See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285232052

A STUDY TO IMPROVE DECISION MAKING PROCESS IN PLANNING FOR

REDUCTION OF PROJECT FAILURES: A THESIS RESEARCH NOTE

Article · October 2013

DOI: 10.18374/EJM-13-3.7

CITATIONS READS

7 12,681

1 author:

Debu Mukerji
Dynamic Research
8 PUBLICATIONS   22 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Responsible Leadership for Sustainability and Resilience in Project Management, focus: human dimensions View project

Leadership development View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Debu Mukerji on 03 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 THESIS RESEARCH REPORT NOTE
A Study to Improve Decision Making Processes in Construction Planning
for Reduction of Project Failures.

Debu Mukerji PhD, FIEAust.CPEng.

Abstract

Purpose: The paper reports the findings of a doctoral thesis examining improvements in project
management (PM) decision making (DM) for reduction of the causes of project failures. The thesis is
focused on major planning problems, and the project managers and junior team managers (practitioners)
who make bulk of these decisions. It examines practitioners’ challenges which include under-defined
projects where the scope, dimensions and predictability of processes cannot be reasonably expected.
Emerging DM theories and processes were examined for enrichment of this researcher’s insight and for
proposing effective DM processes. As a by-product, a comprehensive DM framework was proposed for
use of the practitioners.

Design/Methodology: Based on the literature review, a conceptual framework of the field research was
designed. Partial mixed methods (MM) research were carried out in three stages: 1) development of the
primary qualitative data collection instrument by interview of a reliable sample of fifty seven project
managers; 2) qualitative and quantitative analysis; and 3) substantiation of the analysis by three major
case examples. The analysis contributed to the development of decision making processes.

Findings: Results indicate multiple process factors can contribute to effective decision making of
complex planning problems. These can involve context-specific values, specialized bodies of knowledge,
involvement of expert stakeholders in the decision making team, transformational leadership by the
project manager for facilitation of collaborative discussions, decision selection, and regular reviews.

Research Limitations: The term ‘project manager’ covers a broad range of responsibilities. These add to
the inevitable uncertainties of PM. Literature review implies a focus on the characteristics of uniqueness
of the project, uncertainties and constraints within the critical parameters of time, cost and quality of
performance. These are often interrelated, which increases the complexities of DM. The thesis is limited
in its investigation for improvements in DM process in planning for reduction in the causes of project
failures. The focus is limited to DM process by teamwork of project managers, key stakeholders and
clients under the leadership of the project manager.

Practical Implications: Practitioners are encouraged to identify major problems proactively, by

teamwork involving expert stakeholders and take into account of organizational dynamics and values. The
procedure is emphasized of the adaptable variables such as leadership strategies for proper assessment of
the problem definition, domains and impacts in defining acceptable solutions and effective usage of the
effective DM process emerged from the research. The process should enhance team members’ experience
sharing and collaboration in assisting the leader for optimum decision selection, and regular reviews for
sustainable improvements as required in the changing environment.

Originality/value: The research expanded the traditional concept and practical assessment of major
planning problems for effective DM. The main points of departure from earlier studies are: 1)
distinguishing DM challenges and process between the senior and junior team managers; 2) use of MM
research and pragmatism for analysis of the DM processes; 3) documentation of rich mosaic of
information on context of the DM process; and 4) analysis of Modern generation of theories and empirical

1
studies on the emerging strategies on predictive planning, effective DM, and leadership in PM. The
proposed DM framework provides structured approach for effective DM at multiple levels of PM.

Key words: Project management, stakeholders, effective decision making, decision making framework.

Paper type: Research paper

A full copy of the thesis is located at http://knowledge.skema.edu/user_portal.php

Introduction

Over the past several decades, more and more work has been accomplished in business through the use of

projects and project management (PM). However, despite growth in PM literature, projects in particular

construction projects continue to fail at an astonishing rate. This paper reports on the findings of the

doctoral thesis – “A Study to Improve Decision Making Processes in Construction Planning to Reduce

Project Failures” (Mukerji, 2011). The research examined proactive decision making for improvements in

management of PM challenges, specifically in the decision making processes of major planning problems

for reduction of project failures. The thesis focussed on the project managers and junior team managers

(practitioners) and people issues of decision making (Collins, 2001). These practitioners are responsible

for decision making of bulk of the complex planning problems. Construction projects complexities as

well as exposures to competitive dynamics are growing (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007; Bennatan, 2000). PM

challenges often include under defined scope, dimensions and predictability of processes which cannot be

reasonably anticipated. The challenges are often enhanced by the inevitable uncertainties, impossible

delivery dates, non-availability of sufficient skilled people, and inadequate risk allocations of the tasks

assigned to the practitioners (Atkinson, Crawford, Ward, 2006). Despite the challenges, the practitioners

are expected to navigate the project for success with the time, cost and quality objectives which were

originally estimated under uncertain conditions and without provision of proper contingencies for the PM

tasks and activities. The paper is comprised of five sections describing the background and context of this

research, the candidate’s motivation, research design and findings, and conclusions.

2
Background and Context

It is argued that construction projects are complex, crisis-prone and carried out in an environment that is

fast changing, increasingly competitive and relatively uncontrollable when compared with several

manufacturing sectors (Loosemore 1996). The research implied need for practitioners’ focus on the

uniqueness, uncertainties and constraints in PM for control of the critical measures of time, cost and

quality of performance, and customer satisfaction. The measures are generally interrelated, which make

proactive decision making process of major planning problems highly complex. With the increasing

globalisation, competitive pressures and uncertainties, the emphasis in improving project planning in

essence, decision making is recognized as a key strategy for project success (Shapira, Laufer, Shenhar,

1994; Dvir, Lipovetsky, Shenhar et al, 2004).

Effective decision making to support useful planning is accepted as one of the keys to project success

(Muzio, Fisher, Thomas, 2007). Shenhar and Dvir, (2007, p.94) stated, “Clearly some project failure stem

from managerial neglect or lack of planning.” The research purpose was not to examine all aspects of

project planning, but to develop the concept of how practitioners should shape proper planning by

effective decision making for effective navigation of the project and reduction in project failures. This

raised the logical question about what can be done to improve decision making in project planning. From

the research, it emerged that as the limitations of formal deterministic planning are becoming more widely

recognised for project planning and a growing management attention have taken place for the predictive

planning and effective decision making process (Winch, Kelsey, 2005). However, oddly enough not

much research has been devoted to the systematic but efficient decision making process in construction

planning e.g. little is known about decision making in capital-project planning (Scott-Young, Samson,

2008). This research contributed in reduction of this gap.

Construction projects are generally managed with the active cooperation of a large number of

subcontractors, key actors of the suppliers’ chain and clients (stakeholders). The stakeholders are

3
subjected to the PM challenges reviewed on above. They have an entrenched stake in the project and can

potentially impact, positively or negatively in its success (Pinto, 2007). Process control is a foundational

principle of quality management. Architects and advocates for TQM have argued (for decades) the needs

and benefits of monitoring, and minimizing process variations amongst stakeholders from project plans

and strategies for optimum system outputs (Hermel, Ramis-Pujol, (2003).

The Candidate’s Path

During the period of PhD journey, the author had professional recognition as Fellow of the Institution of

Engineers Australia and Chartered Professional Engineer; and as Fellow of the Australian Institute of

Management. He had experience as a PM practitioner in middle and senior leadership positions for a total

of thirty-five years, the last two decades of which were in teaching PM to postgraduate and undergraduate

students at the University of New South Wales Sydney; and at the TAFE-NSW Institutes for educating

practicing managers. He has also worked as a leadership development consultant and in leading high level

seminars in Australia, Singapore, Indonesia and other countries.

From his own experience, as well as feedbacks from the PM practitioners and students, he found that the

quality of decision making in construction projects is often poor. The practitioners are responsible for

making bulk of the planning decisions. However they had widely varying levels of qualifications, insight

and maturity. Their education levels varied from trade-qualifications to university graduates. Despite

these, the practitioners are expected to efficiently deal with rapid changes under challenges reviewed

earlier, the pressure of often impossible delivery dates, and to make decisions without sufficient

information. The situation is even poorer with the key external stakeholders and on many of them the PM

practitioners do not have direct control. Cumulatively, these problems create significant impact upon

practitioners’ performance, and create confusion amongst the stakeholders in planning their actions,

resulting in failures in control of key PM parameters e.g. the cost, time and quality aspects.

4
Interestingly, however, the practitioners as well as the stakeholders are usually enthusiastic for project

success and to this end they welcome practical support for making better decisions. With their

cooperation, and the availability of effective decision making system for complex planning problems

proactively would have the potential for significant improvements on the practitioners performance not

only in resolving the planning problems efficiently, but also towards all-round excellence in PM and

consequently in reduction of project failures. In contrast, poor decisions not only adversely impact the key

measures of success, but also in poor relationships with the stakeholders. Sturman’s meta-analysis reveals

that the relationship between experience and job performance is even stronger as job complexity increases

(Sturman, 2003). Researchers e.g. Soltani, van der Meer & Gennard, 2003; Shenhar, Dvir, 2007; and

Winch, Kelsey, 2005 support the view that managing complex projects properly, offer valuable

opportunities for leaders’ enhanced maturity in decision-making and in facilitating high job performance

of expert team members.

The outcomes of this research for effective decision making is expected to contribute to PM leaders’

higher capacities through application of the recommended “processes” and flexible decision-making

framework in management echelons and for reduction in failures of projects. It also makes a contribution

for further progress in both the theory and practice of PM. These are likely to have far reaching positive

impact on organization’s growth and profit.

The University Context: PhD in Strategy, Programme & Project Management

The researcher commenced his PhD journey at an Australian University. The philosophy of the

University was similar with other Australian Universities. Over the years, through many hours of work

every week, substantial multidisciplinary literature was reviewed and field studies were completed, but

the structure of the thesis remained unwieldy. The researcher moved to the SKEMA Business School

Lille France for PhD in Strategy Programme and Project Management which matched exactly with the

candidate’s background and aspirations. The candidate completed revision of the thesis during one years’

enrolment with the support of SKEMA supervisor and the Business School. Very diligent and long hours

5
work enabled completion of the thesis restructuring around appropriate parent and focus disciplines, and

three new RQs for a more succinct thesis. Partial mixed methods (MM) research was used and the

candidate’s pragmatism was applied. The thesis aim was adjusted and contents rationalised and all

processes for the Ph.D. graduation were completed in one year’s period.

Research Strategy and Findings

Researchers suggest (e.g. Perminova, Gustafsson, Wikstrom, 2008) that PM can be described as a journey

of exploration in a given direction with a need for greater flexibility and innovativeness for dealing with

the instruments of changes. However, there seems to be no comprehensive answer to the question of how

practitioners can change the fact that most projects fail to meet their objectives (Whitty, Maylor, 2008).

Nevertheless, the empirical evidence strongly suggests that project failures can be reduced (Bourgault,

Drouin, Hamel, 2008). The research strategy was to empower the practitioners for effective decision

making at multiple-levels of PM of complex planning problems which is accepted important in reduction

of project failures.

The literature review was structured to investigate parent-disciplines of PM, and decision making, and the

focus-disciplines which included blend of masterly transformational-transactional leadership to facilitate

decision making team members with expertise in planning problem domains. It examined effective

decision making processes (e.g. Schwarber, 2005). The research strategy involved proposing effective

decision making processes for reduction in project failures. The investigative goals involved, proposing as

a by-product, a flexible and systems-oriented comprehensive decision making framework for practitioners

use in a wide variety of problems (Mota, Almeida, Alencar, 2008; Miller, 2008). The scope of this

research involved empirical evidence from natural (cognitive) decision making, emphasising qualitative

and semantic representations of the process. Research suggested that project outcomes depend

significantly on planning of the key stakeholders and how the practitioners coordinate those with that of

6
the master-plans. The substantial literature review provided the required theoretical and empirical

evidence for proper foundation of the field studies.

Based on the literature review, a conceptual framework of the field study was designed and partial MM

research approach was used for contextual and content analysis of theories for developing RQs, and the

primary qualitative data collection instrument – ‘interview questionnaire’ for field studies. The data was

collected, analysed and substantiated by three major case examples. The investigative goals of the field

study included: 1) project managers’ job challenges and key strategies for project success; 2) causes of

project failures; 3) practitioners’ decision making challenges and effective decision making processes;

and 4) how practitioners could help in reduction of project failures by effective decision making processes

at multiple levels of PM. The research paradigm was useful in planning the field study and to ensure the

validity and reliability at all steps of the research. For the field study, a partially MM research approach

with a dominant qualitative component was used. Reliable data were gathered by interviewing a total of

fifty-seven (57) purposeful and diverse samples of project managers, team managers, PM researchers and

consultants. The data was coded, interpreted, qualitatively and quantitatively analysed, tested, and

discussed. These were substantiated by three major case examples. The outcomes were cross-referenced

with literature review for drawing valid conclusions on the decision making processes (Olesson,

Magnussen, 2007).

The research findings supported the assumption that practitioners are enthusiastic about improvements in

their own and PM performance. The decision making processes emerged from the research were based on

logics, and reasoning (Schwarber, 2005; Evans, 2002), and practical rationality for resolving planning

problems efficiently and cost effectively. The leaders’ require a proper blend of transformational and

transactional approach in leadership (Vera, Crossan, 2004). To support the leadership strategy, the research

provided a structured approach for practitioners examining complex problem domains through evaluation

of multi-attribute alternatives, and decision selection by team members’ experience sharing and helping

each other for the best possible decision to emerge for project success and win-win outcome for all e.g.

7
the practitioners, organization, key subcontractors, suppliers and client. The entire decision making

process were shaped for sufficient transparency for review by the senior management and key

stakeholders. The proposed ‘process’ is expected to significantly enhance the effectiveness of

coordination and relationships between the project manager and the key stakeholders. All of these,

cumulatively with the increasing maturity and leadership of the project, would enable maximal adaptation

of the decision making processes for use at multiple levels of PM.

Scholars and practitioners increasingly are focussing attention on the distinctions between the conceptual

knowledge – knowledge of principles and organizational procedural guidelines – and the ability to apply

such knowledge in real-work situations. From the research findings, it emerged that practitioners judged

the following as critically important for effective decision making:

1. Adequate planning (neither over nor under but just right).

2. Project manager should adopt overall perspective of the project and useful strategies to facilitate

team members for effective decision making of planning problems.

3. Decision making team should include key stakeholders with expertise in problem domains.

4. Decision making processes should be appropriate for leading to right decision selection.

5. Teamwork of competent members by collaborative discussions, experience sharing and helping

one another attitude is essential. Team members’ aim should be to assist the project manager in

proper decision selection.

6. The leaders require use of a proper blend of transformational and transactional leadership to deal

with varying problems in the changing dynamics.

7. Project managers should have access to cutting edge information and decision making facilities

for teamwork in processing information efficiently.

8. Decision making procedure should involve proper respect for organizational best practices and

past experiences.

8
 9. Project directors (Steering Committee) should support the project manager in defending the

decisions made.

10. Decision making procedures and documentations should be sufficiently transparent for project

director to feel confident in defending the decision to higher management.

With the decision making processes in context, the research explored, as a by-product, a process-guided,

balanced, and proposed an all inclusive (comprehensive) decision making framework that is flexible and

simplified for practitioners to adapt in dynamic environment (Miller, 2008). The US Air Force Ballistic

Missile (BMO) Office practices in 1950-1960s (Shediack, 2003) were examined as seed ideas for

developing the framework. The decision making and PM theories, empirical evidence and field study

findings were analyzed in the context of the BMO model to illustrate the decision making processes for a

simplified decision making framework. The framework used the System 2 theory for teamwork with

systems oriented steps in defining the problem, identifying relevant criteria, weighing their relative

importance, generating decision options, rating the options in terms of the decision making objectives,

and in selecting the optimal decision (Certo, Connelly & Tihanyl, 2008) under leadership of the project

manager. The procedure stipulated documentation of the problem definition, decision making processes

and discussions for decision selection and regular review. The proposed structured decision making

framework (Mota, Almeida & Alencar, 2008) is shown in Figure 1.

9
 Decision selection DM strategies &
& review design of process
5 2
1
Regular Reviews
CREATE
Decision Option A
(Ideal Option)
(Increased Risk)
ASSESS
4
Decision OR Problem
Options for Decision Options B, Definition, &
DECISION overall impact, B1, B2 … Dimensions;
SELECTION organizational (Median Options) DM Criteria;
best practices, (Moderate Risk) Risk Mgmt
past & Goals to
experience; & OR Create
all related Decision Option C Decision
issues (Status Quo) Options
(Low Risk)

Decision Making Processes for Collaborative Teamwork of Expert

Stakeholders under Leadership of the Project Manager

Legend
Decision-making: DM; Management: Mgmt

Figure 1 Proposed Comprehensive Decision-Making Framework

From right to left, Figure 1 illustrates the step-by-step the processes from “decision making strategies and

design of process” to “decision selection and review”. It shows adaptation of the model for a planning

problem with high concern for “risk management” which was emphasized by the sample population. This

“concern” element can be changed for effectiveness with the needs of specific problems. In the thesis the

evolution of the decision making framework is presented stage by stage in different chapters with the

Figure 1 representing the final phase of development. The figures in the thesis are provided with

annotations to facilitate practitioners’ adapting the framework for decision making of a wide variety of

problems. The thesis recorded a rich mosaic of data and information of PM and decision making which

10
are expected to be useful for the practitioners. A valuable insight into the differences in the perspectives,

needs and wants between the junior and senior managers in decision making has also been presented. The

decision making process and the proposed framework are expected to enable reflective practitioners

maximal adaptation at multiple levels of PM for effective decision making and thus to contribute towards

reduction in project failures. The thesis, thus, achieved the aims of the research. Figure 2 illustrates the

relationships between the research problem, RQs and the research results.

Research Aim
Improved DM processes to reduce project failures &
proposal of improved DM framework.

RQ-1: What are the key elements of a project

Mixed methods research findings

manager’s job, and the causes of project
Research issues & interrelated

Case examples to substantiate

failures?
Tw
Research Questions

RQ-2: What could practitioners do for

effective decision making of significant
planning problems at multiple levels of project
management?

RQ-3: How can project managers help in

reducing failures in construction projects by
improving the decision making processes
during planning activities?

Research Results
Strategies for reduction in project failures by
improvements in decision making processes
Legends:
Project management: PM
Decision-making:
DM
Mixed Methods Research:
Figure 2 Research Process and Outcomes MR

However, achieving the full potential of the decision making processes and the framework will require

supportive organisational culture and proper infrastructure for instance database with latest information

11
with practitioners’ having access to it. These issues are beyond the scope of this research. Direction of

future research has been recommended in the final chapter of the thesis.

Conclusions and Discussion

The paper reports the summary on the findings of the doctoral thesis – “A study to improve decision

making processes in construction planning to reduce project failures”. The thesis recorded useful

insights, challenges, needs and wants, and recommendations of senior and junior team members and

related professionals for the effective decision making process. Practitioners’ in complex construction

PM, have significant opportunities to augment job performance and enhance their experiences by learning

from the decision making process. The research confirmed that the practitioners are enthusiastic about

improvements in performance and reduction in project failures. The thesis contributed to the development

of practitioners by useful PM insight and offering research outcomes of the decision making process for

complex planning problems. Under masterly facilitation of the project manager for collaborative

teamwork of specialist stakeholders, the decision making framework annotated by the findings from the

research should be useful for the practitioners delivering effective decision making of a wide range of

problems. The thesis, thus, achieved the aim of the research. However, achieving full potential of the

decision making processes and the proposed decision making framework will require appropriate

organisational culture, cutting-edge infrastructure and knowledge. These issues are beyond the scope of

this research. Limitations of the research and recommendations for further research have been made. It is

expected that this research will open the door for other researchers to conduct further research in this area

of growing importance for project management.

Based on the thesis, during the PhD journey, the researcher published in top-tier conference proceedings,

five papers and paper development workshops (PDWs). These papers were peer-reviewed and accepted

indicating their appeal, currency and the relevance of the research. The papers were presented or work-

shopped with the audience of PM practitioners and senior academics. Important issues were discussed and

12
feedbacks obtained were incorporated in the thesis. The discussions inspired paper development for

publications in journals as well as for speaking engagements. The publications are summarized in Box 1

below.

Box 1. Publications Based on the Research

1. Professional Development Workshop “West Meets East: Leadership for Effective Decision
Making in Project Management”; PDW presented at the Academy of Management Annual
Conference, San Antonio, August, 2011.
2. Paper: Holistic “Development of Project Leaders”, was presented at the Leadership Session
of the Academy of Management Annual Conference, Chicago, August, 2009.
3. Paper: “Towards a Best Practice Model of Project Management Decision-Making”,
Proceedings of the 3rd International Business Research Conference, Monash University,
Melbourne, 20–23 November, 2006.
4. Paper: “Development of Project Managers for Competitive Productivity and Balance in
Life”, Proceedings of the Network of North European Project Management Associations’
International Congress of Project Managers (NORDNET) Helsinki, Finland, 30 September
–1 October, 2004.
5. Paper: “Leader & Leadership Development: Towards A Learning Model”, Proceedings of
the 17th Australia and New Zealand Academy of Management Annual Conference,
(ANZAM), Fremantle, Western Australia, 2–5 December, 2003.

The research evidence supported the intuitive pragmatism of the author that advancing practitioners’

insight and experience with structured effective decision making process at multiple levels of PM should

greatly improve performance as well as in job security and aspirations of this vitally important

community. It is expected that this research will open the door for researchers to conduct further research

in decision making which is an area of growing importance for project management.

Comment by Supervisor:

I became involved in the final stage of supervision of Dr. Mukerji on behalf of SKEMA Business School

in France where I had an adjunct position. When I first read the candidate’s thesis I found the research

13
had a lot of practical value to project managers specifically in improving their decision-making. The

research combined the ’real life’ experiences of an experienced construction project manager further

supported by evidence he had collected from the field from a diverse sample of managers. I also

observed that the candidate did not talk much about his own experience in the thesis which I felt was

important for the readers. While declaring one’s own background may seem like advertising it often helps

the examiners to follow the arguments made in a thesis. The candidate has to be careful while interpreting

the findings to ensure that it is not biased due to his or her own experience but on evidence collected. It is

a fine balance.

I also suggested that focusing the thesis around ‘decision making’ at the planning stages of a construction

project would render it to be a better thesis. I was doing a study of mixed methods in project management

research at that time and found that the candidate’s thesis could be classified into one of the mixed

methods approaches that we were using in our investigation – Category AB as per the Hurmerinta-

Peltomaki and Nummela (2006) framework–– qualitative data collected which was analysed qualitatively

and quantitatively.

This was my first experience supporting a candidate for examination at SKEMA and I felt that the process

used was very good. It used a two stage approach. The thesis was initially examined by two examiners

who provided valuable comments that the candidate took into account before appearing for his defence at

the annual doctoral seminar held at Lille in France. A panel was assembled that included the Director of

the Program, one of the examiners, the candidate’s supervisor and two more independent examiners.

During the defence other students and academics at SKEMA are invited and to ask questions after the

panel has asked their questions. The result of the examinations was informed to the student after the panel

completes a closed ‘discussion’ after the public defence. The process was both reasonable and supportive

of the candidate during the defence. The Program Director acted as the mediator if the panel members

differ in their opinions of the thesis and the presentation. SKEMA has a large cohort of doctoral students

14
who come to make presentations at an annual doctoral seminar called the EDEN seminar in August every

year during which some candidates defend their thesis. This helps in having a large audience during the

defence where new or progressing doctoral candidates also learn from the candidates who are undergoing

their defence.

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my deep gratitude to Professor Rodney Turner Director of the
SKEMA PhD Programme Lille France for his most valuable support all through the
PhD journey, and very valuable review and comments on this Thesis Research Report
Note.

I would also like to express my deep appreciation to Dr Shankar Sankaran, my PhD

supervisor. He was the Adjunct Professor SKEMA. I am grateful for his enthusiastic
encouragement, very valuable and constructive suggestions and reviews during the
planning and writing of the PhD thesis, and for this Research Report Note

I am grateful to Professor Turner and Dr Sankaran for their generosity in giving time on
my work.

References

Atkinson R., Crawford L., Ward S., 2006, Fundamental Uncertainties in Projects and the Scope of Project
Management, International Journal of Project Management, 24: 687-698.

Bennatan E.M., 2000, On Time within Budget: Software Project Management Practices and Techniques, John
Wiley, New York.

Bourgault M., Drouin N., Hamel E., 2008, Decision Making within Distributed Project Teams: An Exploration of
Formalization and Autonomy as Determinants of Success, International Journal of Project Management,
Supplement S97-S110.

Certo S.T., Connelly B.L., Tihanyl L., 2008, Managers and their not-so rational decisions, Business Horizons, 51:
113-119.

Collins J., 2001, Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve, Harvard Business Review,
January.

Dvir D., Lipovetsky S., Shenhar A., Tishler A., 2008, What is really important for project success? - A refined,
multivariate, comprehensive analysis,” International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 4.4: 382-404.

Ericcson K.A., Lehman A.C., 1996, Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task
constraints, Annual Review of Psychology, 47: 272-305

Evans J.B.T., 2002, In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7. 10: 454-
459.

15
Hermel P., Ramis-Pujol J. (2003), Evolution of Excellence: Some Main Trends, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 15, No. 4,
pp. 230-243.

Loosemore M., (1996), Crisis Management in Building Projects, PhD Thesis, University of Reading, UK.

Miller C.C., 2008, Decisional comprehensiveness and firm performance: Towards a more complete understanding,
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21: 598-620.

Mota C.M.M., Almeida A.T., Alencar L.H., 2008, A multiple criteria decision model for assigning priorities to
activities in project management, International Journal of Project Management, Article in press ,
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.08.005

Mukerji D., 2011, A Study to Improve Decision Making Processes in Construction Planning to Reduce Project
Failures, Doctoral Thesis, SKEMA Business School, Lille France.

OGC, 2002, People issues and PRINCE2, Her majesty’s stationary office with the permission of Government
Commerce UK London.

Olesson N.O.E., Magnussen O.M., 2007, Flexibility at different stages in the life cycle of projects: An empirical
illustration of the “Freedom to Manoeuvre,” Project Management Journal, 38.4: 25-32.

Perminova O., Gustafsson M., Wikstrom K., 2008, Defining Uncertainty in Projects – A New Perspective,
International Journal of Project Management, 26: 73-79.

Pinto J.K., Slevin D.P., English B., 2009, Trust in projects: An empirical assessment of owner/contractor
relationships, International Journal of Project Management, 27: 638-648.

Pinto J.K., 2007, Project Management: Achieving Competitive Advantage, Prentice Hall, New Jersey

PMBOK®, 2004, A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide) guide compiled, Project
Management Institute (PMI), Philadelphia, USA.

Shapira A., Laufer A., Shenhar A.J., 1994, Anatomy of decision making in project planning teams, International
Journal of Project Management, 12: 172-182.

Schwarber P.D., 2005, Leaders and the decision-making Process, Management Decisions, 43.7/8: 1086-1092.

Scott-Young C., Samson D., 2008, Project success and project team management: Evidence from capital projects in
the process industries, Journal of Operations Management, 26: 749-766.

Shediack P.D., 2003, The critical path, gimme three options, Newsletter of the Dayton/Miami Valley Chapter of
PMI Project Management Institute, 6.2: April/May 2003.

Shenhar A.J., Dvir D., 2007, Project management research – The challenge and opportunity, Project Management
Journal, 38. 2: 93-99.

Soltani E, Van der Meer R.B., Gennard J.W., 2003, Performance management: TQM versus HRM – lessons learned,
Management Research News, 26.8: 38-49.

Sturman M.C., 2003, Searching for the inverted U-shaped relationship between time and performance: Meta-
analysis of the experience/performance, tenure/performance, and age/performance relationships. Journal of
Management, 29: 609-640.

16
van der V. Gerben, S., Bunderson J.S., Oosterhop A., (2006), Expertness Diversity and Interpersonal Helping in
Teams: Why Those Who Need the Most Help End Up Getting the Least? The Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 49, No. 5, pp. 877-893.

Vera D., Crossan M., 2004, Strategic Leadership and Organizational Learning, The Academy of Management, April:
222-240

Whitty S.J., Maylor H., 2009, And Then Came Complex Project Management, International Journal of Project
Management, 27: 304-310.

Wick A., Walter A.I., 2008, A Transdisciplinary Approach to Formalized Integrated Planning and Decision-Making
in Complex Systems, European Journal of Operational Research, 197.1: 360-370.

Winch, G.M., Kelsey J., 2005, What Do Construction Project Planners Do? International Journal of Project
Management, 23.2: 141-149.

Submitted for publication; Copyright Dr Debu Mukerji, Sydney Australia

17
 18

View publication stats