Projects positioned in cell C:
Improvement effort should focus on
increasing process capability first. For
these projects, common causes are
dominant because the process is
under control although the process
capability is lacking. Process opti-
mization techniques such as DOE can
be used for making improvement.
These projects generally make excel-
lent DOE-applied Six Sigma projects.
• Projects positioned in cell D: The cur-
rent system does not have enough
controllability or capability to han-
dle these projects. In order for the
improvements to take place, the
improvement effort should follow
one of the structured solution paths
as shown by the arrows in Figure 1:
• Path DBA: System capability
improved first and then control-
lability stabilized
• Path DCA: System controllability
stabilized first and then capabil-
ity improved.
In general, when poor system con-
trollability exists, it is not easy to
improve the system capability. If the
process is uncontrollable the data
response from the change initiative
would be unstable causing the opti-
mizing process (capability improve-
ment) to be unreliable. Therefore, it is
suggested that path DCA be taken to
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
improve system controllability first by
eliminating assignable causes and then
improving system capability.
Case Study
The amount of web traffic can serve as
an important barometer for measuring
customer loyalty. In the case of a paid
service website, traffic amount can be
directly related to business perform-
ance. For example, if the traffic amount
decreases, it is likely that the contract
renewal for website service will also
decrease. This case study was carried
out over a one-month period during
which the traffic rate, defined as the
ratio of the number of visited sub-
scribers to the total number of sub-
scribers, was studied. Five customer
groups were initially identified for this
study using two factors of age and geo-
graphic region. The goal of this pro-
gram was to increase the overall traffic
rate of all customer groups through
achieving higher customer satisfaction,
ultimately resulting in a higher cus-
tomer retention rate and a higher
number of customers.
Figure 2 shows the control chart
(p-chart) depicting the total traffic rate
collected from five customer groups.
Twenty-nine samples were collected.
Poor controllability is revealed by
Figure 2. However, this is only a “qual-
itative” measure and lacks a “quantita-
tive” assessment. The controllability
for each customer group was analyzed
in terms of coefficient of control so
that a process-positioning map can be
created. The resulting five different
project positions are illustrated in
Figure 3.
The traffic rate is plotted on the
horizontal axis and the coefficient of
control is plotted on the vertical axis.
The process capability is represented
by the traffic rate and, therefore, the
larger the better. The system controlla-
bility factors are obtained using the
binomial distribution as the reference
distribution. Customer group 1 has the
worst controllability and capability
among all regions while customer
group 3 has relatively better controlla-
bility and capability.
This company-wide operational
improvement program that consisted of
five potential projects is categorized dif- and 0.34. The average point represents As the company seeks to pursue
ferently depending upon each customer the average traffic rate of all the cus- the successful operation of its website
group’s system controllability and capa- tomer groups, but the arithmetic mean business, the amount of web traffic for
bility. Based upon which of the four of the coefficient of control does not each project was to be increased. This
quadrants the project is categorized, represent the coefficient of all customer company-wide operational improve-
each customer group is constrained to groups. The purpose of using the aver- ment program’s goal was to improve
seek the appropriate improvement strat- age point is merely to determine the overall system performance by address-
egy. The control factor is expected to be relative criteria for the four quadrants. ing each customer group’s specific sta-
near 1.0 for “good” controllability in As shown in Figure 2, the total system tus. Hence, the company’s primary
the process. The range of the control has poor controllability, which is quan- focus was given to customer group 1,
factors for the five different customer tified in Figure 3 in terms of the coeffi- where the controllability was the poor-
groups is between 1.1 and 3.1, and the cient of control for five different est and the web traffic amount was the
range for the traffic rate is between 0.13 customer groups. lowest. This project focused on identi-
fying the assignable causes using con-
trol charts and process noise analysis
with multivariate charts. The next proj-
P Chart of total_con ects to target were customer groups 5,
0.22 2, and 4. These three projects had rela-
0.21 tively “good” controllability, but
“poor” capability in traffic rate. These
0.20
U C L= 0.19496 projects focused on increasing web
0.19 traffic amount and, thus, increasing
Proportion

0.18 process capability by using the Six

_
0.17 P= 0.17234 Sigma DOE to redesign the customer
service contents (e.g., improving web
0.16 content, better customer service, etc.).
0.15 LC L= 0.14973 Customer group 3 was categorized as a
derivative project due to its relatively
0.14
higher traffic amount and better con-
0.13
trollability and, thus, requiring only
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 minor improvements. As a result of the
Sample program, a revised status was reported
Tests performed with unequal sample sizes for all customer groups, which showed
improvement in all projects.
Subsequently, the company set a new
Figure 2: P-chart for controllability for all customer groups target for each customer group to fur-
ther improve the processes while
adjusting its Six Sigma application
strategy accordingly. The program
0.25
position map was updated so that it
3.0 could be used as a new baseline for
Customer Group 1
further improvement.
System Controllability

Cell “D” Cell “C”

Breakthrough Platform
2.5 Conclusion and Future
Research Suggestion
Cell “B” This study approaches project categoriza-
2.0 2
Platform tion from a conceptually different per-
Average spective by using the process positioning
Cell “A” methodology. This new framework for
Customer Group 5 Derivative
1.5 Customer Group 4
Customer Group 2 project categorization enables conceptu-
Customer Group 3 ally different project prioritization and
1.0 execution direction. Because this frame-
0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 work is based on system capability and
controllability, it facilitates efficient and
System Capability (Visiting Rate) strategic deployment of Six Sigma and
other process innovations. This frame-
Figure 3: Program map based on process capability and controllability work may assist decision-makers

M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L 59
addressing operational improvement
projects that can be couched in terms of
process capability and process control-
lability measures.
As illustrated in the case study, a
candidate project can be categorized
quite differently depending upon each
candidate’s process indicators (i.e., cus-
tomer group), thus, requiring different
improvement strategies. This project
position map (the big picture), based
on process controllability and capabili-
ty, enables managers to prioritize proj-
ects, More critical projects stand out
allowing prioritization, thus, overall
performance as a whole can be
increased. Further, this framework
enables managers to make improve-
ments in a proper systematic manner
(i.e., controllability first then capability
in the case study).
For longer-term projects, continu-
ous iterations of the DMAIC cycle
would be implemented. As improve-
ments are made in current processes,
the project position map is updated to
reflect the improvements that were
made, which then becomes a new base-
line for future improvements. The proj-
ect position map is then reanalyzed so
that decision-makers can reprioritize
and focus on the appropriate candidate
projects on a continuous basis.
This research focused on the spe-
cial case of binomial distribution as the
reference distribution while quantify-
ing the controllability. Future research
work can be extended to include other
known distributions such as the nor-
mal distribution. Also, future work can
be extended to the case of non-normal
distribution by utilizing a transforma-
tion such as the “Box-Cox” method.
The use of control charts and the con-
cept of process capability have opened
a new era for quality management sci-
ence. The introduction of this quantita-
tive measure of “controllability” can
open another era of advancement in
process innovation. Although this
application is primarily used for opera-
tional improvement projects, there are
many applications that can potentially
use this framework.
References
Brown, S., & Eisenhardt, K.
(2000). Competing on the edge: Strategy
as a structured chaos. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Breyfogle, F. W. (2003). Implementing
Six Sigma: Smarter solutions using statistical
methods. New York: Wiley.
Breyfogle, F. W., Cupello, J. M., &
Meadows, B. (2001). Managing Six
Sigma: A practical guide to understand-
ing, assessing, and implementing the strat-
egy that yields bottom-line success. New
York: Wiley.
Choi, T. Y. (1995). Conceptualizing
continuous improvement: Implications
for organizational change. Omega,
International Journal of Management
Science, 23(6), 607–624.
Cooper, R. G. (1993). Winning at
new products. Boston: Addison–Wesley.
Eckes, G. (2001). Six Sigma revolu-
tion: How General Electric and others
turned process into profits. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Hamel, G. (2000). Leading the rev-
olution. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Henriksen, A. D., & Traynor, A. J.
(2000). A practical R&D project selec-
tion scoring tool. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 2, 158–170.
Holland, D., & Kumar, S. (1995).
Getting past the obstacles to successful
reengineering. Business Horizons, 38(3),
79–85.
Hoerl, R. (2004). One perspective
on the future of Six-Sigma. International
Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive
Advantage, 1(1), 112–119.
Klastorin, T. (2004). Project man-
agement tools and trade-offs. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Meredith, J., & Mantel, S. (2003).
Project management. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Meredith, J., Shafer, S., & Turban,
E. (2002). Quantitative business model-
ing. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Montgomery, D. (1996).
Introduction to statistical quality control.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Smith, P., & Reinertsen, D. (1998).
Developing products in half the time. New
York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold.
Walleck, S., O’Halloran, D., &
Leader, C. (1991). Benchmarking
world-class performance. McKinsey
Quarterly, 1.
Zammuto, R. F., & O’Connor, E. J.
(1992). Gaining advanced manufac-
turing technologies’ benefits: The roles
of organization design and culture.
Academy of Management Review, 17(4),
701–728.

JOO Y. JUNG, PhD, is currently an assistant SANG-GYU LIM, PhD, currently leads the Six
professor at the Management, Marketing and Sigma Management Innovation Program at the
International Business Department of the Samsung Economic Research Institute in
University of Texas-Pan American. His Seoul, Korea. His previous experience
experience includes 13 years of international includes 16 years of research and
project management and quality management management effort at the NASA Glenn (Lewis)
with ABB, Westinghouse and LG Electronics. Research Center, Samsung Electronics, and
He holds BS, MS, and PhD degrees in Samsung Electro-Mechanics. He holds BS,
mechanical engineering from the University of MS, and PhD degrees in mechanical
Connecticut and an MBA from Duke University. engineering from Hanyang University,
Oklahoma State University, and Case Western
Reserve University, respectively.

60 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
THE CHANGING BIAS OF PROJECT
MANAGEMENT RESEARCH:
A CONSIDERATION OF THE LITERATURES
AND AN APPLICATION OF EXTANT THEORY
ABSTRACT
This paper addresses two important cur-
rent trends in project management
research: the first relating to the chang-
ing emphasis of project-based research
output, and the second relating to the
development of a theory of project man-
agement. The first aspect is driven by evi-
dence of a move from process-based
research toward the interactions
between people and projects. The sec-
ond involves the alignment of certain
aspects of the management of projects
with more established theoretical
domains. This paper applies a theoreti-
cal lens to some elements of the man-
agement of project-based work, in order
to embed it within more robust theoreti-
cal imperatives.
Keywords: project management theory;
behaviors; practitioner bias
©2007 by the Project Management Institute
Vol. 38, No. 1, 61-73, ISSN 8756-9728/03
STEPHEN A. LEYBOURNE, Plymouth Business School, United Kingdom
Introduction
roject management is accepted as a: “young discipline” academically
P (Jugdev, 2004, p. 15), especially compared with the traditional areas of
economics, strategy, and organizational theory. It is, however, becoming
increasingly accepted that more and more work within organizations is project-
based, and skills in the management of projects have become a part of the
accepted skills of the effective manager. There is evidence that interest in project-
based research is moving from the tools and techniques of project management,
to a more behavioral bias, linking with some of those more established aca-
demic areas. In addition, although the management of projects is a relatively
under-researched area of management activity (Shenhar et al., 2005), there is
considerable interest, both from academics and practitioners, as to how it can
benefit the organization.
This paper analyzes and addresses the growing interest and expansion of
project-based research (as opposed to program or portfolio management
research), and documents the changing bias from tools and techniques, toward
the social and behavioral aspects of the management of projects. This changing
bias is driven by organizational interest in flexible working, an encouragement
of the channeling of creativity and innovation to create organizations that can
survive and prosper in turbulent environments, and the dismantling of organi-
zational bureaucracies, leading to a higher level of self-directed work activity.
Additionally, the intention is to align certain behavioral aspects of the man-
agement of projects with more established theoretical domains, in order to
apply an element of theoretical rigor to the project management literature. This
is an area that has been substantially overlooked, although activity in this area
is increasing (Jugdev, 2004), and a number of attempts at classifying research
output in the project-based domain have been undertaken (Kloppenborg &
Opfer, 2002; Ulri & Ulri, 2000). It has been suggested that the essentially practi-
tioner-based bias of project-based research has contributed to this lack of theo-
retical precision, in that much activity and output is driven from professional
associations that have a vested interest in competencies and professional quali-
fications, rather than theoretical rigor (Jugdev, 2004). If the management of
projects is to join that more theoretically considered community of disciplines,
then such issues need to be examined.
M A R C H 2007 Project Management Journal 61
 Initially, this paper examines the epistemological and
ontological positioning of project management research,
and the increasingly important task of documenting a “the-
ory” of project management. Attention will then turn to the
evolving project management literature, to identify possible
shortcomings that impinge on its ability to meet the more
rigorous definitions required for it to join the lexicon of
more established theoretical domains. An attempt will then
be made to link areas of that evolving literature to those
established theoretical domains, in an effort to move toward
a less practitioner-dominated understanding of the field.
Academic Positioning
There is no doubt that one requirement, if project manage-
ment is to be accepted as a robust and evolved management
discipline, is that there has to be a stronger positioning of
the field within the wider academic landscape. For a decade
or more authors have identified a requirement for a “theo-
ry” of project management (Morris, 2003; Shenhar & Dvir,
1996). This prerequisite of academic integrity and credibil-
ity has resulted in considerable recent activity in an attempt
to develop an underpinning theory of projects (including
Andersen, 2006; Bredillet, 2004a, 2004b; Cicmil &
Hodgson, 2006; Jugdev, 2004; Turner, 2006a, 2006b,
2006c, 2006d).
There is, however, often a chasm between the outcomes
of management research, and the translation of those out-
comes into useable practice: i.e., the context of application.
A debate has been conducted between academics about the
relevance of management research (see the British Journal of
Management [2001] volume 12, special issue). It is suggested
that Mode 1 knowledge, which is the traditional scientific
approach to knowledge creation, is more concerned with a
theoretical contextualization of how the world works.
Historically, Mode 1 knowledge has been seen as “…theo-
retical and discipline based” (Grey, 2001, p. S28), with
boundaries that are “…disciplinary, pure/applied” and:
“…institutional” (Huff & Huff, 2001, p. S52). The opposing
view of Starkey and Madan (2001, p. S5) advocates the
development of “…Mode 2 knowledge, [which is] less con-
cerned with discipline base—indeed it can be described as
transdisciplinary—and is crucially concerned with knowl-
edge as it works in practice in the context of application.”
This debate is also starting to define a composite knowledge
mode—sometimes referred to as Mode 3 knowledge. A
greater proportion of the project management literature is
the epitome of planning in the prescriptive mode, and in
positioning project-based research, there is an assumption
that any findings should be applicable by practitioners to
assist them in their contribution to the achievement of orga-
nizational requirements, placing the majority of this
research firmly within the Mode 2 model.
In attempting to position project-oriented research out-
put within the evolving landscape of the management liter-
ature, there is a growing awareness that we are moving
beyond the “positivist” considerations of project-based
62 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
management as “a set of methods, techniques, tools…”
(Bredillet, 2004a, p. 1). This progression is toward an under-
standing that if researchers of project management accept
the shift from “tools and techniques” toward “behaviors,”
there has to be a similar shift from “positivist” toward a
more “naturalist” or “interpretive” epistemological para-
digm that recognizes the dynamic nature of the project. It
follows that the management of projects is influenced by
many external factors, particularly the turbulent nature of
many project environments. Given this turbulence, it is nat-
ural that the movement is from the “etic” or more positivist
view of a world that exists independently of human action,
to an “emic,” or more naturalist notion of the social con-
struction of reality based on individual and group percep-
tions. This interpretation is based to some extent on the
Polanyi (1958) concept of “personal knowledge” that is
generated by our “‘focal awareness’ of the coherent entity
that we achieve” (p. xiii). Indeed, there is a perfect logic to
the application of an interpretive individual construction of
reality in a discipline where each project is supposedly
unique. Certainly, there should be doubts about the wisdom
of applying a positivist paradigm, based on rules and cer-
tainty, to a project-based scenario involving unique actions
undertaken in an uncertain and turbulent environment.
The Evolving Project Management Literature
The implementation of strategic change has been acknowl-
edged as a business problem for decades and is still a prob-
lem today. Project management techniques have been put
forward as a partial solution, notwithstanding opinions that
“…project management remains a highly problematical
endeavour” (White & Fortune, 2002, p. 1), indicating that
many of the problems of implementation using projects
remain unresolved. Carnall (1991, p. 57), discussing
change, stated that “...significant changes would benefit
from a ‘project management’ approach.” Change can be
implanted in a number of ways, and since the early 1990s
there has been growing interest in the effective use of proj-
ect management as a vehicle of that change. Indeed, for 10
or more years it has been suggested that use of project man-
agement tools and processes within the formulation and
implementation process could improve the outcomes of a
strategic implementation (Grundy, 1998; McElroy, 1996;
Pellegrinelli & Bowman, 1994). Since the turn of the mil-
lennium, however, researchers have been considering
whether this concentration on tools and process is suffi-
cient, or whether the requirements of complex societal
norms and complex organizations are indicating a need for
a shift in emphasis (Jaafari, 2003; Snider & Nissen, 2003).
Over the last 20 years or so, the links between the
implementation of change and project management have
been strengthening. Owen (1982, p. 52) offered a practi-
tioner view, stating that “…the techniques of project man-
agement can... be applied to assist in the successful
implementation of strategies.” There are links to successful
implementation and performance in this statement.
Leonard-Barton and Kraus (1985) were engaged with this There are, however, many shortcomings within the proj-
view, suggesting structures and disciplines for implement- ect management literature, notwithstanding attempts to
ing new technology strategies that were drawn almost introduce an element of rigor and robustness by the use of
exclusively from the project management body of knowl- recognized methodological stances. Early work tended to
edge. Over a decade later, von Dran, Kappelman, and focus on the early post-WW2 U.S. defense and space proj-
Prybutok (1996, p. 12) concurred, stating that “…project ects, and the U.S. Navy established a project office to man-
management is perceived as the most successful tool to age the Polaris submarine program in 1955. The program
implement quality improvement programs because it pro- evaluation and review technique (PERT) was developed
vides a holistic approach to organizational change.” here, and forms a cornerstone of project management today.
Turner (1999, p. 42), writing in a handbook that has Work breakdown structures (to control cost) and earned
become widely accepted amongst practitioners, suggested value analysis (to measure the effective utilization of time
that “…management by projects is…becoming the way in against cost) were also developed within the U.S. military in
which organizations fulfil their business plans.” This is evi- the 1960s. And the World Bank developed cost-benefit
denced because the author has been unable to identify an analysis in the late 1960s. By the end of this decade, when
organization within his chosen research domain that was the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
not using project management as the framework within (NASA) landed men on the moon, it appears that the disci-
which it implemented strategic change. pline of project management had developed into “a collec-
From the late 1940s until the early 1980s project man- tion of organisational, schedule, and cost-control tools”
agement mainly concerned those involved in civil engi- (Morris, 1994, p. 104).
neering and manufacturing. In the last 15 years, however, During the 1970s, the academic focus of the discipline
there has been awareness that project management tech- appeared to be directed toward construction, and civil and
niques and methodologies are useful in the management other types of engineering. Certainly, within the academic
of organizational change (Clarke, 1999). Specifically, it domain, the teaching of project management appeared to
can be used to assist in the effective implementation of be the preserve of engineering and built environment facul-
corporate strategy (Grundy, 1998; McElroy, 1996). It is, ties (Winch, 1996). This trend seemed to reinforce the
however, evident from a review of the output from the two
principal journals in this area (the International Journal of
Project Management and the Project Management Journal)
that there is a heavy practitioner bias. The fact that both
journals are closely aligned to professional associations
may reinforce this predilection. There is further evidence
within the literature to support the contention that earlier
project management forms were almost exclusively reliant
on tools and techniques, with little concern or attention
given to the socio-behavioral influences that form an inte-
gral and increasingly important part of the management of
projects now. There is, however, a gradual move within the
evolving literature from the use of projects as a toolbox of
techniques and processes based on planning and control
of specific tasks, to the wider behavioral and organization-
al aspects of managing work using project-based teams.
This evolution of the literature is also starting to address
the practitioner-based nature of some project manage-
ment research, and is producing more empirically
grounded and academically rigorous output. In particular,
there is an emerging body of literature that investigates
knowledge generation and capture from project activity
(Bresnen, Edelman, Newell, Scarbrough, & Swan, 2003;
Snider & Nissen, 2003). A Scandinavian school is also
becoming apparent. This output has a more philosophical
slant, and is considering areas such as time in projects
(e.g., Hameri & Heikkilä 2002; Nordqvist, Hovmark, &
Zika-Viktorsson, 2004; Rämö, 2002), knowledge manage-
ment (e.g., Kasvi, Vartiainen, & Hailikari, 2003; Koskinen,
Pihlanto, & Vanharanta, 2003), and project marketing
(e.g., Scaates & Tikkanen, 2003). Figure 1 maps out the
evolution of this literature. Figure 1: Evolution of elements of the PMI literature

M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L 63
reliance on tools and techniques, and the understanding
that projects were used to build or develop, not to change.
During the 1980s, however, there were signs of a resurgence
of interest. Some of this resurgence manifested itself in case
studies that identified projects as a means of achieving in
specific organizations, i.e., Whipp and Clark’s (1986)
research at British Leyland. A further strand of research was
looking at project success criteria (Kerzner, 1987; Morris &
Hough, 1987; Pinto & Slevin, 1987), and since then the lit-
erature has evolved on a number of fronts. During the 1990s
and beyond, this evolution has incorporated links with
team working and team development (Bryde & Hayers,
1997; Eppler & Sukowski, 2000; Rickards & Moger, 1999,
2000; Tseng, Huang, Chu, & Gung, 2004); with leadership
(Keegan & Den Hartog, 2004; Kloppenborg & Petrick, 1999;
Mäkilouko, 2004; Thamhain, 2004a, 2004b; Wang, Chou, &
Jiang, 2005; Zimmerer & Yasin, 1998); with human resource
(HR) issues (Belout, 1998; Belout & Gauvreau, 2004; Fabi &
Petterson, 1992), including trust in projects (Kadefors,
2004); and with knowledge management (Koskinen, 2004;
van Donk & Riezebos, 2005). There does, however, still
seem to be a reliance on discussions about the definition of
project success, how to avoid project failure and resurrect
failing projects, and the creation of typologies of programs
and projects. It is comforting to see a significant volume of
emerging work in the area of project leadership, which is
considered to be a key element by Peter Morris (2004), one
of the leading academics in the project management
research domain.
Attempts have also been made to assess the state of
project management research. (Kloppenborg & Opfer, 2002;
Söderlund, 2004a, 2004b). The Kloppenborg and Opfer
study was sponsored by PMI, and resulted in a database of
3,554 records recording project management research out-
put between 1960 and 1999. Table 1 documents the growth
in output over the decades, and the distribution by knowl-
edge area. These data indicate a growing output over the
, ,
Table 1: Data from Kloppenborg & Opfer (2002) study (p. 12)
64 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
period and a reinforcement of the authors’ assertions of a
concentration on process over behaviors, and on planning
over execution. There is also evidence that until the 1990s
project-based research concentrated almost exclusively on
process, and that the timeline for the limited volume of
work in areas related to human resource, e.g., motivation,
team-building, leadership development, etc., commenced in
the early 1990s (Kloppenborg & Opfer, 2002, p. 12).
PMI compiled a published index of research output
from its publications and conferences between 1996 and
2002, and Table 2 indicates the distribution of the main ele-
ments of that output. For the purposes of this review, the
table includes papers presented at the various PMI confer-
ences (many being practitioner-focused), and papers from
the Project Management Journal. Articles from the practition-
er magazine—PM Network—are excluded, as it is felt that
they are not underpinned by the necessary methodological
rigor. The table indicates an overwhelming emphasis on the
tools and techniques involved in the management of proj-
ects. There is only limited attention to the behavioral aspects
of the management of projects other than education and
training (to be expected in the publications of a profession-
al institution), and only cursory interest in analysis of the
intellectual domain.
Within the literature there are also some important
areas that have been either overlooked or that have not
attracted much research focus, notwithstanding their impor-
tance. The interaction between project management and
organizational power and politics is one such area. Pinto
(2000) considered how project managers can use positive
political activity to further project goals. There is a dearth of
literature dealing with the way organizational power and
politics can be used by coalitions and cliques to hinder proj-
ect progress (see Pinto, 2000), notwithstanding the fact that
practitioners recognize this as a major problem.
Additionally, the literature often avoids wider commentary
on management issues, notwithstanding the fact that it
p m
Source – Project Management Institute (2003)
Table 2: Analysis of PMI publications 1996 – 2002: by subject
appears to be accepted as a vital management skill, and the
framework for achieving at all levels and across many man-
agement disciplines.
Söderlund (2004a, 2004b) endeavored to give some
direction to the debate on the future orientation of project-
based research. He posed a number of questions around
which he suggested researchers could try to “build theories
of project management” (Söderlund, 2004a, p. 186),
including areas relating to the differences in and the behav-
ior of project organizations. He also suggested that as
research on project-related issues is maturing and reaching
more “generalist” business and management journals, there
should be a trend away from the tools and techniques of
project management to what he has labeled “project ecolo-
gies” (2004b, pp. 661–663). He defined this as “an interest
in the links between projects and actors (e.g., firms), the
sociology of projects, in the economics of projects and in
the links between project participation and company devel-
opment” (Söderlund, 2004b, p. 661); i.e., the interrelation-
ships between projects and their environment.
One strong message that emerges from the various
analyses of the project-based literature is that, overall, there
has been a strong mechanistic element, which may be driv-
en by the fact that the two main “project-focused” journals
are aligned with professional, practitioner-biased associa-
tions. There has been a change in focus of these journals
over recent years toward a significantly more academic out-
put. It is, however, evident that historically, the greater pro-
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
portion of the project management literature reflected the
epitome of planning in the prescriptive mode, with limited
regard for interaction with and analysis of other organiza-
tional imperatives. Movement to the consideration of the
linkages between the management of projects and other
components of management through a more reflective lens
would be of great benefit at a time when the utilization of
project management is increasing within organizations. It
would be better if these linkages could identify and docu-
ment accepted theoretical imperatives that strengthen the
empirical rigor of project-based research.
Links Between Projects and Accepted Management Theory
It is generally accepted that the management of projects
draws on many areas of management theory. Wass and Wells
(1994, p. 6) suggested that “…the conventional academic
motivation for research is a common concern to seek a
greater understanding of social phenomena: to establish
causal relationships which explain human action in
response to external stimuli.” Although causal relationships
are notoriously difficult to document, empirical and theo-
retical knowledge can be drawn from many areas. In man-
agement research, this includes those areas where
qualitative research methods are predominantly used, such
as sociology and social anthropology, as well as those seen
as more quantitatively based, such as psychology, econom-
ics, statistics, and mathematics. As the combined literatures
have produced huge volumes of robust extant theory, it is
65
not unreasonable to expect that some of this existing theory
may pertain to situations that prevail within the manage-
ment of projects. It is, however, outside the scope of this
paper to exhaustively apply the various theoretical perspec-
tives to the project domain. Rather, the intention is to pro-
vide a “route map” to signpost and describe various
apparently relevant theories, in order to form a starting
point for future work into establishing the theoretical
robustness of project-based work.
A more interesting challenge revolves around the organ-
ization of such a task, in order that some coherence and
logic is applied to the various theoretical outputs from the
wide range of existing management and other literature.
One of the key frameworks for organizing phases and sub-
dividing tasks and activities within project-based work is the
project life cycle. Although there are a number of versions of
the life cycle, the principle is recognized widely, and it fea-
tures in the latest editions of both the Project Management
Institute’s A Guide to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), and the UK Association for
Project Management’s Body of Knowledge (BoK). For the pur-
poses of this paper, the version adopted is an early one,
developed from work by Graham (1985), and refined by
Adams and Barndt (1988). This model, an amended version
of which is shown in Figure 2 breaks the project into four
phases: conception, planning, execution, and termination.
The termination phase is also often referred to as the post-
implementation review. Although this model is often seen
as overtly simplistic, it does create an appropriate frame-
work for the application of extant theory to the various
phases of the project.
At the highest or macro level, there are at least two theo-
retical perspectives that are appropriate to the management
Adapted from: Adams & Barndt (1988, p. 211)
Figure 2: Project life cycle with supporting literature
66 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
of projects, and their interaction with wider environments
and systems. The first of these is general systems theory, which
seeks to explain the broader relationships of all scientific phe-
nomena across both natural and social sciences. Boulding
(1956) conceptualized this principle as an ordered hierarchy
of systems, moving from the simple to the complex. In
essence, all systems except level 1 systems are dynamic (they
have moving parts and can change to meet external require-
ments). Higher level systems include the characteristics of
lower levels, and human systems (level 7) are therefore
embedded in and form a part of social organizations (level 8).
This linking of human systems and social organizations is a
foundation stone of team-based project work.
The second high-level theoretical perspective involves
coordination theory (Malone & Crowston, 1994). It could be
argued (Rognin, 1997) that coordination theory is an integrat-
ed approach to cooperative work, rather than a true theory.
Notwithstanding this, it is a useful perspective, as it focuses on
how particular tasks are performed, and it adopts the process as
the unit of analysis. Specifically, the form that a process takes
will depend on the coordination methods chosen to manage
the dependencies among the tasks and resources that are
involved in the process. This approach is very familiar to proj-
ect managers, and even shares much common terminology.
If we now turn to the various phases of the project life
cycle, there are a number of extant theories that impinge on
each phase. The relevant authors have been referenced within
each phase in Figure 2. These phases will be dealt with sepa-
rately, although there is some significant overlap in the way
some of the theoretical perspectives can be applied to project-
based work, in that some theoretical perspectives can be
applied to more than one phase of the project life cycle. Where
possible, such overlaps will be highlighted.
Time
The Conceptual Phase
During the conceptual phase (and also the planning
phase), there is a complex dynamic relationship between
the desire to examine the maximum number of alternative
scenarios, and the principles of “bounded rationality”
(Simon, 1957; March & Simon, 1958). The rational model
of decision-making is driven by the assumption that deci-
sion-makers have full knowledge of all alternatives, and the
consequences of implementing them. It also assumes con-
sistency of goals. Simon (1956) suggested five limitations
to rational decision-making: imperfect and incomplete
information, complexity, human cognitive processing limi-
tations, time pressure, and conflicting views of organiza-
tional goals. In essence, these limitations hamper our
ability (and indeed, the ability of project managers) to
arrive at optimum decisions, and essentially, the result is
that decisions can only be “satisficing” (Simon, 1956)
rather than perfect.
Another element of decision-making involves making
the right decisions contingent on prevailing circumstances.
Early contingency theorists such as Burns and Stalker (1961)
suggested that different environmental conditions called for
different styles of organizing. This was the source of a con-
cept that is taken for granted today, but which originated the
premise that the most effective way to organize in a given
situation is “contingent” on conditions of complexity and
change in the environment (Hatch, 1997). This is a constant
challenge for project managers. Contingency theory can also
be applied to leadership effectiveness (Fiedler, 1967; Vroom
& Yetton, 1973).
There are a number of other theoretical perspectives
that impinge on the conceptual phase of projects. These
include population ecology theory (Hannan & Freeman,
1977), which assumes that populations that share a
resource pool are “competitively interdependent” (Hatch,
1997, p. 82), and that those patterns of interdependence
affect the survival and effectiveness of individual members
(or in this context, projects). Project managers competing
for scarce organizational resources will resonate with this
notion. Resource dependency theory (Pfeffer & Salancik,
1978) is also relevant here, but will be dealt with in the sec-
tion relating to the execution phase of a project.
Having dealt briefly with some aspects of resources,
project managers are also wrestling with the emerging
importance of organizational values. As organizations are
being perceived and judged on the roles they play in socie-
ty, and in particular how they perform environmentally and
socially, institutional theory comes into play. Early work by
Selznick (1957) observed that organizations adapt to inter-
nal group requirements and norms, but also to the values of
external society. Legal and political influences, cultural
influences, and social influences all shape this process
(Powell & DiMaggio, 1991). In such a context social legiti-
macy (i.e., the acceptance of the society in which they oper-
ate) becomes more important. This theoretical perspective
particularly affects project managers working in environ-
mentally sensitive industries and sectors.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
The Planning Phase
As we move into the planning phase of the project life
cycle, the focus turns to ensuring that the plan reflects the
intentions and outcomes of the original ideas intended by
the sponsors and stakeholders. This simple tenet contains
layers of complexity, involving interpretation, understand-
ing, and the translation of desires into tangible and meas-
urable actions.
One way of understanding the implications of this
move from the conceptual to the actual is to apply agency
theory. This framework, which was developed by Eisenhardt
(1985), suggests how best to organize relationships in
which one party (in this case, the sponsor) determines the
work, and another party (in this case, the project manager)
undertakes it, or ensures the outcomes. Agency theory is a
control theory, and is fundamentally concerned with
whether the agent, who is undertaking the work, has accu-
rately represented his or her abilities to perform and achieve
the outcomes (adverse selection), and is putting in maxi-
mum effort (moral hazard). As this theoretical perspective
revolves around the question of whether managers as agents
are carrying out the requirements of principals, other areas
of the management of projects come into play here, includ-
ing project manager and project team choice, work break-
down, and task allocation and achievement.
Another difficulty that needs to be addressed when
translating strategy into action is perception. This is a more
radical and extended interpretation of the “information”
perspective touched on earlier in the discussion of bounded
rationality. Theorists like Weick (1979) take the view that
reality is socially constructed, and that the conditions to be
dealt with in any situation cannot, therefore, be separated
from the actor’s perception of those conditions. If, therefore,
the conditions in which actions must take place cannot be
separated from decision-makers’ and managers’ perceptions,
then an additional layer of complexity is added.
However, this enactment theory perspective inverts the
principle of decisions emerging from the processing of max-
imum amounts of information. Rather, the enactment argu-
ment posits that demands from uncertain decision-makers
for more and more information contribute to making deci-
sions more complex. Hatch (1997) suggested that the abili-
ty of organizations to harness the processing power of
computers is increasing the volumes of available informa-
tion to be considered, leading us to construct an ever-more
complex and changing world. This in turn must lead to dif-
ficulties in project planning.
Added to this is a layer of complexity that relates to
organizational culture. There are a number of views that
inform the understanding of culture within and affecting
organizations. Schein (1985) suggested a view based on
three levels: artifacts, values, and basic underlying assump-
tions. Handy (1993) also developed a typology that defined
culture in terms of a number of elements, including task cul-
ture, which is particularly appropriate to project-based
work. However, perception is a significant part of the under-
standing of organizational culture and its effects.
67
Accordingly, some of the concepts of social construction that
are applied to frameworks such as symbolic-interpretive
organizational culture theory are fundamentally similar to
those applied to enactment theory, in that individual percep-
tions drive our personal understanding of cultural norms.
Combining these various theoretical perspectives in
project planning calls for significant intellectual ability on
the part of the manager of project-based work. There is, how-
ever, a view (Leybourne, 2004) that project managers call on
intuition, and a library of previously successful routines that
can be applied creatively, in order to navigate pathways
through the complexities of both the planning phase and the
execution phase of the project. These are also contributory
constructs in the application of organizational improvization
within the management of projects (Leybourne, 2002a,
2002b, 2006), but, notwithstanding the relevance of this area
to project planning and execution, analysis of this style of
project-based activity falls outside the scope of this paper.
The Execution Phase
Traditionally, during the execution phase of a project, the
focus turns to achieving tasks and activities, and delivering
against planned milestones. At this point, the project man-
ager is intimately concerned with issues of power and poli-
tics that are utilized to drive the project forward, and to
remove barriers and resistance, with utilization of and con-
straints within available resources, and with managing and
motivating teams.
Strategic contingencies theory (Hickson, Hinings, Lee,
Schneck, & Pennings, 1971) and resource dependence theo-
ry (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978) overlap across the first two of
these areas. Both are recognized political theories of organi-
zations (Hatch, 1997). Strategic contingencies theory is a
modernist theory that assists in explaining how uncertainty
predicts who will have power within an organization. Power
and influence will derive from the ability to deliver or pro-
vide something the organization values highly. Key elements
are the ability to solve problems quickly and effectively, pos-
session of a unique or scarce skill, and a central location
within the domain. Hickson et al. suggested that it is the
ability to cope with uncertainty that impinges negatively on
organizational performance that confers power, and that
this is particularly influential where the activity is central to
the operations or future of the organization. Project man-
agers involved in vital process or behaviorally based change
projects will recognize such scenarios.
Scarcity of the “right” resources is also a constant prob-
lem within projects, and resource dependence theory
extends strategic contingency theory to assist in explaining
how the wider environment is linked to organizational
action via political processes (Hatch, 1997). Pfeffer and
Salancik (1978, pp. 229–230) suggested that “organizations
are only loosely coupled with their environments, and …
power is one important variable intervening between envi-
ronments and organizations.” As scarcity of resources
(human, physical, or financial) provokes uncertainty,
opportunities arise to cope with or resolve those uncertain-
68 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
ties, and these opportunities can be translated into or can
influence power distribution within the organization. If
project managers can resolve uncertainties through effective
management of business-critical projects, then their power
relative to the power of managers who may be resisting
change is enhanced, and resistance is overcome.
Another key to managing the execution phase of a proj-
ect is the control and motivation of human resources. There
are a number of influential theories of motivation, and all are
based around some element of the underlying principle that
there is some driving force within individuals by which they
attempt to achieve some goal in order to fulfill some need or
expectation. It is accepted that individual performance is a
function of ability and motivation, and it follows that the
manager (or in our case the project manager) must address
the abilities and motivations of project team members.
Early work on motivation was concentrated around
“content” theories, with the work of Maslow (1943, 1954),
Alderfer (1972), Hertzberg (1966), and McClelland (1961)
being particularly influential. These early contributions
focused on human needs, but have tended to be eclipsed by
“process” theories, which have a greater concern with the
mental processes associated with motivated behavior.
Process theories include expectancy theories (Porter &
Lawler, 1968; Vroom, 1964), equity theory (Adams, 1965),
goal theory (Locke, 1968), and attribution theory (Heider,
1958; Kelley, 1973). Expectancy theories are based on the
premise that people are influenced by the expected results of
their actions, and in later work, there are strong links with
job satisfaction and performance, although there are many
variables that can positively and negatively affect work
behaviors. One of the major variables of satisfaction in
Porter and Lawler’s expectancy model is perceived equitable
reward, and equity theory is intimately concerned with this
area. Setting goals is also an important part of the project
manager’s work, and the basic premise of goal theory is that
workers’ goals or intentions play an important part in deter-
mining behavior. Commitment to an achievable goal leads
to an increase in personal performance, although goal set-
ting is often considered as a motivational technique, rather
than a formal theory of motivation. A more perceptually
based approach to motivational factors is attribution theory.
Heider (1958) suggested that behavior is determined by a
combination of perceived internal and external forces, and
Kelley (1973) assisted in developing criteria to determine
internal or external attribution. Mullins (1999, p. 365) sug-
gested that “… employees with an internal control orienta-
tion are more likely to believe that they can influence their
level of performance through their own abilities, skills or
efforts. Employees with an external control orientation are
more likely to believe that their level of performance is
determined by external factors beyond their influence.”
There is a view that internally controlled employees are
more effective, although this has been disputed (Durand &
Nord, 1976). From a motivational standpoint, project man-
agers would benefit from knowledge of such attributes with-
in their project team members.
The Termination Phase
When the termination or post-implementation phase of a
project is reached, within many organizations there is an
assumption that as delivery has taken place, the project is
effectively completed. However, one of the key strengths of
project management as a framework for achieving is the
ability to learn from the future from past project-based
events. There are a number of learning-based theoretical per-
spectives that can assist with the effectiveness, formaliza-
tion, and codification of this learning opportunity.
Within projects, learning is essentially an experiential
process, although there are a number of different theoretical
styles that can prevail. These include the Pavlovian “classical
conditioning” approach, operant conditioning (Skinner,
1953), which describes behaviors adopted to receive
rewards or avoid punishment, and Bandura’s (1977) social
learning theory, which is based around the importance of
social interaction and interpersonal skills in learning.
Experiential learning is, however, most widely understood
using Kolb’s (1984) learning cycle, and Honey and
Mumford’s (1992) work on learning styles.
Kolb (1984) suggested that managers learn through
experience, and that this learning involves a cyclical process
involving “thinking” and “doing,” consisting of four stages.
The cycle “emphasises the importance of the synthesis
between and individual’s behaviour and the evaluation of
their actions” (Mullins, 1999, p. 363) and is the essence of
“action” learning. Kolb’s view was that learning occurs
through the grasping of experience and its subsequent trans-
formation. The four stages are the transformation of the
impact of experience on the senses (concrete experiencing),
through internal reflection (reflective observation), allowing
the emergence of ideas (active conceptualization), that can
then be extended into the external world through new
actions (active experimentation). It is accepted that individu-
als may have a preference for, and indeed, an enhanced apti-
tude for, one of the four stages, and Honey and Mumford’s
(1992) work extended these ideas to managerial styles. They
identified four styles, each of which resonates with one stage
of Kolb’s cycle. Each can have benefits and difficulties for the
organization. “Activists” desire to experiment and try new
initiatives, but often assume that having experiences means
that learning is occurring. “Reflectors” think about the impli-
cations of initiatives, but can continue to collect data at the
expense of action. “Theorists” think in terms of conclusions,
but have a tendency to ignore data that contradicts the con-
clusions they have drawn. “Pragmatists” engage with the
application of ideas in practice, but may favor quick fixes
over properly reviewed and concluded outcomes. Input from
all four of the stages of Kolb’s cycle is, therefore, useful to
arrive at informed output and learning. There are also links
with Belbin’s (1981, 1993) team composition work here, in
that a mix of perceptions and skills is likely to achieve a more
optimized set of outcomes.
It is not difficult to see the benefits of this work to the
successful management of projects, as the interlinking of
relationships between the tasks and activities created in a
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
project work breakdown structure means that it is important
to be aware of the characteristics of project workers.
Understanding the cognitive processes that they utilize is,
therefore, an important element within such success.
Having identified that learning is taking place, there
are two key elements that influence the application of
learning within the workplace. The first element involves
the building of competences and capabilities within the
workforce, and the effective application of those intellec-
tual assets for the benefit of the organization. The second
element, which is often considered to be the “holy grail” of
modern organizational practice, is the capturing and codi-
fying of new learning for the future benefit of the organi-
zation. This is the essence of knowledge management,
which has become an influential component of the culture
of the modern organization. Argyris and Schon (1978)
contributed by developing the notions of single loop
(“doing the thing right”) and double loop (“doing the
right thing”—incorporating a reflection loop) learning,
encouraging thinking that moved from incremental
improvement to more radical challenging of the status
quo. Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) work in this area
argues that competitive advantage is founded in the orga-
nization’s ability to create new forms of knowledge and
translate it into innovative action. Project managers often
have to devise new ways of achieving required outcomes.
These devices often derive from successful organizational
improvisation (Leybourne, 2002a, 2002b, 2006), and are
held tacitly within individual memory. The challenge is to
codify such tacit knowledge and make it explicit, and the
final phase of the project life cycle—i.e., the post-imple-
mentation review—is an ideal mechanism to achieve this.
However, the capturing of such codified knowledge and its
“warehousing” for subsequent use is only part of the equa-
tion. It is only when such data is “extracted, manipulated,
and interpreted” (Crowther & Green, 2004, p. 193), and
applied for the benefit of future projects that we enter the
realm of knowledge management.
Conclusions
This paper is intended to address two elements of project
management research. First, some attention was directed
toward the evolution of the literature, which has highlight-
ed the movement from a focus on tools and techniques,
toward an increasing emphasis on the behavioral elements
that impinge on the management of projects. Evidence was
offered from both the Kloppenborg and Opfer (2002)
study and an analysis of the output from the various PMI
sources. The second intention of this paper was to address
the many theoretical views that are applied to the various
elements of management, and to examine their validity in
the project domain. Adams and Barndt’s (1988) project life
cycle is used as an organizing framework for this initiative.
It is, however, important to document that the intention is
not to exhaustively apply the many extant managerial the-
ories to the management of projects. Rather, the aim is to
act as a starting point for a more explicit mapping of those
69
theories across the project life cycle, signposting areas
where future research may more accurately identify the rela-
tionships between such theory and the project domain.
It is evident that there is a shift away from process and
toward behaviors within emerging project management
research. This is evidenced by the growing volumes of
research being published outside of the two main project-
oriented journals, and also the content of that output. Using
this paper as a starting point, there is also evidence that
research output relating to the project domain is under-
pinned by a significant level of theoretical substance. As
researchers, perhaps we need to be more proactive in identi-
fying extant theory that supports the outcomes of our vari-
ous strands of current and future output.
In documenting the changing nature of project
research, and the extent to which elements of accepted proj-
ect management practice are grounded in extant theory,
there is little doubt that the apparent robustness of the
underpinnings of project activity can be recognized. Indeed,
in this attempt to apply a theoretical lens to some elements
of the management of project-based work, many opportu-
nities to link other well-documented and robust theoretical
imperatives have been overlooked, in the interests of brevi-
ty. Hopefully, other researchers will take the opportunity to
address these issues in the future.
References
Adams, J. R., & Barndt S. E. (1988). Behavioral implica-
tions of the project life cycle. In D. I. Cleland & W. R. King
(Eds.), Project management handbook (2nd ed., pp. 206–230).
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Injustice in social exchange. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.
Alderfer, C. (1972) Human needs in organizational set-
tings. New York: Free Press
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Andersen E. S. (2006). Toward a management theory
for renewal projects. Project Management Journal, 37(4),
15–30.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Belbin, R. M. (1981). Managerial teams. London:
Heinemann.
Belbin, R. M. (1993). Team roles at work. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Belout, A. (1998). Effects of human resource manage-
ment on project effectiveness and success: Towards a new
conceptual framework. International Journal of Project
Management, 16(1) 21–26.
Belout, A., & Gauvreau, C. (2004). Factors influencing
project success: The impact of human resource management.
International Journal of Project Management, 22(1), 1–11.
Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory—The
skeleton of science. Management Science, 2, 197–208.
Bredillet C. N. (2004a, July). Understanding the very
70 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
nature of project management: A praxeological approach.
Paper presented at PMI Research Conference, London.
Bredillet C. N. (2004b, August). Beyond the positivist
mirror: Towards a project management “gnosis.” Paper pre-
sented at the IRNOP VI Conference, Turku, Finland.
Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., &
Swan, J. (2003). Social practices and the management of
knowledge in project environments. International Journal of
Project Management, 21(3), 157–166.
Bryde, D., & Hayers, P. K. (1997, May). Developing
multi-disciplinary models for the selection and management
of project teams. Liverpool Business School Working Paper.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of
innovation. London: Tavistock.
Carnall, C. (1991). Managing change. London:
Routledge.
Cicmil S., & Hodgson, D. (2006). New possibilities for
project management theory: A critical engagement. Project
Management Journal, 37(3), 111–122.
Clarke, A. (1999). A practical use of key success factors
to improve the effectiveness of project management.
International Journal of Project Management, 17(3), 139–145.
Crowther, D., & Green, M. (2004). Organisational theory.
London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Durand, D. E., & Nord, W. R. (1976). Perceived leader
behaviour as a function of personality characteristics of
supervisors and subordinates. Academy of Management
Journal, 19, 427–438.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1985). Control: Organizational and
economic approaches. Management Science, 31, 134–149.
Eppler, M. J., & Sukowski, O. (2000). Managing team
knowledge: Core processes, tools and enabling factors.
European Management Journal, 18(3), 334–341.
Fabi, B., & Pettersen, N. (1992). Human resource man-
agement practices in project management. International
Journal of Project Management, 10, 281–288.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness.
New York: McGraw Hill.
Graham, R. J. (1985). Project management: Combining
technical and behavioural approaches for effective implementa-
tion. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Grey, C. (2001). Re-imagining relevance: A response to
Starkey and Madan. British Journal of Management, 12, spe-
cial issue, S27–S32.
Grundy, T. (1998.) Strategy implementation and project
management. International Journal of Project Management,
16(1), 43–50.
Hameri, A. P., & Heikkilä, J. (2002). Improving efficien-
cy: Time-critical interfacing of project tasks. International
Journal of Project Management, 20(2), 143–153.
Handy, C. B. (1993). Understanding organisations (4th
ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. H. (1977). The popula-
tion ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology,
82, 929–964.
Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization theory: Modern symbolic
and postmodern perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hertzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. New
York: Staples Press.
Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Lee, C. A., Schneck, R. E.,
& Pennings, J. M. (1971). A strategic contingencies theory of
intra-organizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly,
16, 216–229.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992). The manual of learn-
ing styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey.
Huff A. S., & Huff J. O. (2001). Re-focusing the business
school agenda. British Journal of Management, 12, special
issue, S49–S54.
Jaafari, A. (2003). Project management in the age of
complexity and change. Project Management Journal, 34(4),
47–57.
Jugdev, K. (2004). Through the looking glass:
Examining theory development in project management
with the resource-based view lens. Project Management
Journal, 35(3), 15–26.
Kadefors, A. (2004). Trust in project relationships:
Inside the black box. International Journal of Project
Management, 22(3), 175–182.
Kasvi, J. J. J., Vartiainen, M., & Hailikari, M. (2003).
Managing knowledge and knowledge competences in proj-
ects and project organizations. International Journal of Project
Management, 21(8), 571–582.
Keegan, A., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2004).
Transformational leadership in a project-based environ-
ment: A comparative study of the leadership styles of proj-
ect managers and line managers. International Journal of
Project Management, 22(8), 609–618.
Kelley, H. H. (1973, February). The process of causal
attribution. American Psychologist, 107–128.
Kerzner, H. (1987, February). In search of excellence in
project management. Journal of Systems Management, 30–39.
Kloppenborg, T. J., & Opfer, W. A. (2002). The current
state of project management research: Trends, interpreta-
tions, and predictions. Project Management Journal, 33(2),
5–18.
Kloppenborg, T. J., & Petrick, J. A. (1999). Leadership in
project life cycle and team character development. Project
Management Journal, 30(2), 8–13.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the
source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Koskinen, K. U. (2004). Knowledge management to
improve project communication and implementation.
Project Management Journal, 35(2), 13–19.
Koskinen, K. U., Pihlanto, P., & Vanharanta, H. (2003).
Tacit knowledge acquisition and sharing in a project work
context. International Journal of Project Management, 21(4),
281–290.
Leonard-Barton, D., & Kraus, W. A. (1985, Nov-Dec).
Implementing new technology. Harvard Business Review,
102–110.
Leybourne, S. A. (2002a). Project management and the
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
implementation of strategic change within the UK financial serv-
ices sector. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Cardiff Business
School.
Leybourne, S. A. (2002b). The project management of
change within United Kingdom financial services: What
about improvisation? Proceedings of PMI Research Conference
2002 (pp. 343–351).
Leybourne, S. A. (2004, July). Intuition and rationality
in project decision-making: Thoughts on the impact of
improvisational working practices. Unpublished paper pre-
sented at the PMI Research Conference 2004, London.
Leybourne, S. A. (2006). Managing improvisation with-
in change management: Lessons from U.K. financial servic-
es. Service Industries Journal, 26(1), 73–95.
Locke, E. A. (1968). Towards a theory of task motivation
and incentives. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Performance, 3, 157–189.
Mäkilouko, M. (2004). Coping with multicultural proj-
ects: The leadership styles of Finnish project managers.
International Journal of Project Management, 22(5), 387–396.
Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1994). The interdiscipli-
nary study of co-ordination. Computing Surveys, 26(1),
87–119.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New
York: John Wiley.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton,
NJ: Van Nostrand.
McElroy, W. (1996). Implementing strategic change
through projects. International Journal of Project Management,
14(6), 325–329.
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation.
Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York:
Harper & Row.
Morris, P. W. G. (2004, July). Moving from corporate
strategy to project strategy: Leadership in project manage-
ment. Unpublished paper presented at the PMI Research
Conference, London.
Morris P. W. (2003, June). The irrelevance of project man-
agement as a professional discipline. Unpublished paper pre-
sented at the IPMA World Congress, Moscow.
Morris, P. W. G. (1994). The management of projects.
London: Thomas Telford.
Morris, P. W. G., & Hough C. H. (1987). The anatomy of
major projects. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Mullins, L. J. (1999). Management and organisational
behaviour. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating
company. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nordqvist, S., Hovmark, S., & Zika-Viktorsson, A. (2004).
Perceived time pressure and social processes in project teams.
International Journal of Project Management, 22(6), 463–468.
Owen, A. A. (1982). How to implement strategy.
Management Today, 51–53, & 104.
Partington, D. (1996). The project management of
organisational change. International Journal of Project
Management, 14(1), 13–21.
71
 Pellegrinelli, S., & Bowman, C. (1994). Implementing
strategy through projects. Long Range Planning, 27(4),
125–132.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control
of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York:
Harper & Row.
Pinto, J. K. (2000). Understanding the role of politics in
successful project management. International Journal of
Project Management, 18(2), 85–91.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1987). Critical factors in
successful project implementation. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, EM-34(1), 22–27.
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-
critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes
and performance. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (1991). The new
institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Project Management Institute. (2003). Index of PMI peri-
odical publications 1996-2002. Available at
http://www.pmi.org
Rämö, H. (2002). Doing things right and doing the
right things: Time and timing in projects. International
Journal of Project Management, 20(7), 569–574.
Rickards, T., & Moger, S. (1999). The development of
benign structures: Towards a framework for understanding
exceptional performance in project teams. New Product
Development and Innovation Management, 1(2), 115–128.
Rickards, T., & Moger, S. (2000). Creative leadership
processes in project team development: An alternative to
Tuckman’s stage model. British Journal of Management, 11(4),
273–283.
Rognin, L. (1997). Coordination theory. Viewed at
http://www.irit.fr/ACTIVITES/GRIC/cotcos/pjs/TheoreticalA
pproaches/Coordination/CoordinationpaperRognin.htm
Scaates, M. A., & Tikkanen, H. (2003). International
project marketing: An introduction to the INPM approach.
International Journal of Project Management, 21(7), 503–510.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leader-
ship: A dynamic view. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New
York: Harper & Row.
Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Guth, W., Lechler, T., Patanakul,
P., Poli, M., & Stefanovic, J. (2005, August). What is project
strategy? Unpublished paper presented to the Academy of
Management Conference, Honolulu, HI.
Shenhar A. J., & Dvir, D. (1996). Toward a typological
theory of project management. Research Theory, 25(4),
607–632.
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure
of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129–138.
Simon, H. A. (1957). A behavioural model of rational
choice. In H. A. Simon (Ed.), Models of man. New York: John
Wiley.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behaviour.
London: MacMillan.
72 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Snider, K. F., & Nissen, M. E. (2003). Beyond the body
of knowledge: A knowledge-flow approach to project man-
agement theory and practice. Project Management Journal,
34(2), 4–12.
Söderlund, J. (2004a). Building theories of project man-
agement: Past research, questions for the future. International
Journal of Project Management, 22(3), 183–191.
Söderlund, J. (2004b). On the broadening scope of the
research on projects: A review and model for analysis.
International Journal of Project Management, 22(8), 655–668.
Starkey, K., & Madan, P. (2001). Bridging the relevance
gap: Aligning stakeholders in the future of management
research. British Journal of Management, 12, special issue,
S3–S26.
Thamhain, H. J. (2004a). Linkages of project perform-
ance to performance: Lessons for team leadership.
International Journal of Project Management, 22(7), 533–544.
Thamhain, H. J. (2004b). Team leadership effectiveness
in technology-based project environments. Project
Management Journal, 35(4), 35–46.
Tseng, T. L., Huang, C. C., Chu, H. W., & Gung, R. R.
(2004). Novel approach to multi-functional project team
formation. International Journal of Project Management,
22(2), 147–160.
Turner, J. R. (1999). The handbook of project based man-
agement: Improving the processes for achieving strategic objectives
(2nd ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
Turner, J. R. (2006a). Towards a theory of project man-
agement: The nature of the project. International Journal of
Project Management, 24(1), 1–3.
Turner, J. R. (2006b). Towards a theory of project man-
agement: The nature of project governance and project man-
agement. International Journal of Project Management, 24(2),
93–95.
Turner, J. R. (2006c). Towards a theory of project man-
agement: The functions of project management.
International Journal of Project Management, 24(3), 187–189.
Turner, J. R. (2006d). Towards a theory of project man-
agement: The nature and functions of project management.
International Journal of Project Management, 24(4), 277–279.
Urli, B., & Urli, D. (2000). Project management in
North America: Stability of the concepts. Project Management
Journal, 31(3), 33–43.
Van Donk, D. P., & Riezebos, J. (2005). Exploring the
knowledge inventory in project-based organisations.
International Journal of Project Management, 23(1), 75–83.
von Dran, G. M., Kappelman, L. A., & Prybutok, V. R.
(1996, March). Empowerment and the management of an
organizational transformation project. Project Management
Journal, 12–17.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York:
John Wiley.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and deci-
sion-making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Wang, E., Chou, H. W., & Jiang, J. (2005). The impacts
of charismatic leadership style on team cohesiveness and
overall performance during ERP implementation.
International Journal of Project Management, 23(3), 173–180.
Wass, V. J., & Wells, P. E. (1994). Research methods in
action: An introduction. In V. J. Wass & P.E. Wells (Eds.),
Principles and practice in business and management research.
Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company Ltd.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Whipp, R., & Clark, P. (1986). Innovation and the auto
industry. London: Frances Pinter.
White, D., & Fortune, J. (2002). Current practice in proj-
ect management: An empirical study. International Journal of
Project Management, 20(2), 1–22.
Winch, G. (1996). Thirty years of project management:
What have we learned? Paper presented at British Academy
of Management Conference, Aston University.
Zimmerer, T. W., & Yasin, M. M. (1998, March). A lead-
ership profile of American project managers. Project
Management Journal, 31–38.

STEPEHEN A. LEYBOURNE is a senior lecturer at Plymouth Business School. He has a PhD from Cardiff Business School,
has published numerous papers, and has presented at national and international peer-reviewed conferences, including
the last four U.S. Academy of Management conferences and the last three PMI Research conferences. His research interests
include organizational improvisation, innovation, and the implementation of change using projects. Current funded
research is investigating improvisation within high value “Superyacht” projects. He was a member of the EPSRC-funded
“Rethinking Project Management” network, and is also a member of numerous professional and academic associations.

M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L 73
A MULTI-PHASE RESEARCH
PROGRAM INVESTIGATING
PROJECT MANAGEMENT OFFICES (PMOS):
THE RESULTS OF PHASE 1
ABSTRACT
Over the last decade, the project man-
agement office (PMO) has become a
prominent feature in many organiza-
tions. Despite the proliferation of PMOs
in practice, our understanding of this
phenomenon remains sketchy at best.
No consensus exists as to the way PMOs
are or should be structured nor as to the
functions they should or do fill in organi-
zations. In addition, there is no agree-
ment as to the value of PMOs. Despite
the importance of this phenomena and
the lack of understanding, there has
been very little research on this topic. A
three-phase research program has been
undertaken in order to develop a better
understand of PMOs. This paper pres-
ents the research strategy, the overall
program, and the results of the first
phase of the research.
Keywords: project management office
(PMO); survey results; research methods
©2007 by the Project Management Institute
Vol. 38, No. 1, 74-86, ISSN 8756-9728/03
74
BRIAN HOBBS, PMP, University of Quebec at Montreal, Canada
MONIQUE AUBRY, University of Quebec at Montreal, Canada
Introduction
n recent years, many organizations have established PMOs. Dai and Wells
I (2004, p. 526) showed that PMOs first started to become popular in 1994 and
that their number has been growing significantly since. Many books and arti-
cles on PMOs have been published in recent years, with the vast majority of the
literature produced by practitioners and consultants promoting the implementa-
tion of PMOs. This literature is rational, self-evidently correct and normative, as
is much of the project management literature (Williams, 2005).
Observations of PMOs in organizations contrast quite sharply with the image
portrayed in the literature. The population of PMOs is characterized by very sig-
nificant variation in:
• The structure of PMOs
• The roles assumed by PMOs
• The perceived value of PMOs.
Prior to the undertaking of the present research program, a reliable portrait
of the population of PMOs was not available. In addition, an adequate explana-
tion of the great variety has yet to be found.
The Definition of a PMO
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) defines a
PMO as:
An organizational body or entity assigned various responsibilities related to
the centralized and coordinated management of those projects under its
domain. The responsibilities of the PMO can range from providing project
management support functions to actually being responsible for the direct
management of a project. (PMI, 2004, p. 369)
This definition is very close to the definition the authors adopted during this
investigation. It highlights that PMOs are organizational entities and that their
mandates vary significantly from one organization to the next. However, the
present study makes a distinction between the multi-project PMO and the sin-
gle-project PMO or “project office,” which has responsibility for the manage-
ment of one large project. The PMBOK® Guide definition and much of the
literature on PMOs include both, and both are important phenomena worthy of
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
investigation. Multi-project PMOs and
entities responsible for the manage-
ment of a single project are quite dif-
ferent and can best be investigated
separately. The scope of the present
investigation includes only PMOs with
mandates that cover many projects or
“multi-project PMOs.”
In part because of the great variety
found among PMOs in different
organizations, and in part because of
the lack of both a consensus among
practitioners and adequate descrip-
tions in the literature, discussions on
this topic tend to be characterized by
diversity of opinion and confusion.
Many people have been exposed to a
limited number of PMOs and have
concluded inappropriately that all
PMOs are similar to the ones they have
observed. The lack of consensus is
understandable given (1) that the
PMO is a relatively recent phenome-
non, (2) that PMOs take on a great
variety of forms and functions, and (3)
that there has been a lack of systematic
investigation. The present investiga-
tion employs a rather large definition
of the PMO in order to capture the
variety of form and function. For the
purposes of this investigation, it is not
necessary that the organizational unity
be called a PMO.
PMOs in the Literature
Several books and papers have been
published on PMOs in recent years.
Table 1: Typologies of PMOs in the literature
The descriptions of PMOs in the litera-
ture are often summarized in typolo-
gies comprised of a small number of
models. Dinsmore (1999) introduced
the earliest typology of PMOs with
four types, starting with a single proj-
ect entity in which project manage-
ment services are developed and used
within this single project. The three
other models in Dinsmore’s typology
are multi-project entities: project sup-
port office, project management center
of excellence, and program manage-
ment office. The Gartner Research
Group’s 2000 study (cited in Kendall &
Rollins, 2003) proposed one of the
most influential typologies of PMOs.
The Gartner Group typology is com-
prised of three types of PMOs: (1)
project repository, (2) coach, and (3)
enterprise. Several authors have pro-
posed typologies since the publication
of the Gartner report, some of whom
explicitly reference the earlier work.
Within the space restrictions of the
present paper, it is not possible to sum-
marize these typologies. Table 1 pres-
ents a listing of some of the types of
PMOs described in the literature, iden-
tified only by their names.
Some of the typologies identify
the single-project entity of “project
office,” which is outside the scope of
the present study. Each of the typolo-
gies proposes two, three, or four multi-
project PMOs, organized in an
ascending hierarchy. Different authors
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
use different properties to characterize
the passage from one level to the next
within their hierarchy. The following
are among these properties:
• Staff functions or line functions with
project managers included within
the PMO
• Organizational scope: covering larger
portions of the organization
• Level within the organizational hier-
archy: from the lower operational
level to the top level
• Influence and authority: from pas-
sive to supportive to enforcing stan-
dards to empowered
• Operational issues to strategic issues,
often associated with a progression
from project management to pro-
gram and/or portfolio management
• Process-driven to business-driven
• Project management maturity (culture)
within the organization: from non-sup-
portive to fully-supportive culture.
Each type presented in these
typologies is a model of a PMO. Any
model is necessarily a simplification
and a reduction of the complexities of
organizational reality. Models are very
useful, even necessary, to support both
research and practice. However, the
reduction of all or even most multi-
project PMOs to two, three, or four
types is a radical reduction. The pres-
ent investigation does not use the
models found in the literature as a
starting point. The authors believe that
75
it is useful and necessary to put these
models aside and to investigate organi-
zational reality directly in order to cap-
ture the diversity and the complexity of
PMOs in practice.
The Multi-Phase, Multi-Method
Research Program
The objectives of the research program
are two-fold. The first objective is to pro-
duce a reliable description of the present
population of PMOs. The second objec-
tive is to develop a better understanding
of PMOs, of why they take on such a
variety of forms, and of the dynamics
surrounding their creation, transforma-
tion, and action in organizations.
It would be difficult to start from
the present state of knowledge in which
no reliable description of the phenom-
ena is available to develop an adequate
understanding of PMOs and their roles
in organizations. The investigation of
PMOs has, therefore, been organized
into a three-phase research program.
Each phase is a separate project with its
own methodological approach.
Successive phases build upon the find-
ings of previous phases. This approach
is motivated by the present lack of
knowledge, by the great variety of
forms and functions observed, and by
the complexity of the organizational
phenomena under investigation. The
authors adopted the approach suggest-
ed by Van de Ven (in press) on engaged
scholarship, where the complexity of
the subject merits looking at the prob-
lem from various angles.
The program has been organized
into the following phases:
1. A descriptive survey of 500 PMOs
aimed at providing a realistic por-
trait of the population of PMOs in
organizations (2005).
2. The development of a rich concep-
tual model to guide further investi-
gation (2006).
3. Four in-depth case studies aimed at
understanding the dynamics sur-
rounding PMOs in their organiza-
tional context (2006).
4. A confirmatory study to validate the
understanding that will emerge
from the previous two years work
and modification of the model pro-
duced in phase 2 (2007).
76
At the time of this writing, the sur-
vey in phase one has been completed.
The results are reported in the present
paper. The conceptual model has been
developed (Aubry, Hobbs, & Thuillier,
in press). Data collection for the four
case studies has been completed and is
in the early stages of analysis. The fol-
lowing paragraphs present each phase
in more detail.
Phase 1: A Descriptive Survey
of 500 PMOs
Each of the 500 survey responses
describes one PMO and its context.
Each is a snapshot of a PMO as it was
at the time of the survey investigation.
The 500 snapshots were analyzed to:
1. Provides a description of the total
population and variations in PMO
structure, role, and perceived value.
2. To identify common configurations
or models that describe significant
numbers of PMOs.
3. To identify relationships between
the variability of PMOs and the vari-
ability of their contexts.
4. To identify correlations between the
characteristics of PMOs and their
perceived value.
A descriptive survey with a large
sample is an adequate methodology for
describing a population. The primary
result of phase 1 was the production of
such a description of the population, a
description characterized by extreme
variety. If the majority of the population
can be described by a small number of
configurations or models, the analysis
of survey data can identify these.
However, the present investigation was
unable to reduce the population to a
small number of configurations.
The survey instrument collected
contextual data, which was analyzed to
identify statistical associations
between PMO characteristics and con-
textual variables. Intuitively, PMOs can
be thought to vary in different contexts
and the context can provide at least a
partial explanation for the variability
found within the population of PMOs.
However, no such statistical associa-
tions were found.
The survey data was largely
descriptive. However, the survey instru-
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
ment did include questions as to the
perceived value of each PMO.
Statistical analysis revealed that some
characteristics of PMOs are associated
with more highly valued entities. The
statistical associations are quite strong
and provide some insight into the
dynamics surrounding highly valued
PMOs. However, they provide only a
partial explanation of the performance
of PMOs and their contributions to
organizational performance.
There are advantages and incon-
veniences with any methodological
approach. Several possible explana-
tions can be provided as to why the
analysis of survey data does not provide
an adequate explanation of such phe-
nomena, as is the case here. First, the
survey data is limited to the questions
on the survey instrument. It is possible
that statistical associations exist
between PMO characteristics and con-
textual variables not included in the
survey instrument. Second, the survey
only provides descriptive snapshots. It
does not reveal the dynamics surround-
ing the PMO and its evolution over
time. The analysis of survey data gath-
ered at one point in time is also limited
in that it is very difficult, if not impos-
sible, to determine the underlying
causal relationships. In the present sur-
vey, it is not clear why PMOs with cer-
tain characteristics are perceived better
than others. Phases 2 and 3 were
designed to improve our understand-
ing of the PMO phenomenon.
Phase 2: The Development of a Rich
Conceptual Model to Guide Further
Investigation
Phase 1 provided a description of the
population of PMOs but did not pro-
vide an adequate understanding of the
dynamics surrounding the PMO nor
did it identify the major sources of
variability. Phases 2 and 3 of the
research program are designed to over-
come the shortcomings of a large sam-
ple descriptive survey. Here, the PMO
is not considered as a standalone enti-
ty but rather as an important structural
element of the organization in which it
is implemented. The unit of analysis
passes thus from the PMO to the
organization that encompasses it. In
this perspective, the PMO is seen as the
gateway into the organization in order
to study the dynamics of project man-
agement in the organizational context
and the role of the PMO in these
dynamics. “The critical task is to adopt
and use the models, theories, and
research methods that are appropriate
for the research problem and question
being address” (Van de Ven, in press).
Given the complexity and the rich-
ness of the subject being studied and
the exploratory nature of the investiga-
tion, a constructivist ontology in
which the PMO is conceptualized as a
dynamic constructed entity has been
adopted for phases 2 and 3 of the
research program. It is not the purpose
of the present paper to provide a com-
plete description of the rich conceptu-
al model that has been developed
(Aubry, Hobbs, & Thuillier, in press).
However, it is important to understand
the basic premises upon which the
model is based, as these condition the
balance of the research program.
The conceptual model is based on
the following elements:
• Organizational structures are con-
ceptualized as the result of a dynam-
ic strategizing/structuring process
(Pettigrew, 2003).
• An historical and contextual perspec-
tive (Hughes, 1987) is adopted for
the examination of both:
° The host organization
° The PMO or PMOs.
• The dynamic relationships between
the PMO and its host organization
are conceptualized as co-evolution-
ary (Van de Ven & Garud, 1994).
• Network structure approach
(Hagström & Hedlund, 1999) and
actor network theory (ANT) (Callon
& Law, 1989) are borrowed from the
field of sociology. Both are used to
depict the PMO as a network, the for-
mer in its structural aspect, and the
latter in examining the relationships
among the actors involved.
• The conceptualization of the organi-
zational contribution of the PMO is
based on a “competing values
approach.” In this approach, organi-
zational contribution is seen as a
subjective construct rooted in values
and preferences of stakeholders
(Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Morin,
Savoie, & Beaudin, 1994; Pettigrew,
2003). The model includes four rep-
resentations intended to provide an
overall view of organizational project
management performance. The
rational goals representation integrates
economic value to measure profit,
project management efficiency, and
return on investment. The open system
representation contains variables that
measure adaptation and growth. The
human relations representation intro-
duces considerations of human
resource development, cohesion, and
morale that are almost invisible in
corporate evaluation. The internal
process representation captures the
measures related to corporate
processes linked to project manage-
ment such as program and portfolio
processes and knowledge manage-
ment processes.
The theoretical model developed
in phase 2 has been used as the basis
for phase 3.
Phase 3: In-Depth Case Studies Aimed
at Understanding the Dynamics
Surrounding PMOs in Their
Organizational Context
In-depth case studies are particularly
well adapted to subjects as complex as
the one under investigation here, espe-
cially when the study is exploratory, as
is the case here. Both the survey results
from phase 1 and the conceptual
model developed in phase 2 were
drawn upon in the design of the
research instruments for phase 3.
These included both interview guides
and questionnaires. Extensive data was
gathered in each of four organizations
in order to produce a rich description
of the organization, its PMO or PMOs,
and their joint evolution. Three types
of data were gathered:
1. Company documents were collected.
2. In-depth, semi-structured interviews
were conducted, recorded, and tran-
scribed with multiple respondents
with different organizational roles.
Each interview gathered both factual
and perceptual information.
3. Two questionnaires were developed
and used. These included a question-
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
naire based on the survey instrument
from phase 1 to which several ques-
tions were added, and a questionnaire
addressing the issue of the organiza-
tional contribution of PMOs.
The analysis of data from multiple
sources provides a rich, detailed, and
reliable description of each organization
and its PMO or PMOs in their specific
context as they evolved together over
time. At the time of this writing, the data
collection activities have been complet-
ed and the analysis is under way.
Phase 4: The Confirmatory Study to
Validate the Understanding That Will
Emerge From the Previous Two Years
Work and Modification of the Model
Produced in Phase 2
The rich data and in-depth analysis in
phase 2 is expected to produce a better
understanding of PMOs in these four
organizations. The strategy for phase 4
is to draw upon the results of the first
three phases and to conduct investiga-
tions to both complete and to validate
the understanding that will emerge
from the analysis of both the survey
and case study results analyzed togeth-
er. It is too early to be able to describe
in detail the exact nature of the confir-
matory study that will be carried out in
2007. The balance of the present paper
is devoted to the presentation and dis-
cussion of the methodology and the
results of the survey in phase 1. A more
complete presentation of the results
can be found in Hobbs (in press).
Detailed Methodology
for the Survey in Phase 1
Because there has been very little
empirical research on PMOs, a reliable
portrait of the population of PMOs is
not available. The objective of this
research is to provide such a portrait.
Providing a descriptive portrait is typi-
cally an objective of exploratory
research into a previously unexplored
topic. In this sense, the present
research should be considered as
descriptive and exploratory. Phase 1 of
the research program is a project in
and of itself.
This project took place in four
steps over a two-year period.
77
 Step 1 was to undertake a prelimi-
nary and systematic investigation of 30
PMOs in different organizations and
different industries. This was done in
2004. The objective was to provide a
preliminary validation of the hypothe-
sis that the structures, roles, and legiti-
macy of PMOs vary significantly from
one organization to the next, and to
gather data that would contribute to
the production of a richer and more
reliable portrait of the reality of PMOs.
To this end, a preliminary version of
the survey questionnaire was devel-
oped and tested. Feedback sessions
were held with informants from the
organizations to validate and discuss
these preliminary results. The prelimi-
nary investigations produced an image
of PMOs characterized by extreme vari-
ety in structures, roles, and legitimacy,
while at the same time validating and
significantly enriching the question-
naire, which became the survey instru-
ment. The results from step 1 were
enlightening but the sample is small. It
does not lend itself to statistical analy-
sis and it is impossible to judge how
representative this sample is of the
general population.
Step 2 was undertaken to validate
and further enrich the preliminary
results from step 1. A web-based survey
instrument was designed and tested. The
questionnaire had already been validat-
ed and tested in step 1, however three
respondents from different industries
tested the web-based version and a small
number of minor adjustments were
made. The instrument was designed so
that each respondent describes one
PMO. The questions were descriptive
until the end of the instrument, where a
small number of more evaluative ques-
tions completed the instrument.
Step 3 was the data collection
phase. The invitation to participate
was available on the Project
Management Institute (PMI) website.
The authors solicited respondents
through several project management
networks including the PMI Montreal
Chapter’s Community of Practice on
PMOs, the PMI Southern Ontario
Chapter, PMForum, the American
Society for the Advancement of
Project Management, and the firms
78
Human Systems and Valence—and
with the collaboration of colleagues
from the University of Limerick,
Athabasca University, University of
Technology Sydney, and ESC-Lille.
The authors wish to thank all of those
whose collaboration made this proj-
ect possible. A total of 500 usable
responses were received.
The respondents were distributed
among organizational roles as follows:
• Project managers 38%
• Managers of PMOs 23%
• Professionals in PMOs 11%
• Executives and other managers 10%
• Consultants 8%
• Others 10%
The geographical distribution of
respondents was as follows:
• Canada 43%
• United States 26%
• Europe 16%
• Other 15%
The respondents work in a very
wide variety of industries. The largest
proportions came from the following:
• IT/IS 14%
• Financial services 14%
• Telecommunications 10%
Step 4 consists of data analysis
and presentation of results, of which
this paper is a part.
The Survey Results
The Name of the Entity
The majority of entities described in this
study were called “project management
offices.” However, many of these orga-
nizational entities were given a great
variety of other names. The distribution
of names is presented in Table 2.
Some of the labels used to
describe these organizational entities
deserve comment. Interestingly, 2%
of respondents described entities that
exist in their organizations but that
have no official label and, therefore,
do not appear on the organizational
chart. It is quite plausible that these
entities have been created to fill a real
need, but that their existence has not
yet been made official. It is also plau-
sible that, because of a previous
failed attempt to implement a PMO,
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
or for some other reason, some
PMOs are maintaining a low profile.
The number of entities bearing the
title “project office” is certainly much
greater than these results indicate. This
label is often used to name an entity
responsible for the management of a
single large project. The survey instruc-
tions asked specifically that informants
not refer to this type of unit in respond-
ing to the questionnaire. An examina-
tion of the 2% of responses describing
entities with this label indicates that
these were multi-project entities similar
to those labeled PMO. They have,
therefore, been included in the sample.
A total of 12% of responses
described entities labeled as program
management offices. This group of
responses was compared to those
labeled as project management offices
and no statistically significant differ-
ences were found between the two. The
program management function is
more important for those labeled pro-
gram management office, but the dif-
ference is not statistically significant.
Program management is, therefore,
very often part of the role of the PMO,
whether it is labeled a project or a pro-
gram management office. The analysis
that follows is, therefore, based on the
entire sample, including both labels.
One or Several PMOs
Each respondent to the survey
described one particular PMO.
However, some organizations have
more than one. In 53% of the cases,
the respondents indicated that the
PMO described is the only one in the
organization. Of these, 30% were
described as central PMOs and 23% as
located in a business, functional, or
regional unit. Another 25% reported
that other PMOs exist but have no rela-
tionship with their PMO or its man-
date. Finally, 22% described a PMO
that is related to at least one other
PMO in their organization.
The Age of PMOs
Most PMOs have two characteristics in
common; they tend to be young and to
have a small staff. Apart from these two
points in common, PMOs vary enor-
mously one from the other. PMOs have

Table 2: Names of organizational entities
been popular since the mid- to late-
1990s. Surprisingly, 54% of PMOs in
existence today were created in the last
two years, according to data from 2005.
The Interthink Consulting survey (2002,
p. 12) showed the same result: half of
the PMOs were less than two years old
in 2002. Two phenomena are at work
producing this result. First, new PMOs
are being created at a relatively high rate.
Second, PMOs are being shut down or
radically reconfigured at almost as fast a
rate. The result is a population dominat-
ed by PMOs that have only been in exis-
tence in their present form for a few
years, as shown in Figure 1.
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1 year or less 1 to 2 years
Figure 1: Age distribution of PMOs
PMO Staff
Most PMOs have very little in the way
of staffing. Figure 2 shows the staffing
levels of PMOs expressed in full-time
equivalents, including the person
responsible for the PMO, but exclud-
ing the project managers. This staff is
overhead, and organizations are very
reluctant to create overhead expenses.
The issue of the cost of overhead is a
key issue for PMOs, creating a some-
what paradoxical situation in which
the PMO is asked to take on many
functions with few resources.
As this data shows, the vast
majority of PMOs have been recently
3 to 5 years More than 5 years
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
created or restructured. Most have
very little staff other than the proj-
ect managers. PMOs have very little
else in common. Quite to the con-
trary, great variety characterizes the
population of PMOs described in
this survey. On some characteristics,
the population displays distribu-
tions that are close to being either
normal or skewed toward one
extreme. In many cases the variance
is high. On other variables, the dis-
tributions are almost bipolar, with
most PMOs at one extreme or the
other of the distribution and few in
the middle ground.
The Decision-Making Authority
of the PMO
The distribution of decision-making
authority is close to a normal distribu-
tion, but with very high variance, as
shown in Figure 3. PMOs in a passive
or supporting role with little or no
decision-making authority make up
41% of the sample. At the other
extreme, 29% have considerable or
very significant authority to make deci-
sions to allocate resources, set priori-
ties, or initiate, change, or cancel
projects. This illustrates the great vari-
ety of roles different organizations
assign to their PMOs.
The Allocation of Projects and Project
Managers to PMOs
The variation among PMOs as to the per-
centage of projects and project managers
found within their structures is even more
extreme. These distributions, shown in
Figures 4 and 5, respectively, show bipolar
distributions with more PMOs at each
extreme than in the middle ground.
In different organizations, the
answer to the question “Are project
managers grouped within the PMO?”
received radically different responses:
31% of organizations reported that
they group 100% of the project man-
agers in the PMO, while 29% of
PMOs had no project managers.
These two extremes corresponded to
PMOs that are either strictly a staff
function with no project managers,
or a line function with responsibility
for the active management of projects
in the hands of their project managers.
79

Figure 2: Personnel of PMOs excluding project managers (full-time equivalents)
Figure 3: Decision-making authority of PMOs
An alternative way of expressing this
extreme variation is to note that 46%
of PMOs had less than 25% of the
project managers within their struc-
ture, 40 % had more than 75%, and
only 14% had between 25% and 75%.
The percentage of projects that are
within the PMO’s mandate is also
extremely varied. Figures 4 and 5 show
the extreme variety in the way organiza-
tions structure their PMOs. This variety
contrasts with the literature on PMOs
80
that tends to oversimplify reality. Given
the extreme variety of forms that PMOs
take on in reality, any general statement
claiming to describe the decision-mak-
ing authority of PMOs or the allocation
of project managers or projects to
PMOs should be viewed critically.
The Organizational Roles of PMOs
PMOs fill many different roles or func-
tions in different organizations. The
interchangeable terms “role” and
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
“function” are used here to identify the
content of the PMO’s mandate within
the organization. A list of roles or func-
tions that are part of the mandates of
PMOs was derived from preliminary
investigations of a smaller sample of
PMOs and from a review of the litera-
ture. A large number of different func-
tions were identified. The final list
contained 27 functions. Several of
these functions were added during the
process of pre-testing the question-
naire. Within the survey, respondents
were asked if their PMO filled any
functions not included in this list. An
analysis of the responses did not iden-
tify any functions important for more
than a very small number of PMOs. A
large number of respondents indicated
that the list is complete, a result that
can be seen as a validation of the list of
27 functions of PMOs.
The respondents to the survey
reported the importance of each of
these functions for their PMO using a
scale ranging from 1 (not important at
all) to 5 (very important). Table 3
shows the percentage of PMOs in
which each function was scored
either of considerable importance or
very important.
In the minds of many practitioners,
PMOs were associated with particular
roles or functions. It was not uncom-
mon to hear statements such as, “A
PMO is an entity that develops and
implements a standardized project
management methodology.” Table 3
confirms that 76% of PMOs are heavily
involved in this function. But to define
PMOs by associating them with a par-
ticular function or group of functions is
out of line with organizational reality.
All 27 functions are important for sig-
nificant numbers of PMOs, and 21 of
the 27 are important for at least 40% of
PMOs. This result again illustrates the
extreme variety found among different
PMOs in different organizations, and
the difficulty in providing a simple and
accurate description of what they are
and what roles they fill.
It may seem surprising that 50%
of PMOs consider monitoring and
controlling the performance of the
PMO itself as important. However, this
result is consistent with, and likely a

Figure 4: Percentage of projects within the mandate of the PMO
Figure 5: Percentage of project managers within PMO
consequence of, the fact that the value
of PMOs and the justification of the
expenses they generate are often
brought under scrutiny and ques-
tioned. Many PMOs are under pressure
to justify their expenses and show
value for money.
Members of the project manage-
ment community recognize most of
the functions listed in Table 3 very eas-
ily. However, some functions have only
recently come into prominence.
Program management (48%) and
portfolio management (49%) are
shown as quite important despite the
fact that they only recently became the
focus of much attention with the
development of “enterprise or organi-
zational project management.”
Benefits management (28%) is an even
more recent phenomenon in the proj-
ect management community and liter-
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
ature. Many members of the commu-
nity are as yet unfamiliar with this
practice, which may explain why it is
considered relatively less important.
Groups of Functions
Analyzing 27 different functions is quite a
detailed task. Identifying groups of func-
tions greatly simplifies interpretation and
use of this data. This can be done con-
ceptually by identifying practices that are
logically related. For example, reporting
project status to upper management
requires that project performance be
monitored, which can best be done with
a project information system and a proj-
ect scorecard. These four functions are
thus logically related. One would expect
to find that PMOs that fill one of these
functions would also have a tendency to
fill the others.
The tendency to fill functions in
groups can also be identified and
measured through statistical associa-
tions. Factorial analysis was used to
identify such groupings. Functions that
are grouped together through factorial
analysis are tightly associated statisti-
cally with each other, and statistically
independent from the other functions
and groups of functions. These inde-
pendent groups constitute the dimen-
sions of the fundamental underlying
structure. The factorial analysis identi-
fied five groups of functions. Each
group was examined to ensure that it
was internally consistent in both con-
ceptual and practical terms.
These groups show the structure
underlying the many roles filled by
PMOs in organizations. Identifying
groups of functions that are both
conceptually and statistically sound
has very practical consequences.
The long and disorganized list of
functions is replaced by a simple
structure of underlying high-level
roles or functions. These are pre-
sented next in decreasing order of
the average importance of the func-
tions included in the group, which
are indicated on a scale of 1 to 5.
The average importance is indicated
in parentheses for each group.
Within each group, the functions
are presented in decreasing order of
average importance.
81

Table 3: PMO functions in decreasing order of importance
Group 1: Monitoring and Controlling
Project Performance (3.82)
The group of functions related to the
monitoring and controlling of project
performance is the most important
group. This group includes both the
monitoring, controlling, and reporting
of project performance and the man-
agement of the computer-based tools
to do these tasks. PMOs with these
functions are providing for the infor-
mation managers’ needs to maintain
visibility and control the performance
of projects for which they are responsi-
ble. In so doing, the PMO is support-
82
The group of functions most tradition-
ally associated with PMOs includes
functions dealing with tools and
methodologies and with competency
development. This group is composed
of the following functions:
• Develop and implement a standard
methodology
• Promote project management within
the organization
• Develop competency of personnel,
including training
• Provide mentoring for project managers
• Provide a set of tools without an
effort to standardize.
The development and implemen-
tation of tools and methodology and
the provision of project management
training and mentoring are the func-
tions most people associate with
PMOs. The PMO with these functions
is often in the role of promoting the
use of the methodology, the develop-
ment of competencies, and project
management in general. This group
thus constitutes a coherent set of func-
tions that reinforce one another. This
reinforcement is the practical reality
behind the statistical phenomenon
identified by the factorial analysis.
Group 3: Multi-Project Management (3.23)
Some PMOs have mandates to man-
age whole sets of projects in a coordi-
nated fashion, which often involves
program or portfolio management.
These have become important aspects
of project management, as signaled
by PMI with the publication of the
Organizational Project Management
Maturity Model (OPM3®) (PMI, 2003)
ing project governance functions. The and the publication of standards on
interrelatedness of these functions was program and portfolio management
previously discussed. (PMI, 2006a, 2006b). The coordina-
• Report project status to upper man- tion of interdependences within pro-
agement grams and portfolios is a central
• Monitoring and control of project issue in multi-project management,
performance as can be seen from the functions in
• Implement and operate a project this group:
information system • Coordinate between projects
• Develop and maintain a project • Identify, select, and prioritize
scoreboard. new projects
• Manage one or more portfolios
Group 2: Development of Project • Manage one or more programs
Management Competencies and • Allocate resources between
Methodologies (3.54) projects.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L

Figure 6: “Has the relevance or even the existence of the PMO been seriously questioned in recent years?”
Group 4: Strategic Management (3.06)
There has been a tendency in recent
years for project management in gener-
al, and PMOs in particular, to become
more involved with issues of strategic
alignment and to become more closely
tied to upper management. The factor
analysis reveals that the following
group of functions related to strategic
management constitutes one of the
underlying dimensions of PMO roles:
• Provide advice to upper management
• Participate in strategic planning
• Benefits management
• Network and provide environmental
scanning.
Involvement in these functions
brings project management and the
PMO closer to upper management.
Networking and providing environ-
mental scanning are used to keep
abreast of current development so
as to give up-to-date advice to
upper management. The survey
showed that these functions are
more typical of central PMOs.
Group 5: Organizational Learning (3.00)
Organizational learning has been a very
important topic in the management lit-
erature and practice in recent years. Some
PMOs are actively involved in organiza-
tional learning through the following
group of functions:
• Monitor and control the perform-
ance of the PMO
• Manage archives of project docu-
mentation
• Conduct post-project reviews
• Conduct project audits
• Implement and manage a database
of lessons learned
• Implement and manage a risk database.
The last four functions in this
group are very directly related to orga-
nizational learning. An examination of
Table 3 shows them to be among the
functions viewed as least important.
From this it can be seen that, although
organizational learning is of consider-
able importance, it is often seen as less
important than other functions more
directly related to operational or strate-
gic issues.
The first two functions in this
group are related to organizational
learning, but can also be deployed in
the pursuit of other objectives.
Archiving project documentation has
important operational aspects. The
function to “monitor and control the
performance of the PMO” can be
seem as part of the learning feedback
loop, and thus as closely related to
the other organizational learning
functions in this group. Recent inter-
views with PMO personnel have
revealed that some PMOs specifically
use the evaluation of the perform-
ance of their PMO in an organiza-
tional learning perspective. It is,
however, conceivable that the meas-
urement of PMO performance may
also be done in response to question-
ing of the expenses generated by the
PMO. The overall average importance
of this group is influenced positively
by the importance these first two
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
functions may have for objectives not
directly related to organizational
learning. Thus, the average impor-
tance of this group may overstate the
overall importance of organizational
learning for PMOs. Organizational
learning is, however, important for a
significant number of PMOs. Project
management in general and PMOs
in particular are participating in the
general trend toward the increased
importance of organizational learn-
ing in the knowledge economy.
Additional Functions Not Included in
the Groups of Functions
The factorial analysis produced the five
groups of functions previously present-
ed. Three functions not included in
these groups complete the list of 27
functions identified in this study.
These three functions are excluded
from the groups previously listed, not
because they are not important, but
because their presence is neither statis-
tically nor conceptually related to
these groups. The remaining functions
are presented here in decreasing order
of importance.
Execute Specialized Tasks for Project
Managers (e.g., Prepare Schedules)
(3.05)
Many PMOs provide specialized servic-
es to project managers and project
teams. In order to execute these tasks,
PMOs maintain specialized resources
on their staff. The preparation of sched-
ules is a common example, but such
services can include many other tasks,
such as contract and risk management.
Manage Customer Interfaces (2.84)
Some PMOs have the responsibility for
managing customer interfaces.
Responsibility for this activity depends
to a great extent on the type of customer.
Not all PMOs are in a position to fill this
role. On the average, managing the cus-
tomer interface is more important for
PMOs with customers that are external
to the organization. A PMO responsible
for all the projects for a given customer
may well have an important role to play
in managing this customer interface. A
PMO responsible for an outsourcing
contract is an example of this.
83
Recruit, Select, Evaluate, and Determine
Salaries for Project Managers (2.35)
This is the least important function for
PMOs, but it remains important for
22% of PMOs. The human resource
(HR) department in most organiza-
tions carries out these HR activities,
but the involvement of a number of
PMOs in these activities is considered
important in some contexts. The PMOs
fit into very different organizational
realities regarding HR management
relative to project managers.
Implications for Theory and Practice
The existence of a statistical and con-
ceptual link between two or more
functions does not mean that they
are, or should always be, implement-
ed together. The statistical and con-
ceptual links are too weak for this to
be the case. Organizations must use
considerable judgment when decid-
ing which functions the PMO is to be
mandated to fill.
On average, the monitoring and
controlling of project performance is
the most important group and the les-
sons learned group the least important.
The rank ordering of the groups of func-
tions may be misleading. All are impor-
tant, and the differences among them
are small. In any particular context, any
one of them may be the most impor-
tant. However, the number of func-
tions in each group varies. In addition,
the relative importance of the different
functions in each group varies consid-
erably, as can be seen from Table 3.
This reinforces the need to adapt to the
organizational and strategic context
when deciding which functions to
include within the mandate of a par-
ticular PMO.
The fact that the underlying high-
level functions are statistically inde-
pendent of each other is an indication
that they identify a fundamental or
deep structure. The identification of
this underlying structure among PMO
functions has profound consequences
for both theory and practice. From
both points of view, a few high-level
functions are much more manageable
than the long and unorganized list of
possible functions. From the point of
view of theory building, the identifica-
84
tion of the structure that underlies the
role of PMOs in organizations pro-
vides a key to understanding the fun-
damental roles of project management
and of PMOs in the creation of value
in organizational contexts. This ques-
tion is at the heart of project manage-
ment research at the present time.
From the point of view of managers
and practitioners, identifying the
underlying structure greatly simplifies
the task of analyzing and understand-
ing existing PMOs and the task of
designing or restructuring PMOs.
Legitimacy and Performance of PMOs
The data on the age of PMOs showed
that PMOs are being shut down or rad-
ically restructured almost as fast as
they are being created. At the end of
the survey instrument, after having
described their PMO, respondents
were asked, “Has the relevance or even
the existence of the PMO been serious-
ly questioned in recent years?” Forty-
two percent of the respondents
answered “yes.” This data is illustrated
in Figure 6. The reality of PMOs in
organizations is even darker than this
result indicates. A survey of this type
has a positive bias, particularly on eval-
uative questions such as this. People
who are interested enough to respond
to the invitation to participate in the
survey tend to have a positive attitude
on the topic of the survey. Those unfa-
vorable and strongly opposed tend not
to respond. In this survey, there is an
additional positive bias created by the
fact that organizations that have shut
down their PMO or have decided not
to implement one have not responded
to this questionnaire in which respon-
dents are asked to describe an existing
PMO. The extent of the bias is difficult
to estimate, but it is not unreasonable
to think that about half of organiza-
tions are critical enough of PMOs to
decide not to implement one or to
seriously consider shutting theirs
down if they already have one.
This result clearly identifies a lack
of consensus in the project manage-
ment community. About half of
PMOs are seen as legitimate within
their organizational context. This
level of strong support for PMOs
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
combined with the large number of
PMOs currently in existence under-
scores the importance of PMOs in
project management practice today.
On the other hand, the very existence
of the other half of PMOs is being
questioned. Other questions in the
survey confirmed that the issues of
value for money and the contribution
or lack of contribution to project and
program performance are key to the
perceived performance and ultimately
to the legitimacy of the PMO. Poor-
performing PMOs are seen as too
costly and as contributing little to
project and program performance,
while highly valued PMOs are seen as
making significant contributions to
performance. The ability to show con-
tribution to performance at a reason-
able cost is critical.
The survey results show that
PMOs are more legitimate in organi-
zations with higher levels of organiza-
tional project management maturity.
The existence of a correlation between
these two variables, organizational
maturity and PMO legitimacy, does
not reveal the nature of the relation-
ship between the two variables. It may
well be that the PMO is highly con-
sidered in an organization that is
mature in project management
because project management is val-
ued in this organization. On the other
hand, it may be that a high-perform-
ing PMO has raised the level of proj-
ect management maturity in the
organization. The relation is likely to
be circular and self-reinforcing, with
the high-performing PMO contribut-
ing to the level of project manage-
ment maturity and to the
organizational context in which proj-
ect management and the PMO are val-
ued. The survey also showed that an
organizational culture that is support-
ive of the implementation of the
PMO is associated with the legitimacy
of the PMO. This is indicative of this
circular relationship.
Conclusion
The literature promoting PMOs pres-
ents them as a best practice with obvi-
ous positive effects on project,
program, and organizational perform-
ance. The reality is quite different.
Many PMOs are struggling to show
value for money and some are failing,
causing a very high mortality rate
among PMOs. Practitioners and organ-
izations would be well advised not to
implement a PMO under naive
assumptions of value for money or
because PMOs are popular.
The results of the survey have
shown the hypothesis that “the struc-
tures, roles, and legitimacy of PMOs
vary significantly from one organiza-
tion to the next” to be true. The orga-
nizational reality surrounding PMOs
is complex and varied. Organizations
establish a great variety of different
PMOs to deal with their reality.
Organizations may decide to include
some or all of their project managers
within the PMO or they may place
them elsewhere in their structures. The
PMO’s mandate may cover all the
organization’s projects or only a select
few. Organizations choose from
among a number of possible roles or
functions when deciding upon the
mandate to give to a PMO. They also
choose between a PMO in a support
role with little or no authority and a
PMO with considerable decision-mak-
ing power. These organizational
design choices create PMOs of varied
form and function.
Many different properties can be
used to differentiate “types” of PMOs.
The results presented here show that
PMOs do in fact vary considerably one
from another and that the variation is
not limited to a small group of proper-
ties or characteristics. The population
of PMOs shows considerable variation
of not just a few, but of many charac-
teristics, thus creating a myriad of pos-
sible forms that PMOs can and do take
on. This creates a population that is
difficult to reduce to a small number
of models.
The Ongoing Program of Research
The survey that forms the basis of this
paper is the first phase of a three-year
research program to investigate PMOs
and the dynamics through which they
contribute to organizational perform-
ance. In collaboration with their col-
league, Dr. Denis Thuillier, the authors
responded to PMI’s 2005 annual RFP
for research proposals and were award-
ed a research grant, titled “Modeling
Organizational Project Management
and PMO Performance.”
The second phase of this research
program involves four in-depth case
studies of PMOs in their organiza-
tional context. These commenced in
late 2005, and was completed in
2006. The objective of the case studies
is to uncover the organizational
dynamics that lead to value creation
through the use of project manage-
ment. The PMO is seen as the point of
entry into the organization to study
the dynamics of value creation in con-
text. The case studies draw upon the
results of the survey to establish a rich
and reliable representation of the
reality of PMOs prior to the detailed
investigations. The analysis of the case
studies is intended to produce a
model of value creation.
The third phase of the research
program will involve the validation of
the findings from the in-depth case
studies using a survey of a larger sam-
ple of organizations and PMOs. This
will be carried out in 2007. The objec-
tive is to produce a conceptually rich
and empirically grounded model.
References
Aubry, M., Hobbs, B., & Thuillier, D.
(in press). A new framework for under-
standing organisational project manage-
ment through PMO. International Journal
of Project Management.
Callon, M., & Law, J. (1989). La
proto-histoire d’un laboratoire ou le diffi-
cile mariage de la science et de l’économie.
Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E.
(1999). Diagnosing and changing organi-
zational culture: Based on the competing
values framework. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Crawford, K. J. (2002). The strate-
gic project office. New York: Marcel
Dekker.
Dai, C. X. Y., & Wells, W. G.
(2004). An exploration of project man-
agement office features and their rela-
tionship to project performance.
International Journal of Project
Management, 22(7), 523–532.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Dinsmore, P. C. (1999). Winning
in business with enterprise project man-
agement. New York: AMACOM.
Englund, R. L., Graham, R. J., &
Dinsmore, P. C. (2003). Creating the
project office: A manager’s guide to lead-
ing organizational change. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Garfein, S. J. (2005). Strategic port-
folio management: A smart, realistic and
relatively fast way to gain sustainable com-
petitive advantage. Paper presented at
the PMI Global Congress North
America, Toronto, Canada.
Hagström, P. S. Ö., & Hedlund, G.
(1999). A three-dimensional model of
changing internal structure in the firm.
In A. D. Chandler, Jr., P. S. Ö. Hagström,
& O. Solvell (Eds.), The dynamic firm:
The role of technology, strategy, organiza-
tion, and regions (pp. 166–191). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Hobbs, B. (in press). The multi-
project PMO: A global analysis of the cur-
rent state of practice. White paper.
Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Hughes, P. T. (1987). The evolu-
tion of large technological systems. In
W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch
(Eds.), The social construction of techno-
logical systems: New directions in the soci-
ology and history of technology (pp.
51–81). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Interthink Consulting. (2002). State
of the PMO 2002. Retrieved February 1,
2004, from http://www.interthink.ca/
research/home.html
Kendall, G. I., & Rollins, S. C.
(2003). Advanced project portfolio man-
agement and the PMO: Multiplying ROI
at warp speed. Boca Raton, FL: J. Ross
Publishing.
Light, M. (1999). The enterprise
project office: Beyond 2000, strategic
analysis report. Stamford, CT: Gartner
Group.
Morin, E. M., Savoie, A., &
Beaudin, G. (1994). L’efficacité de l’or-
ganisation: Théories, représentations et
mesures. Montréal, Québec: Gaëtan
Morin éditeur.
Pettigrew, A. M. (2003).
Innovative forms of organizing:
Progress, performance and process. In
A. M. Pettigrew, R. Whittington, L.
Melin, C. Sanchez-Runde, F. A. J. Van
85
den Bosch, W. Ruigrok, & T.
Numagami (Eds.), Innovative forms of
organizing (pp. 331–351). London, UK:
SAGE Publications.
Project Management Institute.
(2003). Organizational project manage-
ment maturity model: OPM3 knowledge
foundation. Newtown Square, PA:
Project Management Institute.
Project Management Institute.
(2004). A guide to the project manage-
ment body of knowledge (3rd ed.).
Newtown Square, PA: PMI. (1994). The coevolution of technical
Project Management Institute. and institutional events in the develop-
(2006a). The standard for program man- ment of an innovation. In J. A. C. Baum
agement. Newtown Square, PA: PMI. & J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynam-
Project Management Institute. ics of organizations (pp. 425–443). New-
(2006b). The standard for portfolio man- York: Oxford University Press.
agement. Newtown Square, PA: PMI. Williams, T. (2005). Assessing and
Van de Ven, A. H. (in press). moving on from the dominant project
Engaged scholarship: Creating knowledge management discourse in the light of
for science and practice. Oxford: Oxford project overruns. IEEE Transactions on
University Press. Engineering Management, 52(4),
Van de Ven, A. H., & Garud, R. 497–508.

BRIAN HOBBS, PMP, holds an MBA and PhD in industrial engineering, and is a Project Management Professional (PMP)
certified by the Project Management Institute (PMI). He has been a professor at the University of Quebec at Montreal
(UQAM) in the Master’s Program in Project Management for more than 20 years. Dr. Hobbs is very active internationally
in both the project management professional and research communities. He served a three-year term on PMI’s Standards
Members Advisory Group (MAG) ending in 2002 and joined the Research MAG in July 2006. He is a reviewer for both the
Project Management Journal and the International Journal of Project Management. He has presented many papers at both
research and professional conferences worldwide.

MONIQUE AUBRY, MPM, is a professor at the Business School of Université du Québec à Montréal. She is finishing her
doctoral thesis working on PMOs and their relation to organizational performance. Her research project has been
sponsored within the PMI’s research program for its theoretical contribution in the field of organizational project
management. She has more than 20 years of experience in the management of major projects in the financial sector. She
is member of the board of the PMI Montreal Chapter.

86 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
HOW GENERIC ARE PROJECT MANAGEMENT
KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE?
ABSTRACT
Project management knowledge and
practice are often considered to be
generic and suitable for standardization.
However, projects are also viewed as fun-
damentally unique pieces of work. This
paradox of project uniqueness lies at the
heart of project management. This paper
discusses this tension between unique-
ness and similarity, before reporting on
the results of a series of assessments of
practitioners’ project management
knowledge and use of project manage-
ment practices. Results are analyzed
across countries, industry sectors, and
application areas, and interpreted in
relation to the ongoing development of
standards for project management.
Keywords: standards; body of knowl-
edge; project management practice;
competence
©2007 by the Project Management Institute
Vol. 38, No. 1, 87-96, ISSN 8756-9728/03
LYNN CRAWFORD, University of Technology, Sydney, and ESC Lille, Australia
JULIEN POLLACK, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
“You could not step into the same river twice, for other waters are ever flowing on to you.”
Heraclitus, On the Universe (540 BC – 480 BC)
Introduction
s more organizations adopt project management approaches and the
A demand for project managers grows, there is increasing interest in the
competence of project managers and in standards for development and
assessment of project management competence. Project management standards
are being used extensively throughout the world in training and development,
professional certification programs and corporate project management
methodologies, based on the assumption that there is a positive relationship
between standards and effective workplace performance.
The assumption that standards are of value can be linked to a societal pref-
erence for uniform rules and firm expectations (Krislov, 1997). Standards
appear to be accepted as desirable, and in instances such as the standardization
of currency, basic weights, and measures, the process of exchange would be con-
siderably more difficult, if not impossible without them. They clearly play a sig-
nificant part in our lives.
However, there is surprisingly little critical review of the concept and appli-
cation of standards in project management. This paper starts by examining the
role that standards play in the profession of project management. It is arguable
that creating standards for project management is significantly more compli-
cated than setting a standard for measurement, due to the significant scope for
interpretation for many of the central concepts of project management.
This paper also reports on assessments of project management knowledge
and use of project management practices by project managers. These assess-
ments have been used to identify significant differences between project man-
agement knowledge and use of project management practices between
countries, industry sectors, and application areas. Results from these assess-
ments are interpreted in relation to the ongoing development of standards for
project management.
M A R C H 2007 Project Management Journal 87
Standards and Project Management:
A Review of the Literature
A standard is considered to be a meas-
ure, devised by general consent as a
basis for comparison against which
judgments might be made as to levels
of acceptability. Standards can be fur-
ther classified into three categories
(Duncan, 1998, p. 57):
• Descriptive standards tell the facts,
details, or particulars of something, e.g.,
a document that described the charac-
teristic symptoms of a flu sufferer
• Normative standards provide guide-
lines (norms) to be used as a basis for
measurement, comparison, or deci-
sions, e.g., a document that listed
alternative approaches to treating flu
• Prescriptive standards define a partic-
ular way of doing something, e.g., a
document that specified a two-week
course of a specific antibiotic.
The term “standards” has an offi-
cial ring to it, but interestingly, the
development and application of stan-
dards is primarily a voluntary process.
Many standards begin by voluntary
acceptance and may later receive offi-
cial status such as recognition by a
standards-setting body or by a regula-
tory agency. Certainly, in the case of
project management, standards are for
certification and credentialing, rather
than state-enforced licensure.
However, even purely unofficial stan-
dards may have significant following
and force.
Standards are often appealed to in
settling disputes. For instance, Krislov
(1997, p. 8) noted that resolvers of
conflict are often willing to accept even
informal standards, as they usually
have legal expertise but not technical
know-how. In cases where no formally
accepted standards exist, there is often
an assumption by “… judges, arbitra-
tors, or insurance agents that when
there are established standards, the
party not following them has positive
duty to inform the other of the intent
to ‘opt out’ of even a ‘voluntary’ stan-
dard.” Consequently, many voluntary
standards may be used in a highly
coercive way, and standards do not
need to have official status to have
widespread acceptance and effect.
88
The Benefits of Standardization
One of the most common arguments
for professional standardization relates
to the protection of public welfare and
assurance of a minimum quality of
service (Leland, 1979, p. 1329).
Eskerod and Ostergren (1998) identi-
fied efficiency, legitimacy, and
power/control as reasons for voluntary
acceptance of standardized approaches
to the management of projects. In the
interests of efficiency, standards can
provide confidence that project person-
nel share a commonly accepted termi-
nology, common project management
tools and techniques, and have the
capability to satisfy project objectives.
Project management research
suggests that demand for ways for
practitioners to provide evidence of
competence comes from practitioners
who have a skill they want recog-
nized, graduates looking for project
management specific work, compa-
nies selling project management serv-
ices who wish to demonstrate a
certain level of staff competency, and
from purchasers of services looking
for assurance of the competence of
people they employ (Morris, 1996,
p. 120). Research in other fields sug-
gests that the pressure to regulate pro-
fessions through licensing or
certification usually comes from with-
in the profession to be regulated,
instead of consumers of their services
(Friedman, 1962, p. 140; Wolfson,
Trebilcock, & Tuohy, 1980, p. 182).
Standardization can increase the
legitimacy afforded to a profession.
Standards can provide a guarantee of
career progressions for project person-
nel through evidence of competence
and recognition of prior learning for
those who do not have formal aca-
demic qualifications. They can also
provide stakeholders with a sense of
confidence based on the certified
competence of project personnel,
which can in turn translate into
greater income for personnel who
meet such standards. Indeed, research
has demonstrated a direct link
between professional incomes and
the degrees of regulation and stan-
dardization within some professions
(Clarkson & Muris, 1980, p. 108).
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Standards and the Development of a
Profession
Professions can be considered to
begin either with the recognition by
people that they are regularly doing
something that is not covered by other
professions and through the forma-
tion of professional associations
(Abbot, 1988). The impetus behind
the formation of professional associa-
tions is considered to be “… derived
from the perceived need of a relevant
group to occupy and defend for its
exclusive use a particular area of com-
petence territory” (Eraut, 1994, p.
165). Standards are a way of marking
professional territory.
A separate body of knowledge is
important in the development of pro-
fessional standards (Berry & Oakley,
1994; Dean, 1997; Gedansky, Fugate,
& Knapp, 1998; Morris, 1995, 2000;
Williams, 1998). Credentialing can
then be used as a process whereby pro-
fessionals are recognized as meeting
the standards of the profession by
demonstrating mastery of the body of
knowledge (Dean).
Even though it is often cited that
projects have been managed since the
pyramids (e.g., Stretton, 1994; Morris,
1994), it is only in the second half of
the 20th century that project manage-
ment began to emerge as a distinct field
of practice with its own tools, tech-
niques, and concepts (Stretton).
As project-based work takes over
from position-based work and careers
are defined less by companies and
more by professions (Stewart, 1995),
project personnel are keen to achieve
professional status and independent
recognition of their project manage-
ment competence. If people are to be
evaluated, not by rank and status, but
flexibly according to competence
(Stewart), then evidence of this compe-
tence becomes extremely important to
individuals as well as to organizations.
The Paradox of Project Uniqueness
The creation of professional stan-
dards, however, implies a certain
level of similarity in the actions
taken by members of a profession. As
project management is being prac-
ticed in an ever-increasing range of
contexts, it is no longer clear that all
project managers manage projects in
comparable ways.
At the heart of the field of project
management is a basic tension between
uniqueness and generality. Shenhar
(1996) noted that the traditional
approach to project management
regards projects as being fundamentally
similar, and thus amenable to standard-
ization. By contrast, the characteristic of
uniqueness is regularly identified as a
defining attribute of a project, and new
tools for project categorization and clas-
sification continue to appear in the liter-
ature, distinguishing between different
project types.
This raises the question: How can
one thing, at the same time, be both
fundamentally unique and standard-
ized? Atkinson (1999, p. 338) asked a
similar question in relation to the defi-
nition of the whole field of project
management. “Is there a paradox how-
ever in even attempting to define proj-
ect management? Can a subject which
deals with a unique, one-off complex
task … be defined?”
Project Management as a Generic Activity
The development of project manage-
ment standards, by implication, has
lent support to the notion of the
“generic” project and that there are sets
of generic knowledge, skills, and prac-
tices that are applicable to most proj-
ects most of the time. Evidence for this
can be found in the competency stan-
dards for project management available
worldwide (e.g., APM, 2000; British
Standards Board, 1996; BSTA, 2004;
ECITB, 2002; IPMA, 1999; PMI, 2002;
PMSGB 2002). Arguments for stan-
dardization of the field center around
the development of project manage-
ment as a professional discipline
(Dean, 1997). Indeed, Kloppenborg
and Opfer (2000, p. 55) found that the
“… most frequently considered future
trend was support for increased stan-
dardization …” with the expectation
that increased attention to standards
was likely to contribute to more consis-
tent achievement of project success.
A Guide to the Project Management
Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)
directly contributes to the process of
standardization, partly through official
recognition as a standard (IEEE, 2000;
PMI, 2004), and partly through
expressed intent. At the start of the
PMBOK® Guide, it is stated that within
the field of project management “…
there is relatively little commonality in
the terms used” (PMI, 2000, p. 3). The
PMBOK® Guide seeks to redress this
notion by providing a common lan-
guage, the assumption being that the
same tasks are being performed, while
different terms are used to discuss them.
The PMBOK® Guide also notes the “…
presence of repetitive elements …” (p. 5)
in project work, which allow the field to
be discussed in terms of generalities.
Similar assumptions can be found
in the academic and professional liter-
ature: “… many publications on the
management of projects tend to
assume that all projects are fundamen-
tally similar” (Shenhar & Dvir, 1996,
p. 607) and “… have employed the
universal approach …” (p. 609). Most
practitioner books are very general,
and tend to describe project manage-
ment as a standard set of activities,
such as organizing, planning, and
budgeting the project (Shenhar, 1996,
pp. 1–2). Furthermore, aspects of proj-
ects that have been found to be repeat-
ed in some projects are assumed to be
general characteristics of many, and
have become prerequisite for some
project management planning tech-
niques (Andersen, 1996).
Categories and Types of Projects
Whether or not projects are essentially
alike is open to question, as the ability
to recognize the fundamental differ-
ences between types of projects, with
respect to project goals, environments,
and stakeholders, and their different
ramifications for project management,
can be shown to influence project suc-
cess. This is because for each different
category of project “… a whole different
set of problems and potential project
management techniques may apply”
(Evaristo & van Fenema, 1999, p. 280).
The value of the assumption that
all projects should be treated generical-
ly is challenged by the variety of proj-
ect categorization tools to be found in
the project management literature,
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
which illustrates the differences
between project types (Crawford,
Hobbs, & Turner, 2005). For instance,
Turner and Cochrane (1993) catego-
rized projects according to the degrees
of definition of project goals and defi-
nition of the methods to be used to
achieve them. Bubshait and Selen
(1992) developed a categorization sys-
tem for projects grounded in terms of
industry sector and application area,
on the understanding that different
approaches will be applicable in differ-
ent areas.
Systems of categorization similar
to this are used in many of the surveys
of project management practice (e.g.,
Pinto & Slevin, 1988; White & Fortune,
2002; Zobel & Wearne, 2000). Youker
(1999) categorized projects by the
project product or deliverable, suggest-
ing that similar products lead to simi-
lar approaches to their delivery.
Floricel and Miller (2001) grouped
projects based on the strategic system
used for uncovering and coping with
risk. Hassen (1997) distinguished
between technical and bureaucratic
projects, stating that while technical
projects are more stable and appropri-
ate for tools such as PERT, bureaucrat-
ic projects involve multiple processes
in a political environment and can be
stifled by some traditional project
management techniques.
Projects are also differentiated as
being either hard or soft. McElroy
(1996) classified projects as either hard
or soft based on the tangibility of proj-
ect outputs, ease of estimation, and
ambiguity of logical relationships.
Crawford and Pollack (2004) expand-
ed on this, developing a framework for
the analysis of hard and soft projects
based on seven project attributes.
These frameworks align with a
study by Stretton (2000), who overlaid
observations made by Yeo (1993) with
Turner and Cochrane’s (1993) goals
and methods matrix, finding correla-
tion between the degree of definition of
objectives in a project and a project’s
hardness or softness. This bears similar-
ity to a classification of project types by
Turner (1999), between technical and
cultural projects, having quantitative
and qualitative objectives, respectively.
89
 In a study of the categorization of
projects, Crawford, Hobbs, and Turner
(2005) pointed out that there are
many different purposes for categoriz-
ing of projects, including strategic
alignment, capability specialization,
and as a way of distinguishing those
aspects of organizational work that
will be managed as projects. Many dif-
ferent attributes can be used to catego-
rize projects for these purposes. The
wide variety of ways in which projects
have been classified in the literature
suggests that many see benefit in dis-
tinguishing between types of projects,
instead of seeing project management
as fundamentally generic.
Projects as Unique Endeavors
Uniqueness is regularly cited as a
defining attribute of a project. For
instance, the PMBOK® Guide (PMI,
2000, p. 5) refers to “… the funda-
mental uniqueness of the project
work.” Andersen (1996, p. 89) sup-
ported this, stating that most authors
agree that projects are unique endeav-
ors; special tasks that have not been
done previously. Given the wide range
of application areas for projects, the
definition of a project is necessarily
vague. Regarding the wide range of
endeavors that can be called a “proj-
ect,” Shenhar and Dvir (1996, p. 609)
stated that in the majority of cases, the
differences between projects outweigh
the similarities between them.
Many project managers have
found the literature too general to be of
use, while at the same time they have
“… frequently emphasized the unique-
ness of their project …” (Shenhar,
1996, pp. 1–2). Evidence suggests that
the differences between projects can be
a result of the different areas of appli-
cation, with different application areas
focusing on different parts of the bod-
ies of knowledge (Morris, Patel, &
Wearne, 2000, p. 160), and the domain
specific nature of the project manage-
ment life cycle (Stewart & Fortune,
1995, p. 279).
Evidence in the literature suggests
that “… projects exhibit considerable
variation, and their specific manage-
ment styles seem anything but univer-
sal” (Shenhar & Dvir, 1996, p. 607).
90
Shenhar (1996, p. 5) stated that the
typical characteristics of a project are
less common than traditionally
thought and calls for a modification of
the tendency to regard all projects as
alike by the adoption of a project spe-
cific theoretical approach.
The bodies of knowledge created
by the various national project man-
agement professional associations tend
to seek to draw out the commonalities
between practice, in effect standardiz-
ing practice. If project management was
one generic activity, then similarity
could be expected between the ways
that project management is portrayed
in the different associations’ bodies of
knowledge, and yet “… amazingly, the
professional project management soci-
eties currently have quite different ver-
sions of the BoK” (Morris, Patel, &
Wearne, 2000, p. 156).
Survey of Project Management
Knowledge and Practice
A study was conducted enquiring into
a group of practitioners’ project man-
agement knowledge and project man-
agement practice. This study was
conducted in order to develop an
understanding of how generic project
management knowledge and practice
are across countries, industry sectors,
and application areas.
There were 352 participants that
completed two separate assessments,
one assessing knowledge and the other
assessing their use of practices. The
sample comprised groups of between 5
and 10 project personnel from organi-
zations willing to participate in the
study. Assessments were conducted in
controlled conditions, under supervi-
sion by a researcher or organizational
nominee, in groups in the participants’
working environment. Participants
were predominantly project managers,
although some participants identified
themselves as either team members or
project/program directors.
Participants were based in
Australia, the United States, and the
United Kingdom. Participants came
from one of three industry sectors:
engineering and construction; business
services; or IS/IT and telecommunica-
tions. The industry sector, in this con-
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
text, refers to the overall business of
the organization. Participants were
also asked to identify the application
area of their primary project work.
Participants worked in one of four
application areas: engineering and
construction; business services; IS/IT
and telecommunications; or industrial
processes. Only 308 participants pro-
vided usable data regarding project
application area. Tables 1 to 3 provide
a breakdown of the distribution of
study participants.
Individual variables were explored
using univariate and bivariate analysis
techniques (e.g., frequency distribu-
tions and cross-tabulations). Testing of
hypotheses was done using analysis of
variance (ANOVA) techniques. ANOVA
is a procedure used to determine if
mean differences exist for two or more
samples. Post-hoc analysis using
Tukey’s honestly significant differences
(HSD) was used in association with
ANOVAs for testing of hypotheses.
Examination of the relationship
between scores for the knowledge and
the practices assessments was conduct-
ed using Pearson’s correlation.
Assessing Project Management Knowledge
Knowledge was assessed using a test
that was based on the nine knowledge
areas of project management, as out-
lined in the first edition of the
PMBOK® Guide (PMI, 1996). It used
multiple-choice questions similar to
those used in the Project Management
Institute’s project management profes-
sional (PMP®) exam. For both the
knowledge assessment and the practice
assessment, data was analyzed at mul-
tiple levels: an overall level, describing
the tendency for the representative
sample of a country, industry sector or
application area; the unit level, align-
ing with the nine PMBOK® Guide
knowledge areas; and the element
level. Tables analyzing results have
been provided where results demon-
strate a significant difference at the
overall level or unit level.
The knowledge test consisted of five
questions from each of the nine units.
Questions were designed to address key
items of project management specific
knowledge, and involved no calcula-

Industry Sector of Organization
IS/IT & telecommunications
Engineering & construction
Business services
Total
Table 1: Industry sector by country
Application Area of Project
IS/IT & telecommunications
Engineering & construction
Business services
Industrial processes
Total
Table 2: Application area by country
Application Area of Project
IS/IT & telecommunications
Engineering & construction
Business services
Industrial processes
Total
Table 3: Application area by industry sector
tions, as this would have increased the
time required for completion, which
was an issue in securing organizational
support for the study. Once initial devel-
opment of questions was complete for
the knowledge and practice tests, these
were reviewed by senior project manage-
ment practitioners, one each in
Australia, the United Kingdom, the
United States, and South Africa.
The results of the knowledge
assessment have been used to test three
different null hypotheses, relevant to
developing an understanding of the
generic nature of project management:
1. There are no significant differences
in performance against a project
management knowledge standard
(PMBOK® Guide) for practitioners
from different countries.
2. There are no significant differences
in performance against a project
Country countries in all knowledge areas except
cost, quality, and communication (see
Australia U.S. U.K. Total Table 4), with the U.K. scores higher
59 39 19 117 than those in Australia and U.S. The
104 0 50 154 U.K. sample scored higher than the
U.S. sample in areas of time, human
46 28 7 81 resources (HR), and risk. The only area
209 67 76 352 of difference between Australia and the
U.S. was in integration where both
U.K. and U.S. scored significantly
higher than Australia. There were no
Country other areas of significant difference
Australia U.S. U.K. Total between Australia and U.S.
The null hypothesis that there are
25 33 5 63
there are no significant differences in
59 0 3 62 performance against a project manage-
67 19 6 92 ment knowledge standard (PMBOK®
Guide) for practitioners from different
30 5 56 91
countries may be rejected at the level
181 57 70 308 of overall performance against the
standard, but may not be rejected for
cost, quality, and communications
knowledge at the unit level.
Industry Sector
IS/IT & Eng. & Business Total Project Management Knowledge by
Telecom Con. Services Industry Sector
At an overall level of analysis, no signif-
44 4 15 63
icant differences in values of the meas-
19 40 3 62 ure of performance against the
16 25 51 92 knowledge test were found between
industry sectors (P=0.692). At the unit
15 67 9 91
level, significant differences were found
94 136 78 308 between industry sectors only for com-
munications, where business services
perform better than other sectors. The
management knowledge standard null hypothesis that there are no signif-
(PMBOK® Guide) for practitioners in icant differences in performance
different industry sectors. against a project management knowl-
3. There are no significant differences edge standard (PMBOK® Guide) for
in performance against a project practitioners in different industry sec-
management knowledge standard tors may not be rejected for any area of
(PMBOK® Guide) for practitioners knowledge other than communication.
working on projects in different
application areas. Project Management Knowledge by
Application Area
Project Management Knowledge When scores for the knowledge assess-
by Country ment were analyzed in relation to appli-
Analysis of results reveals that there are cation area at an overall level, significant
significant differences in values of the differences were apparent (P=0.002). At
measure of overall performance the unit level, significant differences were
against the knowledge test between seen in relation to integration, time, com-
countries (P=0.0005), with U.K. sam- munications, risk, and procurement (see
ple scores being higher than those of Table 4). The primary pattern is that those
either Australia or the U.S. working on industrial processes projects
At the unit level, significant differ- perform better than those working on
ences could be seen in performance on engineering and construction projects in
the knowledge assessment between all knowledge domains except risk.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L 91
 3. There are no significant differences
Knowledge Knowledge Practice
Unit by Country by Application Area by Industry Sector in performance against a project
management performance-based
Integration U.K. and U.S. higher IS/IT and industrial processes competency standard (ANCSPM)
than Australia higher than E & C
for practitioners working on projects
U.K. and U.S. higher in different application areas.
Scope
than Australia

Project Management Practices by Country

U.K. higher than
Time Australia or U.S.
Cost
Quality
HR
U.K. higher than
Australia or U.S.
Communication
U.K. higher than
Risk Australia or U.S.
Procurement U.K. higher than
Australia
Table 4: Summary of significant differences in results at unit level
Therefore, the null hypothesis that
there are no significant differences in
performance against a project manage-
ment knowledge standard (PMBOK®
Guide) for practitioners working on
projects in different application areas
may be rejected at the level of overall
performance against the standard but
may not be rejected for scope, cost,
quality, and HR knowledge.
Assessing Use of Project Management
Practices
Practitioners’ use of practices was self-
assessed against the performance cri-
teria presented in the 1996 version of
the Australian National Competency
Standards for Project Management
(ANTA, 1996). The Australian
National Competency Standards for
Project Management were the first
performance-based competency stan-
dards for generic project management
to be endorsed by a national govern-
ment (1996, July). Since that time an
updated version has been released
(BSTA, 2004). The structure of these
standards was particularly suited to
this research as it mirrors that of the
PMBOK® Guide, comprising nine
functional units, which align with the
nine PMBOK® Guide knowledge areas.
Industrial processes IS/IT higher than
higher than others business services When analyzed at the overall level,
no significant differences could be
E & C and IS/IT higher
than business services found in different countries’ prac-
tices (P=0.593). However, at the unit
E & C and IS/IT higher level, significant differences could be
than business services
seen in cost, HR, and procurement
IS/IT higher than E & C practices. The U.K. scores higher than
and business services
the U.S. for use of cost practices and
Business services both the U.K. and Australia score
higher than E & C higher than the U.S. for use of pro-
curement practices. The U.S. scores
Industrial processes higher E & C and IS/IT higher
than business services than business services higher than either Australia or the
U.K. for HR practices.
Industrial processes E & C highest, then IS/IT,
higher than E & C then business services Therefore, the null hypothesis
that there are no significant differ-
ences in performance against a project
management performance-based
The practice assessment com- competency standard (ANCSPM) for
prised 9 units, 30 elements, and a practitioners from different countries
total of 94 performance criteria. may not be rejected at the level of
Participants were asked to use a 5- overall performance against the stan-
point scale to report on the circum- dard but may be rejected for cost, HR,
stances under which they have done, and procurement at the unit level.
or not done, the item referred to in
each of the performance criteria. Project Management Practices by Industry
This assessment asked participants Sector
to objectively answer whether they Analysis indicates that there is a signif-
have done the item and if so, under icant difference in project manage-
what circumstances, not a subjective ment practice between industry sectors
judgment as to how well any of the (P=0.002). Overall, both IS/IT and
items have been done. telecommunications and engineering
The results of the project man- and construction score higher than
agement practice assessment have business services. At the unit level,
been used to test three further null there are significant differences in all
hypotheses, relevant to developing areas except integration, scope, and
an understanding of the generic communications. These differences are
nature of project management: summarized in Table 4.
1. There are no significant differ- At the element level, the pattern of
ences in performance against a lower scores for business services in
project management perform- areas of time, cost, quality, risk, and
ance-based competency standard procurement is continued. Lower scores
(ANCSPM) for practitioners from for business services in implementation
different countries. of project activities throughout the life
2. There are no significant differences cycle and information management
in performance against a project begin to appear. High scores for IS/IT
management performance-based and telecommunications in the HR
competency standard (ANCSPM) areas of HRM planning and staff train-
for practitioners in different indus- ing and development provide further
try sectors. insight in this area.

92 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
 Therefore, the null hypothesis that
there are no significant differences in
performance against a project manage-
ment performance-based competency
standard (ANCSPM) for practitioners in
different industry sectors may be reject-
ed at the overall level. It may also be
rejected at the unit level for time, cost,
quality, HR, risk, and procurement.
Project Management Practices by
Application Area
At the overall level, no significant dif-
ferences between practices were found
in the sample group when analyzed by
application area (P=0.131). At the unit
level, the only significant differences
are in cost where IS/IT and telecom-
munications scores lower than engi-
neering and construction and
industrial processes, and in procure-
ment where business services and IS/IT
and telecommunications score lower
than engineering and construction and
industrial processes.
The null hypothesis that there are
no significant differences in perform-
ance against a project management
performance-based competency stan-
dard (ANCSPM) for practitioners
working on projects in different appli-
cation areas may not be rejected at the
overall level, but may be rejected at the
unit level for cost and procurement.
The only practice for which the null
hypothesis may not be rejected at all
levels is scope.
Correlations Between Knowledge and
Use of Practices
Potential correlations between scores
for the knowledge and practice assess-
ments were also analyzed. Correlation
between practitioners’ total scores for
the knowledge and practice assess-
ments was apparent. Pearson’s correla-
tion was measured at 0.188 for total
scores, with the correlation significant
at the 0.01 level.
At the unit level, significant corre-
lation could also be seen between
scores for the knowledge and practice
assessments (see Table 5). The first
number in each box in Table 5 is a
measure of Pearson’s correlation, with
a higher number indicating a stronger
positive correlation. The second num-
ber in each box describes the level at
which the correlation is significant,
with a number closer to zero indicat-
ing greater confidence in the correla-
tion. Correlations between unit scores
for the knowledge and practice assess-
ments were apparent for integration,
scope, cost, HR, risk, and procure-
ment. No significant correlations were
found between the knowledge and
practice assessments for time, quality,
or communications.
Some interesting correlations stand
out, such as a consistent positive corre-
lation between scope knowledge and
practice scores for all units other than
communication and procurement.
Correlation is also apparent for scores in
the knowledge and practice assessments
for both time and cost, and between
scores for cost and procurement.
Some units were found to be rela-
tively free from correlation. For
instance, communication knowledge
was only correlated to scope practice,
while communication practice was
only correlated to scores for procure-
ment knowledge. Scores for integra-
tion and HR knowledge were only
correlated to integration and HR prac-
tice, respectively. These results suggest
that knowledge of, and use of, prac-
tices associated with, communication,
integration, and HR are relatively inde-
pendent of other areas of project man-
agement knowledge and practice.
Conclusions From the Assessments
At the overall level project management
knowledge appears to be generic across
industry sectors. Use of project man-
agement practices at the overall level
appears to be generic across countries
and application areas but not across
industry sectors. Results show that the
most generic knowledge domains
across country, industry sector, and
application area are cost and quality. By
contrast, the use of practices most
generic across countries, industry sec-
tors, and application areas were scope,
integration, and communication.
However, significant differences
are apparent when project manage-
ment knowledge is analyzed by country
or application area, and when project
management practices are analyzed by
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
industry sector. These results suggest
that project management cannot legit-
imately be considered as one consis-
tent, generic activity.
One curious result from the
knowledge assessments related to the
strong performance of the U.K. sam-
ple against what survey participants
in the U.K. certainly considered to be
essentially a North American stan-
dard, developed for a North
American audience. This result might
be taken as suggesting that it is not
the country in which a standard was
written that determines how well a
sample performs when assessed
against it. Similarly, this result may
be explained by reference to the
methods of education practiced in
different countries or the particulars
of the samples chosen. However, data
collected during the survey are not
sufficient to definitively support
these possible explanations.
A consistently appearing signifi-
cant difference at the unit level related
to practice analyzed by industry sector.
In these results, the business services
sector consistently scores lower than
either IS/IT and telecommunications
or engineering and construction. These
results could reasonably be interpreted
as an issue of lower maturity of the
business services sector, resulting from
more recent adoption of project man-
agement approaches.
The significant differences found in
project management knowledge
between industry sectors and in the use
of project management practices
between areas of application do not sug-
gest that the standards are inappropriate
for use across these categories. However,
it may suggest that in the workplace,
practitioners in different industries and
application areas have greater recourse
to apply different project management
practices and knowledge.
It was found that results for the
knowledge assessment generally showed
greater variation than results for the prac-
tice assessment. The implication from
these results is that there is greater gener-
al similarity in project management
practice than in knowledge. This can be
taken to indicate that although project
management is relatively consistently
93
 Knowledge Use of Practices Assessment (ANCSPM)
Assessment
(PMBOK® Guide)
Integr. Scope Time Cost Quality HR Comm. Risk. Proc.

Integration Pearson’s r * .122 .104 .105 .031 .018 .015 .071 .091 -.020
Sig.(2-tailed) .022 .052 .050 .567 .734 .774 .183 .089 .712

Scope Pearson’s r ** .141 * .127 * .113 * .121 * .120 * .113 .097 ** .147 .075
Sig.(2-tailed) .008 .017 .035 .024 .024 .034 .069 .006 .160

Time Pearson’s r * .111 .089 .063 * .107 .094 .061 .054 .098 ** .159
Sig.(2-tailed) .037 .096 .236 .045 .079 .251 .308 .067 .003

Cost Pearson’s r .023 .082 * .107 * .129 .090 .092 .067 .100 ** .141
Sig.(2-tailed) .674 .124 .045 .015 .092 .085 .213 .062 .008

Quality Pearson’s r ** .145 .081 .085 * .121 .060 .081 .071 .072 * .111
Sig.(2-tailed) .006 .128 .110 .023 .260 .131 .184 .177 .038

HR Pearson’s r .073 .086 .033 .084 .028 * .119 .081 .067 .014
Sig.(2-tailed) .172 .107 .542 .115 .598 .025 .128 .212 .788

Communication Pearson’s r .088 * .133 .058 .014 .010 .017 .070 .027 -.050
Sig.(2-tailed) .099 .035 .276 .791 .851 .755 .193 .618 .354

Risk Pearson’s r .093 .105 .029 .085 * .108 .057 .052 * .108 .104
Sig.(2-tailed) .081 .050 .583 .111 .042 .290 .328 .044 .051

Procurement Pearson’s r * .126 .099 .101 ** .162 .058 * .114 * .122 .100 ** .181
Sig.(2-tailed) .018 .064 .059 .002 .281 .033 .022 .060 .001

** - Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * - Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Table 5: Correlations between scores for against knowledge and practice assessments

applied, it is being conceptualized
differently. Potentially, there is then
greater scope for standardization of
project management, particularly at a
conceptual level.
At an overall level, and for the
majority of units, correlation was
apparent between scores for the
knowledge and practice assessments.
The many of these correlations were
significant at the 0.01 level, however,
the measures of Pearson’s correlation
were not high (< 0.2). There is con-
siderable confidence then that per-
formance in one assessment does
positively correlate with performance
in the other assessment, however, the
correlation is not strong. In other
words, it can be said with confidence
that participants who did well or
badly in one assessment tended to
respectively do well or badly in the
other assessment, but the score
received for one assessment was
rarely equivalent to the score received
on the other.
The correlation between compe-
tence measures against a performance-
based competency standard (ANCSPM)
and the knowledge tests (PMBOK®
Guide) is not surprising, as a direct link
between competent performance and
knowledge of relevant concepts seems
intuitive. The weakness of the correla-
tion between scores for assessments
against these standards is also to be
expected, as these assessments cannot
be thought of as simply taking different
approaches to directly measuring the
capability for project managers to deliv-
er successful projects. Instead, these
assessments were measuring different
attributes, both of which may be linked
to the capabilities of project managers.
Discussion
This tension between project unique-
ness and the assumption of fundamen-
tal similarity underpinning standards
development can be explained
through three avenues: what it means
to be unique; changes to the field; and
the needs of the field. For a project to
be unique does not mean that it is
completely dissimilar to all other proj-
ects. If this were truly the case, and
projects were not just unique, but also
incomparable, then it is likely the field
of project management would not
exist. Rather, projects do resemble each
other. For instance, a work breakdown
structure (WBS) can often be reused, as
many projects within a given organiza-
tion will have similar life cycles and
thus will have similar deliverables
required at each phase of the project
(PMI, 2000, p. 57). In many ways this
is reminiscent of the quote that started
this paper. The water is always chang-
ing, moving, making different noises,
and yet it is still a river, maintaining
similarity of form over time.
The tension between uniqueness
and similarity can also be viewed in
light of changes to the field. Originally,
single, large projects were the domain of
project managers, with particular empha-
sis on the construction, aerospace, and

94 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
engineering industries. This has
changed. “The advent of the project-
oriented organization, matrix-managed
projects, networked projects, rapid
development projects, organizational
change projects and ‘social’ projects
have all changed the scope of what is
now termed a ‘project’” (Stewart &
Fortune, 1995, p. 279). Nevertheless,
the “… wide deployment of projects in
organizations today, has not been
accompanied … by a parallel develop-
ment in project management theory”
(Shenhar & Dvir, 1996, p. 607). It is
possible that the divide between per-
ceptions of uniqueness and similarity
represents, not a contradiction in any
one view, but a split between the views
of different groups: those who are
applying project management in new
application areas; and, those who con-
tinue to apply project management in
its original application areas and see no
reason to change.
The divide between uniqueness
and similarity can be examined in a
third way; in terms of the needs of the
industry. In reference to a survey on
project management education, Fabi
and Pettersen (1992, p. 85) found that
the project management industry “…
would rather see students trained as
generalists rather than specialists, with
industry providing the necessary
detailed instruction with on-the-job
training. Course work should be con-
structed to provide emphasis on tools
and their application, not theory.” The
divide here is based around what is
required for a general education in proj-
ect management and the education
required for application of project man-
agement in a specific industry. The gen-
eral guides to project management, the
standards, and the bodies of knowl-
edge, are written at a general level, with
the understanding that they provide
information that is relevant to most
projects, most of the time. Implicit in
this is the assumption that projects are
alike. As these are influential docu-
ments, it is only to be expected that this
implicit view should permeate to practi-
tioners, who might continue to hold it,
even after being initiated into the
specifics of particular areas of applica-
tion. This view might then never be
challenged if practitioners are not
exposed to projects in different coun-
tries, industries, or areas of application.
As the profession spans a wide vari-
ety of application areas and interests, it
is unlikely that this tension will ever be
resolved. Indeed, we suggest that it is in
the interests of the field that this tension
should not be resolved and replaced by
a superficial unity. However, the tension
between uniqueness and similarity does
need to be managed, if the field is to
remain relevant to the wide variety of
countries, industries, and application
areas in which it is currently applied.
The authors suggest that the nature of
the links between measurements of per-
formance-based competence and
knowledge need to be further examined,
that future standards development
should address the needs of different
industries and application areas, and
any development of global standards for
project management needs to recognize
the potential variation in how project
management is practiced and thought
about in different countries.
References
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of
professions. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Andersen, E. S. (1996). Warning:
Activity planning is hazardous to your
project’s health! International Journal of
Project Management, 14(2), 89–94.
ANTA. (1996). (BSX90) National
competence standards for project manage-
ment. ACT, Australia: Business Services
Australia.
APM. (2000). Body of knowledge: 4th
edition. Available at: http://
www.apm.org.uk
Atkinson, R. (1999). Project man-
agement: Cost, time and quality, two
best guesses and a phenomenon, its
time to accept other success criteria.
International Journal of Project
Management, 17(6), 337–342.
Berry, A., & Oakley, K. (1994).
Consultancies: Agents of organization-
al development: Part II. Leadership and
Organisation Development Journal,
15(1), 13–21.
British Standards Board. (1996). Guide
to project management: BS6079:1996.
BSTA. (2004). National competence stan-
dards for project management. ACT, Australia:
Business Services Training Authority.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Bubshait, A., & Selen, W. (1992).
Project characteristics that influence the
implementation of project management
techniques: A survey. Project Management
Journal, 23(2), 43–47.
Clarkson, K., & Muris, T. (1980).
The federal trade commission and occu-
pational regulation. In S. Rottenberg
(Ed.), Occupational Licensure and
Regulation (pp. 107–141). American
Enterprise Institute for Public and Policy
Research.
Crawford, L., Hobbs, J., & Turner, J.
(2005). Project categorization systems:
Aligning capability with strategy for better
results. Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Crawford, L., & Pollack, J. (2004).
Hard and soft projects: A framework for
analysis. International Journal of Project
Management, 22(8), 645–653.
Dean, P. J. (1997). Examining the
profession and the practice of business
ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 16,
1637–1649.
Duncan, W. R. (1998). Is the
PMBOK® Guide a standard? PMNetwork
(April), 57.
ECITB. (2002). National occupational
standards for project management: Pre-
launch version. Kings Langley:
Engineering Construction Industry
Training Board.
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing profes-
sional knowledge and competence. London:
The Falmer Press.
Eskerod, P., & Ostergren, K. (1998).
Bureaucratizing Projects?—On the
Standardization Trend. IRNOP III—The
nature and role of projects in the next 20
years: Research issues and problems.
Evaristo, R., & van Fenema, P. C.
(1999). A typology of project manage-
ment: Emergence and evolution of new
forms. International Journal of Project
Management, 17, 275–281.
Fabi, B., & Pettersen, N. (1992).
Human resource management practices
in project management. International
Journal of Project Management, 10(2),
81–88.
Floricel, S., & Miller, R. (2001).
Strategizing for anticipated risks and
turbulence in large-scale engineering proj-
ects. International Journal of Project
Management, 19, 445–455.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism & free-
dom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gedansky, L., Fugate, M., & Knapp, J.
95
(1998). The development of bodies of knowl-
edge in the professions. Project Management
Institute & Knapp & Associates
International Inc.
Hassen, N. B. (1997). Soft project
methodologies—Using mind mapping,
and scenario/future mapping techniques
in business and public sector projects to
develop effective project plans. AIPM 1997
National Conference Proceedings, 276–286.
IEEE. (2000). 1490-1998 IEEE guide to
the project management body of knowledge.
Adoption of PMI Standard. Available at
http://standards.ieee.org/catalog/software2.h
tml#1490-1998
IPMA. (1999). IPMA competence base-
line: Version 2. Available at:
http://www.ipma.ch/?page=181
Kloppenborg, T. J., & Opfer, W. A.
(2000). Forty years of project management
research: Trends, interpretations, and pre-
dictions. Proceedings of the PMI Research
Conference (pp. 41–59). Newtown Square,
PA: Project Management Institute.
Krislov, S. (1997). How nations choose
product standards and standards change
nations. Pittsburgh, PA: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Leland, H. (1979). Quacks, lemons,
and licensing: A theory of minimum qual-
ity standards. Journal of Political Economy,
87(6), 1328–1346.
McElroy, W. (1996). Implementing
strategic change through projects.
International Journal of Project Management,
14, 325–329.
Morris, P. W. G. (1994). The manage-
ment of projects. London: Thomas Telford.
Morris, P. W. G. (1995). International
qualifications in project management.
APM Association of Project Managers: Project
Management Yearbook 1995/96 (pp.
15–17). Cheshire: McMillan Group PLC.
Morris, P. W. G. (1996). Project man-
agement: An international profession. In J.
S. Pennypacker (Ed.), The global status of the
project management profession (pp. 118—
123). Upper Darby, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Morris, P. W. G. (2000).
Benchmarking project management bod-
ies of knowledge. IRNOP IV - Paradoxes of
Project Collaboration in the Global Economy:
Interdependence, Complexity and Ambiguity.
University of Technology, Sydney.
Morris, P. W. G., Patel, M. B., &
Wearne, S. H. (2000). Research into revis-
ing the APM project management body of
knowledge. Internal Journal of Project
Management, 18, 155–164.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988).
Critical success factors across the project life
cycle. Project Management Journal, 68–75.
PMI. (1996). A guide to the project
management body of knowledge. Upper
Darby, PA: Project Management Institute.
PMI. (2000). A guide to the project man-
agement body of knowledge. Newtown Square,
PA: Project Management Institute.
PMI. (2002). Project manager competen-
cy development framework. Newtown Square,
PA: Project Management Institute.
PMI. (2004). A guide to the project
management body of knowledge. Newtown
Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
PMSGB. (2002). South African qualifi-
cations authority project management compe-
tency standards: Levels 3 and 4. South Africa:
South African Qualifications Authority.
Shenhar, A. (1996). Project manage-
ment theory: The road to better practice.
Project Management Institute 27th
Annual Seminar/Symposium.
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (1996).
Toward a typological theory of project
management. Research Policy, 25, 607–632.
Stewart, R. W., & Fortune, J.
(1995). Application of systems think-
ing to identification, avoidance and
prevention of risk. International Journal
of Project Management, 13, 279–286.
Stewart, T. A. (1995). Planning a
career in a world without managers.
Fortune, 131(5), 72–80.
Stretton, A. (1994). A short history
of project management: Part one: The
1950s and 60s. Australian Project Manager,
14(1), 36–37.
Stretton, A. (2000). An investigation
of connections between organisational
change and project management. IRNOP
IV Conference—Paradoxes of Project
Collaboration in the Global Economy:
Interdependence, Complexity and Ambiguity.
Sydney: University of Technology, Sydney.
Turner, J. R. (1999). The handbook of
project based management. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Turner, J. R., & Cochrane, R. A. (1993).
Goals-and-methods matrix: Coping with
projects with ill defined goals and/or meth-
ods of achieving them. International Journal
of Project Management, 11, 93–101.
White, D., & Fortune, J. (2002).
Current practice in project management—
An empirical study. International Journal of
Project Management, 20, 1–11.
Williams, J. L. (1998). What makes a
profession a profession? Professional Safety,
43(1), 18.
Wolfson, A., Trebilcock, M., & Tuohy,
C. (1980). Regulating the professions: A
theoretical framework. In S. Rottenberg
(Ed.), Occupational Licensure and Regulation
(pp. 180–214). American Enterprise
Institute for Public and Policy Research.
Yeo, K. T. (1993). Systems thinking
and project management—Time to
reunite. International Journal of Project
Management, 11, 111–117.
Youker, R. (1999). The difference
between different types of projects. 30th
Annual Project Management Institute
Seminar & Symposium, PA, USA.
Zobel, A. M., & Wearne, S. H. (2000).
Project management topic coverage in
recent conferences. Project Management
Journal, 31, 32–37.

LYNN CRAWFORD, PhD, director, Human Systems Pty JULIEN POLLACK is an honorary associate of
Ltd., professor of project management, ESC Lille, France, the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS).
and director, Project Management Research Group, He has won national and international awards
University of Technology, Sydney, is involved in project for his research, which focuses on practical
management education, practice, and research. Through ways that systems thinking and project
human systems, she works with leading corporations management can be combined. He has
that are developing organizational project management worked on projects in a variety of fields,
competence by sharing and developing knowledge and including organizational change, strategic
best practices as members of a global system of project planning, IT development, and theatrical
management knowledge networks. She is currently projects. He received his PhD at UTS, with
involved in two PMI-funded research projects—Exploring previous degrees in computer science,
the Role of the Executive Sponsor and The Value of Project philosophy and theatre. Dr Pollack is currently
Management. Results of a completed study have been investigating practical ways of applying
published in Project Categorization Systems: Aligning learning from complexity theory to project
Capability with Strategy for Better Results. She has been management, and has recently co-authored a
leading the development of global standards for project book on tools for complex projects.
management since the late 1990s.

96 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
PROJECT TEAM PERFORMANCE:
A STUDY OF ELECTRONIC TASK AND
COORDINATION COMMUNICATION
ABSTRACT
Communication is a key factor in team per-
formance, successful project completion,
and effective project management.
Collective asynchronous electronic mes-
sages on task and coordination sent
among members of 34 teams were ana-
lyzed using time-series analysis. Results
suggest that compared to low-performing
teams, high-performing teams exchanged
more messages, modified their exchanges
around milestones, and were more prone
to self-organize prior to project comple-
tion. Also, high-performing teams started
to coordinate themselves later but main-
tained higher levels of coordination after-
ward. Project managers could benefit from
monitoring the amount and the way their
team members discuss task and coordina-
tion in order to ensure high team and proj-
ect performance.
Keywords: performance; task;
coordination; electronic communication
©2007 by the Project Management Institute
Vol. 38, No. 1, 97-109, ISSN 8756-9728/03
FRANÇOIS CHIOCCHIO, PMP, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
Introduction
rojects and project management are expanding beyond traditional fields.
P Projects now routinely occur outside industries whose processes are natural-
ly projectized, such as in the construction industry (Ives, 2005).
Organizational contexts vary greatly and so the nature of projects and how they are
managed also varies. Projects can now be used as a vehicle of organizational change
(Ives), a mechanism through which employees are asked to learn and expand their
knowledge base (Sense, 2003), and a way of teaching to undergraduate and gradu-
ate students (Maynard, Maynard, & Rowe, 2004; Ratté & Caron, 2004).
Popularization of projects and project management may explain why various
organizations are framing their functions, processes, and tasks as interrelated proj-
ects. Perhaps more importantly, even projectized industries design work through
projects in an “ad-hoc” way, thus limiting their ability to evolve through continu-
ous improvement (Carrillo, Robinson, Al-Ghassani, & Anumba, 2004) or overex-
tending limited human resources through project overload (Zika-Viktorsson,
Sundström, & Engwall, 2006). The role of project manager is also evolving. For
example, with the increase of self-directed teams (Thamhain, 2004), some projects
may not even have a project manager. Even in more traditional project manage-
ment contexts and structures, some view the project manager as a social architect
(Thamhain), which goes way beyond the ability to use tools and techniques. In
other contexts, managers may be performing project management tasks without
necessarily realizing it (Ives, 2005).
It is not clear if new kinds of projects are changing the way project manage-
ment is evolving or if project management is maturing in such a way as to inspire
organizations and managers to venture away from traditional management and
toward project management. What is clear, however, across these various organi-
zational contexts and applications is that (1) teams are formed to work on proj-
ects and (2) team members need to work together to ensure successful project
completion. Among the various aspects of how team members should better
“work together” are issues regarding communication and, more specifically, com-
munication regarding tasks and coordination. More and more project managers
are realizing that measuring and controlling how communication flows during a
project positively affects its status and progress (Badir, Founou, Stricker, &
Bourquin, 2003). No doubt “organizing and managing contemporary project
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L 97
teams is an art, a science, and a great
challenge” (Thamhain, 2004, p. 35).
This paper addresses these issues. It
provides a looking glass into the com-
munication flow of self-directed project
teams evolving in a complex, high-
stakes, and time-bound project fraught
with uncertainty as to “what” to do and
“how” to do it. Its purpose is to provide
managers, project managers, and proj-
ect team members with insights on
what aspects of task and coordination
communication characterizes high- and
low-performing teams.
Communication
Communication and Technology
Even if there is some debate as to what
constitutes a successful project
(Baccarini, 1999; Chiocchio, 2004;
Crawford, 2002; Shenhar, 1998;
Shenhar, 2001; Shenhar, Levy, & Dvir,
1997; Shenhar, Levy, Dvir, & Maltz, 2001;
Wateridge, 1998), few can disagree that
communication is a key factor of effec-
tive project management (Haywood,
1998). The importance placed on com-
munication in project management has
grown since the mid 1990s. More recog-
nition has been given to its role in proj-
ect success and as a competency project
managers should master (Crawford,
2002). This emphasis on communica-
tion as it applies to project management
may be understood as part of two inter-
related trends. First, teams are used more
and more, a fact not unrelated to grow-
ing complexity and globalization (Kahai,
Sosik, & Avolio, 2004). Work is per-
formed through intertwined systems and
processes where it is difficult to achieve
success without teams as an organizing
factor (Crawford, 2002; Sparrow, 1997).
Second, together with rapid technologi-
cal change, the way people communicate
is modified by information technology
such as e-mail (Colquitt, Hollenbeck,
Ilgen, LePine, & Sheppard, 2002;
Michinov, Michinov, & Toczek-Capelle,
2004). Interestingly, these trends appear
in parallel to recent accounts of alarm-
ingly high and worsening project failure
rates (Barker, 1999; Lynn & Reilly,
2000). This study aims at exploring
how the use of collective asynchronous
electronic communication helps or hin-
ders project success.
98
Communication technology can
influence performance because it pro-
vides an impetus for people to think in
new ways, pay attention to different
things, communicate and work togeth-
er differently, as well as to do com-
pletely new things (Brichall & Lyons,
1995). For example, computer-mediat-
ed team monitoring improves coordi-
nation and feedback processes, which
in turn improves team performance
(Marks & Panzer, 2004). It can also
complement other team-building
activities (Haywood, 1998) by helping
to maintain relationships and show
progress on group tasks (Brichall &
Lyons, 1995). However, information
technology (IT) is not communication.
Even if projects that benefit from a
good information system respond
more quickly to environmental threats
and opportunities and can better coor-
dinate resources accordingly (Graham
& Englund, 1997), effective IT cannot
replace effective communication
(Barker, 1999) nor can it be seen as
effective knowledge management in
and of itself (Carrillo et al., 2004).
The choice of a communication
method can be a challenge. For exam-
ple, broad organizational context and
team stage development are important
factors to consider (Gibson & Cohen,
2003), so are cultural factors (Lopez,
2003). Project uncertainty, task com-
plexity, and type of information must
also be considered. Low-uncertainty
projects rely on existing technology to
create their products or services and
are characterized by rigidity in man-
agement (Shenhar, 2001). Hence, tra-
ditional forms of communications
may be sufficient. High-uncertainty
projects, on the other hand, rely on
new or not yet existent technology and
seem to thrive on rapid decision-mak-
ing. Hence, richer and less formal com-
munication mechanisms as well as
flexible management practices are nec-
essary (Shenhar, 2001).
Some models of group dynamics
in social psychology assert that spatial
proximity is necessary to foster interde-
pendence among members (Michinov
et al., 2004). However, many projects
involve members from different loca-
tions and different time zones. Co-
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
location, although considered as an
ideal means of facilitating rich real-
time face-to-face communication
(Project Management Institute, 2000),
may simply not be realistic for all proj-
ect team members across project phas-
es and time zones. Low-cost IT
solutions such as fax, e-mail, and dis-
cussion groups offer valuable alterna-
tives (Baltes, Dickson, Sherman, Bauer,
& LaGanke, 2002; Brichall & Lyons,
1995; Haywood, 1998; Michinov et al.,
2004). Moreover, even when team
members are co-located, they are using
electronic means of communication in
addition to face-to-face meetings. The
distinction here becomes one of syn-
chronicity and communication for-
mat: electronic communication such
as e-mail is written and asynchronous
(sender and receiver do not need to be
in the process of communicating
together) and face-to-face is verbal and
non-verbal and synchronous. What is
the best media mix driving team and
project performance is unclear.
Tasks Complexity and the Need for Task
Coordination
Task complexity can be viewed from
four perspectives: How a team struc-
tures its activities (e.g., pooled, sequen-
tial, reciprocal, or intense), how
dynamic the tasks are (i.e., character-
ized by high uncertainty and a high
need to exchange and monitor infor-
mation), how dependant team mem-
bers are to those tasks, and how
dependant team members are on other
team members (Riopelle et al., 2003).
When tasks are complex, high-velocity
reciprocal information exchange, feed-
back, and coordination are essential to
performance. This is especially true
given the requirements of effective
group decision-making, which include
understanding the issue to be resolved,
determining the minimal characteris-
tics that relevant and acceptable alter-
natives must possess, carefully
examining those alternatives in rela-
tionship to each previously agreed-
upon characteristic of an acceptable
choice, and selecting the correct alter-
native (Wittenbaum et al., 2004). In
those cases, rich synchronous tech-
nologies, such as videoconferencing,
are a superior choice (Riopelle et al.,
2003). When tasks are less complex
and more independent, such as idea
generation, written electronic asyn-
chronous communication media may
be more appropriate (Riopelle et al.).
These different contexts highlight
the need to understand communica-
tion in relationship with the context in
which the information flows.
Knowledge is gathered, interpreted,
and understood according to the con-
text and situation (Koskinen, 2004).
When projects are knowledge-driven
and involve a high degree of learning,
such as new product development, sci-
entific research projects, learning proj-
ects in the academic world, or when
projects occur in fragmented industries
such as the construction industry
(Chiocchio, Lacasse, Rivard, Forgues, &
Bédard, 2006), information transfer is
crucial. Teams perform well collabora-
tively if they share a common under-
standing of tacit and explicit
knowledge (Maznevski & Athanassiou,
2003). Explicit knowledge such as
product specifications is easier to con-
vey than tacit knowledge. Tacit knowl-
edge is much harder to convey in part
because it requires that contextual
information also be transferred. For
example, looking at communication in
terms of the nature of projects, rich
descriptions of problems, voice into-
nations, and body language help peo-
ple understand all the subtleties
required in intensive problem-solving
tasks characteristic of knowledge-driv-
en projects. Looking at communica-
tion from a human processes
perspective and thus, cutting across all
types of projects, contextual richness
can also help resolve interpersonal,
task, or process conflicts (Jehn, 1995;
Jehn & Shah, 1997) or if they are mis-
managed or misunderstood, con-
tribute to hinder them (Hinds &
Bailey, 2003).
The Need for Simple, Cost-Effective,
Collective Communication Mechanisms
Written electronic communication,
such as e-mail, is very prevalent yet
lack contextual details because people
find it laborious to replicate in a writ-
ten format all what is conveyed
through voice intonation and body
language when they communicate ver-
bally (Cramton & Orvis, 2003).
Another problem is the fact that e-mail
is not used as a collective means of
communication. With e-mail, team
members choose to whom they sent
messages and can, voluntarily or not,
exclude other team members, thus
keeping them “out of the loop.”
Although it cannot address issues
of voice intonation and body language,
the use of a team discussion board
(TDB) is a way to share ideas and docu-
ments, and to provide feedback to all
the other team members. A TDB has
many advantages. First, it is easy to use
for anybody who has ever sent or
received an e-mail. The main difference
is that it is collective by definition: all
team members receive all communica-
tion that other team members have
sent. Another advantage is that a TDB
provides all team members with some
contextual information on matters
directly relevant to a subset of the team.
All team members are thus kept “in the
loop.” As such, a TDB might facilitate
shared cognitions, a necessary compo-
nent of group decision-making
(Tindale, Meisenhelder, Dykema-
Engblade, & Hogg, 2001). A third
advantage is that a TDB fosters collec-
tivism without the need for synchronic-
ity such as in face-to-face meetings
(which requires co-location) or video-
conferencing (which often seen as cum-
bersome, see Badir, Founou, Stricker, &
Bourquin, 2003). Finally, a TDB is easy
to implement through web-enabled
project portals already prevalent in
some industries (Badir et al., 2003).
To summarize, task and coordina-
tion issues and information sharing
are tightly intertwined. They are rele-
vant to project team performance
because process losses occur when
teams get locked into strategies (e.g.,
planning and collective decisions on
how to perform tasks) that are not
adapted to the tasks, when team mem-
bers do not participate enough (e.g.,
lack of effort and poor coordination),
and when team members lack knowl-
edge and skill (McGrath, 1984). In this
context collective communication
solutions should receive growing
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
attention as co-located or dispersed
teams require even more effort to per-
form well and thus to complete their
projects on time, within budget, and
according to specification. Hence, the
purpose of this research is to investigate
how project team members communi-
cate on issues of task assignment and
coordination over time. The following
research questions will be investigated:
How does electronic information
exchange concerning (a) team coordi-
nation and (b) tasks, evolve over time
for high-performing teams, compared
to low-performing teams?
Method
Participants and Project Description
Participants were 134 first-year under-
graduate psychology students enrolled
in an introduction class on psycholog-
ical assessment taught by an individual
with the Project Management
Professional (PMP®) credential (the
author) using project management
methodology. Participants’ average age
was 22 (SD=3.8) and 79 % of the sam-
ple were women. Some might think
that this population or the project
tasks they had to do are not relevant to
the field of project management.
However, criticisms with laboratory
studies or student samples are often
based on weak criteria (Locke, 1986).
In fact, “… what is needed when trying
to determine the legitimacy of general-
ization is the identification of the essen-
tial features of field settings that need to be
replicated in the lab (that is, essential
subject, task, and setting characteris-
tics)” (Locke, 1986, p. 7, italics in the
original). Research in industrial and
organizational psychology, organiza-
tional behavior, and human resource
management comparing the gereraliz-
ability of lab and field research to the
“real world” show that they are com-
parable for features relevant to work,
such as participation in decision-mak-
ing (Schweiger & Leana, 1986), the
relationship between job satisfaction
and job performance (Podsakoff &
Williams, 1986), financial incentives
(Jenkins, 1986) and feedback
(Kopelman, 1986). Hence, even pure
laboratory settings can generalize to
the “real-world.” On aspects relevant
99
to the focus of this paper (i.e., task
assignment and coordination commu-
nication through web-enabled project
portals) this study’s characteristics
share more similarities than differences
with other organizational contexts.
First, the project they had to do
adhere to the definition of a project
from A Guide to the Project Management
Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)
(PMI, 2004): time-bound, unique, and
driven by progressive elaboration. In
short, students were asked to perform a
simplified version of one of the things
they will routinely do as professionals:
create a valid assessment instrument.
Second, although students are remu-
nerated with course credits and not
with money, project completion has
high stakes because course credits
attached to this particular course are a
mandatory component of their pro-
gram, without which they cannot grad-
uate. Third, as with many other
projects, their program was character-
ized by high complexity and high
uncertainty as students needed to learn
the “what” (i.e., psychometric theory,
course content) and the “how” (i.e.,
project management specific to the val-
idation of assessment instruments) at
the same time in order to complete the
project successfully. This is similar to
R&D projects as well as organic prod-
uct-development projects requiring
tacit knowledge and a mix of additive
knowledge (i.e., learning to do better
things) and substitutive knowledge
(i.e., learning to do things better)
(Koskinen, 2004).
On a related subject, students
evolve in a multiproject environment
and have to juggle many other activities
exactly as described by Zika-Viktorsson
et al. (2006) on the negative effects of
project overload in mechanical, phar-
maceutical, and construction indus-
tries. To describe more specifically the
“what,” psychological assessment refers
to the methods by which psychologists
diagnose and evaluate psychological
characteristics or processes such as
assessment of personality, psy-
chopathological symptoms, cognitive
and neuropsychological processes, and
interpersonal behavior, including all
instruments used in industrial and
100
organizational psychology, such as
individual and team performance. The
field is vast and includes the use and
development of observational meth-
ods, interviews, and questionnaires by
way of complex statistical concepts
and techniques (Hogan, 2003). A
fourth similarity is the use of project
management methodologies, tools,
and techniques as “learning generator”
(see Sense, 2003) and a way to struc-
ture project tasks as advocated by PMI.
This was done by following a project
life-cycle process designed by the
author that combines a stage-gate
process with the requirements of the
field of psychometrics (Chiocchio,
1996). A fifth similarity is the explicit
use of milestones. What was to be
achieved was described at project initi-
ation and throughout the project life-
cycle, providing impetus for
coordination and schedule perform-
ance. Hence, clear performance targets
were set (e.g., schedule and quality per-
formance). Sixth, students performed
their project tasks aided by the func-
tionalities of WebCT (2004), a special-
ized web-like platform for e-learning
purposes. Just like in more conven-
tional organizational settings, this
platform was used as a password-pro-
tected limited-access intranet project
portal where team members could
access, read, and print specific content
information (e.g., psychometric theory,
scientific articles, etc.) and project-
related documentation (e.g., timelines,
project specifications). In short, proj-
ect specifications included how many
points would be awarded to the cre-
ation of their assessment instrument,
the scientific study they needed to con-
duct to demonstrate the instrument’s
reliability, validity, and utility (or lack
thereof), and finally, the submission of
a research report summarizing their
findings. Additional functionality
included access to FAQ, e-mail, and a
team discussion board (TDB).
To summarize, this research is not
a laboratory research: none of the vari-
ables that were measured were the
focus of any kind of experimental con-
trol. As in other applied settings, data
stem from real-world projects as they
occur in the academic world and in
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
most R&D or product development
departments. The advantage of the aca-
demic setting is that it provided the
structure (e.g., approximately 15 weeks
duration) and means to measure and
assess project-related real-world
aspects of task assignment and coordi-
nation communication. Table 1 sum-
marizes the project process.
In total, 34 teams were formed:
two teams (6%) of two members, eight
teams (24%) of three members, 16
teams (47%) of four members, six
teams (18%) of five members, and two
teams (4%) of six members. The aver-
age number of individuals in a team
was 3.9 (SD = 0.95). There was no sig-
nificant difference between men and
women’s age (t(132)=0.819, p=0.414).
After teams were formed and had sub-
mitted their first milestone, each team
was randomly assigned to one of three
teaching assistants (TAs) (i.e., 10 teams
each) and randomly assigned to the
professor (i.e., four teams).
TDBs were initiated 29 days after
the first day of class, after all teams
were formed and had informed the
professor of their composition. No for-
mal training was offered to facilitate
the use of the TDB because anybody
who had used e-mail before can use a
TDB without training. Nevertheless, 10
minutes in class were used to explain
the basic principles and emphasized
that using TDB could facilitate team
communication and coordination. In
total, 1,244 messages (M=36.6,
SD=48.1) were exchanged among
members of the 34 teams.
Measures of Performance
Adherence to Specifications
Team performance was assessed by
grading final research reports. Course
content, teaching methodology, and
team performance criteria were highly
integrated throughout the semester.
Hence, the criteria used to grade the
papers were communicated on the first
day of class and matched the progres-
sion of topic areas taught during the
semester as well as the project life cycle
of the development of a psychometric
instrument (Chiocchio, 1996) that
defined milestones and the final report.
Specifications included adherence in
Table 1: Summary of project phases and milestones
form and in content to guidelines
from the American Psychological
Association (2001). Average team
performance on quality was 66%
(SD=11.16) ranging from 38 (one
team) to 86 (one team).
Schedule Performance
Four delivery dates were set at project
initiation. Overall, out of 34 teams,
only nine (26.5 %) were late on at
least one occasion. More specifically,
32 teams (94%) were on time at mile-
stone 1, 33 teams (97%) at milestone
2, 23 teams (76%) at milestone 3, and
33 teams (97%) at final delivery date.
For teams that were late, the average
number of days late was 8 (SD=4.2), 5
(SD=0), 6.6 (SD=2.4), and 1 (SD=0)
for the three milestones and final
delivery of research report, respectively.
Measures of Communication
Passages from the 1,244 TDB messages
were extracted and counted by a
research assistant blind to the objec-
tives of the current research. Passages
1 The participants were francophone. Examples of passages shown here were translated by the author. Names used were changed to ensure anonymity.
reflected task issues, task solutions,
coordination issues, and coordination
solutions. Task issues passages were of
problems or questions with regards to
tasks necessary to complete the project.
Typical examples of problems included:
“I don’t understand how there could be
missing a questionnaire; yesterday we
all checked them together!!!!!” 1 and
“…but table not complete and ques-
tionnaires are with Joan.” A typical
example of a task question is: “How
many pages must we submit for mile-
stone 2?” Task solutions were statements
that represented a solution to a task
issue or that simply reflected task
assignment without having to be the
consequence of a previously stated
issue. “I filled out a form to request an
article from another library” was an
example. Coordination issues reflected
exchanges on timing of tasks. For exam-
ple, “I would really like to come Friday,
but I don’t think I can make it, but I will
look into it…. so I’ll get back to you”
was an example of a coordination prob-
lem. A typical example of a coordina-
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
tion question would be “Mary, you told
me that it was OK with you … now,
Betty and Wendy, just let me know if
you are coming or not, confirm on the
TDB please or call me.” Coordination
solutions were those statements that rep-
resented a solution to a coordination
issue or that simply reflected team coor-
dination without having to be the con-
sequence to a stated issue. A typical
example of a coordination solution
would be “I will nonetheless try to send
it on time tomorrow.”
Two computer programs were
used in this research. First, QSR NVivo
(2002) was used to identify, code, and
count the daily occurrences of passages
within the 1,244 TDB messages
exchanged between members of the 34
teams. Frequent periodic checks of the
assistant’s work by the author ensured
coding consistency. Overall, this proce-
dure yielded 300, 494, 368, and 802
passages for task issues, task solutions,
coordination issues, and coordination
solutions, respectively (TDB messages
could yield more than one passage).
101
Second, SPSS (2002) was used to carry
out time series analysis and the other
statistical analysis.
Results
There were significant positive correla-
tions between team size and the num-
ber of messages exchanged (r=0.43,
p=0.03), the number of task issues pas-
sages (r=0.34, p=0.05), the number of
task solutions passages (r=0.38,
p=0.03), and the number of coordina-
tion solutions (r=0.36, p=0.04). The
correlation between the number of
messages and the number of coordina-
tion issues passages was not statistical-
ly significant (r=0.30, p=0.08).
No statistically significant rela-
tionships were found between team
performance and team size (r=-0.11,
p=0.57), number of messages (r=0.19,
p=0.29), number of task issues (r=0.15,
p=0.41), task solutions (r=0.20,
p=0.25), coordination issues (r=0.13,
p=0.45), or coordination solutions
(r=0.20, p=0.27).
Figure 1: TDB task messages for high-performing teams
2 This variable failed the test for homogeneity of variance (Levene F(1,32)=7.474, p=0.01). Therefore, t-test and degrees of freedom reflect results when equal variances are not assumed.
102
In terms of schedule perform-
ance, there were no statistically sig-
nificant differences between teams
that were on time and those that were
late in terms of team performance
(t(32)=-0.832, p=0.41), team size
(t(10.4)=0.479, p=0.56)2, number of mes-
sages (t(32)=0.498, p=0.62), number of
task issues (t(32)=0.886, p=0.38), task
solutions (t(32)=0.743, p=0.46), coordi-
nation issues (t(32)=0.735, p=0.47), and
coordination solutions (t(32)=0.659,
p=0.51).
Figures 1 to 4 display frequencies
of passages as a function of time for
teams that were either above the aver-
age grade (high-performing teams) or
under the average grade (low-perform-
ing teams) on their research report. All
eight time series were analyzed
through auto regressive integrated
moving average (ARIMA) (Box &
Jenkins, 1976) using SPSS (2002).
Each time series was checked for sea-
sonality and differentiation and then
identified in terms of their moving
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
average or auto-regressive order fol-
lowing steps described in Glass,
Wilson, and Gottman (1981) and
Gottman (1981).
A clear understanding of context is
important to examine and analyze
these time series (Gregson, 1983). The
series started on the 29th day after
project initiation, which was on a
Thursday and ended 69 days later, on a
Tuesday. All time series achieved a bet-
ter fit after removing a seasonal trend
of a seven-day periodicity. This is
unsurprising in social group behavior
(Gregson) as weekly meetings (or
other kinds of periodicity such as
monthly team meetings) are frequent
in work settings. In this particular case,
classes occurred on Tuesdays and
meetings among team members often
occurred on Thursdays. It is visible
upon inspection of the four figures
that most of the TDB messages were
sent on Wednesdays or Thursdays and
the least amount of TDB activity was
on Fridays and Saturdays.
Figure 2: TDB task messages for low-performing teams
As with most time series (Glass,
Wilson, & Gottman, 1981; Gottman,
1981) a first-order non-seasonal differ-
entiation was sufficient to yield station-
ary series. Also, a first-order moving
average model was the most prevalent
model specification. In particular,
series of high performers’ task issues,
low performer’s task issues and task
solutions, high performers’ coordina-
tion solutions, low performer’s coordi-
nation issues and coordination
solutions, were identified as first order
moving average models (i.e.,
ARIMA[0,1,1]). The series of high per-
formers’ coordination issues was iden-
tified after a non-seasonal second order
transformation as a second order mov-
ing average model (i.e., ARIMA[0,2,2])
and that of high performers’ task solu-
tions necessitated a non-seasonal first
order transformation to be identified as
a second order auto-regressive model
(i.e., ARIMA[2,1,0]).
After transformations and identifi-
cation, all time series were analyzed to
determine if the frequency of relevant
passages before each milestone was sig-
nificantly different from those generated
after. Because of a surprising and seem-
ingly unexplainable spike in some of the
series on day 85, an additional test was
performed to compare data before and
after that day on all series. None of the
series of low performing teams (e.g.,
Figures 2 and 4) showed significant
interruptions at milestones 1, 2, and 3
and day 85, except for task issues at mile-
stone 3 (e.g., Figure 2). Hence, it appears
that the slight upward trend in the fre-
quency of low-performing teams’
exchanges pertaining to task issues prior
to day 72 disappeared afterward (b for
interruption=-3.202, p=0.006). A more
through analysis reveals that the frequen-
cies prior to the second milestone fol-
lowed a significant seasonal first order
moving average trend (b for MA1=0.923,
p=0.000; b for SMA1=0.888, p=0.006),
but that this trend disappeared between
the second and third milestones
(b for MA1=0.990, p=0.176; b for
SMA1=0.998, p=0.959). Therefore, in
addition to a significant downward
change in frequency of task-issues
exchanges after the third milestone,
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
the frequency of those exchanges had
lost their regularity since the second
milestone.
As for high-performing teams, three
tests yielded statistically significant inter-
ruptions. First, the frequency of task-
solution exchanges (e.g., Figure 1) after
day 85 was significantly higher than
prior to that day (b for interrup-
tion=10.864, p=0.049) while keeping
the same regularity (b for AR1=-0.453,
p<0.005; b for AR2=-0.427, p<0.005;
b for SAR1=-0.905, p<0.000; b for
SAR2=-0.361, p=0.023). Second, the
slight upward trend in high-perform-
ing teams’ frequency of coordination-
issues exchange (e.g., Figure 3) prior to
the second milestone disappeared
afterward (b for interruption=-7.503,
p=0.012). Furthermore, the series also
seems to be interrupted at milestone 3
(b for interruption=-5.054, p=0.039),
signaling that whatever trends
appeared before day 72 dissipated into
noise subsequently. Third, the irregular
upward trend in high-performing
teams’ frequency of coordination solu-
tion exchanges prior to the second
103
milestone (e.g., Figure 3) disappeared
afterward (b for interruption=-10.338,
p<0.005; b for MA1=-0.999, p=0.878;
b for SMA1=0.999, p=0.989), became
regular between the second and third
milestone (b for MA1=0.811, p<0.005;
b for SMA1=0.775, p<0.005), albeit
unaffected by the third milestone
(b for interruption=-3.552, p=0.365)
or by day 85 (b for interruption=3.091,
p=0.471).
Discussion
Summary of Results
Visual inspection of the time series
provides interesting qualitative cues on
communication flow of high- and low-
performing teams. An inferential
quantitative analysis helps extract
three main findings. First, high-per-
forming teams seem to have been
more active in terms of TDB exchanges
than low-performing teams. Second,
milestones appeared to have influ-
enced task and coordination
exchanges of high-performing teams
somewhat more consistently than for
low-performing teams. Milestones did
not appear to have substantially
Figure 3: TDB coordination messages for high-performing teams
104
changed communication in low-per-
forming teams. Finally, task-solutions
and, to a lesser extent, coordination-
solutions exchanges show that high-
performing teams appeared to have
self-organized exactly two weeks prior
to the project’s deadline (i.e., on day
85). Low-performing teams had appar-
ently ceased almost all task and coor-
dination exchanges after the third
milestone. This is especially interest-
ing, given no known external event
marked day 85. Arguably, one can say
that high-performing teams deter-
mined that the remaining 15 days war-
ranted a last surge in tasks assignment,
whereas this self-imposed time pres-
sure did not take place in low-per-
forming teams.
Relevance for Project Managers and
Project Management
To the author’s knowledge, no other
study has examined task and coordina-
tion communication flow using time-
series analysis, whether on project
teams or any other kind of team for
that matter. This combination of sub-
ject matter and methodological tech-
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
nique has great potential for the
advancement of knowledge in project
management and team development
for at least two reasons. First, research
on dynamic phenomena is usually
conducted with static statistical analy-
sis, greatly hindering transfer of knowl-
edge to real-world (i.e., complex and
dynamic) settings. Second, despite a
growing interest of academia for proj-
ect-based learning, academics do not
appear to apply project management
methodologies such as those advocat-
ed by PMI. Similarly, professional
associations such as PMI have not yet
framed project-based learning within
the wider framework of project man-
agement. This paper is an attempt to
bridge this gap, as the practice of proj-
ect management in an academic set-
ting and research on the topic is
almost inexistent.
Although these findings can be
directly applied to academic settings,
they can also be relevant to other set-
tings. This is possible in part because this
study is not a laboratory study and no
experimental controls were in effect
regarding what was measured. A number
Figure 4: TDB coordination messages for low-performing teams
of issues can be of interest to organi-
zations and project managers. First, as
organizations in many industries are
using or considering the use of web
portals, the inclusion of TDB func-
tionalities is an easy solution to
implement, which does not require
formal training to use effectively. A
TDB would create an asynchronous
collective written communication
channel useful for distributed teams as
well as co-located ones. Second, by
participating in TDB messages, project
managers could also pay close atten-
tion to task and coordination mes-
sages similar to those described here
in relation to milestones. For example,
data on coordination (Figures 3
and 4) showed that low-performing
teams (Figure 4) were exchanging a
relatively high number of messages on
coordination solutions before the first
milestone, but that coordination issues
and solutions were not discussed
much afterward. These results suggest
that this pattern of communication
flow could be a cause for concern.
High-performing teams (Figure 3),
however, were not communicating
much about coordination issues and
solutions before the first milestone,
but were exchanging progressively
more coordination messages to the
mid-life of the project at milestone 2.
Hence, project managers looking out
for this kind of pattern in the commu-
nications exchanged among their proj-
ect team might be able to detect
potentially low-performing teams and
stimulate exchanges on coordination
as soon as possible before the mid-life
of the project. These results also
appear to show that high-performing
(self-directed) teams take some time
before they “take off,” and that this
may not be a cause for concern, at
least at the beginning. Other relevant
applications for project managers can
be deduced from results on task
assignments (Figures 1 and 2). These
results show that over the course of
the project life cycle, discussing task
issues and solutions appeared to be
more important for high-performing
teams (Figure 1) than low-performing
teams (Figure 2).
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Implications and Future Research
The rate at which project complexity
increases and globalization prompts
organizations to make use of project
teams, distributed and co-located, will
likely not slow down (Haywood,
1998). In this context, IT will change
how people interact in ways that are
difficult to predict (Brichall & Lyons,
1995). Results presented here show
that high-performing teams appear to
have had a better grasp at managing
both the technology and relationships
among team members, resulting in a
better flow of knowledge (Maznevski &
Athanassiou, 2003). When technical
systems and procedures are new, teams
are particularly vulnerable to reduced
effectiveness in information-sharing
caused by technical glitches and the
inability to discover unshared infor-
mation (Cramton & Orvis, 2003).
Low-performing teams might not have
experienced initial positive experiences
with a TDB, therefore reducing the
potential to experience positive affect
or state its relevancy early on. Whether
these are causes or consequences of
105
poor performance is unclear. However,
because learning tasks are performed
better when team members are friends
(Maznevski & Athanassiou), it is possi-
ble that low-performing teams could
not develop rich communication prior
or during this particular project. Richer,
more affective communications outside
the realm of the project or on other
channels during the project might have
enabled team members to supplement
the lack of cues characteristic of asyn-
chronous electronic communication
with contextual knowledge. Other
research might include coding of daily
occurrences of collective affective com-
munication and monitoring its impact
relative to milestone and final project
completion and performance.
Previous research has found that
the degree to which project groups
develop time awareness norms (e.g.,
how people regulate their responses to
timing issues) mediates the positive
relationship between initial discus-
sions of temporal planning and per-
formance (Janicik & Bartel, 2003).
Results shown here seem to suggest
that high-performing teams were
attending to external cues such as mile-
stones and internal cues such as self-
imposed normative time frames of task
completion. Replications and further
research on this issue would prove an
exciting prospect for project manage-
ment, given the importance of sched-
ule performance. Although results
presented here did not capture initial
exchanges on temporal planning, they
do suggest that initial internal cues are
not the only phenomena at play and
that multiple external and internal
cues that occur later in the project also
prompt behavior leading to higher
project team performance.
Research shows that positive feed-
back enhances self-efficacy beliefs
(Jung & Sosik, 1999; Jung, Sosik, &
Bok Baik, 2002). In this study, positive
and constructive feedback was provid-
ed at each milestone to all teams that
demonstrated an interest in receiving
it, but not all teams demonstrated the
same level of interest. Hence, another
interesting avenue of research would
be to capture group characteristics
described by Jung et al. (2002), such as
3 This assertion is based on data collected on this issue but not presented here.
106
members’ perception of skill diversity,
degree of comfort with group work,
group self-efficacy beliefs, and goal-
attainment beliefs over time, in the
same way task and coordination was
captured here. One can argue that
given a controlled output of accurate
and positive feedback, high-perform-
ing teams would have a higher fre-
quency of declarative self-efficacy
beliefs, for example, compared to low-
performing teams. Moreover, it would
be interesting to see if those beliefs
increase or decrease following multiple
milestones/feedback cycles for the
same project.
Some suggest that synchronous
communication is a better conduit of
relationships and trust (Haywood,
1998). In the context of this research,
interpersonal conflicts did occur with-
in some of the project teams, but inter-
personal conflicts exchanges were not
channeled through the TDB3. It might
be interesting to verify if task and coor-
dination exchanges are more effective
if they occur on a communication
channel kept consistently free of inter-
personal conflict noise if other chan-
nels are used to build relationships or
discuss interpersonal conflicts. Some
have argued that training team mem-
bers to transmit “pure” task informa-
tion enhances task performance
(McGrath, 1984, p. 183). Given results
shown here, future studies on the effi-
cacy of such training in the context of
project management and written elec-
tronic collective communication
would be warranted.
Others affirm that to benefit from
computer-assisted communication, at
least one very open member or several
members with at least above-average
openness need to participate actively
(Colquitt et al., 2002). Because mem-
ber participation affects task perform-
ance (McGrath, 1984), future research
should look at project team perform-
ance when one member dominates
information distribution through a
TDB compared to when this role is
more evenly distributed.
Finally, time-series analysis is a
powerful tool to understand group
development processes and statistical
software packages are readily available
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
to use this approach. Despite this fact,
many still assert and theorize about
human interaction over time without
applying a methodology sensitive
enough to detect changes. Perhaps the
methodology used here and the results
it provided may encourage others to
initiate more research of this type.
Limitations
Like all research, this particular
research has a number of limitations
potentially affecting generalization.
First, teams were free to choose the
questionnaire topic (e.g., depression
among cancer patients, anxiety in vari-
ous situations, athletes’ coping strate-
gies, motivation, etc.) providing they
got approval prior to starting. Also,
teams were free to determine the num-
ber of individuals in their team. All
questions on this issue were answered
the same way: In the context of this
particular project, the most productive
number of students per team is four or
five. Teams of three members or less
have more flexibility in terms of coor-
dination, but lack the creativity to
effectively solve problems inherent to
the completion of the project, and
have too much work. Teams of six
members or more benefit from more
problem-solving potential but have
difficulties coordinating themselves.
Choice of topic and team size are not a
concern should these findings be gen-
eralized to other applications of teach-
ing using project management
methodology. However, in organiza-
tional settings, topics and team size are
typically not under the control of indi-
vidual team members.
Second, because this study is not a
laboratory study, communications
outside the TDB were not examined
nor controlled. Communications in
face-to-face meetings or over the
phone or through regular e-mail may
have played a role in project perform-
ance. However, no alternative IT solu-
tion similar to a TDB was available to
these teams. Team members could and
did use e-mail but only the TDB had
the potential to be a collective mecha-
nism for team communication, given
there is no need to specify to whom
the message is intended and it is not
possible to forget to include members.
The only other means of collective dis-
cussion was face-to-face meetings, but
they were, obviously, not an IT solu-
tion. Hence, even if other communica-
tion channels were used and could not
be controlled, the fact remains that not
using the TDB meant no other collec-
tive IT solution was used and that the
potential benefits of the TDB could not
have been obtained. Nonetheless, it is
not clear if frequent users of TDBs were
also frequent users of other communi-
cation methods such as face-to-face
meetings (e.g., perhaps an indicator of
highly motivated teams) or if low users
of TDB compensated for their lack of
task and coordination information
sharing by other means.
A third limitation is that analyses
were conducted on 34 teams over 69
days. More teams working on longer
projects would have made the series
less prone to outliers. Nonetheless, all
model identification and transforma-
tions as well as tests on interruptions
were followed by residual analysis that
yielded results within acceptable
parameters. In addition, despite a rela-
tively short project life (97 days, or
approximately 14 weeks), multiple
milestones contributed to its richness.
In fact, projects described in this paper
are not uncommon and can be
described as short-term teams per-
forming long tasks (Bradley, White, &
Mennecke, 2003). Performance of such
teams is particularly sensitive to clear
roles, goal setting, and consensus on
tasks (Bradley et al., 2003).
Finally, this research took place in
an academic setting with specific
demographics. Caution should be
used before generalizing these results
to other settings. However, there are
many similarities to other project man-
agement settings. First, the project was
in line with the PMBOK® Guide’s defi-
nition of “a temporary endeavor
undertaken to create a unique product
or service” (Project Management
Institute, 2000, p. 4). Second, the chal-
lenge was real and substantial: through
progressive elaboration, teams needed
to learn “what to do” and “how to do
it” at the same time, which is relative
to their level of prior knowledge of
applied psychometrics and project
management (i.e., close to absolute 0
in both cases), a very complex endeav-
or. Team members had no prior knowl-
edge of what is consistently considered
a complex subject matter among
undergraduate psychology students
(e.g., psychometrics and validation pro-
cedures). They had to acquire a large
amount of abstract and technical
knowledge in a short amount of time
and then apply it in real time and, in
addition, they knew they were going to
be assessed on strict quality standards
and specifications. Third, WebCT
(2004) was set up so that it could be
used in the same way an intranet would
in more traditional organizational set-
tings. Team members could access a
wealth of information including proj-
ect specifications and FAQs. Teams
could also access a TDB and use it to
communicate among them. Fourth, the
time pressure was real and teams that
were late were penalized. Fifth, all team
members had other academic activities
or work concurrent to this project, sim-
ilar to organizational matrix settings.
This made coordination, task assign-
ment and follow-through key success
factors. Finally, this research constitutes
a real-world example of project man-
agement communication where project
teams have little experience in formal
project management, a situation not
unlike many other project settings (see
Carrillo et al., 2004) for an example in
the construction industry), and given
what we know of project management
maturity (Kerzner, 2003).
Consequently, given many practition-
ers and academics in the field of project
management state that projects fail
largely because of communication
issues (Badir et al., 2003; Ives, 2005),
these results can be used to foster better
practices and constitute a solid ground
on which future project management
research can build upon.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a grant
from the Fonds de recherche sur la société
et la culture du Québec – Programme
d’établissement de nouveaux professeurs-
chercheurs. A preliminary version of
this paper was presented in May 2006
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
at the 21st annual Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology (SIOP)
conference in Dallas, Texas, USA. The
author gratefully acknowledges Stacey
McNulty, PhD, for her helpful com-
ments on this paper, as well as
Caroline Lacasse for her assistance
with this study.
References
American Psychological Association.
(2001). Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (5 ed.). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Baccarini, D. (1999). The logical
framework method for defining project
success. Project Management Journal,
30(4), 25–32.
Badir, Y. F., Founou, R., Stricker,
C., & Bourquin, V. (2003).
Management of global large-scale proj-
ects through a federation of multiple
web-based workflow management sys-
tems. Project Management Journal,
34(3), 40–47.
Baltes, B. B., Dickson, M. W.,
Sherman, M. P., Bauer, C. C., &
LaGanke, J. S. (2002). Computer-
mediated communication and group
decision making: A meta-analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 87, 156–179.
Barker, P. (1999, March). There’s a
reason why projects fail. Computing
Canada, 25, 15–18.
Box, E. P., & Jenkins, G. M. (1976).
Time series analysis, forecasting and con-
trol. San Francisco: Holden-Day.
Bradley, J., White, B. J., &
Mennecke, B. E. (2003). Teams and
tasks: A temporal framework for the
effects of interpersonal interventions
on team performance. Small Group
Research, 34(3), 353–387.
Brichall, D., & Lyons, L. (1995).
Creating tomorrow’s organization.
London: Pitman.
Carrillo, P., Robinson, H., Al-
Ghassani, A., & Anumba, C. (2004).
Knowledge management in UK con-
struction: Strategies, resources and bar-
riers. Project Management Journal,
35(1), 46–56.
Chiocchio, F. (1996). A model for
integrating theory and practice of psy-
chometry. International Journal of
Psychology, 31(3-4), 483.
107
 Chiocchio, F. (2004). Successful
project completion: Is being “on time”
and “on budget” necessary and suffi-
cient? Canadian Psychology, 45(2a), 21.
Chiocchio, F., Lacasse, C., Rivard,
H., Forgues, D., & Bédard, C. (2006).
Information technology and collabo-
ration in the Canadian construction
industry. Joint International Conference
on Computing and Decision Making in
Civil and Building Engineering,
Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Colquitt, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R.,
Ilgen, D. R., LePine, J. A., & Sheppard,
L. (2002). Computer-assisted commu-
nication and team decision-making
performance: The moderating effect of
openness to experience. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87(2), 402–410.
Cramton, C. D., & Orvis, K. L.
(2003). Overcoming barriers to infor-
mation sharing in virtual teams. In C.
B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.),
Virtual teams that work: Creating condi-
tions for virtual team effectiveness (pp.
214–230). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Crawford, L. (2002). Profiling the
competent project manager. In D. P.
Slevine, D. I. Cleland, & J. K. Pinto
(Eds.), The frontiers of project manage-
ment research (pp. 151–176).
Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G.
(2003). The last word: Conclusion
and implication. In C. B. Gibson & S.
G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that
work: Creating conditions for virtual team
effectiveness (pp. 403–422). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Glass, G. V., Wilson, V. L., &
Gottman, J. M. (1981). Time-series
analysis: A comprehensive introduction
for social scientists. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gottman, J. M. (1981). Time-series
analysis: A comprehensive introduction
for social scientists. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Graham, R., & Englund, R.
(1997). Creating an environment for
successful projects: The quest to manage
project management. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Gregson, R. A. M. (1983). Time
series in psychology. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
108
Haywood, M. (1998). Managing
virtual teams: Practical techniques for
high-technology project managers.
Boston: Artech House.
Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003).
Out of sight, out of sync:
Understanding conflict in distributed
teams. Organization Science, 14(6),
615–632.
Hogan, T. P. (2003). Psychological
testing. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Ives, M. (2005). Identifying the
contextual elements of project man-
agement within organizations and
their impact on project success. Project
Management Journal, 36(1), 37–50.
Janicik, G. A., & Bartel, C. A.
(2003). Talking about time: Effects of
temporal planning and time awareness
norms on group coordination and per-
formance. Group Dynamics, 7(2),
122–134.
Jehn, K. A., & Shah, P. P. (1997).
Interpersonal relationships and task
performance: An examination of medi-
ating processes in friendship and
acquaintance groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72,
775–790.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod
examination of the benefits and detri-
ments of intragroup conflict.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2),
256–282.
Jenkins Jr., G. D. (1986). Financial
incentives. In E. A. Locke (Ed.),
Generalizing from laboratory to field set-
tings (pp. 167–180). Lexington, MA:
D.C. Heath and Company / Lexington
Books.
Jung, D. I., & Sosik, J. J. (1999).
Effects of group characteristics on work
group performance: A longitudinal
investigation. Group Dynamics, 3,
279–290.
Jung, D. I., Sosik, J. J., & Bok Baik,
K. (2002). Investigating work group
characteristics and performance over
time: A replication and cross-cultural
extension. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 6(2), 153–171.
Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., & Avolio, B.
J. (2004). Effects of participative and
directive leadership in electronic
groups. Group & Organization
Management, 29(1), 67–105.
Kerzner, H. (2003). Project manage-
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
ment: A systems approach to planning,
scheduling, and controlling (8th ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Kopelman, R. E. (1986). Objective
feedback. In E. A. Locke (Ed.),
Generalizing from laboratory to field set-
tings (pp. 119–146). Lexington, MA:
D.C. Heath and Company / Lexington
Books.
Koskinen, K. U. (2004).
Knowledge management to improve
project communication and imple-
mentation. Project Management Journal,
35(2), 13–19.
Locke, E. A. (1986). Generalizing
from laboratory to field settings.
Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and
Company / Lexington Books.
Lopez, J. E. (2003). A study of the e-
mail communication style differences
between Hispanics and Anglo-Americans
in virtual team environments.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Alliant International University, Los
Angeles, CA.
Lynn, G. S., & Reilly, R. R. (2000).
Measuring team performance. Research
Technology Management, 43(2), 48–56.
Marks, M. A., & Panzer, F. J.
(2004). The influence of team moni-
toring on team processes and perform-
ance. Human Performance, 17(1),
25–41.
Maynard, A. M., Maynard, D. C., &
Rowe, K. A. (2004). Exposure to the fields
of psychology: Evaluation of an introducto-
ry psychology project, 31(1), 37–40.
Maznevski, M. L., & Athanassiou,
N. A. (2003). Designing the knowl-
edge-management infrastructure for
virtual teams: Building and using social
networks and social capital. In C. B.
Gibson, & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual
teams that work: Creating conditions for
virtual team effectiveness (pp. 196–213).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups:
Interaction and performance. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Michinov, N., Michinov, E., &
Toczek-Capelle, M.-C. (2004). Social
identity, group processes, and perform-
ance in synchronous computer-mediated
communication. Group Dynamics, 8(1),
27–39.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Williams, L. F.
(1986). The relationship between job
performance and job satisfaction. In E.
A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from labora-
tory to field settings (pp. 207–253).
Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and
Company / Lexington Books.
Project Management Institute.
(2004). A guide to the project manage-
ment body of knowledge (PMBOK®
Guide). Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
QSR International. (2002). QSR
NVivo (Version 2): QSR International.
Ratté, S., & Caron, J. (2004). Le
web pour enseigner par projets et
favoriser la collaboration. International
Journal of Technology in Higher
Education, 1(2), 27–34.
Riopelle, K., Gluesing, J. C.,
Alcordo, T. C., Baba, M. L., Britt, D.,
McKether, W., Monplaisir, L., Ratner, H.
H., & Wagner, K. H. (2003). Context,
task, and the evolution of technology
use in global virtual teams. In C. B.
Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual
teams that work: Creating conditions for
virtual team effectiveness (pp. 239–264).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schweiger, D. M., & Leana, C. R.
(1986). Participation in decision mak-
ing. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing
from laboratory to field settings (pp.
147–166). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath
and Company / Lexington Books.
Sense, A. J. (2003). Learning gen- gy-based project environments.
erators: Project teams re-conceptual- Project Management Journal, 35(4),
ized. Project Management Journal, 35–46.
34(3), 4–12. Tindale, R. S., Meisenhelder, H.
Shenhar, A. (2001). One size does M., Dykema-Engblade, A. A., &
not fit all projects: Exploring classical Hogg, M. A. (2001). Shared cogni-
contingency domains. Management tion in small groups. In M. J. Hogg
Science, 47(3), 394–414. & R. S. Tindal (Eds.), Blackwell
Shenhar, A., Levy, O., & Dvir, D. handbook of social psychology: Group
(1997). Mapping the dimensions of processes (pp. 1–30). Malden, MA:
project success. Project Management Blackwell Publishing.
Journal, 28(2), 5–13. Wateridge, J. (1998). How can
Shenhar, A., Levy, O., Dvir, D., & IS/IT projects be measured for suc-
Maltz, A. C. (2001). Project success: A cess? International Journal of Project
multidimensional strategic concept. Management, 16(1), 59–63.
Long Range Planning, 34, 699–725. WebCT. (2004). (Version 4.0)
Shenhar, A. J. (1998). From theo- [WebCT]. Lynnfield, MA:
ry to practice: Toward a typology of www.webct.com.
project management styles. IEEE Wittenbaum, G. M.,
Transactions on Engineering Hollingshead, A. B., Paulus, P. B.,
Management, 45(1), 33–48. Hirokawa, R. Y., Ancona, D. G.,
Sparrow, P. R. (1997). Peterson, R. S., Jehn, K. A., & Yoon,
Organizational competencies: K. (2004). The functional perspec-
Creating a strategic behavioural frame- tive as a lens for understanding
work for selection and assessment. In groups. Small Group Research, 35(1),
N. Anderson & P. Herriot (Eds.), 17–43.
International Handbook of Selection and Zika-Viktorsson, A.,
Assessment (pp. 343–368). Chichester: Sundström, P., & Engwall, M.
John Wiley & Sons. (2006). Project overload: An
SPSS Inc. (2002). SPSS (Version exploratory study of work and man-
11.5) [SPSS for Windows]. SPSS Inc. agement in multi-project settings.
Thamhain, H. J. (2004). Team International Journal of Project
leadership effectiveness in technolo- Management, 24, 385–394.

FRANÇOIS CHIOCCHIO, PhD, PMP, is associate professor in the industrial and organizational program at the Université de
Montréal’s psychology department. His work focuses on collaboration and communication in the workplace, on
performance assessment of individuals, project teams, and organizations. A measure and assessment specialist, he has
developed several instruments that provide feedback on performance, or are used for selection purposes. He manages
numerous research projects involving many collaborators and graduate students. Dr. Chiocchio also has strong
management experience, having founded and directed his own consulting firm and worked in the Canadian federal public
service as a project manager.

M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L 109
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
RESTRAINING IN-HOUSE KNOWLEDGE
TRANSFER BETWEEN PROJECT MANAGERS—
A CASE STUDY
ABSTRACT
Even though the importance of knowl-
edge transfer within project-oriented
organizations is frequently emphasized
in the recent project management litera-
ture, in practice, knowledge transfer only
takes place to a rather limited extent.
Based on an in-depth case study, find-
ings from a company, in which several
initiatives to promote knowledge trans-
fer between five full-time project man-
agers were taken, are presented.
However, the initiatives did not bring the
expected outcome. The organizational
subculture encompassing project man-
agers may explain reluctance in involve-
ment in knowledge transfer and in
sharing of lessons learned. Based on
Schein’s notion (1987) six basic underly-
ing assumptions in the organizational
culture that limit knowledge transfer are
identified. Further, the authors propose
an interaction paradigm underlying proj-
ect managers’ interactions.
Keywords: project manager; knowledge
transfer; organizational culture; lessons
learned
©2007 by the Project Management Institute
Vol. 38, No. 1, 110-122, ISSN 8756-9728/03
110
PERNILLE ESKEROD, University of Southern Denmark
HANS JØRGEN SKRIVER, Academy of Professional Higher Education, Denmark
Introduction
nowledge transfer between projects and project personnel is a topic that
K has received extensive attention within project management publications
(Cooper, Lyneis, & Bryant, 2002; Keegan & Turner, 2001; Lindkvist &
Söderlund, 2002; Lindkvist, Söderlund, & Frohm, 2002; MacMaster, 2000; Sense
& Antoni, 2002; Söderlund, 2002; Tell & Söderlund 2001; Turner, Keegan, &
Crawford, 2000; Williams, 2003). The main argument in the current literature is
that knowledge transfer and reflections on lessons learned may bring companies
and organizations a competitive advantage that cannot be obtained by only per-
forming project management well. An underlying assumption concerning knowl-
edge transfer is that an evolutionary perspective can be applied. Thus, project
managers are expected to become better on a continuous basis as they learn from
local trial-and-error processes taking place through series of interactions
(Lindkvist & Söderlund, 2002). The aims of an increased knowledge transfer are
to minimize errors and relieve project managers from the burden of “inventing”
a lot of tools and lines of actions. Instead of such “invention efforts,” project
managers may learn from each other (applying an exploitation strategy according
to March [1991]).
However, as referred in the main part of the previously mentioned publica-
tions on knowledge transfer, many companies experience serious problems when
trying to make knowledge transfer work and to make lessons learned more avail-
able. Even though the topic has been discussed heavily in the literature, a thor-
ough understanding on what is current practice related to this topic is still
missing. Therefore, an in-depth single case study was undertaken to dig into the
problems and challenges related to knowledge transfer between five full-time
project managers within a company. The aim of this paper is to bring the notion
of organizational culture into the debate on ways to restrain and promote knowl-
edge transfer, as this frame of reference seems to contribute a lot to the perspec-
tives of the current publications.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
The Case Study
The Organization
The company, which was the subject of
the case study, designs, develops, and
produces integrated information, com-
munication, and entertainment sys-
tems for trains, mainly for the
European market. The company was
founded in 1987 and, in past years, the
employees have developed a compre-
hensive expertise on customer-specific
product development. The work is
organized by projects, and for each
project, a project manager and a project
group are appointed. The individual
project manager is responsible for his
or her project. Furthermore, he or she is
supported by a weekly, individual
meeting with the project chief. In 2001,
when the research project was initiated,
the company had about 100 employ-
ees, of which five were permanently
appointed full-time project managers.
The company was the market
leader in Europe, and employees and
top management of the company
expressed that the company was rea-
sonably competent in accomplishing
projects. However, as the organization
was situated in a very competitive mar-
ket with tight deadlines on projects,
the five project managers expressed a
wish to obtain a broader repertoire of
actions and tools in order to handle
the various situations related to their
job as project managers. One of the
project managers stated:
…we have not been that good at get-
ting hold of the good things we experience
in the projects. We are very busy, therefore,
experiences tend to be stored with the indi-
viduals (authors’ translation).
The project managers in the case
company seemed to make use of differ-
ent project management tools and lines
of action. However, the perception was
that the project managers did not draw
on each others’ experience in situations
in which such “drawing” seemed obvi-
ous and, thus, a great potential for
learning was left unattended.
In 2001, the project chief and the
project managers initiated several steps
to promote knowledge transfer as
everyone agreed that all project man-
agers as well as the organization would
benefit if various project management
tools and lines of action (which the
individual project manager believed to
be efficient and effective) could be dis-
seminated among the project managers.
The aim was that every project manager
by taking advantages of “lessons
learned” would get a broader project
management repertoire and further-
more, project managers could become
better at drawing on each others’ experi-
ence and seeking inputs and feedback
when trying to solve a problem.
Research Method
This paper draws upon Schein’s clinical
research model (Schein, 1987, 1991).
This model is characterized by the facts
that (1) members of the organization
are the ones who start the research
process; (2) the process is started in
order to gain better insight into the cul-
ture they are part of; and (3) data is pro-
vided voluntarily by organizational
members, because they believe that they
will benefit from exposing themselves to
the researchers.
The research project was conducted
as a longitudinal study, during the
course of which in-depth dialogues with
the five project managers and the project
chief at the case company during a peri-
od of six months were carried out. Each
person participated in three individual
dialogues of 1 to 1.5 hours duration.
Furthermore, the project managers and
the project chief participated in four
common meetings with the researchers,
two of which were half-day focus-group
discussions. The dialogues were guided
by semi-structured interview guides
based on the theoretical frame of refer-
ence for the research and inputs from
the interviewed as dialogues took place.
The aim of interactions was to
engage researchers, project managers,
and the project chief in an investigation
process concerning the reluctance
toward knowledge transfer. Part of this
process was to reveal basic assumptions,
which (more or less consciously) guided
the project managers’ behavior.
The effects on knowledge transfer of
the initiatives investigated have not been
quantified. Instead, the project chief and
the project managers have provided
qualitative assessments of the initiatives
during the study period.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Description of Initiatives
The initiatives activated (especially by
the project chief) in order to stimulate
knowledge transfer were as follows:
• Establishment of an organizational
unit for project managers and the
project chief
• Project chief support
• A shared office for project managers
• Weekly meetings on project manage-
ment experiences
• A best practice file on project man-
agement
• Project managers as “reporters” at
status meetings
• Monthly meetings on project man-
agement methodology
• Reading the same management book
• Participation in the research project.
Organizational Project Management Unit
Previously, the project managers at the
case company were organized within
the product development department
together with other employees
engaged in product development, for
example, as constructors. However, top
management decided to establish an
organizational unit for project man-
agement to enhance development of a
specific identity for project managers.
Further, the organizational unit was
established to emphasize the striving
for more professional project manage-
ment. Such emphasis was further
increased by appointing a project chief
and, thus, the previous situation was
abandoned, in which project managers
had to “share” their superior with the
rest of the employees engaged in prod-
uct development.
Project Chief Support
On more occasions, the project chief
expressed benefits of knowledge transfer
between project managers; e.g., everyone
would get a broader repertoire of lines of
actions and furthermore, project man-
agers would have somebody to turn to
for help. Further, the project chief
expressed an open-minded attitude
toward initiatives suggested by the proj-
ect managers in order to enhance knowl-
edge transfer. Thus, although most
initiatives were started by the project
chief, such initiatives were, by no means,
restricted to top-down initiation.
111
Shared Office
The five project managers moved to a
shared office to enable a higher degree
of knowledge transfer to take place. In
the office, the project managers still
had their own workstation, that is, a
desk, shelves, a notice board, a com-
puter, and a telephone.
Weekly Meetings on Project Management
Experiences
Once a week, project managers and
the project chief met for one hour in
the morning to discuss and reflect
upon their experiences concerning
project management for the past
week. Everyone had an obligation to
present one or more experiences,
which he or she thought might be of
value to the others.
Best Practice File
The project managers had a shared file
(both electronically and in print), in
which they kept documents about
experiences and ideas they found use-
ful in their own projects. For example,
the file contained documents on how
to carry out a project start-up meeting
and how to create a budget in a spread-
sheet. The project managers did not
have an obligation to make use of the
best practice file, albeit they were free
to use it for inspiration.
Monthly or bimonthly the project
managers (in a meeting on project
management methodology) went
through the file to see if someone had
placed new documents in it. Usually
they found one new document every
two months. They discussed the new
document briefly.
Project Managers as “Reporters”
Every other week, each project manag-
er had to participate in a meeting
called the project steering (PS) meeting
with a group of top managers in the
company. The aim of the meeting
(which lasted 20 minutes for each
project manager) was for the project
manager to inform top management
on the status of active project(s).
Previously, project managers per-
ceived PS meetings to be demanding
oral exams, at which they never knew
which questions to expect; nor did
112
they know which direction the conver-
sation would take. Sometimes discus-
sions became very loud and
aggressive. Consequently, several of
the project managers were anxious
about these meetings. For example,
one of them said that he never slept
well the night before a PS meeting.
The project chief acknowledged
the unease that project managers felt
about the meetings and, as a result, he
wanted to change the format of the
meetings. Among other things, he
made an agenda for the meetings so
that project managers—in advance—
knew which issues they were expected
primarily to debate on.
Further, the project chief had
noticed that some of the project man-
agers had more difficulties in han-
dling the meetings than others. He
tried to coach the project managers,
who were not performing well. For
example, he instructed them that:
“You must be the spokesman of the
meeting!” However, the project man-
agers did not really seem to under-
stand what he meant. As a result, he
decided that during each of the PS
meetings, one of the other project
managers should participate as a
“reporter” and, furthermore, this par-
ticipant was responsible for making a
written summary. This way, the
reporting project manager could
observe how the other project man-
agers handled interactions with top
management and, thus, the project
managers could try to adapt the
behavior found to be valuable.
Furthermore, the project managers
could talk about their process per-
formance afterward. Additionally, the
“reporter” got to know a lot about the
projects in the project portfolio of the
company, in which he or she was not
involved directly.
Meetings on Project Management
Methodology
The project managers and the project
chief planned to meet to explicitly
discuss project management method-
ology once a month. However, these
meetings were often cancelled or
postponed due to heavy, urgent
workload.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Reading the Same Management Book
Just before a week of holidays, the CEO
gave the project managers (and other
managers) a newly published manage-
ment book as a “winter holiday pres-
ent.” Two months later, the group of
managers attended a lecture held by
the author of the book.
By means of the “leisure time read-
ing initiative,” top management tried to
encourage managers of the company to
focus on management, to study new
achievements in management research,
and to search for inspiration outside
the company. Furthermore, the aim of
such activities was to enhance the
establishment of a shared frame of ref-
erence for the managers and hencefor-
ward to increase the possibilities for
successful communication.
Participation in the Research Project
Allocation of time for participation in
the research project was another way in
which the project chief and the project
managers tried to emphasis the striv-
ing for knowledge transfer.
Participation in the research project
gave the project managers opportuni-
ties for increased knowledge transfer;
primarily because such participation
offered them opportunities to reflect
upon and discuss the knowledge issue.
In general, the project managers
and the project chief were content with
the organizational unit, the project
chief support, the shared office, and
the meetings focusing on project man-
agement experiences and project man-
agement methodology. Further, most
of them had actually read the book
they received from the CEO and partic-
ipated in the related activities. The
project managers appreciated the cur-
rent form of the PS meetings and the
job as reporter. They found the best
practice file useful to some extent
(even though some of them hardly
used it), but some of them claimed
that it would be even more useful if
some of the project management activ-
ities suggested in the file became
mandatory for the project managers
and/or integrated into the quality
handbook. Further, they were eager to
discuss knowledge transfer in the dia-
logues and research meetings.
 The overall assessment by the proj-
ect managers and the project chief was
that they agreed that all the initiatives
had contributed to a certain increase in
knowledge transfer. However, they felt
that they had not reached the full
potential concerning knowledge trans-
fer. Even though they didn’t quantify
any measurement on the level of
knowledge transfer they stated that they
had expected more knowledge transfer
to take place. The fact that the initiatives
did not contribute very much to knowl-
edge transfer was quite a puzzling find-
ing. Due to this, the initiatives will be
analyzed in further depths in the fol-
lowing section, in which the case is con-
fronted with theory.
Confronting the Case With Theory
The purpose of this section is to exam-
ine the initiatives activated in order to
promote knowledge transfer at the
case company using (1) a knowledge
transfer process perspective; and (2)
an organizational culture perspective.
The two perspectives do not exclude
each other. Instead they can be seen as
complementary.
This section of the paper is struc-
tured as follows: First, concepts con-
cerning knowledge transfer processes
chosen to be included in the analysis
are presented. Second, all initiatives are
examined according to the framework
offered by Nonaka and Takeuchi
(1995) and Hansen, Nohria, and
Tierney (1999) on knowledge transfer
processes. Third, one of the initiatives is
examined in detail as this initiative ini-
tially qualified as the most promising
and far-reaching, but, in the end, turned
out to be the one best illustrating some
of the problems related to knowledge
transfer between project managers.
Afterward, the initiatives are examined
from a cultural perspective applying
Schein’s concept on primary culture-
embedding mechanisms and secondary
articulation and reinforcement mecha-
nisms (Schein, 1992). This part is fol-
lowed by the presentation of six basic,
underlying assumptions influencing
knowledge transfer in the case study.
Finally, an interaction paradigm under-
lying the project managers’ interactions
in the case company is proposed.
Interpreting the Case From a
Knowledge Transfer Process Perspective
Many authors have published articles
and books on types of knowledge and
types of knowledge transfer processes
(e.g., Boisot, 1995; Hansen et al.,
1999; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Tell
& Söderlund, 2001). Therefore, an
interpretation of the case from a
knowledge transfer process perspective
can be done in a wide variety of ways.
Two main contributors that were
to be especially relevant for the analy-
sis were chosen.
First, the authors adopted the work
of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) on
knowledge transfer processes. Nonaka
and Takeuchi differentiated between
tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge
(as introduced by Polanyi, 1967). Tacit
knowledge is personal and context spe-
cific and, therefore, difficult to formal-
ize and communicate. It includes both
cognitive and technical elements.
Cognitive models like systems, perspec-
tives, paradigms, beliefs, and points of
view help the individual to perceive
and define his or her world in “what is”
and “what ought to be.” Furthermore,
the technical part of tacit knowledge
includes specific know-how, workman-
ship, and skills. In opposition to this
explicit or codified knowledge is
knowledge that is transferable in a for-
mal and systematic language (Nonaka
& Takeuchi, 1995, pp. 59–60).
Primarily, the work of Nonaka and
Takeuchi is adopted because the
research problem centers on knowl-
edge transfer from one individual to
another/to a group. The contribution
of Nonaka and Takeuchi belongs to the
part of the knowledge management lit-
erature that has been entitled “the first
wave of knowledge management”
(Larsen & Mouritsen, 2001). In opposi-
tion to later perceptions of knowledge
management, in which a broader defi-
Table 1: Types of knowledge and knowledge transfer processes
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
nition of knowledge is used and in
which focus is on knowledge creation
in the organization and a total effort on
the organizational level (Larsen &
Mouritsen, 2001, p. 8), Nonaka and
Takeuchi perceive knowledge as carried
by the individual. Although “the first
wave of knowledge management”
(including Nonaka & Takeuchi) might
be somewhat simplistic, a choice has
been made to draw on this stream of
literature because it focuses on the indi-
vidual. For example, knowledge man-
agement is thought of as a way to create
conditions for the creative develop-
ment of the individual self-realization
and conditions that motivate knowl-
edge sharing supplemented by physical
tools like the intranet and office land-
scapes. Thus, “the first wave” and its
focus on individuals is very much in
line with the lines of reasoning in the
case company and with the core of the
research project.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995, p. 57)
defined four modes of knowledge trans-
fer processes, which “constitute the
‘engine’ of the entire knowledge-creation
process” as experienced by the individ-
ual. In Table 1, the typology is repro-
duced. Further descriptions of the fours
modes are offered in the next section.
Apart from Nonaka and Takeuchi
(1995), the authors adopted the work
of Hansen et al. (1999) on knowledge
management strategies. Primarily, this
work was adopted because it points to
two different trends of knowledge stor-
age. One is entitled the “codification
strategy” and implies that explicit
experiences should be gathered, and
then create information that others can
utilize later—simply speaking, to make
use of an already explicit knowledge or
make a tacit knowledge explicit.
Knowledge is transferred from a per-
son to a document or another media
from which the knowledge may be
113
retrieved at any point in time. The
other strategy is entitled the “personal-
ization strategy,” which is based on
interactions between individuals and,
hence, knowledge is transferred from
person to person by interaction. The
aim is to connect/link individuals who
need knowledge with individuals who
possess knowledge by creating arenas
for interaction, like in a master and
apprentice relationship.
In the following section the
authors examine the initiatives taken
at the case company by means of the
theoretical framework on knowledge
transfer previously presented.
Examining the Initiatives
Here, the initiatives are examined by
applying the theoretical frame of refer-
ence previously presented. Three of the
initiatives: (1) the organizational proj-
ect management unit; (2) project chief
support; and (3) participating in the
research project can be seen as arrange-
ments, which promotes knowledge
transfer between project managers,
although they cannot be related to the
different kinds of knowledge transfer
processes. Therefore, they are not
included in this analysis.
In Table 2, the remaining initia-
tives at the case company are related to
the theoretical frame of reference.
According to Table 2, the initiatives
support different kinds of knowledge
transfer processes. Further, they support
both a personalization strategy and a
codification strategy. In the following
section, the authors elaborate on the
relations between knowledge transfer
processes, strategies, and initiatives.
Knowledge Transfer by Means
of Socialization
To transfer knowledge that is tacit and
unconscious for both the sender and
the receiver(s) physical proximity
between the persons involved is a pre-
requisite. Hereby, knowledge transfer
can take place by socialization
(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Instead of
words—codification—the situation
requires execution in action, observa-
tion and imitation. It is comparable
with a master and apprentice tech-
nique, in which the apprentice watches
114
Table 2: Knowledge transfer processes and the initiatives at the case company
the master to learn to do the same
things as the master does.
The “shared office” and the “proj-
ect managers as reporters” initiatives
can be seen as ways in which the proj-
ect managers sought to learn from
each other by means of socialization.
Further, by participating in meetings
on project management experiences
and project management methodolo-
gy, project managers got the chance to
observe each other dealing with
knowledge transfer.
Knowledge Transfer by Means
of Externalization
Externalization is a process by means
of which tacit knowledge is made
explicit. This is done by “putting
words” on the “unconscious.” To help
this process, one can make use of
metaphors, analogies, and models
(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). For exam-
ple, metaphors are an intuitive way in
which an understanding that is diffi-
cult to explain in precise words can be
expressed. Relating to Hansen et al.
(1999), externalization may be part of
either a personalization strategy or a
codification strategy, depending on
whether the externalization is done by
a person talking to another
person/group or by a person express-
ing himself or herself to a media.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
The meetings on project manage-
ment experiences and on project man-
agement methodology as well as the
best practice file are all examples of ini-
tiatives, in which knowledge transfer is
meant to take place by individuals
turning their tacit knowledge into
shared knowledge. The shared office
can also be seen as a means of external-
ization as it should be more convenient
for people to talk to each other and
thereby make tacit knowledge explicit
because of their physical proximity.
Knowledge Transfer by Means
of Combination
In the “combination mode” (Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995) a piece of codified
knowledge is converted to another cod-
ified form, i.e., what is said is written
down. It can also be the explicit knowl-
edge of the single project group that is
diffused to the rest of the organization.
Individuals exchange and combine
knowledge through various media such
as documents, meetings, phone conver-
sations, IT-based networks, etc. Relating
to Hansen et al. (1999), this knowledge
transfer process belongs to a codifica-
tion strategy.
At the case company, the best
practice file and the meetings on
project management methodology
can be seen as examples of knowledge
transfer initiatives converting codified
knowledge to other codified forms.
Knowledge Transfer by Means
of Internalization
The fourth mode of knowledge trans-
fer, “internalization” (Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995), describes a situation
in which explicit knowledge is trans-
ferred to tacit knowledge within the
single individual. This kind of knowl-
edge transfer takes place in traditional
forms of learning situations, for exam-
ple, by reading specialist literature or
attending lectures. This mode will be
strengthened by experiments and
actions (Storm Pedersen, 2000) and
can be associated with “learning by
doing.” When experiences gained by
socialization, externalization, and
combinations are internalized into the
tacit knowledge base of the individual,
as a part of the cognitive models or
technical know-how, they become
valuable assets (Nonaka & Takeuchi,
1995). Relating to Hansen et al.
(1999) this knowledge transfer process
belongs to a personalization strategy.
At the case company, “using proj-
ect managers as reporters” and “read-
ing the same management book” can
be seen as ways in which internaliza-
tion of knowledge is sought.
Choice of Knowledge Management Strategy
Primarily, the knowledge transfer initia-
tives at the case company support a per-
sonalization strategy. However, a
codification strategy is also supported by
the “best practice file” initiative and
monthly meetings on project manage-
ment methodology at which documents
in the best practice file are discussed.
Examining the “Shared Office” Initiative
The “shared office” initiative was the
one initiative from which the project
chief and the project managers were
expecting the most significant increase
in knowledge transfer. Therefore, this
initiative is examined in further depth
in this section.
The project managers expressed a
positive attitude toward the shared
office. They stated that they felt they
got to know each other better as a
result of the shared office. They got
along very well and the level of trust
increased. Further, they developed a
shared, informal language usage, told
jokes, and developed unconventional
concepts that only the five project
managers understood.
The argument for placing the five
project managers in a shared office was
that physical proximity was expected
to enable higher degrees of knowledge
exchange to take place; both through
socialization and through externaliza-
tion (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). The
mere observation of a peer project
manager dealing with daily challenges
and possibilities was expected to con-
vey—consciously and unconsciously—
the observer with a more
comprehensive repertoire of lines of
action. This empirical study supports
that such socialization took place in
the case company.
Furthermore, externalization was
expected to happen more frequently
because the project managers were sit-
uated face to face and, therefore, had
more opportunities for consulting
each other.
During dialogues, the project
managers stated that, in their everyday
interactions, they discussed problem
solutions and shared experiences. If,
for example, one of them had a dis-
agreement with a project participant
who entered the office, often other
project managers spontaneously gave
their opinions and advice when the
participant had left the office.
The project managers told us that the
shared office gave room for more infor-
mal interaction and communication.
One disadvantage related to the
shared office model that the project
managers pointed to in the dialogues
was the fact that the physical surround-
ings did not give room for one-to-one
conversations with project participants.
As a result, the project managers felt
that relationships with the project par-
ticipants were threatened a bit by the
“shared office” initiative.
Even though the project manager
and the project chief expressed the pre-
viously mentioned differences in
behavior as a result of the shared
office, they also stated that they had
expected the shared office to lead to a
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
much higher increase in project man-
agement knowledge transfer.
As such, the communication frequen-
cy between the project managers
increased, but the subjects of communica-
tion were not about lessons learned con-
cerning the tasks of the project
managers instead such communication
focused on operational aspects.
The project managers acted as
observers or witnesses to each others’
leadership behavior to the extent they
were present while others carried out
their work in the office. They did not,
by themselves, undertake the roles as
interactors/debators/commentators. Nor
did they comment on each others‘
behavior, unless somebody asked them
to do so. If one observed another act in
a way one thought was inexpedient,
typically he or she only considered the
situation by himself or herself and did
not confront the others’ project manag-
er with the reflections.
The project managers did not offer
their knowledge without being asked to do
so. The project chief stated: “Even
though they are sitting back to back, I
have to interfere and ask one of them
to show something to the other. We
lack a beer crate/speaker’s corner to
step up on and say: “Look here now! I
have done this—is it useful for you?”
(authors’ translation).
The project managers were not
always willing to ask the other project man-
agers for help even though they knew
where to ask for help. The project chief
had to encourage them to seek help
from the other project managers.
The project managers knew very lit-
tle about each others’ work and schedules.
For example, when one of the project
managers was not present in the office,
the others did not know where he was.
In spite of all the effort made to
increase the level of knowledge trans-
fer, the initiatives did not seem to
bring the expected results as the project
chief and the project managers felt that
the potential for knowledge transfer
was not fully reached. The project chief
and the project managers expressed
positive attitudes toward the initia-
tives, but at the same time they stated
that they felt knowledge transfer did
not take place as much as they had
115
hoped for. This finding was quite sur-
prising because several times the proj-
ect managers expressed needs for
increased knowledge transfer, and
because the initiatives supported vari-
ous knowledge transfer processes. In
the next section, a cultural perspective
is applied to explain the lack of knowl-
edge transfer.

Applying a Cultural Perspective

to the Case
In this section, the initiatives at the
case company are examined from a
cultural perspective based on Schein’s
notion (1992). One important point
within the cultural perspective is that
cultural changes must be supported by
both primary culture-embedding
mechanisms and secondary articula-
tion and reinforcement mechanisms
(Schein, 1992). In Table 3, an attempt
is made to relate the initiatives in ques-
tion to culture-embedding and articu-
lation/reinforcement mechanisms.
As visualized in Table 3, the ini-
tiatives at the case company, especial-
ly, represent a striving toward creating
arenas for knowledge transfer, giving
attention from top management, and
carrying out organizational rites and
rituals. Due to the many mechanisms Table 3: Culture-embedding and articulation/reinforcement mechanisms
pointed to in Table 3, lack of culture-
embedding and articulation/reinforce-
ment mechanisms seems not to be the term “espoused values” refers to the initiatives are consistent with artifacts
reason why we can only register few official values and strategies of the and exposed values in the company
incidents of knowledge transfer at the organization. The deepest level, the while they are (more or less) incon-
case company. Consequently, it seems basic, underlying assumptions, con- sistent with basic assumptions, the
to be more fruitful to approach the sists of the unconscious, taken-for- basic assumptions will “win.”
organizational culture by looking into granted beliefs, perceptions, thoughts, Consequently, even though artifacts
another framework provided by and feelings that guide behavior and exposed values at the case com-
Schein (1992). (Schein, 1992). pany prompt knowledge transfer
According to Schein (1992) an Drawing on Schein (1992), we between project managers, basic
organizational culture can be would thus expect initiatives con- assumptions of the organizational
described by three levels: (1) artifacts; sistent with prevalent cultural val- culture that might restrain knowledge
(2) espoused values; and (3) basic, ues and basic assumptions to hold transfer may maintain. A result will
underlying assumptions. Referring to potential for successful knowledge be that it becomes extremely difficult
this framework offered by Schein, transfer, whereas we would expect for the project managers to achieve
attempts to prompt the employees in lack of knowledge transfer if the the “amount” of knowledge transfer
an organization to transfer knowledge initiatives are inconsistent with the desired by them and the project chief.
will only be successful in so far as values and assumptions held by To follow this line of reasoning,
knowledge transfer is consistent with the organization. in this case study the authors sought
the prevalent cultural values and According to Schein (1992) to discover basic, underlying assump-
basic, underlying assumptions of the basic, underlying assumptions are tions based on the notion of Schein
organization. Artifacts are the tangi- much more influential on behav- (1992) and Hofstede (1980), who
bles representing the culture at the ior than artifacts and espoused conducted research on masculine and
surface of the organization, while the values. An implication is that if the feminine values, and to relate them to

116 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
the behavior of the project managers
concerning the initiatives. Six assump-
tions influencing knowledge transfer
at the company were identified:
• Masculine values were most valuable
• Perception of time as scarce
• No concern about the past, limited
concern about the future
• Relationships based on respect and
no unrequested interference
• Private ownership of projects
• A role conception stating that “a proj-
ect manager manages without help.”
Masculine/Feminine Values
Hofstede (1990) offered the concept of
masculine index, which describes the
degree to which a culture, regardless of
gender roles of the culture, can be char-
acterized mainly by masculine values
like competitiveness and dominance
instead of feminine values like rela-
tionship building. The case study
showed that the project managers
exposed behavior and statements relat-
ed to masculine values. Henceforward,
they focused on accomplishing tasks,
dealing with challenges, meeting per-
sonal deadlines, planning their career
path etc., while the feminine values (to
reflect, take care of each other, etc.) did
not seem prevalent. As many of the
feminine values (collective reflection
rather than individual action) seem to
support knowledge transfer, the values
of the project managers did not
encourage knowledge transfer.
Perception of Time
Schein (1992) pointed to perception
of time as a very important concept
when trying to understand an organi-
zational culture. The interviews
revealed that project managers per-
ceived time to be very scarce and limit-
ed (which is not surprising due to the
fact that time limitation is a core char-
acteristic in a temporary organization).
They were very focused on not wasting
any time, for example, they were very
keen on starting their meetings on
time and not wasting time while wait-
ing. The authors of this paper are
familiar with other cultures in which
the waiting time before a meeting or
other non-scheduled time is acknowl-
edged as valuable, because informa-
tion can be exchanged on an informal
basis. The project managers in the case
organization did not regard time for
informal interaction as an opportunity
for knowledge transfer, because they
felt a hard pressure on being narrowly
focused on the project. Nor did they
find time to have informal talks during
lunch as they did not have lunch
together due to their heavy schedules.
Further, they were afraid to interrupt
each other with “needless” inquiries,
because they all respected that time for
managing projects was of the highest
priority. Their perceptions of time as
very scarce and “project dependent,”
therefore, did not seem to support
knowledge transfer.
Concerns About Past and Future
Schein (1992) claimed that concerns
about the past, present, and future
held by the members of an organiza-
tional culture give important insights
about the culture. The project man-
agers in the case company said in the
interviews that they were very focused
on the present and the very near future
due to tight deadlines and a heavy
workload. They did not find it valuable
to dwell on experiences of the past, nor
did they, to a larger extent, consider
how their current experiences could
help them in the future, as this did not
have a high priority or value compared
to their other tasks. Their concerns
about the past, present, and future did
not enable much knowledge transfer
to take place.
Relationships Between Project Managers
The project managers had a lot of
respect for each others’ ways of man-
aging projects. They thought that they
should not interfere, or even com-
ment on, each others’ behavior,
unless they were asked. Further, they
did not like the thought that some of
them would know better what to do
in a specific situation than others.
This was also a reason why they pre-
ferred that the use of the procedures
described in the best practice file to be
optional. This lack of willingness to
engage in commenting and discussing
each others’ behavior seems to
restrain knowledge transfer.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Ownership of Projects
Although the project managers shared
an office they still had their own work-
station and their own projects. In con-
tinuation, they did not interfere with
each others’ projects and the responsi-
bility for each project was placed with
the single project manager. Private
ownership was one of the most preva-
lent characteristics due to project
organizing and individual perform-
ance assessments.
Conception of the Project Manager Role
Project managers included in this
study all defined the project manager
role as one that does not rely heavily
on colleagues. Thus, a characteristic of
role definitions-in-use is that project
managers qualify as managers who
manage on their own. Consequently,
the “lone ranger” role definition
seems to be a major reason why
knowledge transfer did not reach the
expired level.
Formerly, the project managers
at the case company could be
defined as lone riders (project man-
agers’ notions). On the surface, the
office-sharing initiative redefined
them as riders in a troop
(researchers’ notions) as it enabled
them to observe each others’ actions.
However, the project managers were
reluctant when it came to discussing
why one of them handled tasks and
situations in one way, while the oth-
ers handled them otherwise.
Therefore, the project managers did
not get feedback on their actions.
Especially, lack of feedback was
attributable to the fact that to give
non-demanded feedback was con-
ceived as misplaced/undue interfer-
ence with the personal style of the
project manager.
Many elements at the case com-
pany, for example, project organiza-
tion (one project manager and one
project group were assigned to each
project); the design of the office; and
individual meetings with the project
chief, reinforced the conception of a
lone rider.
The empirical study upon
which this paper draws suggests
that the interaction paradigm
117
underlying the project managers’
interactions to be characterized by
the following elements:
1. The project manager is first and
foremost responsible for his or her
own project.
2. We respect each others’ working
methods and therefore we do not
intervene.
3. We must not waste others’ time with
“needless” inquiries.
4. Knowledge transfer should only
take place in specific forums and/or
situations.
Due to the existence of these char-
acteristics, it is suggested that the inter-
action paradigm prevents the project
managers from a more intensive
knowledge transfer, even though they
do express wishes for such knowledge
transfer. Consequently, a key contribu-
tion of this paper to extant knowledge
is that a group of managers (and a
project chief) may very well experience
that the dominating interaction para-
digm hinders knowledge transfer;
although such knowledge transfer is
both needed and requested.
Managerial Implications
Primarily, the study suggests that to
promote knowledge transfer, top man-
agement must focus on basic assump-
tions embedded in the organizational
culture at hand and not solely on
direct knowledge transfer between
project managers. This means that
managers who wish to facilitate
knowledge transfer between project
managers must focus on the very con-
cept of project organizing, the reward
system, top management interaction,
etc., as these elements constitute the
framework in which knowledge trans-
fer is supposed to take place.
When top management under-
stands basic assumptions related to
knowledge transfer, the study suggests
that he or she can choose knowledge
transfer initiatives that do not conflict
with such assumptions. If this does
not promote enough knowledge
transfer, the next step is to seek to
change assumptions.
However, it is difficult to change
basic assumptions (Schein, 1992).
118
One reason is that they, to some
extent, exist outside the conscious
area of individuals’ minds. Further,
they are developed over time because
they have proved to lead to success.
Therefore, it is difficult to give them
up. A third reason, which is related to
the two other reasons, is that giving
up basic assumptions creates anxiety
for the people involved. Furthermore,
the basic assumptions in question
may reflect assumptions shared by the
entire society as the project manage-
ment discipline is highly institution-
alized and there might exist a
common, strong opinion about what
is right and wrong.
The only way a successful change
of a basic assumption can take place
is if the new assumption induces
behavior that creates overwhelmingly
positive results. If, for example, the
project managers realized that they
could learn a lot from analyzing their
past experiences, they might try to
change their perception about the
value of a concern about the past.
However, here is another and also
very serious problem, because it is
difficult to assess the outcome of a
given behavior and the casual rela-
tionships. They tend to be complex
and ambiguous. One way to work
with this problem is to try to ensure
that those behaving due to a prob-
lematic basic assumption in relation
to the objectives of the organization
really understand the disadvantages
of sticking to the assumption and
instead notice and reflect upon posi-
tive outcomes due to a change
assumption and changed behavior. In
regards to knowledge transfer, the
project chief, for example, could
point to and emphasis the positive
knowledge transfer effects for the
project managers from being reporter
at status meetings on each others’
projects instead of only focusing on
their own projects. Hereby, the proj-
ect chief may use these experiences as
exemplifications of reasons why to
engage in knowledge transfer. This
way communication of positive expe-
riences acts as deliberate use of “cul-
tural communication” (Bowditch &
Buono, 2004, p. 315).
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Conclusion and Discussion
In-house knowledge transfer seems to
be an attractive goal for project man-
agers and top management alike, but as
the case study shows it may not be easy
to achieve such knowledge transfer.
The findings of the empirical
study point to the fact that the very
basic assumptions of an organization-
al culture itself may restrain the
knowledge transfer processes. A proj-
ect chief/top manager who wants to
encourage knowledge transfer should
not only engage in promoting initia-
tives that deal directly with knowledge
transfer. On the contrary, he or she
should also recognize the importance
of considering how the basic assump-
tions in the organization may restrain
or enhance knowledge transfer.
Especially, such recognition is crucial
as it is very difficult to change the
basic assumptions in an organization.
Thus, the first step is to be conscious
of the existence of and content of
these basic assumptions. For example,
this can be accomplished by involving
external persons.
The basic assumptions in the case
company, which especially seemed to
influence knowledge transfer, were
ownership of projects and the role of
the project manager. Initiatives related
to the espoused values of an organiza-
tion may not bring the wanted changes
in the knowledge transfer process
because the basic underlying assump-
tions in the organizational culture are
not changed.
The key contribution of this paper
is to point out that organizing by proj-
ects may restrain knowledge transfer
because a project orientation facilitates
knowledge silos and lonely cowboys.
The people in the case company
did not have great success with their
organizational experiment on increas-
ing knowledge transfer. To overcome
the cultural barriers in the organiza-
tion, the project chief and the project
managers should have revised their
experiments due to the findings about
the culture. By reflecting upon, dis-
cussing, and questioning the interac-
tion paradigm and the identified basic
assumptions, they might have been
able to increase knowledge transfer
and take advantages of lessons learned.
One way to alter the conception of
ownership and the role of the project
manager could be to appoint two proj-
ect managers for each project to
emphasis the importance of shared
responsibility and the benefits of
drawing on each others’ experiences.
Another way to emphasize the impor-
tance of knowledge transfer could be
to register the knowledge transfer activ-
ities done by the single project manag-
er and subsequently to assess the
perceived value by the receivers of the
knowledge. This could, for example,
take place in a yearly appraisal inter-
view: In what ways have you made
your lessons learned available to your
colleagues? From which colleagues
have you received the most beneficial
advice during the past year? A third
way could be to use story telling as an
instrument to pinpoint the good expe-
riences (in which knowledge transfer
had contributed in a positive way) and
the bad experiences (in which a lot of
time and effort were wasted because of
the lack of shared lessons learned).
However, two critical questions
related to this topic are left unanswered
by this paper. First, how do we deter-
mine the right amount of knowledge
transfer? Second, what are the risks
when focusing on knowledge transfer
within the company? Concerning the
first question, the reader should be
aware that we do not advocate a maxi-
mization of knowledge transfer at all
costs or under all circumstances. On
the contrary, it is very important that
the persons involved determine the
optimal level of knowledge transfer.
Concerning the second question, the
reader should notice that focusing on
intra-organizational project manage-
ment knowledge transfer may diminish
the attention on what is happening in
the project management community
outside of the organization, and there-
fore risk the emergence of groupthink
(Janis, 1972).
Epilogue
What happened afterward at the case
company? After completion of the
research project, the project managers
moved from the shared office back to
their project teams. Further, the organi-
zational project management unit was
dissolved as the project chief got pro-
moted inside the company and was not
replaced. He still was the chief of the
project managers but in addition he had
several other subordinates. Therefore, he
had much less time and energy for inter-
acting with the project managers.
The project chief dissolved the
weekly, individual meetings with the
project managers and instead, he intro-
duced regular group discussions. Some
of the other types of meetings were
also skipped.
The project chief and the project
managers gave up on their wish for
more knowledge transfer. They stated
that they thought they had “squeezed
the lemon” as much as possible.
The project managers and the proj-
ect chief claimed that they did not con-
sider the organizational experiment on
increasing knowledge transfer as a
waste of time or resources. On the con-
trary, the project managers claimed that
they were content that they became
acquainted with each other. Even
though they did not draw very much
on each other directly, they felt com-
fortable knowing that others were “in
the same boat” struggling with some of
the same problems and challenges.
From being unintentionally lone rid-
ers, they have now become voluntary
lone riders who meet for a chat from
time to time, before they set out to
work on their own individual projects.
References
Boisot, M. H. (1995). Is your firm
a creative destroyer? Competitive
learning and knowledge flows in the
technological strategies of firms.
Research Policy, 24, 489–506.
Bowditch, J. L., & Buono, A. F.
(2004). A primer on organizational
behavior, sixth edition. New York: Wiley.
Cooper, K. G., Lyneis, J. M., &
Bryant, T. B. J. (2002). Learning to
learn, from past to future. International
Journal of Project Management, 20,
213–219.
Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., &
Tierney, T. (1999). What’s your strategy
for managing knowledge? Harvard
Business Review, March-April, 106–116.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s conse-
quences: International differences in work-
related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Janis, I. (1972). Victims of group-
think. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Keegan, A., & Turner, J. R. (2001).
Quantity versus quality in project-
based learning practices. Management
Learning, 32, 77–98.
Larsen, H. T., & Mouritsen, J. (2001).
Videnledelsens 2. bølge—en recentrering
af videnledelse gennem videnregnska-
bet. Ledelse & Erhvervsøkonomi, 1,
in Danish.
Lindkvist, L., & Söderlund, J.
(2002). What goes on in projects? In K.
Sahlin-Andersson, & A. Söderholm
(Eds.), Beyond project management (pp.
278–291). Copenhagen: Copenhagen
Business School Press.
Lindkvist, L., Söderlund, J., & Frohm,
C. (2002). Knowledge management in
technology and project-based firms.
Proceedings for the Fifth IRNOP
International Conference of the International
Research Network of Organizing by Projects,
Renesse, Netherlands, May 2002.
EuroProjex Ltd., East Horsley, UK.
MacMaster, G. (2000). Can we
learn from project histories? PM
Network, 14, 66–67.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration
and exploitation in organizational
learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995).
The knowledge creating company. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimen-
sion. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Schein, E. H. (1987). The clinical
perspective in fieldwork. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Schein, E. H. (1991). Legitimating
clinical research in the study of organi-
zational culture. Massachusetts Institute
of Technology Sloan School of Management
working paper, no. 3288-91.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational
culture and leadership (2nd ed). San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Sense, A. J., & Antoni, M.
(2002). The politics of learning
within and between projects.
Proceedings for the Fifth IRNOP
International Conference of the
International Research Network of
Organizing by Projects, Renesse,
119
Netherlands, May 2002. EuroProjex
Ltd., East Horsley, UK.
Storm Pedersen, L. (2000).
Vidensdannelse og vidensdeling i organi-
sationer. Symposiehåndbogen Effektiv
tilblivelse af projekter. Hillerod:
Foreningen for Dansk Projektledelse,
in Danish.
Söderlund, J. (2002). Managing
complex development projects: Turner, J. R., Keegan, A., &
Arenas, knowledge processes and time. Crawford, L. (2000). Learning by expe-
R&D Management, 32, 419–430. rience in the project-based organiza-
Tell, F., & Söderlund, J. (2001). tion. Proceeding of the PMI Research
Lärande mellan projekt. In C. Berggren, Conference, Paris. Newtown Square, PA:
& L. Lindkvist (Eds.), Projekt. Project Management Institute.
Organisation för målorientering och Williams, T. (2003). Learning
lärande. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur, from projects. Journal of the Operational
220–257, in Swedish. Research Society, 54, 443–451.

PERNILLE ESKEROD holds an MSc from Aarhus School of Business and a PhD from Southern Denmark Business School.
She is appointed as associate professor at University of Southern Denmark. Here she conducts research and teaches in
the field of project management and organizational behavior. She has published a number of papers on project
management and participates in international conferences.

HANS JØRGEN SKRIVER has an MSc from the University of Aalborg and a diploma in education. Major subjects are
organizational theory and strategy. He is appointed as lecturer at Academy of Professional Higher Education, Midjutland,
Denmark. In addition he has written several textbooks about management and organization.

Appendix 1 – Interview Guide for Round 1 Description of the Informant

Introduction from the Interviewers
The interviewers briefly present the theme of the
research project.
The aim of this interview is to establish an understand-
ing of how the single project managers perceive their role as
such and their everyday life challenges related to this role.
Which incidences in the past have brought the group and
the single project managers to their current position? Why
are we invited as researchers to conduct the research project
on knowledge transfer between the project managers? How
does the knowledge transfer (not) take place? What are the
challenges related to the (lack of) knowledge transfer?
The interviewers state the ground rules for the form of
the interview, procedure for minutes, etc. The interviews are
confidential. We are eager to get to know the spontaneous
thoughts, memories, and statements from each informant.
Therefore, we would like you neither to discuss our ques-
tions nor your answers before the first round has ended for
all participants.
Name? Age? Educational background?
How long have you been employed in the company?
Have you been employed in other companies previously?
What is your function in the company?
How long have you been appointed as project
manager/project chief?
Reason for Participation in the Research Project
Why do you participate in this research project?
Historical Description of the Company
(The aim is to identify how each informant understands the com-
pany, as we believe that his behavior is determined by how he con-
structs his reality.)
First of all, we would like to get an overview of the his-
tory of the company. Please tell us when the company was
established and describe incidents you know about, which
took place at that time.

120 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
 Who was involved? (The aim is to identify founders, sig-
nificant persons, and/or managers that may have been the initial
culture creators. Try to identify their values, prejudice, assump-
tions, and aims as understood by the informant.)
What were the critical problems in relation to the start
up of the company?
(The aim is to identify the survival questions of the compa-
ny, and get to know how they were managed.)
What did the founder see as the basic mission of the
company of the time of establishment?
(The aim is to identify the basic arguments to justify the exis-
tence of the company.)
Did any specific objectives or operations appear from
the very start?
(The aim is to identify goal discrepancies and develop ways
to prioritize.)
Critical Incidents in the Company
Did any critical incidents take place in the early life of the
company?
(A critical incident is any major event that threatened sur-
vival; caused reconsideration, rephrasing, or changes in objectives
and operations; or implied taking a stand [or not taking a stand]
for membership of the organization.)
Sub-questions and instructions:
Try to recall events that created the kinds of problems for
which the company didn’t have any immediate answers, or
Appendix 2 – Interview Guide for Round 2
Introduction from the Interviewers
The interviewers briefly repeat the theme of the research
project and state ground rules concerning the form of the
interview, procedure for minutes, etc.
The aim of this interview is to establish a further under-
standing of the knowledge transfer initiatives stated in the
first interview round and to understand how each project
manager and the project chief personally assess the effect of
the initiatives.
Since the Last Interview
Have you thought of any new issues of importance related
to knowledge transfer since we last met?
Have you experienced any changes in knowledge trans-
fer activities? If yes, please describe.
Why do you think the amount and ways of knowledge
transfer have changed/have not changed?
Knowledge Transfer Initiatives
In the first interviews, the following seven knowledge trans-
fer initiatives were mentioned:
• Establishment of the project management unit
• Support from the project chief
• Your shared office
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
which challenged the existing norms and understandings of
the company.
Did any incidents occur that created tensions between
people?
Tell us how people (in your opinion) interpreted what
happened—and how they reacted. Were they nervous, angry,
delighted, or something else?
What happened? Who was involved? What did they do?
How did the interventions impact the situation? How
did people feel and react due to the interventions?
Knowledge Transfer Between Project Managers
Please describe how knowledge transfer between the project
managers takes place in the company.
Is the amount of knowledge transfer in your opinion
appropriate? Why/why not?
Which challenges do you experience in relation to
knowledge transfer between the project managers?
Metaphors
Could you think of any metaphors that may describe your
everyday life in the company, the cooperation of the project
managers, knowledge transfer, the role of the project chief, etc.?
Closing
Have we, in your opinion, missed anything central when it
comes to understanding issues about knowledge transfer
between the project managers in the company?
• Your weekly meetings on project management experiences
• The best practice file on project management
• Project managers as “reporters” at status meetings
• Monthly meetings on project management methodology
• Reading the same management book
• Participation in this research project.
For each initiative please tell us the following:
• What is the aim of the initiative?
• How and by who was it initiated?
• Does more knowledge transfer take place due to the
initiative?
• Does this initiative affect any of the other knowledge
transfer initiatives?
• What is your own opinion of the initiative?
• How does the initiative fit into the culture of the company?
Can you think of anything else within the culture that
restrains or supports knowledge transfer?
Do you have anything else to add related to knowledge
transfer and organizational culture?
Closing
Have we, in your opinion, missed anything central when it
comes to understanding issues about knowledge transfer
between the project managers in the company?
121
Appendix 3 – Interview Guide for Round 3
Introduction from the Interviewers
The interviewers briefly repeat the theme of the research
project and state the ground rules concerning the form of
the interview, procedure for minutes, etc.
The aim of this interview is to develop a shared under-
standing of the relationship between the culture of the proj-
ect management unit (cultural values and basic
assumptions) and knowledge transfer.
Since the Last Interview
Have you thought of any new issues of importance related
to knowledge transfer since we last met?
Have you experienced any changes in knowledge trans-
fer activities? If yes, please describe how. Why do you think
the amount and ways of knowledge transfer have
changed/have not changed?
122 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Our Reading of the Culture
From the two first interviews we have identified a number of
issues in your organizational culture that we think relates to
your (lack of) knowledge transfer. In this dialogue we would
like to discuss whether you agree on this interpretation.
Please state examples that support our reading and exam-
ples that do not support our reading.
• Masculine values were most valuable
• Perception of time as scarce
• No concern about the past, limited concern about the future
• Relationships based on respect and no un-requested interference
• Private ownership of projects
• A role conception stating that “a project manager manages
without help.”
Closing
Have we, in your opinion, missed anything central when it
comes to understanding issues about knowledge transfer
between the project managers in the company?
 COVER TO COVER
Kenneth H. Rose, PMP, Book Review Editor
CHOOSING APPROPRIATE PROJECT MANAGERS:
MATCHING THEIR LEADERSHIP STYLE TO THE TYPE OF PROJECT
BY J. RODNEY TURNER AND RALF MÜLLER
nyone can manage a successful
A project. All you have to do is
apply a set of known tools that
are universally applicable in any
domain. Or so says a couple of current
myths about project management.
J. Rodney Turner and Ralf Müller
see things a bit differently. In their
view, people—in particular, project
managers—make a difference. To deter-
mine the characteristics and value of
that difference, they conducted a PMI-sponsored research proj-
ect and report the results in Choosing Appropriate Project
Managers: Matching Their Leadership Style to the Type of Project.
Project managers, despite current myths, are not a one-size-
fits-all commodity. Over time, successful organizations have
developed a means for selecting project managers who are likely
to lead projects to successful conclusions. The authors’ research is
an effort to study the matter in a scientific, disciplined way that
will give substance to means that are mostly anecdotal.
The research includes typical components: a literature search,
a research model, personal interviews, and questionnaires. It
addresses two questions. Does project manager competence,
including leadership style, influence project success? And, are dif-
ferent competence profiles, including different leadership styles,
appropriate for different types of projects?
To answer the first question, the authors identified, through
a literature search, a 15-dimensional model for leadership com-
petence. Through a literature search and interviews, they identi-
fied 10 qualitative criteria for project success. To answer the
second question, they identified, from previous research by oth-
ers, 19 types of projects grouped into six different attribute areas.
They then determined how the 15 leadership competencies
related to the 19 project types.
A series of interviews followed. Managers responsible for
appointing project managers were questioned about leadership
dimensions, measures of success, and types of projects. A compre-
hensive web-based questionnaire yielded about 400 usable
responses. The data that was obtained addressed project types,
success rates, and leadership competencies.
The research conclusions provide a resounding “yes” to the
study’s two questions. Moreover, they provide three messages for
organizational managers: (1) appoint project managers with
appropriate leadership styles for the projects they have to manage,
(2) develop within the pool of available project managers appro-
priate leadership skills for expected projects, and (3) value project
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
managers and the contribution that their personal competence
makes to project success.
But this report is more than an exercise in academic rigor.
Readers can take much from this report beyond the conclusions.
For example, the review of leadership styles offers a concise primer
on the six main schools of leadership that have developed over the
past 70 years. It provides an excellent summary for general knowl-
edge and a foundation for understanding the research methods
and conclusions. The summary of project success factors serves a
similar function and may be particularly useful to those in organ-
izations driven principally by the bottom line.
Reading the descriptions of research methodology, interviews,
questionnaires, and project manager profiles with some delibera-
tion may reveal nuggets of value to individual readers that are not
apparent in the summarized results. Readers should spend a little
time reviewing conclusions related to leadership competencies and
project success. These results do much to clarify the competency
requirements for success in different types of projects. Some exam-
ples are: conscientiousness and motivation are important leader-
ship competencies for engineering projects; sensitivity is important
for high complexity projects; and communication and self-aware-
ness are important for information systems projects.
An interesting conclusion of the research is the negative corre-
lation of “vision” in the project manager and ultimate project suc-
cess. The authors’ interpretation of this finding is that project
managers should stay focused on delivering the designed outcome
of the project. Those that focus on “vision”—the great and glorious
things that could be—may become distracted from the goals at
hand and unintentionally affect the project in adverse ways.
So, in the end, project success arises not from the application
of a set of universal tools. People matter. Big surprise—sarcastical-
ly to some, genuinely to others. Those who have learned that peo-
ple make the difference in projects probably don’t need formal
research for confirmation. But those still hobbled by a tool-driven
view will benefit greatly from the eye-opener that this report offers.
Sure, people matter—and this report documents that truth in a ver-
ifiable way that provides a path forward for better project results.
Project Management Institute, 2006, ISBN 10: 1933890207, ISBN
13: 9781933890203, 131 pp., $29.95 Member, $39.95 Nonmember
Reviewed by Kenneth H. Rose, PMP, Director, Peninsula Center for
Project Management in Hampton, VA, USA, and winner of the 2006
PMI David I. Cleland Project Management Literature Award
123
PROJECT MANAGEMENT: STRATEGIC DESIGN
AND IMPLEMENTATION, 5TH EDITION
BY DAVID I. CLELAND AND LEWIS R. IRELAND
n intelligent strategy,
A sound planning, and the
efficient execution of
projects are all essential for
organizations wanting to suc-
ceed in today’s environment.
More often than not, however,
project management is not
integrated with the overall
organizational approach
because management underes-
timates or fails to recognize the
value of project management and the strategic role of proj-
ects and project management within the organization. David
I. Cleland and Lewis R. Ireland, both well-known and
respected leaders in project management theory and practice,
address this problem and offer guidance on the application
of project management to support strategic planning in their
book Project Management: Strategic Design and Implementation,
5th Edition.
Many may have encountered earlier editions of this
book. Indeed, it has become a gold standard among project
management guides since it was first published some years
ago. It is arguably one of the best, if not the best, source of
guidance on strategic project management available today.
Without a doubt, it is a classic. But in an ever-changing envi-
ronment and with the constant advancements in project man-
agement even a well-respected classic can benefit from a little
fine-tuning or an occasional facelift lest it become obsolete.
In this latest edition, Cleland and Ireland have updated
old material and added new information pertaining to some
of the emerging areas of focus in project management, such as
project portfolio management, project management maturity,
and alternative project teams. Additionally, they have added a
couple of new chapters to the book. One chapter, “The
Evolution of Project Management,” provides an interesting
glimpse into the past, present, and future of project manage-
ment and highlights some of the historical projects that have
“changed the world” as well as some of the relatively more
modern projects that have affected economic growth. The
other new chapter, “Successful Project Teams,” which corre-
lates nicely with the chapter on alternative teams, examines
team dynamics and the correlation between team perform-
ance and project success.
The book covers a lot of territory. Granted, some topics
are covered in greater detail than others, but as the authors
point out, “Giving a detailed description of all emerging areas
of thought…would greatly lengthen the book to an unwieldy
size.” As it is, the size and content of the book seems just
124 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
about right for the broad and diverse audience the authors
want to reach. Most topics are adequately covered, but refer-
ences for further research are given throughout the book for
those readers who wish to delve deeper into a particular sub-
ject. And although nuggets of valuable information can be
found in every chapter of the book, the meatiest material is
contained in those sections of the book focused on the strate-
gic context of projects and organizational design for project
management. After all, the examination of and guidance on
strategic design and implementation is the primary intent of
the book.
With this edition, Cleland and Ireland have really gone
the extra mile to make it a functional resource for practition-
ers at all levels and students of project management alike.
Chapters have been reformatted to include referential sections
such as user checklists (more lists of thought-provoking ques-
tions than mere checklists really), project management prin-
ciples pertinent to the material covered in the chapter, and
additional sources of information for further research. And
with the addition of discussion questions, case studies, and
student/reader assignments the book really is a multi-purpose
resource that can function equally well as an instructional text
or a reference book.
Now, some seasoned practitioners of project manage-
ment might find the content of this book a bit light or per-
haps even overly simplistic. However, in evaluating the book,
it is important to take into consideration the intent of the
authors to reach a diverse audience. Surely, it is difficult to pen
a book that will satisfy the needs and appetites of a diverse
audience, but Cleland and Ireland have come pretty close. The
book is logically organized, easy to read, and contains infor-
mation that is as valuable in the boardroom as it is in the
classroom. Furthermore, the authors have accomplished what
they set out to do—to provide guidance on the implementa-
tion of organizational strategies through the practical applica-
tion of project management processes and techniques. This
book is a “must have” for every practitioner, instructor, and
student of project management as well as for managers and
officers of organizations who recognize or want to examine
the role that projects play in the strategic management of the
organization.
McGraw-Hill, 2007, ISBN 10: 007147160X, ISBN 13:
9780071471602, hardcover, 547 pp., $75.95 Member,
$79.75 Nonmember
Reviewed by Risto Robert Gladden, PMP, an E-Business
Systems Manager and Vice President at Wells Fargo Bank in
San Francisco, CA , USA
MY LIFE IS FAILURE: 100 THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW
TO BE A SUCCESSFUL PROJECT LEADER
BY JIM JOHNSON
his is a book about rapport,
T consensus, respect, vision,
commitment, celebration,
judgment, collaboration, role
models, feedback, connections,
togetherness, chemistry, lan-
guage, panda bears, and making
tea. It’s also about software proj-
ect management.
Let’s rephrase that. This
book, about lessons learned over
a decade of intensive research into software project manage-
ment, finds that rapport, consensus, respect, and so on, are
integral factors in achieving success and sidestepping failure.
And when it comes to project success and failure, the author,
as founder and chairman of the Standish Group, has the best
credentials in the industry. Not just anyone can get away with
conflating panda bears and software project management!
But everyone has heard of the Standish Group. Their
1994 CHAOS Report on project failure statistics presented
groundbreaking research that focused media and manage-
ment attention not only on software failure, but also on the
saving graces of good project management. The subsequent
decade of updates to that research only polished the com-
pany’s reputation. With 12 years of data derived from real-
life case information from over 50,000 IT projects, the
Standish Group has earned the right to respectful attention
to whatever research results they publish.
Years ago, in an interview for PM Network on the topic
of project failure, Jim Johnson said, “all project failures are
political.” Now, it seems his exploration into the causes of
challenges and failures have led him more and more in that
“soft skills” direction. The topics in the first paragraph above
are all “points”—akin to data points—that Johnson has
internalized in the process of a decade of learning about
project failure. In one line (p. 127) he sums up this learning:
“There are no issues except people issues.”
For this writer, it is heartening to find that Johnson
focused on many of the topics and recommendations that
the Center for Business Practices’ research has identified as
important: attention to project manager and team compe-
tency; the importance of the project management office; and
the project human resource issues of mentoring, training,
and incentives/rewards, to name a few.
Kudos to the structure of the book, which deploys 10
points related to each of 10 lessons or chapters. Short and
snappy—rarely over one page long—each point uses an
anecdote to elaborate on a simply stated lesson-learned.
For example, Point 1 in Lesson 2, which focuses on the
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
importance of executive support, states: “It is crucial that the
executive has a vested business interest and a commitment
to a successful outcome.” The accompanying text quotes
representatives of three major companies who have partici-
pated in Standish’s CHAOS University. If anything, the con-
ciseness of each point leaves the reader wanting
more—which is perhaps intentional, since the Standish
Group’s CHAOS University workshops are the organiza-
tion’s bread and butter.
Sketches of historical project failures—from the battle
of Cleves to the Sydney Opera House—interspersed with
brief case histories from the CHAOS database, introduce
each lesson. These lessons engage and entertain without
ever straying too far off the subject.
If the book has weaknesses, they are those of an in-
house publication that hasn’t been subject to the rigors of a
professional editor, for example, typos in the figures, a lack
of informative source citations, and some rather random
subsection titles. What does the title “Lipstick” have to do
with the content under it? Why is a sketch resembling a
Victoria’s Secret model inserted to illustrate the conclusion?
And so forth.
Rather than a handbook or primer on software devel-
opment—of which there are plenty clamoring for the read-
er’s attention in the marketplace—My Life is Failure provides
a high-level checklist of the primarily human and organiza-
tional factors that contribute to smooth sailing on individ-
ual projects and to organizational competency in project
management. Not surprisingly, most of these factors apply
equally to projects in any industry. Its most important mes-
sage is that these human and organizational factors are of
primary importance to successful technology projects—far
outweighing matters of technical project management or
scientific prowess. It has become a truism in project man-
agement that the best technologists don’t necessarily make
good project managers. Yet when technologists begin to pay
attention to the lessons and points urged by the leading IT
project management research firm, the so-called “soft” side
may begin to infiltrate even the hardest, most technical
hearts. And that can only be a good thing for IT projects, and
the profession as a whole.
The Standish Group International, Inc., 2006, ISBN 10:
1424308410, ISBN 13: 9781424308415, paperback, 200
pp., $79.00 Member, $99.00 Nonmember
Reviewed by Jeannette Cabanis-Brewin, Editor-In-Chief of the
Center for Business Practices, the research and publishing
division of PM Solutions, Havertown, PA, USA
125
PROJECT SPONSORSHIP: ACHIEVING MANAGEMENT
COMMITMENT FOR PROJECT SUCCESS
BY RANDALL L. ENGLUND AND ALFONSO BUCERO
eading A Guide to the Project
R Management Body of Knowledge –
Third Edition (PMBOK® Guide),
we learn about the importance of the
project sponsor in the first process that
is discussed, Develop Project Charter.
However, the actual roles and responsi-
bilities of the project sponsor in terms
of practical guidance for overall project
success are often overlooked in the
project management literature. Randall
Englund and Alfonso Bucero begin to fill this void with their
book, Project Sponsorship: Achieving Management Commitment for
Project Success.
Drawing upon their own collective experience in project
management, the literature, and interaction with other proj-
ect professionals, the authors describe proven practices used
by worldwide companies concerning project sponsorship.
Englund and Bucero have organized this book in an innova-
tive fashion with 10 chapters set up as a stairway, all designed
to ensure excellence in project sponsorship. Each chapter rep-
resents a step in the stairway, beginning with Chapter 1, in
which sponsor responsibilities are described, leading to
Chapter 10, Knowledge Management. To augment the con-
cepts discussed, the authors include checklists, graphics, tem-
plates, questionnaires, case studies, and vignettes from their
own experience, as appropriate.
Englund and Bucero point out that many professionals
lack a clear understanding of what is involved in effective
sponsorship. To set the stage, they define sponsorship as a
“commitment by management to define, defend, and support
major activities from the start to the end” (p. 8). In Chapter 1,
Englund and Bucero point out that effective project managers
are those who are passionate, persistent, and patient.
Sponsors must play active roles throughout the project life
cycle and have key roles and responsibilities including seller,
coach and mentor, filter, business judge, motivator, negotia-
tor, protector, and the link to upper management, with a key
obligation to create the right environment for project success.
Chapter 2 describes the importance of obtaining a project
sponsor and points out the rewards for those who choose to
spend time as a sponsor. A model for selling sponsorship is
included to demonstrate the value that the sponsor adds to
the project manager and team. However, once one has decid-
ed to become a sponsor, he or she must continually be
involved and committed to the project. Chapter 3 then
describes ways to sustain sponsorship throughout the life
cycle. An interesting addition to this chapter is a question-
naire for proactive sponsorship.
Continuing up the stairway, Englund and Bucero
describe in Chapter 4 the important relationship between
126 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
clients and sponsors. This chapter contains an adaptation of
work done by James Kouzes and Barry Posner on the “six
dimensions of credibility” for use by project sponsors.
Chapter 5 points out the need for projects to have steering
committees for project success. The sponsor’s role relative to
the steering committee, though, is not described. The empha-
sis here, and throughout the book, is on large, complex and
external projects.
Chapter 6 focuses on projects and change, with a review of
the types of cultures often experienced in project-oriented organ-
izations and the sponsor’s role in different cultures. This chapter
includes a risk assessment survey and a sponsor evaluation tool
to assess project commitment. It is unclear who would imple-
ment these tools, and the specific calculations for the resulting
scores could use additional explanation. Chapter 7 then follows
with feedback on sponsor execution. The authors provide 10
guidelines for providing feedback, which can be used by any-
one, not just project sponsors, and a feedback questionnaire
that the project manager would administer. It seems unlikely
though that, in practice, the project manager actually would
ask the sponsor to review his or her execution of these roles
and responsibilities, especially because the questionnaire con-
tains 12 questions concerning the project manager’s own per-
formance. Rather, it would be more appropriate for a project
management office, or similar organizational function, to
administer this survey.
Chapter 8 focuses on sponsorship development. It
includes a training curriculum for sponsors, but it is difficult
to determine the desired length of such a program. Chapter 9
describes sponsorship mentoring with generic concepts that
can be used by anyone who is in a mentor or mentee relation-
ship, because it is not tailored directly to sponsors per se. The
final chapter on knowledge management purports to address
the sponsor’s role in the development of a learning organiza-
tion. However, its focus primarily is on power and politics and
the necessity of building a guiding coalition with a format for
stakeholder analysis and a sample political plan, rather than
on knowledge management.
Throughout the book, Englund and Bucero present many
useful ideas and practical guidelines. Their easy-to-read and
interesting writing style, with their numerous graphics and
examples, make this book one that project professionals at all
levels can use to help achieve more successful results from
each project endeavor.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006, ISBN 10: 0787981362, ISBN 13:
9780787981365, hardcover, 224 pp., $45.60 Member,
$49.00 Nonmember
Reviewed by Ginger Levin, DPA, PMP, Senior Project
Management Consultant, Lighthouse Point, FL, USA
 Guidelines for Project Management Journal Book Reviews
Selecting Books for Review
Project Management Journal welcomes recommendations from project managers and others regarding
books that may be of professional value to fellow PMI associates. Areas of potential interest include:
new ideas about the theory, concepts, and techniques of project management; new approaches to
technology and management; getting business results; competing in today’s complex workplace; and
global changes. Recommendations should include the title, author, and publisher, and a brief state-
ment as to why the book should be considered for review. The Journal will select books for review and
identify a reviewer. Individuals recommending books for review may also volunteer to write the review.
However, individuals should not submit a review before the Journal has selected the book. The Journal
receives many books from publishers and authors and cannot review them all.

Guidelines for Writers

Reviews should begin with a strong, brief opening paragraph that identifies the book and author, and tells
the reader why the book is important. The review should not only describe the content of the book, but also
what the content means; that is, why it is a contribution to the project management body of knowledge.
Reviewers may include the following elements:

A summary of key or unique concepts

Favorite quote, graphic, chart, etc.

Important tips or guidelines

New terms or phrases, such as “knowbots” or “teamocracy”

Message from the book that should be remembered for future use, or should have been disclosed
years ago.

Reviews should include the book’s strong points and any weak points if this information will be useful
to the reader. Reviews should be written in a conversational style that maintains academic rigor.
Reviewers should avoid use of the first person (“I”) and focus on the book and its contents. Reviewers
should also avoid use of extensive lists as a means of describing or duplicating content. Instead, focus
on what the content means to readers. Reviews should be no longer than 750 words (please use your
computer word count to verify length of the review).

Reviews should include complete publishing information, if possible: title, author(s), publisher (city and
state), year published, ISBN number, total pages, and price in U.S. dollars. The Journal will add any infor-
mation that is not available to reviewers.

Reviews should be prepared using MS Word and may be submitted by e-mail (preferred) or on CD. Submissions
should include the name, title, company, address, phone/fax/e-mail, and brief (one or two sentence) biosketch
of the reviewer. Reviews should be submitted to Natasha Pollard at natasha.pollard@pmi.org

or via mail to:

Project Management Journal
Book Review Editor
c/o PMI Publishing Department
Four Campus Boulevard
Newtown Square, PA 19073

PMI reserves the right to edit all material submitted for publication.

M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L 127
 INDEX OF 2006
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
JOURNAL PAPERS AND AUTHORS
1. A Case Study of Project and Stakeholder
Management Failures: Lessons Learned. J. Scott
Sutterfield, Shawnta S. Friday-Stroud and Sheryl
L. Shivers-Blackwell. December, 26–35.
2. A Deliverable-Oriented EVM System Suited
to a Large-Scale Project. Pierre Bonnal, Jurgen de
Jonghe and John Ferguson. March, 67–80.
3. A Roadmap for IT Project Implementation;
Integrating Stakeholders and Change Management
Issues. Paul Legris and Pierre Collerette. December,
64–75.
4. A Theoretical Framework for Aligning
Project Management with Business Strategy.
Dragan Z. Milosevic and Sabin Srivannaboon.
August, 98–110.
5. Aligning Capability With Strategy:
Categorizing Projects to Do the Right Projects
and to Do Them Right. Lynn Crawford, Brian
Hobbs, and J. Rodney Turner. June, 38–50.
6. An Empirical Investigation of the
Sponsor's Role in Project Initiation. Timothy J.
Kloppenborg, Deborah Tesch, Chris Manolis,
and Mark Heitkamp. August, 16–25.
7. Decision-Making for Successful Product
Development. Robert A. Powell and Dennis M.
Buede. March, 22–40.
8. Developing Organizational Project
Management Capability: Theory and Practice.
Lynn Crawford. August, 74–86.
9. Financial Success and Time-Management
Factors in a Chemical Environment: A Case
Study. Alan D. Smith and Frank R. Flanegin.
March, 41–51.
10. From Marketing to Project Management.
Laurence Lecoeuvre-Soudain and Philippe
Deshayes. December, 103–112.
11. From Nobel Prize to Project
Management: Getting Risks Right. Bent Flyvbjerg.
August, 5–15.
12. Linking Project Management with
Business Strategy. Sabin Srivannaboon.
December, 88–96.
128 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
13. Longitudinal Analysis of Project
Management Maturity. Mark Mullaly. August,
62–73.
14. Managing Geographically Distibuted
Clients Throughout the Project Management Life
Cycle. Talha Javed, Manzil-e-Maqsood, and
Qaiser S. Durrani. December, 76–87.
15. Managing Project Risks as Knowledege
Gaps. Sary Regev, Avraham Shtub, and Yakov
Ben-Haim. December, 17–25.
16. Managing Software Development Project
Size: Overcoming the Effort-Boxing Constraint Darren
Dalcher and Oddur Benediktsson. June, 51–58.
17. Managing Unexpected Urgent Projects.
Stephen Wearne. December, 97–102.
18. Mechanisms for Inter-project Integration-
Empirical Analysis in Program Context. Perttu
Dietrich. August, 49–61.
19. New Possibilities for Project
Management Theory: A Critical Engagement.
Svetlana Cicmil and Damian Hodgson. August,
111–122.
20. On the Novelty Dimension in Project
Management. Klaus Brockhoff. August, 26–36.
21. Practices, Roles and Responsibilities of
Middle Managers in Program and Portfolio
Management. Tomas Blomquist and Ralf Müller.
March, 52–66.
22. Project-Based Management as an
Organizational Innovation: Drivers,Changes, and
Benefits of Adopting Project-Based Management.
Miia Martinsuo, Nicole Hensman, Karlos Artto,
Jaakko Kujala, and Ali Jaafari. August, 87–97.
23. Project Control: Literature Review. Shai
Rozenes, Gad Vitner and Stuart Spraggett.
September, 5–14.
24. Projects and Project Managers: The
Relationship Between Project Managers’
Personality, Project Types and Project Success.
Dov Dvir, Arik Sadeh and Ayala Malach-Pines.
December, 36–48.
 25. Risk Management and Problem
Resolution Strategies for IT Projects: Prescription
and Practice. Hazel Taylor. December, 49–63.
26. Searching for Knowledge in the PMBOK®
Guide. Blaize Horner Reich & Siew Yong Wee.
June, 11–26.
27. Stress and Coping: A Study of Project
Managers in a Large ICT Organization. Arin
Richmond and Martin Skitmore. December,
5–16.
28. Structure and Flexibility of Project Teams
Under Turbulent Environments: An Application
of Agent-Based Simulation. Juan C. Nogueira and
Tzvi Raz June, 5–10.
29. Success of Projects in Different
Organizational Conditions. Irja Hyväri.
September, 31–41.
30. The Effect of Intrinsic and Extrinsic
Rewards for Developers on Information Systems
Project Success. Robert C. Mahaney and Albert L.
Lederer. September, 42–54.
31. The Perceived Value and Potential
Contribution of Project Management Practices to
Project Success. Claude Besner andBrian Hobbs.
August, 37–48.
32. Toward a Project Management Theory for
Renewal Projects. Erling S. Andersen. September,
15–30.
33. Understanding Project Failure: Using
Cognitive Mapping in an Insurance Project.
Stephen Robertson and Terry Williams.
September, 55–71.
34. Understanding the Process of Knowledge
Creation in Project Management: Research,
Practice and Competencies. Svetlana Cicmil. June,
27–37.
35. Visualizing Stakeholder Influence — Two
Australian Examples. Lynda Bourne and Derek
H.T. Walker. March, 5–21.

Andersen, Erling S.(32) Heitkamp, Mark (6) Regev, Sary (15)

Artto, Karlos (22)
Benediktsson, Oddur (16)
Ben-Haim, Yakov (15)
Besner, Claude (31)
Blomquist, Tomas (21)
Bonnal, Pierre (2)
Bourne, Lynda (35)
Brockhoff, Klaus (20)
Buede, Dennis M. (7)
Cicmil, Svetlana (19); (34)
Collerette, Pierre (3)
Crawford, Lynn (5); (8)
Dalcher, Darren (16)
de Jonghe, Jurgen (2)
Deshayes, Philippe (10)
Dietrich, Perttu (18)
Durrani, Qaiser S. (14)
Dvir, Dov (24)
Ferguson, John (2)
Flanegin, Frank R. (9)
Flyvbjerg, Bent (11)
Friday-Stroud, Shawnta S. (1)
Hensman, Nicole (22) Reich, Blaize Horner (26)
Hobbs, Brian (5); (31) Richmond, Arin (27)
Hodgson, Damian (19) Robertson, Stephen (33)
Hyväri, Irja (29) Rozenes, Shai (23)
Jaafari, Ali (22) Sadeh, Arik (24)
Javed, Talha (14) Shivers-Blackwell, Sheryl L. (1)
Kloppenborg, Timothy J. (6) Shtub, Avraham (15)
Kujala, Jaakko (22) Skitmore, Martin (27)
Lederer, Albert L. (30) Smith, Alan D. (9)
Legris, Paul (3) Spraggett, Stuart (23)
Lecoeuvre-Soudain, Laurence (10) Srivannaboon, Sabin (4); (12)
Mahaney, Robert C. (30) Sutterfield, J. Scott (1)
Malach-Pines, Ayala (24) Taylor, Hazel (25)
Manolis, Chris (6) Tesch, Deborah (6)
Maqsood, Manzil -E- (14) Turner, J. Rodney (5)
Martinsuo, Miia (22) Vitner, Gad (23)
Milosevic, Dragan Z. (4) Walker, Derek H.T. (35)
Müller, Ralf (21) Wearne, Stephen (17)
Mullaly, Mark (13) Wee, Siew Yong (26)
Nogueira, Juan C. (28) Williams, Terry (14); (33)
Powell, Robert A. (7)
Raz, Tzvi (28)

M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L 129
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
MARCH 2007
14 March
Professional Development Day. Hudsonville, Michigan, USA. Sponsored by PMI
Western Michigan Chapter. “Building Strong Foundations,” with keynote presenta-
tions on ethics in business. For more information, please visit
http://www.wmpmi.org/pdd.php
19 – 21 March
Business Process Management Summit. Miami, Florida, USA. Sponsored by
American Strategic Management Institute. For more information, please visit
www.ASMIweb.com or contact Tony Pintarelli, tpintarelli@managementweb.org
26 – 29 March
PMI SeminarsWorld® Miami, Florida, USA. For more information, please visit the
SeminarsWorld Homepage
28 March
Regional Business Expo. Louisville, Kentucky, USA. Sponsored by PMI
Kentuckiana Chapter, the Purchasing Management Association of Louisville, The
American Society for Quality and the Association for Operations Management
(APICS). 24 breakout sessions on current topics in supply, quality, project and
operations management. For more information, please visit
www.RegionalBusinessExpo.org
28 March – 2 April
Seminar at Sea II. Departs from Galveston, Texas, USA. Hosted by PMI Houston
Chapter and PMI Clear Lake – Galveston Chapter. For more information, please
visit http://www.pmiclg.org
30 March
Call for Papers Deadline for PMI Southern Caribbean Chapter 2007
International Project Management Conference: B Ò usiness Success Through
Project Management–Best Practices for the 21st Century.” Conference to be
held 18-19 September in Trinidad. Submit abstracts electronically with photo and
brief Curriculum Vitae. For more information, please contact Mrs. Barbara
Ramtahal, +1-868-658-3366; pmiscc04@gmail.com
APRIL 2007
2 – 5 April
®
PMI SeminarsWorld Scottsdale, Arizona, USA. For more information, please visit
the SeminarsWorld Homepage
13 – 14 April
Eighth Natıonal Turkish Project Management Congress, DYNAMICS 2007.
Istanbul, Turkey. Jointly organized jointly by PMI Turkey Chapter and IPYD ( The
Istanbul Project Management Society ). For more information, please contact Natali
Toma, Project Sponsor, ntoma@ica.com.tr, or Ahmet N. Taspinar, Project Manager,
mbpnet@hotmail.com
16 – 17 April
Lean Management Models for Facilities Management & Capital Projects.
St. Petersburg, Florida, USA. Sponsored by Tradeline, Inc. Learn the new strategic
thinking, processes, and tools that are raising the productivity of capital; lowering
overall infrastructure expense; and moving corporate and institutional manage-
ment models toward an integrated solution to capital programs, projects, and
operations. $150 discount to PMI members. For more information, please visit
http://www.Tradelineinc.com/
16 – 20 April
PMI SeminarsWorld®, Denver, Colorado, USA. For more information, please visit
the SeminarsWorld Homepage
20 April
2007 Rocky Mountain Project Management Symposium. Denver, Colorado,
USA. Presented by PMI Mile Hi Chapter. For more information, please visit
www.pmimilehi.org
25 April
PMI Great Lakes Chapter 2007 Annual Spring Symposium – “Theory to Perfection
and Beyond”. Sterling Heights, Michigan, USA. For more information, please visit
www.pmiglc.org
25 – 26 April
Project Management Workshop Symposium–“Connecting to Performance.”
Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada. Presented by the PMI Manitoba Chapter. For more
information, please visit www.pmimanitoba.org
130 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
28 April
1st Annual Professional Development Day. Dallas, Texas, USA. “Dimensions of
Project Management: Advancing from 3D to 4D.” For more information, please
visit www.pmidallas.org
MAY 2007
2 May
Professional Development Day 2007: Project Management Creating
Organizational Value. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Sponsored by PMI Honolulu Chapter.
Keynote Speaker: Neal Whitten, author of No Nonsense Advice for Successful
Projects. For more information, please visit www.pmi-honoluluchapter.org
3 – 4 May
PMI SeminarsWorld® Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. For more information, please visit
the SeminarsWorld Homepage
4 May
SNEC-PMI Conference 2007 – Professional Development Day for Project
Managers. Hartford, Connecticut, USA. Full day session with keynote speaker and
five sessions slots, breakfast and lunch focusing on the tools of project manage-
ment. To be held at the Hartford Convention Center. For more information, please
visit http://www.snec-pmi.org For speakers information, please email: speak-
ers@snec-pmi.org. For more information, please send email to:
conference@snec-pmi.org.
7 May
PMI New Jersey Chapter Regional Symposium: Sustainable Project
Management — The Future is Now! Randolph, New Jersey, USA. Hear project man-
agement and business experts on topics associated with the social, environmental,
and economic aspects of sustainability. Meet vendors, see posters, join SIGs. For more
information, please visit www.pminj.org
7 – 8 May
PMI Northern Alberta Chapter Conference 2007. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
AlbertaÕ s premier conference experience for project management professionals.
For more information, please visit www.pminacconference.com
7 – 8 May
2007 PMI Nashville Spring Symposium. Nashville, Tennessee, USA. Keynote
speakers and educational tracks. For more information, please visit www.pmi-
nashville.com
7 – 10 May
PMI SeminarsWorld® Dallas, Texas, USA. For more information, please visit the
SeminarsWorld Homepage
9 – 11 May
PMI College of Performance Management 23rd Annual International
Conference. Clearwater Beach, Florida, USA. For more information, please visit
www.pmi-cpm.org or call +1-703-370-7885
14 – 16 May
PMI Global Congress 2007—EMEA. Budapest, Hungary. For more information,
please visit http://congresses.pmi.org/
16 May
PMI Michigan Thumb Chapter Professional Development Day 2007. Grand
Blanc, Michigan, USA. View the latest project management tools, listen and learn
from industry acclaimed speakers, participate in various speaker tracks covering
many topics. For more information, please visit www.pmi-thumbchapter.org/
17 – 18 May
PMI SeminarsWorld® in conjunction with PMI Global Congress 2007—EMEA.
Budapest, Hungary. For more information, please visit the SeminarsWorld Homepage
25 – 28 May
PMI SeminarsWorld® Barcelona, Spain. For more information, please visit the
SeminarsWorld Homepage
31 May
PMI Israel Chapter 11th Annual Flagship Event. PMI Israel Chapter 11th Annual
Flagship Event. Tel Aviv, Israel. Keynote speakers: Prof. Doron Lancet, head of
Crown Human Genome Center at Weizmann Institute, and Maestro Itay Talgam.
For more information, please visit www.pmi.org.il
Notes for Authors
SCOPE
Project Management Journal is the professional
journal of the Project Management Institute. The
mission of the Journal is to advance the state of
the art of the knowledge of project and program
management. The Journal presents useful infor-
mation on both theory and practice in the field
of project management. Authors are encouraged
to submit the following types of original manu-
scripts: descriptions of innovative practices; sum-
maries of research results; reviews of current
literature; surveys of current practices; critical
analyses of concepts, theories, or practices; devel-
opments of concepts, theories, or practices;
analyses of failure. Manuscript length should not
exceed 12,000 words. The selection of manu-
scripts for publication is based on the extent to
which they advance the knowledge and under-
standing of project management. PMI neither
approves nor disapproves of any data, claims,
opinions, or conclusions presented.
MANUSCRIPT REVIEW
Project Management Journal uses a double-blind
review process. The first review of every manu-
script is performed by two anonymous referees
(usually members of the Editorial Review
Board). The manuscript is then either accepted,
rejected, or returned to the author for revision
(with reviewer comments furnished to the
author). Revised manuscripts are sent to the
Editor, who makes a final disposition in con-
sultation with the Publisher. The Journal strives
to respond to all authors within three months
of the date the manuscript is received at the
PMI Publishing Department. Accepted manu-
scripts are subject to editorial changes. The
author is solely responsible for all statements
made in the manuscript, including editorial
changes.
ORIGINAL PUBLICATION
It is the policy of PMI to be the sole, original pub-
lisher of manuscripts. Manuscripts that have been
submitted simultaneously to other magazines or
journals will be rejected outright and will not be
reconsidered. Republication of a manuscript,
possibly revised, that has been disseminated via
conference proceedings or newsletter is permitted
if the Editor judges there are significant benefits
to be gained from publication.
COPYRIGHT
Upon acceptance of a manuscript, authors will
be asked to transfer copyright of the article to the
publisher. This transfer will ensure the widest
possible dissemination of information. This
transfer of copyright enables PMI to protect the
copyrighted material for the authors, but does
not relinquish the author’s proprietary rights.
The copyright transfer gives PMI the exclusive
rights to republish or reprint the manuscript in
any form or medium as well as to grant or refuse
permission to third parties to republish all or
parts of the manuscript.
SHORT ITEMS
Short items do not need rigorous academic
scrutiny and are not refereed. Upon receipt, how-
ever, these items become the copyright property
of PMI.

Opinion presents thoughtful discussion of
project management issues.

Correspondence pertains to the project and
program management profession, including ref-
erences to literature, practice, and scholarship as
well as discussion and replies related to articles
published in the Journal.

Book Reviews express opinions about books
related to the project management profession, or
about general management or technical books
that cover topics of particular value to the project
manager.

Calendar of Events offers notices of forth-
coming meetings and calls for papers.
SUBMISSIONS
All manuscripts must be submitted electronical-
ly either by e-mail to natasha.pollard@pmi.org
or on CD and sent to: Project Management
Journal, Attn: Natasha Pollard, 4 Campus Blvd.,
Newtown Square, PA 19073 USA. If you submit
your manuscript on CD, please include a print-
out of the manuscript, including all tables and
figures, on 8-1/2 x 11 inch paper, double spaced
throughout, and printed on one side only.
Manuscripts should include the following in the
order listed:

A title page that includes the title of the
manuscript and each author’s name, affiliation,
mailing address, and phone, fax, and e-mail
address. Correspondence will be directed only to
the first author listed.

An abstract of 100 words or less that out-
lines the purpose, scope and conclusions of the
manuscript, and selected keywords.

Text (use headings and no more than two
levels of subheadings). To permit objective
reviews by two referees, the abstract and first
page of the text should not reveal the authors
and/or affiliations, but only the manuscript title.

References.

Illustrations and Tables. These should be titled,
numbered (in arabic numerals and captions), and
each on a separate sheet, and the preferred location
indicated within the body of the text.

Biographical details of each author.
Upon manuscript acceptance, authors must also
provide a black-and-white passport-style photo-
graph and a signed copyright agreement.
COMPUTER-GENERATED
TEXT AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Authors are requested to submit the final text
and illustrations via e-mail or on CD. As with the
requirements for manuscript submission, the
main text, list of references, table and illustration
captions, and author biographies should be
stored in separate text files with clearly identifi-
able file names. Keep the layout of the text as
simple as possible and save text in its original
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
applications and/or Rich Text Format (RTF). It is
essential that the name and version of the word
processing program and format of the text files are
clearly indicated (example: Word for Windows
2000 doc). The electronic version should only be
sent with the final accepted version of the paper to
the Editor. NOTE: The hard copy and electronic
files must match exactly.
Upon acceptance of the manuscript for
publishing, authors will also be asked to provide
illustrations placed or embedded within their
chosen word processing program. If this isn’t
possible, please submit illustrations in their
native programs. Be sure to include a hard copy
as well. PMI now recreates all illustrations, fig-
ures and tables electronically for publication. By
doing so, the publication is ensured a consistent
look thoughout. Although this makes electronic
versions of illustrations less important, a hard
copy becomes crucial for re-creation purposes.
Contact PMI’s Publishing Department for fur-
ther details.
STYLE OF TEXT
You should write in clear and concise English.
Spelling should follow Webster’s New World
Dictionary. Authors whose native language is not
English are assured that in-house editorial atten-
tion to their manuscript will improve clarity and
acceptability to readers. For questions regarding
style and format of text, refer to the Publication
Manual of the American Psychological Association,
Fifth Edition.
REFERENCES
For questions regarding reference format, refer
to the Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association, Fifth Edition.
References used in the text should be identified
by author name and publication date in paren-
theses, e.g., (Cleland & King, 1983), and listed
alphabetically at the end of the manuscript.
Page numbers should be cited for all quota-
tions. Follow the format example shown below:
Baker, Bud. (1993). The project
manager and the media: Some les-
sons from the stealth bomber pro-
gram. Project Management Journal, 24
(3), 11–14.
Cleland, David I., & King,
William R. (1983). Systems analysis
and project management. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hartley, John R. (1992).
Concurrent engineering. Cambridge,
MA: Productivity Press.
Please ensure that references are complete, that
they include, where relevant, author’s name,
article or book title, volume and issue number,
publisher, date and page reference.
The use of page footnotes should be kept
to a minimum. Footnotes should be numbered
consecutively and listed at the end of the text
as endnotes.
131
 KEYWORDS
Keywords categorize your manuscript. They cover project management methodologies and processes, tools and techniques, PMBOK® Guide
knowledge areas, industries, types of projects, geography. Please list three or four keywords that best categorize your manuscript. Choose
from the following list of suggested keywords (this is not a comprehensive list) or you may use your own.

Accounting Multiproject Planning CHECKLIST

Activity Duration Estimating Negotiating
Manuscript via e-mail or on CD
Agriculture Networking
100-word abstract
Arrow Diagramming Method New Product Development
Illustrations
Baselines Organizational Planning
Author biographies
Benchmarking Organizational Structure
Black and white author photographs
Benefit/Cost Analysis Parametric Modeling (upon acceptance)
Budgeting Performance Reporting
Signed copyright agreement
Change Control Pharmaceuticals (upon acceptance)
Communications Management Procurement Management
REVISIONS
Concurrent Engineering Productivity
Correspondence and files for revision will
Configuration Management Project Life Cycle
be sent to the first-named author unless
Conflict Resolution Project Management Software otherwise indicated. Copyediting of
Constraints Project Plan Development manuscripts is performed by PMI staff.
Construction Quality Assurance The authors are asked to check edited files for
Contingency Planning Quality Management typographical errors and to answer queries
Contract Closeout Reengineering from editors. To improve publication times it
Cost Estimating Resource Planning is important that revised files be returned
Cost Management Responsibility within three days. Excessive turnaround time
Critical Path Risk Management may jeopardize publication of papers.
Delegation Risk Response Development
Deliverables Schedule Development COPIES AND REPRINTS
Design Schedule Control Authors will receive 10 copies of the Journal
Documentation Scope Management free of charge. Additional copies of the Journal
Earned Value Scope Definition and/or article reprints can be ordered at any
Engineering Scope Change Control time from PMI.
Environment Simulation Project Management Institute
Estimating Staff Acquisition Publishing Department
Fast-Tracking Stakeholders 4 Campus Blvd.
Feedback Standards Newtown Square, PA 19073 USA
Finance Statistical Sampling Tel: 610/356-4600 ext. 5016
Float Team Development Fax: 610/355-1633
Funding Time Management E-mail: natasha.pollard@pmi.org
Human Resource Management Tools
Information Systems Training
Integration Management Transportation Variance
Large Project Utilities
Leadership Virtual Organization
Life-cycle Costing Work Breakdown Structure
Manufacturing Work Packages
Management Skills
Matrix Organization
Milestones
Mitigation
Monte Carlo Analysis

Index of Advertisers

Case Studies in Project Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C2

PMI Global Congress EMEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C3

PMI Research Achievement Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C4

132 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L