Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 164 (2019) 457–462

CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems / ProjMAN -

CENTERIS
International - International
Conference Conference
on Project on ENTERprise
MANagement / HCist -Information Systems
International / ProjMAN
Conference -
on Health
International Conference on Project
and Social Care MANagement / HCistand
Information Systems - International
TechnologiesConference on Health
and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies
Project management and innovation in the manufacturing industry
Project management andininnovation in the manufacturing industry
Czech Republic
in Czech Republic
Jaroslav Vrchota*, Petr Řehoř
Jaroslav Vrchota*, Petr Řehoř
Department of Management, Faculty of Economics, University of South Bohemia in Č. Budějovice, Studentská 15, České Budějovice, 370 05,
Department of Management, Faculty of Economics, UniversityCzech Republic
of South Bohemia in Č. Budějovice, Studentská 15, České Budějovice, 370 05,
Czech Republic

Abstract
Abstract
In the current dynamic environment, the importance of project management keeps increasing in relation to continuous changes.
The organizations
In the current dynamicthat do not adapt tothe
environment, theimportance
evolving environment and do not innovate
of project management do not have
keeps increasing a chancetotocontinuous
in relation stay on thechanges.
market
for
Theaorganizations
long time. Projectthat doapproach
not adaptto problem solving environment
to the evolving is becoming increasingly popular.do
and do not innovate The reason
not have is that it istonot
a chance possible
stay on thetomarket
solve
every change
for a long in Project
time. the same way, sotoit problem
approach is necessary to create
solving innovative
is becoming projects that
increasingly respond
popular. Theflexibly
reason istothat
the it
requirements of both
is not possible the
to solve
current state and
every change in thethesame
targetway,
state.
so The aim of thetopaper
it is necessary createis innovative
to compareprojects
the approaches
that respondof the enterprises
flexibly to the with and without
requirements project
of both the
management
current state andin the manufacturing
the target state. Theindustry
aim of theto paper
investments in innovation
is to compare and access
the approaches to enterprises
of the the factorswiththatandlimit their project
without further
development.
management in Aboutthe 70% of the surveyed
manufacturing enterprises
industry (164) are in
to investments project-driven.
innovation andThese organizations
access innovate
to the factors thatmuch
limitmore.
theirThe lack
further
of skilled employees
development. About 70% is theofmost limiting factor
the surveyed of the (164)
enterprises development.
are project-driven. These organizations innovate much more. The lack
of skilled employees is the most limiting factor of the development.
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2019
© 2019
This is anThe
The Authors.
open Published
accessPublished
Authors. by Elsevier
article under
by Elsevier B.V.
the CC BY-NC-ND
B.V. license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an
Peer-review open access
under article under
responsibility the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an open access article underofthethe CCscientific
BY-NC-ND committee of the CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CENTERIS -International Conference on ENTERprise
Information
Peer-review Systems
under / ProjMAN – of
responsibility International
the Conference
scientific committee on Project
the MANagement
of Project
CENTERIS - / International
HCist - International
ConferenceConference
on on Health
ENTERprise
Information Systems / ProjMAN - International Conference on MANagement / HCist - International Conference on
and Social
Information Care Information
Systems / ProjMAN Systems
– and Technologies
International
Health and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies. Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on Health
and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies
Keywords: Project; management; SMEs; innovation, manufacturing.
Keywords: Project; management; SMEs; innovation, manufacturing.

* Corresponding author.
* E-mail address:author.
Corresponding vrchota@ef.jcu.cz
E-mail address: vrchota@ef.jcu.cz
1877-0509 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open
1877-0509 access
© 2019 Thearticle under
Authors. the CC BY-NC-ND
Published license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under
This is an open responsibility
access of the
article under the scientific
CC BY-NC-NDcommittee of the
license CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems /
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
ProjMAN – International
Peer-review Conference
under responsibility of theonscientific
Project MANagement / HCist
committee of the - International
CENTERIS Conference
- International on Health
Conference onand Social Care
ENTERprise Information
Information Systems /
Systems and
ProjMAN TechnologiesConference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on Health and Social Care Information
– International
Systems and Technologies
1877-0509 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CENTERIS -International Conference on ENTERprise Information
Systems / ProjMAN - International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on Health and Social Care
Information Systems and Technologies.
10.1016/j.procs.2019.12.206
458 Jaroslav Vrchota et al. / Procedia Computer Science 164 (2019) 457–462
2 Jaroslav Vrchota and Petr Řehoř / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000

1. Introduction

Social, economic, and environmental challenges have become increasingly complex, forcing organizations to
innovate, manage change, and adopt new activities [1, 2]. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are vital to developing
economies as they provide employment and contribute to overall sustainable economic productivity [3]. SMEs have
poor project management practices [4]. Project management tools and techniques enhance SME’s ability to innovate,
grow and compete. The recognition of the strategic importance of managing projects in the corporate world is rapidly
increasing [5]. Projects represent important challenges for organizations and ensuring that projects are aligned with
strategy is one of the key factors for success of organizations [6]. The project has potential to develop entirely new
business models, products and services as well as considerably increased operational efficiency [7]. Even though
project tools and techniques have been identified as key to the success of SMEs by several authors [8, 9, 10] stated
that success factors, which are indirect, lead to the success of the project. A case study on high tech SMEs in Ireland
conducted by [11] identified key factors in projects of SMEs. [12] also groups project success factors into four areas:
project overrun: cost overrun; project performance; and customer satisfaction. A successfully completed project would
finish on time, within the estimated budget and having achieved all of the quality requirements [13].
Management function related to the project helps to make work effort more efficient [14]. [15] states that project
management success is closely linked to the success of an entire organization. [16] highlight that organisations with
project management capabilities perform better, compete effectively and maintain a competitive advantage. [17]
emphasize that projects are managed in a coordinated way for added benefits. The organisation can benefit from using
project management framework by increasing the effectiveness of human effort in the organisation while increasing
the efficiency of these efforts [18].
The efficiency of the project management can be measured by different tools of evaluation procedures and
instruments [19]. Some authors have questioned the innovative capabilities of project based firms. According to these
authors [20, 21], in general project based firms are not more innovative than other firms. The project-based
organization has become an indispensable organizational form in the present-day economy [22, 23]. Project-based
firms are organized around projects [20]. Project-based firms have many of the characteristics that are generally
considered to be supportive for innovation, such as a high degree of professionalism, decentralization of decision
making, and a high degree of internal and external communication [24]. The main activity of project-based firms is
innovating the processes of clients, which suggests that these firms are well geared to innovation in general [25].
Project- based organisations also have to be adaptive to changes and search for alternatives instead of depending on
one solution [26].
Research developed in Australia presents a more recent perspective of construction project management [27].
Project management is considered to play an important role in contributing to the innovation success [28]. Project
management is a set of concepts, tools, and techniques on how to execute projects on time, within budget, and to
required customer specifications within the context of an explicit company strategy [29]. According to [30], project
management is a set of techniques to effectively manage change and change is a synonym of innovation. R&D projects
are therefore a fundamental component of innovation and a crucial factor in developing new competitive advantages
[31]. Project Management Institute calls project practitioners the engines of innovation [32]. Regardless of the
approach chosen by the company, choosing the right projects is a crucial step in ensuring good project management
[33], though it is not enough to guarantee innovation success [34].

2. Methodology

The aim of the paper is to compare the approaches of the enterprises with and without project management in the
manufacturing industry to investments in innovation and access to the factors that limit their further development.
In 2018, data from 164 enterprises from the manufacturing industry in the Czech Republic was collected using a
questionnaire survey - CAWI. Enterprises were selected by accidental selection, which included enterprises
cooperating with the South Bohemian Chamber of Commerce and CzechInvest agency. The questionnaire consisted
of 25 questions focused mainly on business management systems in relation to innovation and industry 4.0. Out of the
sample surveyed, 115 use the project management compared to 49 without the project management. At first, the
hypotheses on the fit of the enterprises using project management and the enterprises without project management in
 Jaroslav Vrchota et al. / Procedia Computer Science 164 (2019) 457–462 459
Jaroslav Vrchota and Petr Řehoř / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 3

relation to limiting factors were tested using the t-test. Regarding other outputs, the data is tested by Fisher Factorial
Test, where the probabilities of having tables with marginal frequencies that at least deviate from the null hypothesis
as the given table are calculated using combinatorial considerations. The sum of these probabilities is the p-value of
the test, and the table of the frequencies is used as the test statistics [35]. The data is analysed using the Statistica
software with the output p-value of Fisher´s test. If p-value ≤ α, the independence hypothesis is rejected at the
significance level of α, set at 0.05 for the purposes of the paper [36].

3. Results and discussion

Currently, an increased number of activities in an enterprise are implemented as projects. As the current turbulent
times provide less and less space for classic management, which focuses on introducing sustained, optimized systems
that deliver the desired outputs. In a market with a fundamental feature of change, such an approach cannot be
sufficient. And above all, the rapid and effective implementation of changes is the content of each project. Therefore,
project management is one of the most evolving areas of management. Nobody doubts that innovation is a critical
success factor. The life cycle of a product is shortened; new products need to be introduced faster because: if we don't
do it, someone else will do it. Undoubtedly, the project way of managing innovation is a competitive advantage for
every organization.
If the sample of 164 manufacturing enterprises, there are 115 that use the project management, compared to 49 that
do not do it. Furthermore, the sample is classified according to the technological intensity of the industry where the
largest representation of enterprises is from the medium high technology sector (71), followed by the low technology
sector (60), and the medium low technology sector (20) and 13 from the high technology sector. In terms of enterprise
size, there are 61 small enterprises, 35 medium-sized enterprises and 68 large enterprises. The paper focuses on what
is the most restrictive for the project management and whether there are differences between the enterprises with and
without the project management. The limiting factors are summarized in the table 1.
It reveals that the lack of skilled employees is the most limiting, with more than 47% of the total, followed by
governmental and bureaucratic restrictions (17%). The lack of finance (7%) and obsolete equipment (7%) are the third
most common. Other restrictions mentioned below are not seen as limiting by the enterprises. Subsequently, the values
for the limiting factors were summarized by the scales of 1-3 (1 partly limits, 2 limits, 3 greatly limits) and this scale
is further compared.
The t-test tested null hypothesis, of no difference in the degree of constraint between the enterprises with and
without project management. On the other hand, HA says that the enterprises with project management are less limited
compared to the enterprises without project management.

Table 1. Limiting factors for the enterprises with or without project management.
Limiting factors Total PM Yes PM No
Lack of skilled employees 119 87 32
Investment (lack of finance) 18 10 8
Lack of standards for cooperation 3 2 1
Lack of infrastructure (IT) 4 3 1
Low management support, unwillingness to innovate 4 2 2
Uncertainty about the impact of investment on company profit 7 4 3
Government and bureaucracy 42 28 14
Obsolete equipment 21 12 9
Supplier relations 11 6 5
New information systems requirements 5 2 3
Reduction requirements and other legislative requirements 5 5 0
Material Resources 11 8 3
460 Jaroslav Vrchota et al. / Procedia Computer Science 164 (2019) 457–462
4 Jaroslav Vrchota and Petr Řehoř / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000

As revealed by p-value (0.020) – see table 2 - and the test t-statistics (-2.345), the null hypothesis of the variance
of the variations of the two samples was rejected in favour of the alternative, which, due to the negative t, suggests
that enterprises not using project management feel more limited and restricted than the enterprises with project
management. At the same time, the Shapiro-Wilko test tested normal data distribution in both groups, and it was
proved.

Table 2. t-test results.

Project driven Project no-driven t sv p
Restriction rate 1.617391 1.897959 -2.34538 162 0.020219

Both groups (project driven, no-driven) were further compared in relation to technological intensity of the industry.
There are 80 low-technology enterprises (LTS) and 84 high-technology (HTS) enterprises. Regarding the enterprises
with project management, there are 53% HTS and 47% of LTS. Using the t-test, the hypothesis about the fit of both
groups of the enterprises was tested, and rejected, due to the p-value of 0.025 and therefore, due to the positive t (2.273)
the enterprises that are project-managed and belonging to the VTN sector feel less constrained than those managed by
the NTN sector. For non-project management enterprises, the null hypothesis on the compliance of both sectors was
not rejected (p-value = 0.622).
Subsequently, the enterprises were compared for their planned investments and changes in next three years. They
were asked whether they planned either major investments in technology or just minor changes. In terms of the project-
driven enterprises, 69% plan to invest in technology, compared to 51% for the non-project-managed enterprises. At
the same time, there are 22% enterprises that plan minor changes and are project-managed in the sample, as shown by
the table 3.

Table 3. Project driven enterprises and investments.

Investments Investments
invest in technology minor changes
Project driven 115 (70%) 79 (48%) 36 (22%)
Project no-driven 49 (30%) 25 (15%) 24 (15%)
Total 104 (63%) 60 (37%)

In order to verify null hypothesis about the independence of project management and the size of planned
investments, the conditions of good approximation were first verified, where no value was lower than 5. The
subsequent p-value for two-tailed Fisher test was 0.035 and therefore H0 on the independence of project management
and investment is rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis about the dependence of both factors.
At the end of the research, the relation between the size of planned investments and the restrictions was tested,
where a null hypothesis was put on the agreement of both groups and the alternative on its differences. In the sample
of 164 enterprises, the p-value of 0.108 failed to reject null hypothesis, so the data was subsequently tested for project
management where H0 (p-value = 0.036) with positive test statistic t 2.118) in favour of the alternative hypothesis, so
that the enterprises planning to invest in technology feel more limited than the enterprises, planning minor changes in
next three years. For the enterprises without project management, null hypothesis was not rejected with p-value of
0.570. The average values for small investments (1.83) are lower than significant investments in technology (1.96), in
both cases, however, the average values are higher compared to the enterprises with project management.

4. Conclusion

Project management is characterized by its detailed examination of all aspects of the project, it’s detailed planning,
resulting into the implementation of a change and innovation. The applicability of project management is very wide,
its methods are used both in technical fields (such as information technology and construction), which the project
management is the most often associated with in the Czech Republic, and in other areas. It plays an important role, for
 Jaroslav Vrchota et al. / Procedia Computer Science 164 (2019) 457–462 461
Jaroslav Vrchota and Petr Řehoř / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 5

example, in the management of projects financed from EU funds, in organizing various sports, cultural and artistic
events. Projects are also important in the research.
Project management has already become common practice in managing the processes of Western countries. In the
Czech Republic, project management is still looking for a place in the management styles. About 70% of enterprises
use project management in the sample of 164 enterprises from the manufacturing industry in the Czech Republic.
Managers of these organizations in the Czech Republic should be more interested in the issue of project management
and start creating projects and seek to implement them successfully, that confirm [37].
Manufacturing is most constrained by lack of skilled employees. The authors have confirmed the hypothesis that
non-project management companies feel more constrained and limited than project-managed organizations. The
management of these organizations is most troubled by government and bureaucracy and lack of finance. The most
frequently mentioned limitations for both groups of enterprises are the lack of skilled employees. This is confirmed
by the results of a survey where the authors include it in societal barriers [38].
The results of the case studies, which supplemented the research in 2019, showed that managers are addressing
staff shortages by better interconnection with educational institutions and at the same time trying to base their selection
of staff on personal recommendations. Because it is difficult to retain quality employees, they try to adapt their work
environment and work team, as they are difficult to compete with large companies in terms of financial rewards.
The second hypothesis is that project-driven businesses invest more in technology and innovate. It also confirms
the research, where the authors state that project based firms view innovation as universally desirable, or adopt a more
cautious approach to developing and driving their innovation strategy [39]. Innovation plays a major role in the growth
and economic competitiveness of companies, industries and countries. Innovation projects are strong consumers of
resources and their potential benefits occur in a long time horizon, therefore, it is essential to develop the capacity to
assess the potential performance and return of the investment in innovation projects, which will allow companies to
focus their efforts on the projects with the highest expected return.
It does not matter whether innovative projects are implemented according to the project management in a profit or
non-profit organization, it is important whether the project management is applied correctly and whether appropriate
project management methods are used at all stages of the project. It is also important to further educate the project
managers and get acquainted with the latest developments from project management, both by studying new literature
and at seminars and conferences.

Acknowledgements

This paper was supported by GAJU 047/2019/S

References

[1] Pope, J., Annandale, D. and Morrison-Saunders, A. (2004) “Conceptualising sustainability assessment.” Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 24 (6):
595–616.
[2] Wilkins, H. (2003) “The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as a tool for sustainable development.” Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 23 (4):
401–414.
[3] Palma, G. (2005) “Four Sources of De-industrialization and a New Concept of the Dutch Disease,” in Jose Antonio Ocampo (eds) Beyond
Reform: Structural Dynamics and Macroeconomic Vulnerability. Stanford, Stanford University Press.
[4] Ledwith, A. (2004) “Management of new product development in small Irish electronic firms.” Brighton, University of Brighton.
[5] Gomes J and Romão M. (2016) “Improving project success: A case study using benefits and project management.” Procedia Computer Science
100:489-497.
[6] Petro, Y. and Gardiner, P. (2015) “An investigation of the influence of organizational design on project portfolio success, effectiveness and
business efficiency for project-based organizations.” International Journal of Project Management 33: 1717–1729.
[7] Kagermann, H. (2014)“Chancen von Industrie 4.0 nutzen”, in Bauernhansl, T., M. ten Hompel, and B. Vogel-Heuser (eds) Industrie 4.0 in
Produktion, Automatisierung und Logistik, Wiesbaden, Springer.
[8] Turner, R., Ledwith, A. and Kelly, J. (2010) “Project Management in small to mediumsized enterprises: Matching processes to the nature of the
firm.” International Journal of Project Management 28 (8):744-755.
[9] Elonen, S. and Artto, K. (2003) “Problems in managing internal development projects in multiproject environments.” International Journal of
Project Management 2: 395-402.
[10] Cooke-Davies, T. (2002) “The real success factors on projects.” International Journal of Project Management 20:185-190.
462 Jaroslav Vrchota et al. / Procedia Computer Science 164 (2019) 457–462
6 Jaroslav Vrchota and Petr Řehoř / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000

[11] Murphy, A. and Ledwith, A. (2007) “Project management tools and techniques in hightechnology SMEs.” Management Research News 30
(2):153-66.
[12] Zwikael, O. (2008) “Top management involvement in project management.” International Journal of Managing projects in Business 1 (3):
387- 403.
[13] Hamilton, Albert (2004) "Handbook of Project Management Procedures." TTL Publishing, Ltd.
[14] Řehoř, Petr and Vrchota, Jaroslav (2018) “Remuneration in small and middle-sized enterprises with project management.” Procedia Computer
Science 138: 829-834.
[15] Spalek, S. (2014) “Does investment in project management pay off.” Industrial Management & data Systems 114 (5): 832 – 856.
[16] Killen, C.A., Hunt, R.A. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2008) “Learning investments and organizational capabilities.” International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business 1 (3):334-351.
[17] Turner, R., Ledwith, A. and, Kelly, J. (2008) “Project Management in small to medium-sized enterprises: A comparison between firms by size
and industry.” International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 2 (2): 282-296.
[18] Badewi, A. (2015) “The impact of project management (PM) and benefits management (BM) practices on project success: Towards developing
a project benefits governance framework.” Int. J. Proj. Manag 34 (4): 761-778.
[19] Adams, R., Bessant, J. and Phelps, R. (2006) “Innovation management measure: A review.” International Journal of Management Reviews 8
(1): 21–47.
[22] Gann, D.M. and Salter, A.J. (2000) “Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: the construction of complex products and systems.”
Research Policy 29: 955–972.
[21] Keegan, A. and Turner, J.R. (2002) “The management of innovation in project-based firms.” Long Range Planning 35: 367–388.
[22] Lundin, R.A., Arvidsson, N., Brady, T., Ekstedt, E., Midler, C. and Sydow, J. (2015) “Managing and Working in Project Society: Institutional
Challenges of Temporary Organizations.” Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
[23] Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., Frederiksen, L. and Täube, F. (2011) “Project-Based Organizing and Strategic Management: A Long-Term Research
Agenda on Temporary Organizational Forms (Editorial).”Advances in Strategic Management 28: xv–xxxix.
[24] Whitley, R. (2006) “Project-based firms: New organizational form or variations on a theme?” Industrial and Corporate Change 15: 77–99.
[25] Hobday, M. (2000) “The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing complex products and systems?” Research Policy 29: 871–
893.
[26] Blindenbach-Driessen, Floortje, and Jan van den Ende. (2010) “Innovation Management Practices Compared: The Example of Project-Based
Firms”. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27 (5): 705-724.
[27] Doloi, H.; Lim, M. Y. (2007) “Measuring performance in Construction Projects - A critical Analysis with an Australian Perspective.” London,
RICS.
[28] Kerzner, H. (2006) “Project Management: A System Approach to Planning, Scheduling and Controlling.” New York, John Wiley.
[29] Morris, P. W. (2013) “Reconstructing project management.” New York, NY: Wiley.
[30] Naughton, E. and Kavanagh, D. (2009) “Innovation and project management, institute project management Ireland.” PM world Today 11 (4):
1–7.
[31] Heneric, O., Licht, G. and Sofka W. (2005) “Europe’s Automotive Industry on the Move: Competitiveness in a Changing World.”
Mannheim ,ZEW - Centre for European Economic Research.
[32] Shaker, K. (2015) “Project Management Institute, Inc., Projects are the Engines of Innovation.” Available at
<http://www.pmi.org/learning/PM-Network/2014/projects-are-engines-of-innovation.aspx>
[33] Pinto, J. K. (2010) “Project Management: Achieving Competitive Advantage, Chapter Project Selection and Portfolio Management.” Prentice
Hall.
[34] Kandybin, A. and Kihn, M. (2004) “Raising your Return on Innovation Investment.” Strategy + Business 35.
[35] Spellman, F. R. and Whiting, N. E. (2014) “Handbook of mathematics and statistics for the environment.” Boca Raton, CRC Press, Taylor &
Francis Group.
[36] Freeman, J., Shoesmith, E., Sweeney, D., Anderson, D. and Williams, T. (2017) “Statistics for Business and Economics.” Place of publication
not identified, Cengage Learning EMEA.
[37] Vrchota, Jaroslav and Řehoř, Petr. (2016) “Project management and the importance of crises in the sectors of the national economy.” Procedia
Computer Science 100: 362–368.
[38] Thiry, M. and Duggal, J. S. (2005) “Breaking the project management glass ceiling: barriers to organizational project management,” in PMI®
Global Congress 2005, Toronto, PA: Project Management Institute.
[39] Keegan, Anne and Turner, Rodney J. (2002) “The management of innovation in project based firms.” Long Range Planning 35 (4):367-388.