1 An exploratory investigation into how project management methods are chosen and implemented by organisations in the UK A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Science and Engineering 2018 By David Biggins School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering
341
Embed
An exploratory investigation into how project management ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
An exploratory investigation
into how project management
methods are chosen and
implemented by organisations
in the UK
A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Faculty of Science and Engineering
2018
By David Biggins
School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering
2
Blank page
3
Contents
List of tables ...................................................................................................................... 5
List of figures..................................................................................................................... 8
2013; Meredith et al 2016). In the survey of IT budget forecasting priorities for the year 2016
undertaken by 201 participants across 20 industrial sectors, the area with the highest priority for
improvement, with 43% of respondents identifying it as a major priority, was improving efficiency
and business processes (TechPro Research 2015).
17
1.2 Problem statement
The period of study for the CHAOS reports coincides with the growth of PMMs (see Appendix 1
for the PMM timeline) and this suggests that, despite the expansion and development of PMMs,
their application, according to the data presented in Section 1.1, is having little effect on the
success of the projects they are employed to improve.
The adoption by an organisation of a PMM is a strategic business decision (Charvat 2003). The
costs of implementation can be significant and full implementation requires considerable
resources of time and money, management commitment and support, training and
communication, as well as a wide range of supporting and integrating structures and processes
(Richardson 2010). The complexity has meant that success has been difficult to achieve
(Serrador and Pinto 2015). For the last decade, PMMs have been in the list of the top ten
factors leading to project failure (Wells 2012).
The problem statement underlying this research is that PMMs are being increasingly used but
this is not seemingly linked to an improvement in the performance of projects.
1.3 Research aim and goals
Using a life cycle modelling approach that is described in Section 2.6, an initial conceptual
model was developed. This model proposes that PMMs pass through five distinct stages:
‘Select’, ‘Embed’, ‘Tailor’, ‘Operate’ and ‘Develop’. Research suggests that the use of PMMs
has an effect on project outcomes (Wells 2012; Too and Weaver 2014; Pace 2017) but this
previous research concentrates on the ‘Tailor’ and ‘Operate’ stages, ignoring the prior steps of
choosing and implementing the PMM in the organisation which may also contribute to the
effectiveness of the PMM. Based on the problem statement, the aim of this research is to gain
a better understanding of how organisations ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ PMMs.
This research has three goals:
Goal A. Understand how organisations select PMMs
Goal B. Understand how organisations embed PMMs
Goal C. Investigate how maturity, culture and organisational structure affect the ‘Select’ and
‘Embed’ stages.
1.4 Research questions and context
To address the three goals of the research, seven questions were identified during the literature
review. These questions are located within the relevant sections of the literature review in
Chapter 3 and are summarised in Table 3:
18
Goal Research question
A. Understand how organisations select PMMs
1. How are PMMs selected?
B. Understand how organisations embed PMMs
2. How is the change situation diagnosed?
3. What is the change process for PMMs?
4. Are espoused PMM processes different to in-use PMM processes?
C. Investigate how maturity, culture and organisational structure affect the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages
5. How does maturity relate to PMMs?
6. How does organisational culture relate to PMMs?
7. How does organisational structure relate to PMMs?
Table 3. Research questions
This research is undertaken with the IT/IS departments of large, UK-based organisations who
use PMMs. All of the organisations conduct IT/IS project but are not themselves within the IT
industry.
1.5 Justification for this research and contribution to knowledge
The continuing growth in the use of projects in organisations (Whittington et al 1999; Turner et
al 2010; Burke 2011; Alderton 2013; Pace 2017) and the continued expansion in the use of
PMMs (Biggins et al 2016b) are both cogent reasons to justify the study of PMMs. Despite the
growing importance of PMMs, this area has received little attention. As Joslin and Müller (2016
p368) point out “research on project methodologies is limited”. Anderson and Merna (2003
p387) identified the “paucity of research and literature addressing effective strategy for
developing and deploying projects.” This point was reinforced by Shi (2011 p297) who
commented how “From the organizational project management point of view, however, there is
still a lack of literatures about how to find the best path of implementing project management”.
Similarly, Burgan and Burgan (2012) alluded to this gap when they commented that “In spite of
substantial research supporting the value of project management, effective implementation of
project management within an organization remains elusive.” In the conclusion to his research,
Pace (2017 p90) calls for research “to investigate the customization of project management
methodologies for a specific organization to see if that correlates to project success.” This
research is a response to these calls. While there have been studies looking into why
organisations use PMMs, for example Vaskimo (2015), and studies looking at the benefits from
using PMMs, for example Mir and Pinnington (2014), Serrador and Pinto (2015) and Pace
(2017), there have been no studies of how organisations choose and implement the PMM.
Researching, critiquing, analysing and discussing the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages will help to
close this gap in the academic literature and this is the most important justification for this study.
In addition to its academic justification, this research is also a response to the call, now a
decade old, for research into the actualities of projects (Winter et al 2006). The academic
thinking relating to the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages is tested using empirical data to generate a
descriptive model of how project staff select and embed PMM, the “theory for practice” as
Winter et al (2006 p641) refer to it. The descriptive model is a theory for practice and will be
useful to organisations who are new to PMMs or who seek ways to manage the implementation
19
process. The descriptive model is not tied to any established method or standard and thus is
applicable to any PMM. By focusing on the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages of PMMs, this research
explores an area that has not been investigated directly by any researcher in the past. As a
result, this research contributes to the literature on PMMs and has implications for researchers,
PM bodies and practitioners.
1.6 Structure
The structure of this thesis is explained in Table 4:
Chapter Description
1 Introduction. Provides an overview of the research project’s context and background, aim, purpose and justification for the study.
2 and 3 Literature review. Contains a synthesis of the relevant literature. The literature is separated into two chapters, the first discussing macro issues and the second discussing more detailed, micro issues.
4 Methodology. Explains the research methodology that was devised to answer the research questions and includes the method and a discussion of how validity and reliability were addressed in this mixed methods research project.
5 and 6 Findings and analysis. Presents the qualitative and quantitative findings and analyses the results of the primary data.
7 Discussion. Examines the key themes identified during the research project.
8 Conclusion. Reviews the extent to which the aims and objectives have been met. Additionally, the originality of the study and the resulting contribution to knowledge is discussed. Finally, recommendations for practitioners are listed, limitations are discussed and there is a list of potential future research opportunities.
Table 4. Thesis structure
At the end of this thesis are a number of appendices which support and provide additional
information. Appendices 1 to 5 contain material that supports the review of literature,
Appendices 6 to 11 support the methodology, Appendix 12 is related to the analysis of
quantitative data and the remaining four appendices include conference papers that were
written to develop ideas and gain feedback on aspects of this thesis. Appendix 13 provides an
introduction to and explanation of the papers which are shown in Appendices 14 to 17.
1.7 Summary
This chapter serves to introduce the important elements of this research. It began by explaining
the context of the research and the problem statement. The research aims and objectives were
then set out and the research questions that will enable the achievement of those aims were
listed. The next section discussed the contribution to knowledge and the chapter concluded
with an explanation of the structure of the thesis.
The next chapter begins the investigation of the literature relating to PMMs by explaining what
PMMs are, why they are used by organisations, defines the PMM life cycle model and explains
the importance of the first two stages, ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’.
20
2 Synthesis of the literature, part 1
2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the theoretical and contextual background for this research. The chapter
begins by describing PMMs, then explains why companies use them, discussing estimates for
how extensively they are used and how much they are written about in literature. Next, the life
cycle approach is explored and the five-stage life cycle for PMMs is introduced. The first two of
the five stages, ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’, which are the focus of this research, are then introduced
and the chapter ends by justifying the importance of these two stages.
2.2 What is a PMM?
Within the realm of project management, governance relates to the structures, processes and
systems that provide confidence to senior management that projects are being delivered
effectively by the organisation (Gardiner 2005; Pinto 2013). There are typically three levels in
the project management hierarchy: portfolios, programmes and projects (APM 2012; Axelos
2017; PMI 207b). Projects are often collated into programmes of co-ordinated activity, for
example at departmental or functional level within organisations. Similarly, programmes are co-
ordinated at the organisation level into single or multiple portfolios in the case of larger
organisations. Governance takes place at each level in the hierarchy and is specific to the
level. Project management governance operates at the project level.
Under the umbrella of project management governance are methods and standards, collectively
known as PMMs. These are defined in Table 5 (Biggins 2015).
Concept Definition
Method A method is the ‘how’ or a “set of guidelines or principles that can be tailored and applied to a specific situation. In a project environment, these guidelines might be a list of things to do … a specific approach, templates, forms, and even checklists used over the project life cycle.” (Charvat 2003 p17). The OGC define a method as “An approach to a process that is secure, consistent and well-proven.” (OGC 2009 p4). In their typography of models, Anderson and Merna (2003) classified these as process models because they define the process or method to be carried out.
For example: PRINCE2.
Standard More a ‘what’ than a ‘how’, a standard is a “document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose” (ISO 2017). A standard is a “Document approved by a recognised body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidance, or characteristics for products, processes or services with which compliance are not mandatory.” (PMI 2013a p418). Standards are classified by Anderson and Merna (2003) as either knowledge or baseline models.
For example: Project Management Institute Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), the Association of Project Managers (APM) Body of Knowledge (APMBOK) and the ISO 21500:2012.
Table 5. Types of PMM
21
Methods and standards are similar in that they contain best practice tools, techniques,
processes and role definitions but methods are different in that only they contain guidance on
when, how and by whom the best practice should be carried out (Gardiner 2005; OGC 2010;
Richardson 2010; Carstens et al 2013; PMI 2017b). While PRINCE2 is the dominant project
management method, there is more diversity in the focus and scope of the available standards.
The PMI’s PMBOK is targeted at project and fits in with other guidance available from the PMI
on programme and portfolio management. In terms of the project management functions
covered by the PMBOK, there is a strong overlap with PRINCE2 with most processes such as
risk, scheduling and scope management being common to both (OGC 2009; PMI 2017b).
PMBOK includes team management and procurement within its scope, areas not covered by
PRINCE2. The APMBOK has yet a different focus that provides guidance on all three levels of
the project hierarchy but in less detail than PMBOK (APM 2012). Within the Agile sphere there
are multiple variants or standards from which to choose (Serrador and Pinto 2015).
Organisations seeking a PMM can choose a method or look to one of the available standards.
As it is not possible to directly implement a standard, the approach taken by many organisations
is to create a bespoke method based on the existing standard, a gap that many books,
consultancies and internal project management offices and departments seek to address.
While methods can, by their nature, be more easily implemented, there is still an expectation
that they will require a level of tailoring before they can be used (OGC 2009).
Neither methods nor standards can encompass all the practices, tools and techniques that
comprise the spectrum of project management and instead their scope allows for the greatest
possible application to projects (PMI 2017b). The development of new tools and techniques
coupled with academic research into project management means the component parts of the
methods and standards are continually evolving, a fact recognised by the number of revisions of
both PRINCE and PMBOK and the number of competing Agile standards.
The boundary of project management methods is neither tightly defined nor universally agreed.
The language, processes and tools related to projects are frequently used by other approaches.
The most similar of these allied approaches is software development. Appendix 3 lists popular
software development approaches.
22
2.3 Benefits of using a PMM
The rationale for deploying PMMs is that they are of benefit to the management of projects
within organisations. The benefits can be viewed from two different perspectives: how the
organisation can derive positive outcomes from using PMMs and how projects themselves can
be improved by the use of PMMs.
2.3.1 Organisational benefits
Introducing a PMM is seen by organisations as offering a range of potential benefits which are
listed in Table 6:
Organisational benefits Author(s)
Competitive advantage. Organisations that increase the number
of simultaneous projects are more likely to gain a competitive
advantage through improved financial metrics.
Spalek (2014)
Governance compliance. Governance is often described as the
way an entity exercises power and performs its functions.
Organisations require governance and at the project level
governance relates to a set of management and control
relationships. Project governance establishes the model by which
projects are aligned to organisational needs and the ways in which
they are executed.
Eskerod and Östergren
(2000); Andersen
(2008); Richardson
(2010); Burke (2011);
Pemsel et al (2014);
Vaskimo (2015)
Standardisation. As organisations merge, grow and trade
collaboratively, the need for common standards that facilitate
cooperative working increase. The standards defined by a PMM
include common processes, documentation and, critically, a shared
vocabulary. Lientz (2013 p22) suggests this creates a “comfort
zone” for management and business units.
Richardson 2010;
Burke (2011); PMI
(2017b); Lientz (2013)
Credibility. Whether organisations that have external customers
for whom projects are conducted or the customer is internal, there
is an advantage to be gained by explaining to the customer how the
project management method improves the quality and reliability of
the project services being offered. This is exemplified by Ericsson
Services Ireland where the project management method was stated
to be a key part of the company’s quality processes.
APMG (2002); Burke
(2011)
Professional standards. The development of project
management as a profession has created a requirement for
accreditation systems that can validate practitioners’ knowledge of
the tools and techniques of their craft. The Project Management
Professional (PMP) examination was introduced in 1984 and the
PRINCE2 Practitioner examination in 1996.
Eskerod and Östergren
(2000); Gardiner
(2005); Richardson
(2010); Burke (2011);
Pemsel et al (2014);
Vaskimo (2015); PMI
(2017b);
Organisational learning. Improves the use of existing
organisational knowledge. This can be achieved by documenting
and circulating lessons learnt from past projects.
Eskerod and Östergren
(2000); Andersen
(2008); Richardson
(2010); Carstens et al
(2013)
Table 6. Organisational benefits of PMMs
23
2.3.2 Project benefits
Project benefits Author(s)
Improved project delivery. The advantages of implementing an
approach are:
▪ Reduced project schedules through better planning and
control.
▪ Reduced project costs through better planning and control.
▪ Increased project quality through the use of better
processes.
▪ Improved client participation through better role definitions.
▪ Improved efficiency through the use of common processes.
▪ Consistency of approach.
Eskerod and Östergren
(2000); Gardiner
(2005); Andersen
(2008); Richardson
(2010); Bloch et al
(2012); Wells (2012);
Lientz (2013); Joslin
and Müller (2015);
Vaskimo (2015)
Adoption of new practices. The development of methods over
the years has meant they have become increasingly broad and
deep. Organisations that use an older method may see benefit
from choosing a newer method because of the up-to-date
components it incorporates.
Rad (2012); PMI
(2017b); Pemsel et al
(2014)
Shared understanding. This comes from the common language
and way of working that allows project staff to reduce the barriers to
effective team work. This is supported by training using formal
documentation
Eskerod and Östergren
(2000); Andersen
(2008); Richardson
(2010); Lientz (2013);
Pemsel et al (2014)
Reduced risk and uncertainty. Following a common process
reduces the vulnerability of the project to staff exit, absence or
redeployment. The need for crisis management is reduced.
Eskerod and Östergren
(2000); Richardson
(2010); Lientz (2013)
Table 7. Project benefits of PMMs
Table 7 lists the expected project-level benefits. There is some overlap between organisational
and project benefits in that some of the items listed as project benefits could equally be seen as
organisational benefits. However, it is more important that the benefit has been captured rather
than the category to which it has been allocated.
This section has explored the reasons why PMMs are used in organisations but there has been
no differentiation amongst the different methods, instead presenting a list of the generic benefits
often associated with PMMs. In the next section, the growth in PMMs is reviewed.
2.4 Growth in PMMs
Appendix 1 records the first appearance of PMMs around 1975 and records their subsequent
growth and expansion in the last four decades. A bibliometric analysis of trends in project
management between 1966 and 2015 (Biggins et al 2016b) shows that terms related to PMMs
(project management method, PRINCE2, PMBOK, APMBOK, body of knowledge, BOK, agile,
scrum and governance) in the title, keywords and abstracts in online academic repositories are
increasing as a percentage of all the project management literature (the Y axis in Figure 1). As
Figure 1 shows, PMM-related search terms have been increasing in the literature since 2001
and now account for one in 12 of all publications related to project management.
24
Figure 1. PMMs in literature
Another indicator for the growth of PMMs comes from certification data. For example, project
managers wanting to use PRINCE2 effectively have been encouraged to certify their skills and
abilities. PRINCE2 contains tacit knowledge which enables the controlling bodies to run training
and certification schemes to validate that those who pass the tests have acquired a required
level of understanding. The demand for certification has been growing over time. In 2012, the
APMG reported that 1 million PRINCE2 examinations had been taken (APMG 2012). Figure 2
shows the number of examination passes by year (APMG 2012).
Figure 2. PRINCE2 examinations by year (APMG 2012)
The pass rates for the PRINCE2 examinations in 2011 were 96% for the foundation exam and
74% for the practitioner exam (APMG 2012). Axelos does not publish figures of the number of
examination passes so the figures have not been updated since 2011. The number of people
holding the PMI’s equivalent qualification, the Project Management Professional (PMP) as of
October 2016 was 741,007, a rise of 133,879 in the 24 months from March 2014 (PMI Today
2016). In the 2007 PWC survey, 77% of respondents reported holding certification in project
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
Examinations
Exa
min
atio
n p
asse
s
Perc
enta
ge o
f p
ub
licatio
ns
25
management. Longitudinal surveys have also identified the growing benefit of certification in
the decade to 2014 (Blomquist et al 2017).
The next section disaggregates PMMs into the component methods to present a view of the
extent to which they are used in organisations.
2.5 Which methods are in use?
The data about the methods in use is sparse. The number of project managers who have been
accredited in the different methods is known but how this correlates with the methods in use is
unknown. Some surveys that appear to identify this number presume that organisations use a
single method but this may be a false assumption. Different parts of the same organisation may
have chosen different methods and, as the organisation grows, factors such as decentralisation,
divisional structures and internationalisation will only exacerbate the situation.
This proliferation of methods means that asking a large organisation what method they use can
be a difficult question to answer. Table 8 presents a collation of the few studies available on the
PMMs in use based on the responses of organisations or individuals. Some of the responses
identify ‘combination’ as a response which suggests more than one approach is in use but the
methods are not identified. Similarly, ‘other’ as a response could mean that the organisation
uses a method that is not listed or that they use a combination of methods.
Another factor is geography. It is notable that surveys conducted primarily in the USA where
PMI is dominant are more inclined to report PMBOK as the most popular method (PWC 2007,
2012) whereas surveys in the UK where PRINCE2 is the most prevalent are likely to record this
method as the most used (White and Fortune 2001). The problems with the way the questions
have been phrased, the range of permitted answers and geographically where the questions
were asked means that the data on PMM usage needs to be viewed with caution.
Findings Study Author
▪ PRINCE2 18%
▪ Similar to PRINCE2 2%
▪ SSADM 8%
▪ In-house 62%
▪ Other 10%
228 project managers from a broad range of industries
White and Fortune (2001)
▪ In-house 39%
▪ PRINCE2 11%
▪ PMI 27%
▪ None 23%
213 respondents PWC (2007)
▪ PMBOK 41%
▪ PRINCE2 3%
▪ In-house / combination 12%
▪ ‘Other’ 9%
▪ IT method 9%
▪ None 26%
1,524 respondents PWC (2012)
26
Findings Study Author
▪ Standardised practices used throughout 21%
▪ Standardised practices used by most departments 34%
▪ Used by some departments 38%
▪ Standardised practices not used 7%
3,234 project management professionals
PMI (2017a)
Table 8. Methods in use
Table 8 demonstrates that it is very difficult to gauge the extent to which methods are used
across all industries. Older surveys such as White and Fortune (2001) have reduced validity
because of their age. For example, the once prevalent SSADM has declined in popularity in the
intervening period. The fact that the 2004 PWC survey which focused on project management
maturity did not report on PMMs suggests PWC did not consider PMMs relevant to maturity.
What can be deduced from the various sources in Table 8 is that there is a spectrum in the use
of PMMs that are summarised in Table 9:
Use Description
Identifiable method Some organisations use a single, standard method or standard such as PRINCE2 or PMBOK.
Standards-based method
Some organisations use a method that is based on a standard and then tailor to the needs of the organisation.
Bespoke method Other organisations use a bespoke method which may be based on one or more standards but which is identifiably bespoke or in-house.
Combination of methods
Other organisations use a combination of different methods.
Table 9. Uses of PMMs
Figure 3 (Biggins 2015) shows how a continuum for PMMs can be devised which begins with a
totally customised PMM and ends with a highly structured method such as PRINCE2.
Progression from left to right along the continuum is accompanied by increasing levels of project
management standardisation. Full alignment with established methods indicates a formal,
externally recognisable process for managing projects that is integrated, documented and
auditable. Organisations to the left of centre are often identified by their own descriptions of
their methods as ‘PRINCE-like’ and ‘PMBOK-lite’.
Figure 3. The PMM continuum
More research into the proliferation of PMMs is needed to establish how organisations are
arrayed along the continuum.
PMM continuum
Full alignment to
established methods
No alignment to
established methods
27
2.6 The life cycle approach to PMMs
The term ‘life cycle’ is used in many disciplines and in differing contexts. Since its proposal by
Raymond in 1966 the life cycle approach has been developed and expanded (Cao and Zhao
2011). A life cycle is defined as the partitioning of the life into phases or stages (Chrissis et al
2003). There are life cycles for products, software development, information technology and
information management. The life cycle perspective provides a beneficial way to structure a
holistic review of PMMs because the approach allows all aspects of the PMMs to be assessed
in a systematic way. A life cycle can be viewed from different perspectives. PMMs could be
viewed from the perspective of the OGC or PMI in which case the continuing and evolutionary
development of the product would be a key focus. This thesis takes the perspective of the
organisation which encompasses all stages of the PMM life cycle. Currently no organisational
life cycle model exists for PMMs. A life cycle is composed of stages. A stage is defined as a
major period in the product’s life that is distinguishable from what went before and after it (Burke
2011). Stages typically are “sequential and time-restricted, and include groups of activities that
produce specified results” (IPMA 2013). The stages in the life cycle for PMMs have been
derived from research into the life cycle models in use in IT/IS, construction and manufacturing
industries.
Table 10 lists the source models that have been investigated and used as the basis for creating
a life cycle relevant to PMMs that comprises five stages: ‘Select’, ‘Embed’, ‘Tailor’, ‘Operate’
and ‘Develop’ (Biggins et al 2016a). The mapping of existing life cycle models to this new
model for PMMs gives credence to the PMM model because it is similar in structure and
sequence to established and proven life cycles.
Source Select Embed Tailor Operate Develop
Software development (Hernon 1994)
Analysis Test
Integrate
Specification
Design
Develop
Operate
Modify Maintain
Product (Cao and Zhao 2011)
Imagine
Define
Realise Design Use
Support
Information management (Hernon 1994)
Planning Collection
Acquisition
Requirements definition
Transmission
Processing
Storage
Disseminate
Evaluation Maintenance
IT (Microsoft 2008)
Plan Deliver Operate Manage
Project (Gardiner 2005)
Initiate and define
Procure
Construct
Commission
Plan Execute and control
Closure
BSI (2010) Feasibility Design Execute
Handover
Benefits
Table 10. Derivation of the PMM life cycle stages
28
Many life cycles terminate with a stage in which the item ceases to be used. This stage is not
present in all life cycles because the decommissioning and disposal of the existing system may
overlap with the initiation of the replacement system as the cycle begins its next iteration. This
stage has therefore been omitted from the PMM life cycle. The five PMM life cycle stages are
described in Table 11:
Stage Definition
Select The initial stage defines the criteria for selection and sets out how the method is chosen.
Embed In the ‘Embed’ stage, the method is adopted by the organisation. ‘Embed’ is a term used by the OGC to refer to this stage (OGC 2009).
Tailor This stage allows the method to be changed to align with the needs of projects.
Operate In the ‘Operate’ stage, the organisation uses the tailored method to manage projects.
Develop In the ‘Develop’ stage, the benefits or dis-benefits of the method are evaluated and used to enhance and improve the method or the organisation’s use of it. This is linked to the concept of process maturity and continuous improvement.
Table 11. PMM life cycle stage definitions
The focus of this research is on the first two stages of the life cycle, ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’,
because there is a large body of literature on how to tailor, operate and develop PMMs but very
sparse literature on the initial two stages.
2.7 Stage 1 – Select
Selecting a method is the first stage in the life cycle. Given the resources required to implement
a PMM, it is evident that not all organisations would gain benefit from the development of this
capability (Charvat 2003). In those cases where organisations are small or carry out few
projects, the investment would outweigh any benefits. For smaller organisations, an ad hoc
process for managing projects would probably suffice with the impetus for change emanating
from the aspiration to increase rates of project success or introduce a more managed process
for projects. For those organisations that are project-oriented or for which projects are an
important element of their operations (for example in IT, construction, engineering, the health
service, local and central government), the benefits outlined in Section 2.3 are potentially
available. While the importance of selecting a method is key, the available literature is limited.
The choice of method is important because of the way it facilitates or constrains the stages that
follow (Cooke-Davies et at 2009). It is also important to research this aspect of PMMs because
of the risks associated with their selection. The risks are summarised in Table 12:
Risk Authors
Weak selection process. Organisations may fail to take into consideration all the factors involved in selection. For example, the criteria to consider when selecting a PMM include the organisational strategy, size of the project team, priority of projects and the criticality of projects to the organisation.
Charvat (2003)
29
Risk Authors
Inappropriate selection. Organisations can select an inappropriate method.
Cooper (2007); Burke (2011); Lientz (2013); Joslin and Müller (2015)
Overt external influence. Selection may be constrained by external factors. For example, the PMMs used by partner organisations may constrain the choice of method due to the need to interact with them in a seamless way.
MacMaster (2002)
Over-reliance on one method. Organisations can use the same method on all projects. While there is no standard way to define a project, it is recognised that different projects require different approaches. Organisations may choose one method when multiple methods are required. For example, if the organisation undertakes projects of a similar nature, one method may suffice but more methods may be required if the projects exhibit wide variation.
Shenhar et al (2002); MacMaster (2002); Lientz (2013)
Alienation of users. Project staff may feel alienated if their preferred method is not chosen of if they have not been included in the process to select the replacement.
OGC (2002a); Burke (2011)
Table 12. Risks associated with PMM selection
Table 12 lists a range of potential risks for the ‘Select’ stage and the Table demonstrates the
importance of the stage in the PMM life cycle.
Once the method has been selected by an organisation, the next stage in the life cycle is to
embed it.
2.8 Stage 2 – Embed
Embedding is another critical task that organisations need to manage carefully (Charvat 2003).
A large OGC study from 2010 found that the key factors constraining the success of PMMs
came from the ‘Embed’ stage and emanated from the environment rather than the method
(Sargeant et al 2010). The importance of embedding was reinforced by Shi (2011 p295) who
commented how “The right implementation of project management can add great value to an
organization. Nevertheless, some organizations have gained little value from project
management due to the fact that they have not introduced and applied project management
correctly.” The criticality of the ‘Embed’ stage is underlined by the associated risks which are
listed in Table 13.
Risk Authors
Complexity. The complexity of methods, a lack of knowledge about how to embed and a lack of commitment to do so is a risk in some organisations. Burke (2011) goes further and suggests that the rules and regulations inherent in PMMs can delay decision making and lead to the loss of opportunities.
Sargeant et al (2010); Burke (2011); Lientz (2013)
Underestimating the task. Organisations can view the incorporation of a PMM into its working practices as no more than a training exercise rather than as a major change initiative that needs to be managed as a project in its own right.
OGC (2002a); Sargeant et al (2010)
Poor monitoring and support. Poor monitoring and control of the method leads to a decline in its use. Users may stop using the method or substitute their own working practices.
Feldman and Pentland (2003); Lientz (2013)
30
Risk Authors
Poor change management. PMMs are generic products and they will require a varying level of work to embed them based on the needs and experience of the organisation.
MacMaster (2002); Burke (2011)
Viewed as bureaucracy. The perception that the method is bureaucratic inhibits innovation and the adoption of new ways of working.
Burke (2011); Lientz (2013)
Resistance to change. The natural human resistance to change needs to be managed if it is not to become an impediment. In an attempt to avoid using the method, managers cease referring to projects as projects.
Burke (2011); Lientz (2013)
Table 13. Risks associated with PMM embedding
Embedding a PMM methodology into project management practices requires organisational
change and there is a large body of literature on how organisations can successfully implement
change. The factors affecting change include training, the setting of standards (ie template and
definitions), tools to support the new ways of working, integration with existing business
practices and clearly defined roles and responsibilities for the change process (OGC 2002b).
2.9 The importance of the select and embed stages
The ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages are vital because they shape and determine the subsequent
stages in the PMM life cycle, that is, the effectiveness of the method within the organisation.
Burke (2011 p83) argues for the importance when he says that “the implementation of a project
management methodology needs to be carefully planned and executed to ensure user
acceptance and operational success.” Organisations need to be aware that methods are
generic products created for as broad an audience as possible and, as such, always require
embedding based on the needs of the organisation (MacMaster 2002) and tailoring based on
the needs of the project (Shenhar et al 2002; Pinto 2013). If the wrong method is selected or it
is not appropriately embedded, the organisation may fail to achieve all the expected benefits
(Lientz 2013). Cooke-Davies et al (2009) are correct in highlighting how the decisions made at
the selection stage can have a profound influence on the stages that follow because they may
be inappropriate or of poor quality and run the risk of alienating the very people who will be
asked to use the method once it has been brought into the organisation.
The organisational risks associated with poor project execution are clearly set out in the
literature (Burke 2011, 2013; Lientz 2013; Pinto 2013; Joslin and Müller 2015). This focus at
the project level is narrow because it is strongly influenced and constrained by the choice of
PMM and the way it was brought into the organisations. As Charvat (2003) makes clear,
selecting a PMM is a strategic decision because it is a long-term commitment that cannot easily
and quickly be changed. It is for this reason that the project-level reviews tend not to assess
the PMM because recommendations for change and improvement are unlikely to be heeded.
These points lend support to the contention that ‘Select’’ and ‘Embed’ are important stages in
the PMM life cycle that warrant further investigation.
31
2.10 Conclusion
This chapter has presented the theoretical and contextual background for this research.
Beginning with a definition of PMMs as the structures, processes and system of project
governance, the chapter explored PMMs in terms of standards and methods and listed their
organisational and project benefits. Using an analysis of PMM literature and supported by
empirical data from certification, the case was made that PMMs are increasingly prevalent but
the literature is sparse when it comes to understanding which PMMs are in use.
The next section introduced the concept of the life cycle and proposed a five-stage model for
the life cycle of PMMs consisting of: ‘Select’, ‘Embed’, ‘Tailor’, ‘Operate’ and ‘Develop’. As this
research focuses on the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages, the research boundary can be defined to
create the initial conceptual model that is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Initial conceptual model
The conceptual model is not standalone but is closely associated with the goals of the study.
This relationship, using Maxwell’s (2013) research design model which will be built upon in the
coming chapters, is shown in Figure 5:
Figure 5. Linking goals and the conceptual model (Maxwell 2013)
32
Arguing from a risk perspective, the case was made for why the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages are
important to PMMs. Their criticality lies in the way in which they shape the stages in the life
cycle that follow and influence acceptance and success (MacMaster 2002; Cooke-Davies et al
2009; Burke 2011; Lientz 2013). Having established the foundations for this research in this
chapter, the next chapter will develop and expand the conceptual map shown in Figure 4 by
reviewing the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages in more detail and widening the view to look at the
effect of the environment on these two stages.
33
3 Synthesis of the literature, part 2
3.1 Introduction
The foundation knowledge for PMMs has been established in the first part of the literature
review. This chapter builds on the previous chapter by looking at the ‘Select’ stage in detail to
explore how PMMs are chosen using the lens of normative decision-making. While the
normative decision-making model is a helpful structural device, the next section considers its
feasibility by looking at factors that can affect decision-making.
Having looked at the ‘Select’ stage, this chapter next considers the ‘Embed’ stage which is
concerned with the processes of organisational change. The different types of change are
reviewed and this is followed by a list of tools that organisations may use to diagnose the
change situation before making any changes. Lewin’s Force Field Analysis model is reprised
and used as the basis for evaluating the driving and restraining forces that an organisation
might face when looking to implement a PMM. Lastly, a list of the change management models
that could be used to support the ‘Embed’ stage is reviewed in order that the processes for
change carried out by organisations can be better understood.
PMMs consist of processes, and change, in this context, is concerned with altering existing
processes and bringing in new ones. The importance of processes prompts the next section of
the literature review in which the use of processes as recurring patterns of activity and as
organisational memory is reviewed. How processes in use can be different to the espoused
processes is also examined. Research into processes is informed by the use of maturity
models which categorise processes into a hierarchy of levels and allow those processes to be
better understood (Kerzner 2013; Pinto 2013). Maturity levels and their relation to PMMs is
reviewed in this section.
That projects cannot be divorced from their environment is a view held by many authors (Sydow
and Staber 2002; Anderson and Merna 2003; Engwall 2003; Brady and Davies 2004). They
contend that the project context is affected by past projects, the organisation and inter-personal
networks so that even a radically new project will be influenced by the past (Engwall 2003).
Anderson and Mena (2003 p389) summarise this widespread view when they conclude “There
is a general recognition that a project’s environment gives rise to some of the most difficult
issues that a project manager has to cope with and manage.” The project management authors
15 Learning in the organisation is improved Eskerod and Östergren (2000)
Process
16 The process improves standardisation Burke (2011); PMI (2017b)
17 The process improves credibility of the organisation APMG (2002)
18 The process promotes professional standards PMI (2017b); Burke (2011)
19 The process control of projects improves Eskerod and Östergren (2000)
20 The process is flexible/adaptable Robbins and Barnwell (2006)
21 Project delivery is improved Eskerod and Östergren (2000); Burke (2011)
22 Communication is improved Burke (2011)
23 Best practice can be adopted Rad (2013); PMI (2017b)
24 Weaknesses in the current PMM can be addressed Charvat (2003)
25 Current processes are understood and baselined Charvat (2003); Burke (2011)
26 The areas not covered by the PMM are known and understood
OGC (2005)
27 Sufficient time is allowed to choose and implement the PMM
Kerzner (2013)
Technology
28 The PMM can map onto the organisation’s processes and terminology
OGC (2002a)
29 The same/similar method is in use by other organisations with whom the organisation operates
MacMaster (2002)
30 The minimum number of PMMs required for all the organisations projects are used
MacMaster (2002); Burke (2011)
31 The PMM is appropriate to the organisation’s maturity level
Kerzner (2013)
32 The chosen PMM is relevant to the operating environment of the organisation
OGC (2009)
Table 14. Performance criteria
According to the model, individual organisations are expected to develop the performance
criteria that are relevant to them and then create one or more measurable indicators per criteria
to facilitate monitoring and to assess the level of achievement (Jennings and Wattam 1998).
3.2.3 Problem identification
The criteria can be used to help define the problem the PMM is trying to resolve. By comparing
the current state with the desired or ideal state, any gaps can be identified and used to build the
problem statement. “The performance gap is a symptom resulting from underlying problems
occurring in the organisation’s health” (Jennings and Wattam 1998 p7). Various studies have
identified the problems or scenarios that promote the adoption of a PMM or change to a new
method (APMG 2002; Charvat 2003; Burke 2011; Kerzner 2013; PMI 2014a). These are
summarised in Table 15:
38
Item Scenario Description / rationale
1 The organisation has no approach
The organisation is carrying out more projects and wishes to take a more standardised approach or improve project outcomes.
2 Senior management requires a project management method
Senior management may identify the needs for a PMM to improve project outcomes, gain more business or to improve their competitive position.
3 Problems with the current method
If an organisation already uses a PMM, it may no longer meet the organisation’s need, perhaps being seen as inflexible, incomplete or providing a poor fit with business processes or culture.
4 Drive for process improvement
The rational for process improvement could include the desire to deliver better quality projects, to create a basis for measuring performance or supporting the implementation of maturity models.
5 External factors are forcing the change
The external factors could include organisational mergers or acquisitions, supplier requirements or legislation.
Table 15. Five problem scenarios
Table 15 demonstrates that there is a range of perspectives that organisations could adopt
when defining the problem that the PMM seeks to resolve. As Morgan explains in his book
Images of organisations (1986), the perspective adopted has a profound influence on how
issues are viewed and addressed. Using Morgan’s insights, it makes intuitive sense that an
organisation that sees their current PMM as suboptimal will have a different standpoint and
approach to an organisation that wishes to introduce a method that will help them to develop
their process maturity and thus problem identification is important as it acts to frame the issue in
the minds of those involved (Thaler 2015). While Jennings and Wattam (1998) referred to this
activity as ‘problem identification’, this research will substitute the synonym ‘diagnosis’ because
the step of assessing why a PMM is needed at the ‘Select’ stage is very similar to the activity
that will be described in the next Section, 3.3, with regards to embarking on the ‘Embed’ stage.
Using the same term reflects the similarity of the activity in each stage.
3.2.4 Option identification
Once the problem has been identified and defined, the search for solutions can commence.
Potential solutions are presented as options that satisfy the performance criteria and address
the problem definition to varying degrees. Linking back to the PMM continuum in Figure 3, the
options considered by an organisation could range from a method that is closely aligned with
established methods such as PRINCE2, to a totally bespoke or tailored method that has no
identifiable links to established methods or a solution in between these two ends of the
continuum.
3.2.5 Choice
In the choice activity, the decision-maker identifies the option that best solves the problem,
satisfies the performance criteria and ultimately contributes to the organisation’s strategic aims.
39
The normative theory presupposes there is perfect information available so that the costs and
benefits of the differing options can be accurately calculated and the option offering the highest
benefit to the organisation can be chosen (Beach and Connolly 2005). However, the availability
of perfect information is one of several potential limitations of the normative model.
3.2.6 Limitations of the normative model
The existence of rational decisions is not universally accepted with the literature, particularly
since the 1990s, showing a significant swing away from objective decision-making towards
alternate explanations. There are number of seminal books and articles that have contributed
to our understanding of how managers actually make decisions and how this can differ from the
formal, rational process. Manktelow (2012) summarises this well when he concludes that
individual performance deviates from the logical norms. This section looks at how managers
behave when making decisions and synthesises the literature.
The reality of decision-making is that there are bounds on how much information a person can
process and this can prevent the optimal decision from being taken. Rather than a purely
rational ‘economic’ man, Simon (1960) proposes the more realistic ‘administrative’ man who
makes decisions that are good enough or satisfactory. Such a strategy enables a manager to
make faster decisions because they take account of only the most salient factors and thus
simplify the process by using heuristics or reasoning by analogy (Valentin 1994). Simon (1960)
observes that most decision-making is the search for satisfactory alternatives rather than the
optimal choice from among the alternatives. Simon (1966) defines a continuum of decision-
making with programmed or repetitive decisions at one extreme and non-programmed or novel
decisions at the other. Relating this idea to the selection of a PMM, it is likely that the decision
would be towards the non-programmed end of the spectrum because decisions such as these
would not happen frequently so it is doubtful the organisation has an established, programmed
process to follow. Simon (1966) points out that non-programmed decisions carry risk and the
possibility of additional cost precisely because the staples of programmed decisions (habit,
skills, experience, well-defined information flows and standard procedures) are usually not
present. In non-programmed decision-making, managers are reliant on their problem-solving
capacities and capabilities.
March (1994) believes the complexity surrounding decision-making is under-estimated,
describes a fluid situation in which aims and objectives may be changing and introduces the
idea of power into the mix. Lacking perfect information, it is neither clear what to do nor how to
do it (Beach and Connolly 2005). In a damning conclusion, March (1994) says that managers
do not comprehend the situations in which they find themselves, that the decisions themselves
pay little heed to decision-making processes and that, as a result, organisations have little clue
what they are doing. March agrees with Simon’s idea of rationality circumscribed by cognitive,
political and organisational limits and adds span of attention and time as two further limiting
factors.
40
Aggregating individual decisions to the corporate level it is easy to see how March (1994) does
not view the organisation as a rational entity pursuing a clear strategy but instead as a flexible
and shifting series of coalitions in which structure is negotiated and goals are bargained.
Coining the phrase ‘organised anarchies’ to describe how organisations behave at times, Cohen
et al (1972) identified three characteristics of such organisations:
1. They define goals based on what they are doing because preferences have not been
defined in advance.
2. They operate using trial and error because the processes are unclear.
3. The participants in the process change constantly.
These factors lead organisations to make decisions that have four characteristics:
1. With unresolved conflicts in decision-making at the corporate level, organisations can
resort to departmental rationality that only focuses on a narrow range of problems or to
the use of acceptable levels of decision-making rules across departments.
2. The strong desire to avoid uncertainty and to conform with the majority.
3. Searching for solutions can stop at the first viable option.
4. Decision-makers do not know all the answers and learn by trial and error.
March with co-authors Cohen and Olsen produced the frequently-cited 1972 paper entitled ‘A
garbage can model of organizational choice’ in which they likened decision-making to a
‘garbage can’ into which problems and solutions are dumped by those involved with them. The
authors suggest that the usual disconnect between the problem, possible solutions and
decision-makers means that decisions are only made by the chance coincidence in time and
place of the three component parts. These ideas led the authors to characterise organisations
as a collection of solutions looking for problems, issues looking for decisions and decision-
makers seeking work. Cohen, March and Olsen (1972) suggest the garbage can metaphor is
more applicable in some organisations such as public companies and universities than others.
It is interesting to think of PMMs as solutions looking for problems. PRINCE2 and PMBOK are
certainly marketed as solutions with wide application. PRINCE2 ‘suits all projects’ (OGC 2009
pv). PMBOK is ‘applicable to most projects most of the time’ (PMI 2017b p2). As such, they
make tempting options for organisations but care is needed because the variety of project types
makes these generic solutions a potentially poor choice (Wells 2013).
Widening the perspective on decision-making Vroom and Yetton (1973) researched the
processes used by decision-makers and the level of subordinate participation, two aspects of
decision-making central to this research. They defined effective decisions as those which:
1. Embodied rationality and quality.
2. Involved subordinates, where appropriate.
3. Used time efficiently.
41
These criteria were used as the basis for creating the Decision Model, a decision tree which can
be used to indicate an appropriate decision process given a set of parameters. The Decision
Model was further developed by Vroom and Jago (1988) by more closely aligning the output of
the model to the manager’s situation.
Turning to the question of how decisions are actually made, Vroom and his team tried two
approaches. The first approach asked managers to assess past decisions in terms of the
Decision Model. The findings showed that managers use a range of processes (from autocratic
to participative) and that the situation dictates the decision instead of the manager’s style
dictating the decision. The second approach asked managers how they would tackle a number
of problem scenarios. Here, Vroom found that managers’ decisions were the same as predicted
by the Decision Model in only 40% of scenarios. In 25% of cases managers chose processes
that were deemed feasible by the Model and in 33% of cases, the Model predicted risk to either
quality or acceptability. If the manager needed to trade quality against acceptability, quality was
found to be the preferred factor (Pugh and Hickson 1996).
The work of Vroom and Jago work was built upon by the systematic reviews of Stanovich
(1999) and Stanovich and West (2000). Their work continued to demonstrate the hiatus
between the prescriptions of normative theory and the realities of human performance.
Identifying this as the normative-descriptive gap in 1999, Stanovich listed possible explanations
which are used here because they encompass the current research into decision-making and
thereby provide a valuable and valid framework:
1. Performance errors. This hypothesises that the gap is caused by a performance error by
the individual. Essentially, this suggests that decisions are predominantly rational except for
occasional lapses of memory, skill or attention. Less random and more systematic errors can
be caused by bias. Cognitive bias can be defined as deviation from the norm and the
interpretation of data that has been distorted by experience, personal agenda and other factors
that affect the choices that are made (Manktelow 2012). “Cognitive bias in inevitable” (Johnson
et al 2008 p34). As it is unrealistic to expect managers to make decisions with total objectivity,
it is necessary to be aware of potential bias. Expressed in this way, bias is often perceived as a
negative phenomenon but if a good decision is made because of the influence of someone’s
beneficial past experience then in that case the bias will have had a positive effect. The work of
Tversky and Kahneman (1973, 1985) and Kahneman (2011) has been ground-breaking in this
area and spawned the research area termed behavioural economics, a mix of economics and
psychology (Thaler 2015), which continues to investigate the reasons behind decisions not
explained by the rational model.
2. Cognitive limitations. This recognises that people have different cognitive capacities and
that the mind has capacity limits (Stanovich 1999). This links back to the work of Simon (1966)
who identified that rationality was not unlimited but was constrained. Building on this idea,
Rollinson (2008) defined a spectrum for decisions from unbounded to bounded. Bounded
42
decisions are usually small, standalone, clearly defined and can be separated from their
environment. Large, complicated, long term, interconnected decisions with multiple
stakeholders and no known solution are referred to as unbounded decisions.
Whereas this research views the deficit as being within the person, a broader and opposing
perspective is taken by researchers such as Oaksford and Chater (1995) who identify external
uncertainty in the real world as the cause. Uncertainty is a powerful factor against rational
decision making in the literature and Burke (2011 p319) summarises this issue well when he
concluded that “problem solvers and decision-makers will always strive for perfect information
so that they can make perfect decisions. In reality, perfect information is rarely available so
certain tactics need to be developed to be able to make reasonably accurate decisions based
on limited or incomplete information.” Beach and Lipshitz (2017 p85) argue that uncertainty
means that the normative model is "an inappropriate standard for evaluating and aiding most
human decision making." Oaksford and Chater (1995) support this view and that of Burke by
arguing that a logical process relies on certain information the paucity of which, in the real
world, renders rational decision-making impossible. Their recent research has focused more on
Bayesian rationality (Oaksford and Chater 2009) which uses revised probabilities to update
belief hypotheses instead of deduction (Manktelow 2012).
To combat cognitive limitations, there are more rigorous and defendable analysis tools that can
be deployed to support the decision-making process. These include cost-benefit analysis, cost-
effectiveness analysis, decision trees, real options, risk-benefit analysis and scoring (Shtub et al
2005). Going beyond these, there are complex tools such as multi-attribute utility theory
(Keeney 1977; Vincke 1992) and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (Saaty 1986) that can be
deployed. Shtub et al (2005 p242) are very positive about the benefits of AHP saying “the
strength of the AHP lies in its ability to structure a complex, multiperson, multiattribute problem
hierarchically and then to investigate each level of the hierarchy separately, combining the
results as the analysis progresses.”
3. Alternative problem construal. This recognises that individuals may see situations
differently and believe they are responding to their view of reality in a logical way whereas
someone holding an alternative view may not concur because they are judging performance
against a different standard (Stanovich 1999). In section 3.2.2, the list of PMM performance
criteria contained a hierarchy of categories and factors. Similarly, section 3.2.3 discussed how
differing perspectives can have a defining role in how problems are seen and the effect this has
on subsequent actions and decisions. If organisations do not set out and agree on the criteria
they are pursuing for their PMM or the problem they are trying to solve, it is perfectly possible
for the situation to occur where some managers will make rational decisions in pursuit of their
view of the criteria which are seen by other managers as irrational because they hold their own
perspective on the criteria or the problem.
43
One explanation for the different views held by individuals is that people are playing a power
game. Instead of a rational structure and process for making decisions, Crozier (1964) saw
organisations as a collection of intertwined games where the players or actors exercise power
and make decisions based on individual goals, relationships and personal agendas. Games are
played at many levels within an organisation, for example between departments and sections
and between managers and subordinates. Viewed in this way, decision-making is a tool in
power games that people exercise to gain advantage.
A further explanation for how individuals view a situation is the influence of their past (Johnson
et at 2008). The impact of what has occurred in the past, or path dependency, is a concept
from the strategy literature and is defined as the situation where past decisions or events limit
the choices available in later decisions and events (Johnson et at 2008). In PMM terms, an
example of this would be how an earlier decision to train and certify project managers in one
method is likely to dissuade managers from changing to a different method in the future. This is
a potential problem because, as Taleb (2007) points out, flawed accounts of the past can define
our view of the present and expectations about the future, the so-called narrative fallacy. The
cognitive bias of sunk cost (Thaler 2015) may encourage managers to give too much emphasis
to the resources invested in the old method and persuade them not to change even though a
change may be the ‘better’, that is, more rational decision. Training and education and
technology are two examples of path dependency and a further four have been identified by
Johnson et al (2008).
All the path dependencies are shown in Figure 7 and described in Table 16.
Figure 7. Path dependency (Johnson et al 2008)
44
Dependency Description
Technology Where technology failed to be optimised, for example, by using outdated tools and techniques.
Objects Examples include expensive capital equipment or the decision to build open plan environments when a different layout may have been preferable.
Behaviour The attitude that ‘this is how we have always done it’. Behaviour that is entrenched in the organisation can be supported by processes and systems that make it difficult to change.
Training and education
For example, training or building knowledge and expertise in a particular PMM.
Standards and rules
Standard operating procedures are an example of an institutionalised rule that may be long standing.
Value system Working in the same way can create or reinforce a set of values about how work should be done, how decisions are made.
Table 16. Path dependency (Johnson et al 2008)
Path dependency, if unknown to decision-makers, may be another form of cognitive bias,
changing decisions without knowledge that rationality is being curtailed.
3.2.7 How strategic is the selection of a PMM?
In the introduction it was stated that adopting a PMM is a strategic decision for an organisation
(Charvat 2003). As there are levels of strategy, it is important to be clear to which of the three
main levels a PMM strategy relates (Johnson et al 2008). The highest level of strategy is
corporate strategy which is concerned with the overall purpose and scope of the organisation.
The next level is business-level strategy which expresses how an organisation will compete in a
particular market. The third tier which is concerned with how the component parts of a
company organise themselves and contribute to the higher level strategies is the operational
strategy. As operational strategies include information and plans about resources, processes
and people (Johnson et al 2008), this is the level at which decisions about PMMs are taken.
As there is a hierarchical link between the three strategy levels, the decision to implement a
PMM will contribute to business-level and corporate–level strategies and be linked to
organisational goals and objectives. Decisions are made in the context of a clear strategic
direction which guides decision-makers in the appropriate decision to be made. Depending on
the level of decentralisation in the organisation, a decision to implement a PMM could be taken
at the corporate level (for example all parts of the organisation will use a standard method) or
the decision may be taken at the business level (for example the US division uses PMBOK and
the European division uses PRINCE2). In either situation, the implementation would happen at
the operational level. It is the case that the configuration of resources, processes and activities
does generate a strategic capability (Johnson et at 2008) so Charvat (2003) was correct to say
that PMMs are strategic.
45
3.2.8 Summary
The normative decision-making model offers a basis for analysing how decisions are taken in
organisations. It has a logical, sequential set of steps that can help to make rational decisions.
However, the normative model may be no more than a theoretical framework that has little
validity in reality. If asked how they came to a decision, some managers may retrospectively
identify clear, logical steps that were followed in coming to a decision whereas no such structure
was discernible during the process (Vroom and Yetton 1973). This view is totally
understandable. The external factors that can influence decision-making are both numerous
and powerful. Conscious factors such as time, expertise and power are very evident whereas
cognitive biases may be less readily identifiable. This raises the question about how decisions
are taken with regard to PMMs and the first research question:
Research question 1: How are PMMs selected?
Attention now turns to organisational change and to the first step of the embedding process
according to the conceptual model, the diagnosis of the change situation.
3.3 Diagnosing the change situation
The need for organisations to change was a necessity identified at the very beginning of this
research. It is a popular expression that the pace of change is ever-increasing (Cadle and
Yeates 2008). Organisational change is complex (By 2005) and the popular view is that 70% of
change initiatives fail although this figure has been challenged by Hughes (2011). Before the
exploration of the change situation, it is necessary to set the scene by assessing the types of
change that are possible in organisations because this activity can provide an appropriate lens
and frame thinking that gives meaning to the stages that follow (Beach and Connolly 2005;
Thaler 2015).
3.3.1 Types of change
The term ‘change’ encompasses distinguishable types of change that have been observed in
organisations. Grundy (1994) identified three major types of change (discontinuous, smooth
incremental and bumpy incremental). Change that evolves systematically and predictably is
called smooth change. Bumpy change describes periods of stability interleaved with change
and discontinuous change is characterised by rapid changes in strategy, structure or culture.
Major technological or product breakthroughs would constitute discontinuous change, events
that Strebel (1994) calls ‘divergent breakpoints’. Grundy’s (1994) categorisations have been
criticised because there is little research to support his trinity of change types. A more detailed
change type model by Balogun and Hailey (2008) uses the dimensions of the nature of change
and the end result to identify four types of change (evolution, adaptation, revolution and
reconstruction) as shown in Figure 8.
46
Figure 8. Change types (Balogun and Hailey 2008)
Plowman et al (2007) devised a 2x2 matrix which has pace of change and scope of change as
the two dimensions which is similar to Balogun and Hailey’s (2008) model. These models have
in common that they try to categorise change into distinct types so that the organisation can
understand the basic characteristics and manage the situation accordingly. Whilst in reality few
change initiatives will slot objectively into one category, all of the change models have merit
because they offer a way to frame the change for stakeholders which can facilitate more
successful outcomes (Thaler 2015).
What type of change is the implementation of a PMM? In the author’s experience,
organisations either introduce a PMM where no method existed before or a transition is made
between methods. In either case, the change is more incremental than big bang, using the
terminology of Balogun and Hailey (2008). The risk associated with any big bang change is
likely to mean that managers take a more incremental approach to pilot the change, introduce it
slowly because change brought about this way is more successful than radical transformation
(Plowman et at 2007; Balogun and Hailey 2008).
Beyond models that identify the type of change being considered, there are techniques that
provide managers with diagnostic information on the change situation.
3.3.2 Diagnostic tools
Models have been developed to help organisations understand the change situation and the
interrelationships between elements in the workplace. Such models are useful because they
help managers to have a better understanding of the effects of their changes. Usefulness is
founded on the underlying principle that the better the understanding and preparation for
change, the more likely it is to be successful (Pettigrew and Whipp 1993; Strebel 1994). Two
models that have been in use for many years and thus have credibility are the 7S model and
force field analysis.
47
The 7S framework was first published in 1980 by Waterman, Peters and Phillips from their
empirical consulting experience at McKinsey and Company with 70 large corporations. 7S is an
analytical framework of seven interconnected elements that, the authors argue strongly, need to
be aligned if that organisation is to be successful. The representation of the framework, shown
in Figure 9, reflects the connections between components and led to the term ‘managerial
molecule’ being applied to describe it. With no starting point and no hierarchy, the authors
implied that any of the elements or levers, as they were also called, may be more dominant than
others in driving organisational change (Waterman et at 1980). For example, a new strategy
might be the driving force for change or the introduction of new skills to allow an organisation to
compete might equally be the spur to change.
Figure 9. 7S model (Waterman et al 1980)
The elements of the framework are described in Table 17.
Element Description
Structure The function of structure is to divide work into specialised tasks and then coordinate the activities.
Strategy The organisational goals and plans. “The way a company aims to improve its position vis-à-vis competition” (Waterman et al 1980 p20).
Systems The formal and informal business processes, ways of working, knowledge management and ICT.
Style The managerial style and culture in the organisation.
Staff The human resources in the organisation, their background, diversity and the processes surrounding their management (recruitment and development).
Skills The knowledge, capabilities and experience within the organisation.
Shared values ‘Superordinate goals’ in the original model, this element was meant to represent guiding principles for the organisation that were at a higher level than the other elements, “a set of values and aspirations, often unwritten, that goes beyond the conventional formal statements of corporate objectives” (Waterman et al 1980 p24).
Table 17. The 7S framework (Waterman et al 1980)
48
The model was provoked by the authors’ belief that too much emphasis was being placed on
the hard elements (strategy, structure and systems) and that this overemphasis was the reason
for the high failure rate of change projects (Waterman et al 1980). Up until that point in
organisational theory, the mantra had emphasised the primary importance of the hard elements
as exemplified by Alfred Chandler’s famous pronouncement that structure follows strategy
(Chandler 1962).
The 7S framework has validity because it has stood the test of time. It can be deployed to
define the desired state in the design stage of a change and also to identify gaps between the
‘as-is’ and ‘to-be’ states of organisations (Cameron and Green 2015). Writing in 2011, Peters
commented on the robustness of the model and how organisations need to consider all seven
elements if they want to avoid ineffective implementation of change, a view borne out in the
literature. In her study of organisational excellence, Singh (2013) applied the seven elements to
build a comprehensive understanding of the role of transformational leadership. Similarly,
Jesseph and Morris (2013) used the lens provided by the framework to assess the connection
between social capital and social media.
During the 1930s and 1940s, the German-American sociologist and one of the most cited 20th
Century psychologists, Kurt Lewin, developed another diagnostic tool for organisations, force
field analysis. Explaining a ‘field’, Lewin (1952 pxi) said “all behaviour (including action,
thinking, wishing, striving, valuing, achieving etc) is conceived of a change in some state of a
field in a given unit of time” and that “the life space of a group .. consists of the group and its
environment as it exists for the group.” In was Lewin’s belief that the current state or equilibrium
of an organisation was the result of competing forces, driving and restraining. To bring about
change in an organisation, it is necessary to alter the forces. Driving forces encourage change.
Restraining forces act to maintain the equilibrium and make change more difficult.
Force field analysis is often depicted diagrammatically as shown in Figure 10. Driving forces
are shown on the left of the equilibrium and restraining forces on the right. Arrows containing
the name of the force are added to the relevant side. Some depictions of the analysis do not
differentiate between the forces. Figure 10 shows one style where the length of the arrow
reflects the strength or magnitude of the force. In other depictions, the width of the arrow
reflects the magnitude and the length depicts how long the force has been in existence.
To give examples in terms of PMMs, a driving force might be management’s desire to
implement a new method and a restraining force could be the past experience of project
managers that makes them less willing to adopt a particular method perhaps because they have
seen it fail in an organisation in which they have previously worked. According to Lewin, to
implement lasting change it is necessary for the driving forces to exceed the restraining forces,
either by increasing the driving force, decreasing the restraining force or both. Not all the forces
have a similar impact on the equilibrium but all have a part to play. If the driving forces far
outweigh the restraining forces, it is likely that the management team will need to do little to
49
implement the desired change. If the restraining forces are stronger, the management team
may decide to do nothing as the change is unlikely to be successful or they may seek ways to
bolster the driving forces and/or weaken the restraining forces.
Figure 10. Generic force field analysis diagram
From business, change and project management literature, it is possible to construct a list of the
driving forces and restraining forces relevant to PMMs. These are shown in Tables 18 and 19
respectively.
Driving forces Source
Benefit orientation. This refers to the desire and resolve within the organisation to meet any performance criteria that were identified in the ‘Select’ stage. For example, the leadership from the executive or management team to ensure the change process completes successfully.
See Table 14
Capability building. For example, providing tailored training to users to use the new PMM and identifying PMM champions in the organisation. Ensure resources are in place, for example, budget, well-designed and targeted templates, comprehensive operator’s manual containing step-by-step processes, a project management office.
Project orientation. The implementation is planned as a project. For example, the roles and responsibilities are defined, the new method is piloted, adoption of the method is gradual and phased. Audits are scheduled and carried out to objectively measure the deployment.
OGC (2002a, 2005); Charvat (2003); Burke (2011); Parker et al (2013); PMI (2014a)
Culture. A culture supportive of the change is created. For example, time is allowed to change the attitudes of staff reluctant to support the change.
OGC (2002a); PMI (2014a)
Good understanding of the change situation. For example, from carrying out diagnosis of the change situation.
Lewin (1952); Waterman et al (1980)
Table 18. Driving forces for change
50
The list of potential driving forces represents those factors that can encourage, promote and
assist the change. The driving forces are also linked to the resolve within the organisation to
achieve the benefits of the PMM as defined by the performance criteria listed in Section 3.2.2.
Against the driving forces are the restraining forces which are shown in Table 19.
Restraining forces Source
Risk. For example, the lack of perceived benefits, the risks associated with deploying any new method and changes to the standard operating procedures. A list of risks at the ‘Embed’ stage was identified in Table 12 and the risk from the ‘Select’ stage listed in Table 11 will also be relevant here, for example, the choice of an inappropriate PMM.
Listed in Tables 12 and 13
Weak understanding of the current situation. For example, structures, hard/soft systems, technology and resources that are not understood and which may restrict the change.
Lewin (1952); Vroom and Yetton (1973); Waterman et al (1980); Strebel (1994)
Culture. For example, closed mindsets, entrenched positions, the alienation of users and employee resistance.
Vroom and Yetton (1973); Strebel (1994); Cadle and Yeates (2008); Burke (2011)
Resource deficit. For example, inadequate resources such as the funding for external support, marketing and communications to support the change, research into different methods, resources required to train and certify project managers, teams and management. Another example is not allowing sufficient time to embed the change.
Senge et al (1999); Lientz (2013)
Table 19. Restraining forces for change
3.3.3 Summary
The conclusion to be drawn from Tables 18 and 19 is that there is a wide range of factors that
can be identified as the output from the diagnostic phase some of which, such as resolve,
culture and risk, may be major influencers either positively or negatively on the implementation.
The enquiry into this area is encapsulated in the second research question:
Research question 2: How is the change situation diagnosed?
Beach and Connolly (2005), Plowman et at (2007) and Balogun and Hailey (2008) all attest to
the need to understand these factors to enable the change situation to be managed
successfully. Once the change situation has been analysed and the organisation has a better
understanding of the characteristics relating to starting to embed the PMM, the next step is to
manage the change.
51
3.4 Change management
Change management can be defined as “a comprehensive, cyclic, and structured approach to
transitioning individuals, groups, and organizations from a current state to a future state with
intended business benefits” (PMI 2013d p7). The importance of change management is
recognised by the PMI (2017b p7) in their definition which explains how it “helps organizations
to integrate and align people, processes, structures, culture and strategy.” The definition goes
on to claim that successful organisation evolution is achieved through purposeful action which is
at the very heart of change management.
Change management is a younger field of study than project management and has its own
body of literature despite the overlap between change and project management. There is a rich
and consistent literature on change management that is applicable to PMMs because the
embedding of a method within an organisation can be underpinned by the philosophy and
perspectives that change management can offer (Boddy and Macbeth 2000; Winch et at 2012).
However, the reason that change and project management are not more closely related is
because change management has typically focused more on strategic alignment, vision and
engagement than the tools and techniques more usually associated with project management
(Lehmann 2010).
Change management can be problematic. As Rogers (2003 p1) points out “Getting a new idea
adopted, even when it has obvious advantages, is difficult”. Work by Daryl Conner classified
workers into two types: opportunity people (O-type) and danger people (D-type) (Cadle and
Yeates 2008). Opportunity people are characterised as seizing new opportunities whereas
danger people view change as presenting a threat to them and may therefore resist change. In
the questionnaire-based research undertaken by Conner, most leaders and managers were
identified as O-type. However, the people that managers and leaders seek to influence were
predominantly found to be D-type, a fact that provides additional evidence for the difficulty of
carrying out effective change.
A recent Gartner report (Head and Spafford 2016) highlights the difficulties of making effective
change when it concludes that “many do not attain the expected benefits, or, even worse, they
find that their service metrics and reputation with the business have moved in the wrong
direction.” O’Donovan (2018) noted how the “dismal results achieved by organizational change
initiatives .. drive home the need for a step change in how we deliver projects.”
Based on empirical studies in industry and force field analysis that was discussed in Section
3.3.2, Strebel (1994) suggests there are four basic responses to the results of the situation
diagnosis dictated by the strength of the pro-change and resisting forces as shown in Figure 11:
Eight different paths have been identified that depend on the strength of the change or resisting
forces and the feasibility of the change and the level of openness to change. These are shown
in Figure 12.
Figure 12. Change paths (Strebel 1994)
The end destinations of the paths are described in Table 20 (Strebel 1994).
53
Strategy Description
Resistance The end of this path is that there is little or no change.
Renewal The difference between Resistance and Renewal is that there are still opportunities despite the strength of the resisting forces.
Revitalisation On this path, the force for change is stronger than the resisting force and there is significant time available to be devoted to the change.
Restructuring In the situation where there is overwhelming support for change but little time is available, the change will be like a jolt where there is rapid change across a subset of the business.
Corporate realignment
Corporate realignment happens in the situation where the change force is easy to identify but the organisation is closed to change.
Cascading implementation
For this path, the forces of change are easy to identify and there is openness to change with the result that there is progressive change within the organisation.
Focused re-engineering
Where the change forces are difficult to identify and there is no openness for change, Strebel (1994) suggests that any changes will only come from benchmarking and comparison with others.
Bottom-up experimentation
If the organisation is open to change but the change forces are difficult to identify there will tend to be bottom-up, smaller scale changes that may be copied and replicated within the organisation.
Table 20. Change strategies (Strebel 1994)
Other than the Resistance path along which no change happens, the other seven paths involve
reducing the forces of resistance so that there is more opportunity for the forces of change to
succeed. This analysis can be useful because it helps organisations to identify appropriate
change strategies that are relevant to them. It is a logical next step which takes the outputs
from techniques such as force field analysis to generate a rational and defendable current state
view, which is surely the necessary foundation for implementing change in any organisation.
3.4.1 Change models
There are many change models that have been created over the last 60 years to support and
guide managers in the successful execution of their change initiative. The short history of
change management is often cited as the reason why there are so many models (Pollack 2017)
and in many ways this lack of maturity in the field mirrors the number of PMMs in project
management. This immaturity is exemplified by the continuing creation of new PPMs (for
example by Burke in 2011) and new change management models (for example by Mento et al
in 2002).
Fifteen of the most popular models have been chosen and these have been reviewed and
categorised into three to identify their underlying assumptions and thereby to better understand
how and why they might be used by change agents. The three categories are models that are
process-based, outcome-focused and definitive; models that are allow for evolution and
acknowledge uncertainty; models that are evaluative and diagnostic. Table 21 provides a
summary of the models, listed by category. A full description of the models can be seen in
Appendix 4.
54
Category Model Author(s)
Definitive Three steps Planned change
Eight steps
Managing transitions
Systematic
ADKAR
4 step dimension
Lewin (1952)
Bullock and Batten (1985)
Kotter (1996)
Bridges (1991)
Senge et al (1999)
Prosci (2018)
Pettigrew and Whipp (1993)
Evolutionary Change management
Switch framework
Complex response
Orders of change
Carnall (2014)
Heath and Heath (2011)
Stacey (2006)
PMI (2013d)
Evaluative Change formula
Change formula
Change formula
Congruence
Gleicher (1969)
Beckhard and Harris (1977)
Dannemiller and Jacobs (1992)
Nadler and Tushman (1997)
Table 21. Change model summary
It is not clear from the literature on change models whether there is a predominant category or
model as the empirical evidence on the use of change models is sparse. In their retrospective
review of 30 years of change management, Jick and Sturtevant (2017) concluded that the field
needed to rethink both its methods and frameworks as current practices are ineffective.
3.4.2 Summary
The diversity and number of models in each category would suggest that change agents have
access to a wide range of models to suit their requirements. There is little evidence in the
literature on the frequency or rationale for choosing one model over another. This situation is
reminiscent of the normative model of decision-making issue presented in Section 3.2.1 and it is
therefore possible, even probable, that the plethora of normative change management models
suffer the same criticism that they are not descriptive models of how people carry out change in
reality. More recent research, with a basis in psychology and behavioural economics,
supported by empirical data, has focused on more subtle ways of influencing behaviour that are
less overt and potentially more successful than the change models listed in Table 21. The
concept of nudging people in the desired direction while still retaining their freedom to choose,
or “libertarian paternalism” as the authors call it, is an alternate way of looking at how to embed
change (Thaler and Sunstein 2008 p5). With many normative models available to support the
embedding process and newer techniques possible, this research seeks to understand if and
how they are used.
Research question 3: What is the change process for PMMs?
One of the problems with change as has been demonstrated by Strebel’s (1994) model is that
the desired outcome is not always achieved because of the dynamics of the situation. Burgan
and Burgan (2012) make the case for human behaviour being the cause of organisational
change failure. This may well be true because, at its core, change is an attempt to replace one
55
set of behaviours with another by asking, encouraging or compelling staff to work in new ways
and, where possible, for staff to cognitively support the change of PMMs. This brings to mind
the acronym PINO which is used in organisations who have stated their adoption of a method,
in this case PRINCE2, but who do not, in reality, follow it and instead may carry out different
processes for managing projects. PINO stands for PRINCE-in-name-only but the acronym
could just as readily be applied to any PMM that has only surface-level adherence to its
processes. The next section explores the reasons why PINO exists and begins by looking at
how organisations become aware of and adopt new ideas.
3.5 Espoused and in-use processes
How new ideas and new ways of working penetrate and are absorbed by organisations is a
growing area in academic study (Alvarez and Mazza 2017; Wedlin and Sahlin 2017). Sturdy
(2004 p155) notes how “the adoption of new management ideas and practices has become an
important and substantial area of study and debate within organizational studies, often under
the label of management fads. … A whole host of studies have emerged exploring how and why
ideas and practices are adopted by organizations and to what extent these processes are
concerned with improving organizational performance.” These studies, collectively classified as
translation theory in which the word translation is not used in its linguistic meaning but refers
instead to the transfer and modification of ideas, consists of a set of theoretical notions and
concepts derived from Latour’s (1984) Actor-Network Theory (ANT) which sees everything in
the social world existing in a constantly changing network of inter-relationships. The theory
highlights the processes of change in the organisational discourse as a result of the introduction
and adoption of a ‘new management fashion setting’ which Abrahamson (1996 p257) defines as
‘the process by which management fashion setters continuously redefine both theirs and the
fashion followers’ collective beliefs about which management techniques lead national
management progress’. Within the context of this research, the fashion setting can be thought
of as the espoused ways of project working that managers are seeking to establish. The
translation element of the theory refers to the complex process of adaptation whenever a new
management fashion enters an existing organisational environment. Instead of adopting the
new fashions, actors continually evaluate new ways of working from the perspectives of their
current project management practices and also with regard to their project management
axiology. Doorewaard and Bijsterveld (2001 p55) argue that the translation of management’s
organisational vision into the organisation “resembles more the process of ‘osmosis' than it
does the process of ‘cloning’”. In this view, the actors’ perspectives are shaped and reshaped
resulting in a mix of new and existing ideas fused into the way projects are managed. The
processes of circulation, of the interaction of ideas with other ideas and of translation leads to
both homogenisation but also variation and stratification (Drori et al 2014)
Professional project management bodies such as the APM, PMI and IPMA use standardised
methods, certification and evolving professional standards to create the ‘fashion setting’ and
exert a strong influence on the project management community. Networks and formal
institutions such as these facilitate the flow of ideas to and between organisations (Røvik 2011).
56
The growth in certification (see Figure 2, Section 2.4) testifies to the dominance of these bodies
and the prevalence of the working practices they promote. Meyer and Rowan (1977) showed
how organisational structure is constructed using widely known ideas and that, over time,
homogeneity is the outcome. Similarly, authors such as Powell and DiMaggio (1991) argue that
there is pressure on managers to conform to the accepted or espoused working practice in
modern organisations. They trace this back to Weber’s view that bureaucracy is the dominant
organisational structure because it is the most efficient way to achieve desired goals and the
view is still current today. Wedlin and Sahlin (2017 p102) comment how “organisational
institutionalism grew from observations of a widespread expansion, rationaization and
homogenization of organisations across sectors and continents.” Powell and DiMaggio note
that organisations display considerable variety at inception but that, once established, move
towards bureaucratic homogeneity or, as they term it, ‘institutional isomorphism’ (1991 p66).
Rather than being the most efficient structural form, Powell and DiMaggio contend that the
convergence is the result of environmental pressures on managers to become more similar,
regardless of the effect this has on organisational efficiency. The authors identified three
mechanisms that lead to conformity:
1. Coercive isomorphism (caused by pressures from the environment).
2. Mimetic isomorphism (caused by uncertainty).
3. Normative isomorphism (the professionalisation of managers).
Powell and DiMaggio’s idea of isomorphism makes sense when they are applied to PMMs,
especially the second and third concepts. One of the key benefits of PMMs is a reduction in
uncertainty (listed in Table 7, Section 2.3.2). This means that organisations seeking to reduce
project uncertainty are more likely to look to established methods of working. The widespread
engagement of managers in academic and professional training and development (PWC 2004,
2007, 2012; PMI 2017a) and the trend towards certification in project management can be seen
in terms of the professionalisation of project managers whose similar experiences may well
nudge them more towards conformity.
In this section the focus narrows from the more general ideas explored by translation theory to
look in more details about whether, in reality, staff in the organisation follow the processes set
out for them once the ‘fashion’ or PMM has been chosen. The literature in this section comes
from practice theory which Nicolini (2012 p1) argues is “increasingly popular among work and
organizational scholars and, in recent years, we have witnessed a dramatic growth in analyses
utilizing such terms as practice, praxis, interaction, activity, performativity and performance.”
Feldman and Worline (2016) argue that practice theory is very relevant to management
because it helps those looking into this field to develop intuitions that are useful in complex and
dynamic environments. Some authors go further and argue that current practices need to be
interrogated if new opportunities for practice are to be created (Mahon et at 2017). As PMMs
comprise processes and ways or working, an assessment of them through the lens of the
affordances of practice theory is warranted. This section assesses why it can sometimes be the
57
case that the intended new processes involved in PMMs are not always the processes being
used by staff.
3.5.1 PMMs as recurring action patterns and a source of organisational memory
Organisations are shaped and characterised by the recurrent action patterns that are followed
day after day. Nelson and Winter (1982) identify three categories: cognitive demands;
paradigms; strategies, heuristics and routines. Paradigms are mental models that frame an
individual’s understanding of the world. Strategies and heuristics provide guidance and
structure for dealing with work tasks and have the effect of reducing the time taken to find a
solution to a problem. Routines are more automated and require less cognitive processing for
their execution. Nelson and Winter (1982) say that routines originate from the repeated
observance of heuristics and resemble individual habits. Past routines influence future
behaviour because they act to limit the search for alternatives (Nelson and Winter 1982). More
recent research by Hodgson and Knudsen (2004) confirmed this view, seeing routines as stored
behavioural capacities that influence behaviour choices. The simile of routines as computer
programs (Cyert and Marsh 1963; Nelson and Winter 1982) is apt as the action is processed
automatically and has a start and an end. In this context, PMMs can be seen as the dominant
paradigms for carrying out the tasks necessary to manage projects.
Repeated organisational routines distribute the information on how work such as managing
projects is carried out and make it available to other project staff, referred to as actors in the
language of practice theory (Cyert and March 1963; Levitt and March 1988). If routines are
considered to be mindless, that is, a person carries out the routine without thinking about it, a
routine becomes a source of organisational stability because no thought is given to how or why
the routine is being performed (Cyert and March 1963; Nelson and Winter 1982; Cohen et al
1996). For example, to solve the original problem of how to manage projects, the organisation
tested options, dispensed with those that did not work and retained a viable solution. This
solution can then become fixed (Levitt and March 1988). To change an established routine
requires the involvement of new actors (who do not know the routine) and cost to implement it
(Nelson 1995; Becker 2004; Drori et al 2014). While mindless routines are characterised by
stability, they are also a cause of deviation. The introduction of a new actor to a routine
presents an opportunity for the routine to be changed in response to the new actor’s
understanding of the role or the routine (Nelson and Winter 1982; Wedlin and Sahlin 2017).
The repetitive nature of routines is questioned by authors such as Nelson and Sampat (2001)
who perceive an element of idiosyncrasy on the part of actors which results in variation of the
routine. Overall, the essential characteristic of routines is the stability they offer to
organisations. The opposing view, in which actors are mindful, presents the counter-intuitive
opportunities for the routine to contribute to change or contribute to stability depending on how
the individual views the process.
By storing the solution to past problems, routines can be conceptualised as the memory of an
organisation (Nelson and Winter 1982). Created as a response to a past problem, the routine is
58
re-executed each time a similar set of circumstances is presented (Paoli and Principe 2003). In
this way, organisations “remember by doing” (Nelson and Winter 1982 p99). The knowledge of
how an organisation operates is stored in three ways: routines; members’ memory (where
repetition creates memory); blueprints (formal information repositories) (Nelson and Winter
1982; Paoli and Principe 2003). The recording of operational experience and problem solutions
in routines and blueprints ensures there is continuity of access to the encoded information that
is not affected by changes in personnel (Nelson and Winter 1982; Levitt and Marsh 1988).
Within the context of PMMs, the concept of blueprints is brought to life by the manuals and
guides that are either generated by the suppliers, as in the case of the PRINCE2 manual (OGC
2009), or written by the organisation to enshrine the ways in which projects are managed in the
organisation. The idea of member’s memory accords with the concept of path dependency
(Johnson et at 2008), discussed in Section 3.2.6, and acts to emphasise the strong influence
that past experience has on present-day actions and behaviours. Although past experience
may seem trivial, its repetition in the literature demonstrates it to be a cogent factor that needs
to be considered in this section because it may be one of the reasons why people working in
projects divert from the defined PMM processes by substituting routines from their past
experience.
3.5.2 PMMs as vehicles of co-ordination
In carrying out a routine task, the actor can limit the cognitive processing needed for the task,
essentially seeing it as mindless (Cyert and March 1963; Nelson and Winter 1982) and thereby
devote their attention to non-routine tasks (Simon 1957). The view may be valid for individual
actors (Cohen et al 1996) but when multiple actors are involved there is a need for co-ordination
between them. In this case there must be compatibility between the actions of all actors
(Narduzzo et al 2000) to deliberately accomplish a task (Pentland 1995; Feldman 2000;
Feldman and Pentland 2003). Routines enable the actors in an organisation to understand how
a task can be broken down into a sequence of routines (Feldman 2000; Kellogg et al 2006).
Sequences such as these are very common in PMMs, for example, processes are listed
throughout the PRINCE2 manual (OGC 2009). Those responsible for the different routines of
the organisation interact to create a “common perspective” (Okhuysen and Bechky 2009 p478)
of the work required to complete an organisational task. In developing a framework that
explains organisation co-ordination, they identify three requirements: accountability (the
understanding that one actor’s role contributes a component to the whole task and that each
actor’s work is connected with the work of another actor); predictability (an actor’s ability to
replicate the routine); and common understanding (allows actors of independent activities to
share a common perspective of the whole task) (Okhuysen and Bechky (2009). These three
factors: accountability, predictability and common understanding, are at the very heart of PMMs
and have already been discussed in Section 2.3 when the benefits of PMMs were described.
Through defined roles and responsibilities for project actors (OGC 2009; PMI 2017b), process
descriptions (OGC 2009; PMI 2017b) and a common understanding of how projects are
managed, the PMM can be seen as an attempt to define the dominant way of co-ordinating
work. For those organisations on the right of the PMM continuum with close alignment to the
59
defined methods, it is more likely that their project staff will have less latitude to deviate from the
defined way of working but as organisations move to less strict compliance to the suppliers’
models, that is to the left of the continuum, it is possible that less compliance will be evidenced.
3.5.3 Ostensive versus performative aspects
Structuration theory by Giddens (1979) and the terminology developed by Latour’ ANT (1984),
led Feldman and Pentland (2003) to differentiate between ostensive (structure) and
performative (action) aspects of routines. The ostensive aspect refers to the sequence of
events that comprise the routine and which allow for a degree of contextualisation. The
performative aspect of the routine refers to the specifics of one actor performing the routine
using specific actions in a specific iteration of the routine. Performative routines interact with
one another and are integrated in artefacts. “We call attention to artifacts here because they
have been particularly prominent as a means of collecting data about routines. Artifacts such
as rules and written procedures can serve as a proxy for the ostensible aspect of a routine”
(Pentland and Feldman 2005 p796).
Becker (2004) suggests that the interpretation of organisational routines offered by Feldman
and Pentland is superior to the concept of mindless and mindful routines. The ostensible
component operates as a reference for the performative aspect while the performative
component is needed to generate, maintain and alter the ostensible aspects (Feldman and
Portland 2003). Acknowledging that routines can be changed, Feldman and Pentland (2003
p113) suggest that actors may produce variants on a routine, select between the alternatives
and then retain the new actions as the constituents of the routine. Both the contingencies of the
situation and what the actor understands the routine to be, their representation, can cause this
change to occur. Becker (2004) notes how actors can use the ostensible aspects of a routine in
one iteration and introduce innovation and variation in the next iteration. In a similar way,
Winter (1985 p109) notes how “mechanistic decision making does not necessarily diminish the
opportunities for genuine deliberate choice”. Feldman and Pentland (2003) observe that each
actor has an incomplete awareness of the actions comprising the routine. As a result, different
actors will have their own representation of a routine. While variations in the performative
aspects are not automatically entrenched into the artefacts, they become available for
incorporation into new performances of the routine. Organisational managers can identify
artefacts in the ostensible aspects or monitor the performative aspects (Feldman and Pentland
2003). Actors shape the ostensible aspects as they find better ways to complete the routine. In
the context of this research, PMMs can be seen as the ostensible aspect of the routine, the
processes, tools and procedure that are written down in organisational manuals. Depending
where organisations are located on the PMM continuum (Figure 3, Section 2.5), the ostensible
routines will be viewed differently by project actors. Towards the right of the continuum, the
difference between the ostensible and performative perspectives will be small but, as
organisations move to the left on the continuum, it is likely that the gap will widen as the
difference between what is expected and what is done diverges. This is another convincing
explanation for why project staff may substitute their own processes and procedures for those
60
defined in the organisation. As organisations move to the left of the continuum, the importance
of ostensible routines diminish and performative routines can become increasingly dominant.
3.5.4 Summary
This section has reviewed the literature initially of translation theory and then of practice theory
to explore the reasons why project staff might choose not to follow their PMM and be classified
as an ‘in-name-only’ organisation. The section began by considering how management ideas
circulate around organisations (Drori et at 2014; Wedlin and Sahlin 2017) and then discussed
PMMs in the context of recurring action patterns and a source of organisational memory, using
the work of Nelson and Winter (1982) and Paoli and Principe (2003) as the primary sources.
Here, the importance of past experiences was highlighted as a possible explanation for project
staff deviating from their PMM. Next, PMMs were discussed from the perspective of co-
ordinated activity and the aspects of accountability, predictability and common understanding.
These concepts were linked back to the PMM continuum to hypothesise that organisations
without strong adherence to a defined method may be more likely to see their project staff
deviating from the PMM in use. Lastly, the ideas of Feldman and Pentland (2003) were used as
the basis for exploring differences between ostensible and performative routines to again
suggest that where the gap is largest between these two phenomena there is likely to be a
greater difference between the in-use and espoused PMM routines in the organisation. This
section has provided a number of different hypotheses for why there might be a difference
between in-use and espoused PMM routines. The fourth research question seeks to
understand:
Research question 4: Are espoused PMM processes different to in-use PMM processes?
In this chapter so far, the focus has been on the first two stages of the PMM life cycle.
However, recognising that the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages operate in a wider environment, the
more static context of PMMs warrants investigation. This view is supported by the large OGC
study (Sargeant et al 2010) which found that the main factors constraining the success of PMMs
came from the environment and Joslin and Müller (2016 p365) who warn about the naivety of
assuming that project management can “occur without the influence of context.” Fernandes et
at (2014 p958) recognised this importance when they said “PM is highly contingent on the
organisational context, such as structure of business or industry sector, size, and its
environment.” Similarly, Winter et al (2006 p640) note the importance of organisational
structure as a means of achieving integration and task accomplishment”. In the next three
sections, attention switches to three aspects of the environment in which PMMs operate that
could have an effect on them: maturity, organisational culture and organisational structure.
61
3.6 Maturity
In project management terms, maturity is a process view of project management and concerns
the consistency with which processes are carried out (Shtub et at 2005). Maturity can be
defined “as the degree to which an organisation practices systematic project management of its
projects, programs, and portfolios in line with its strategic goals” (Mitchell et al 2008). The
notion that maturity is linked to a level of consistency is echoed by Cooke-Davies (2004 p214)
when he says that maturity is “the extent to which an organisation has explicitly and consistently
deployed processes that are documented, managed, measured, controlled and continually
improved”. The differentiated steps in maturity are recognised by the PMI (2013a p548) in their
definition of maturity as “the level of an organisation’s ability to deliver the desired strategic
outcomes in a predictable, controllable and reliable manner”.
The global increase in project management in the last three decades has generated interest in
project management maturity as organisations increase their expectation from and appreciation
of project management (Pinto 2013). Figure 13 shows the frequency of appearance of maturity
in PM literature and that in the last decade approximately 70 articles a year discuss this topic.
Figure 13. Maturity in the PM literature
A popular way to assess maturity is through the use of an established model whereby an
organisation can review and improve its project management performance and capabilities
(Mitchell et al 2008). The term ‘maturity model’ was first used in the 1980s by a US government
research group and the Software Engineering Institute of Carnegie Mellon University (Khatua
2011). The work was prompted by the government’s desire to predict the success rate of
development projects carried out by organisations and resulted in the Capability Maturity Model.
From this initial work focused on software development, the concept of producing maturity
models spread to many other areas and was adapted for project management.
Num
ber
of
public
atio
ns
62
Maturity models recognise that organisations are at different levels of sophistication in their
project management processes and procedures (Pinto 2013). Maturity models provide
organisations with assessment frameworks, allow organisations to benchmark themselves
against the best practice of successful project management firms and highlight areas for
improvement (Bryde 2003; Chrissis et al 2003; Andersen 2008; Mitchell et al 2008; Pinto 2013;
Sargent 2016; Meredith et al 2016; Sargent and Ferreira 2018). The OGC (2010) and PMI
(2013a) recognise that projects, programmes and portfolios can each have their own maturity
models and assessments. For this research, the unit of assessment for maturity is
organisational maturity and the type of maturity measure relates to project management in IT/IS
departments.
There is no one standard for maturity models. Grant and Pennypacker (2006) estimate there to
be more than 30 models available and their use and number is expanding (Mullaly 2006;
Meredith et al 2016). The most popular models for project management are PMI’s
Organisational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) (PMI 2013a) and OGC/Axelos’s
Project, Programme and Portfolio Management Maturity Model (P3M3) (OGC 2010; Axelos
2017).
Despite their popularity, maturity models are not a panacea for organisations. While maturity
models are based on the principles of total quality management (Bryde 2003), some principles
such as commitment and employee engagement are allocated lower priority in the project
management maturity models (Mitchell et al 2008). Project management maturity models focus
on the hard aspects of projects. For example, the categories in the OGC P3M3 model (2010)
are management control, benefits management, financial management, stakeholder
engagement, risk management, organisational governance and resource management. The
soft side of project management, that is, leadership, communication, teamwork, commitment
and involvement have only recently been acknowledged as core to the discipline (Morris et al
2011; Pinto 2013) and have yet to be reflected in the models of maturity. These shortcomings
were further investigated and expanded by Pasian (2011, 2018) who identified the important
role of culture and values in maturity assessments, factors that are supported in empirical
research (Ahmed 2018). These exclusions from the scope of maturity assessment mean that
the results derived are likely to be partial and possibly incomplete. Maturity models have thus
been criticised for not proving a usable concept of maturity (Andersen and Jessen 2003). A
final concern with maturity models relates to time. Organisations use maturity assessments as
the basis for managing improvements to their processes over time (Chrissis et al 2003; Grant
and Pennypacker 2006) thus maturity is a constantly changing phenomenon that is complex for
organisations to manage (Silvius 2018). Not only is the overall maturity level in flux but the
elements that comprise maturity will also be changing. Each of these elements could be a
different level of maturity to the others and this fact would be masked when the overall maturity
of the organisation is aggregated.
63
These concerns with the models may be unknown to organisations or the benefits may
outweigh the possible limitations. The evidence is that maturity assessment continues to be
popular as demonstrated by the investment by Axelos (2017) in an online, version 3 of the
P3M3 assessment tool. The position of the PMI with regard to maturity models has changed in
recent years and is still in flux. The previously public domain elements of the assessment
model have been restricted and the maturity process is now promoted as a consulting
opportunity for PMI-accredited professionals rather than the self-service, independent model
that existed before (Schlichter 2015). That both PM bodies are pursuing maturity modelling
supports the view that it is a necessary element in the PMM sphere.
It makes intuitive sense that the more experience and skill an organisation possesses in PMMs,
the better will be their performance. Table 22 lists evidence to support this hypothesis.
Year Author(s) Linkage
2004 PWC Demonstrated a correlation between strong performance and the level of maturity in the organisation.
2008 IBM Corporation In a study of 1,500 project professionals, the top 20% of professionals (the change masters) achieved 80%.
2008 Mitchell et al Case studies concluded that “there are organisational benefits for organisations to perform maturity assessments” (Mitchell et al 2008).
2012 Swanson Based on the feedback of over 1,000 project managers concluded that there was a correlation between those organisations with higher levels of project maturity and the ability to deliver projects successfully.
Table 22. The link between maturity and performance
3.6.1 Maturity in project management
The desire to operate more efficiently and effectively stems from the improvement principles of
quality management in the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle espoused by Deming (1993). For
organisations looking to improve, an element of the check step in the cycle is to look externally
at how competitors or the industry is performing. The problem is that the desired performance
information is often proprietary and not available. To circumvent this information gap,
organisations benchmark themselves against a scale that ranges between 1 and 5, matching
their level of performance against a number of different criteria. The criteria are combined into a
model that encompasses the main characteristics, factors, processes and capabilities of project
management.
The criteria for measuring maturity tend to use a similar scale consisting of 5 levels (OGC 2006,
2010; PMI 2013a; Kerzner 2013). These are described in Table 23:
64
Level Label Description
1 Awareness of process / Initial
Projects are run differently from normal business.
2 Repeatable Projects are run with their own processes and procedures to a minimum standard. At this level, PRINCE2 may be used in the organisation but not consistently.
3 Defined The organisation maintains central processes for projects. Projects tailor the processes as required.
4 Managed The organisation measures its ability to carry out the processes and operates quality management processes to improve future performance.
5 Optimised The organisation uses continual improvement processes in order to optimise processes and further improve future performance.
Table 23. Maturity levels
It is understandable that organisations with a maturity of Level 1 are unlikely to be able to
implement or sustain a PMM. It is only at Level 2, ‘repeatable’ that a project management
approach becomes feasible. Indeed, a method may be adopted to help the organisation reach
Level 2. Kerzner (2013) suggests that a single method is achievable by organisations at Level
3 in his five level maturity model. As an organisation progresses through the levels of maturity,
for example, Level 3, ‘defined’ and Level 4, ‘managed’, the method is being increasingly
integrated into the culture and processes of the organisation.
At the global level, research by Pells (1997) concluded that project management was mature in
Australia, North America and Western Europe. The merit and accuracy of such high level
conclusions is dubious because the summarisation of information necessarily obscures both the
detail and the variety. Most maturity analysis is undertaken at the organisation level, at which
point it is more useful. Table 24 and Figure 14 show the maturity of organisations from self-
reported questionnaires. The table demonstrates a wide range of maturity levels which is an
indication of measurement variability emanating from a plethora of models and also the
subjective nature of self-reporting and self-assessment.
Year Source Sample Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
2004 PWC 200 33% 20% 26% 9% 12%
2006 Mullaly 22 - 96 57% 40% 3%
2006 Grant and Pennypacker 42 14% 53% 19% 7% 7%
2012 PWC 133 4% 15% 19% 43% 19%
Table 24. Data on maturity levels
The sample sizes for the findings in Table 24 are small so it is important not to read too much
into the information.
65
Figure 14. Organisational maturity levels
The data in Figure 14 indicate an upward trend in maturity over the 8 years of records so all that
can be concluded is that maturity may be increasing in organisations. Two of the studies were
undertaken by the same organisation (PWC) which may indicate reliability in their findings if the
same companies and the same models were used.
Organisations track their maturity because the underlying belief is that increasing maturity is
beneficial (Richardson 2010; Spalek 2014; Katane and Dube 2017). A 2012 PWC study
reported that 32% of organisations sought to reach a higher level of maturity. The figure
suggests that 68% of companies are happy with their level of maturity but no information was
given on the starting levels of these organisations. However, striving for a higher level of
maturity may not be in an organisation’s best interests. One of the possible explanations is that
aspiring for the next maturity level may add little value to the organisation. Research by
Wheatley (2007) dismisses the concept that higher is always better and demonstrates instead
that the level of maturity appropriate for an organisation was dependent on their needs. These
findings were supported by the qualitative study of Christoph Albrecht and Sprang (2014) which
concludes that the ideal level of maturity for an organisation was linked to the complexity of its
projects. However, the picture is complicated by differences in maturity discernible across
industries and indeed between different divisions of the same organisation (Pells 1997).
3.6.2 Summary
From this section, it is clear that maturity may have an effect on how organisations select and
embed methods. There is, however, a lack of consistency in the research findings with support
for a link being found between maturity and project performance by some (Moraes and Laurindo
2013, Christoph Albrecht and Sprang 2014; Spalek 2014) but not by others (Yazici 2010; Aydin
and Dilan 2017). As a result, the next research question is defined to address this potential
relationship.
Research question 5: How does maturity relate to PMMs
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
PWC 2004 Mullaly Grant PWC 2012
Perc
ent
66
3.7 Organisational culture
Ever since its earliest mentions in literature (Pettigrew 1979) and in popular management books
of the period (Ouchi 1981; Peters and Waterman 1982), culture has been mentioned as a driver
of organisational performance. While the early evidence was sceptical of the culture-
performance correlation (Rousseau 1990; Siehl and Martin 1990), evidence has been growing
that such a link does exist (Hartnell et al 2011; Sackmann 2011). Culture has been added as a
factor in this research project due to its demonstrable influence on organisational performance
and, by extension, to project management. The growth in research into project management
and the globalisation of projects brought with them the realisation that projects exist within a
host organisation culture that can have profound influences on projects and how they are
managed (Cadle and Yeates 2008; Richardson 2010; Larson and Grey 2011; Buttrick 2013;
Lientz 2013; PMI 2014a; Battistella et al 2017). From his work in management consultancy,
Turner (2008) underscored its importance, concluding that culture was the cause of the greatest
resistance to change in organisations.
3.7.1 Defining culture
Originating in social anthropology, culture was first defined as “that complex whole which
includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, customs and the many other capabilities and habits
acquired by a person as a member of society” (Tylor 1871 p1). Initially referring to the societal
level, culture was first applied to organisations by Pettigrew (1979) and since has been
investigated at many levels. Schein (2010) identifies four categories of culture: macrocultures
(at national, ethnic or religious group level, which equates to Tylor’s definition), organisational
culture (that exist in corporations), subcultures (in occupational groups) and microcultures
(described as microsystems inside and outside organisations).
This section takes an organisational culture perspective and investigates its origin, importance
and how it can impact on change in the embedding stage. Organisational culture is defined as
the attitudes and behaviours characteristic of a particular group (Oxford Dictionaries 2018).
Schein (2010 p3) gives a more detailed definition using such words as ‘dynamic phenomenon’,
‘coercive background structure’, ‘constantly re-enacted and created by our interactions’ and ‘the
foundation of social order’. Culture can be used to predict people’s behaviour and provide rules
that stabilise and order organisations. Over time and by practice, unique organisational cultures
develop (PMI 2017b). The oft quoted definition of culture that is “the way we do things around
here” (Cameron and Green 2015) provides a more succinct definition of culture as something
that is easier to perceive and feel than it is to define with precision.
Culture is a recurring topic in the PM literature with 2,934 articles mentioning culture with
approximately 150 articles published per year in the last decade as Figure 15 shows.
67
Figure 15. Culture in PM literature
It is important to understand the ways in which cultures evolve especially as managers often
seek ways to change the culture. Six evolutionary paths have been suggested (Johnson et al
2008; Schein 2010). These are shown in Table 25.
Path Evolution
1 Culture is the result of an organisation adapting to the environment (industry or profession).
2 Teams and groups develop their own cultures in response to their local environment.
3 Leaders create and inculcate the culture.
4 Managers encourage the adoption of cultures from teams and groups seen to be better adapted to their environment.
5 A top down approach by which culture is planned and managed.
6 New leadership imposes a new culture as a result of catastrophic change (for example business failure, bankruptcy etc)
Table 25. Culture origins
It is clear from Table 25 that some cultures are more amenable to managed change than
others. Those cultures such as 1 and 2 evolve slowly and in response to external stimuli over
which the organisation will have little control. The remaining paths in the table do suggest it is
possible to direct and lead culture change. However, research suggests that it is not possible to
directly change culture but instead that culture change is a by-product of organisational change
(Schein 2010, Boonstra 2013). This impossibility echoes the earlier comments that culture is an
immaterial concept that can only be felt and perceived.
Culture matters because it can support or inhibit change in an organisation. Bresnen and
Marshall (2000 p234) drawing on the work of Hofstede, Schein and Kotter express the
Num
ber
of
public
atio
ns
68
sentiment well when they make the point that “organisational culture is a complex and multi-
faceted phenomenon that arises and develops through on-going social interaction among
members of a community. It is not simply something that can be imposed from on high, and
frequently attempts to do so simply provoke resistance or produce unintended and undesired
consequences”. The opposing view is presented by Groysberg et al (2018 p49) who conclude
from their research that “when aligned with strategy and leadership, a strong culture drives
positive organizational outcomes.”
Table 26 lists authors who have written about the importance of culture:
Year Author(s) Importance
1980 Waterman et al Mergers frequently fail because the different cultures cannot be merged into one.
1986 Hai As culture creates behavioural norms, it impinges on all aspects of the organisation.
1986 Barney Culture can be a source of sustainable competitive advantage.
1992 Kotter and Heskett Identified a correlation between culture and performance.
1993 Marcoulides and Heck Found a strong relationship between culture and performance.
2003 Doolen et al Project teams are influenced by the environment through the attributes of their parent organisation.
2004 Silverthorne Culture determines how well an employee fits into the organisational context. A good fit is important.
2004 Kaplan and Norton Culture is the most complicated dimension to understand and describe.
2007 Rigby and Bilodeau Culture has equal importance with organisational strategy. It affects process improvement and decision-making.
2008 Turner Culture influences every facet of an organisation.
2010 Schein The “dynamic processes of culture creation and management are the essence of leadership” (p3).
2011 Cameron and Quinn Excluding culture for any change plans can lead to usually negative outcomes.
2013 Boonstra Argues that it is impossible to achieve lasting change without cultural change.
2013 PMI (2013a) Project managers need to understand the effects that culture can have on projects.
2018 Groysberg et al Strategy and culture are among the primary levers at top leaders’ disposal.
Table 26. The importance of culture
Given that culture is difficult to pin down and yet important, many authors have attempted to
describe or conceptualise culture.
69
3.7.2 Analysing culture
Table 27 shows these conceptualisations and is based on Demir et al (2011) and referenced
sources.
Year Author(s) Conceptualisation
1972 Harrison The degree of formalisation and centralisation.
1982 Deal and Kennedy Culture defined by communication networks and
values, heroes, rituals and rites.
1983 Hofstede Culture classified by five dimensions.
1985 Ernst Human orientation and response to the environment
are key.
1986 de Vries and Miller Dysfunctional dimensions.
1988 Quinn Managers satisfy competing expectations and work in
complex, contradictory environments.
1986 Graves Levels of bureaucracy and managerial-ego drive.
1990
Robbins Key dimensions of culture; individual initiative, risk tolerance, direction, integration, management contact, control, identity, reward system, conflict tolerance and communication patterns.
1993 Handy Culture types vary from centralisation/distribute
authority and formal/informal.
1998 Goffee and Jones Sociability and solidarity.
2002 Parry and Proctor-Thomson
Attitude to change (transformational and transactional).
2011 Cameron and Quinn Dimensions of control/flexibility and internal/external
focus.
2013 Boonstra Culture is long-lasting, static and difficult to change.
Table 27. Conceptualisations of organisational culture
The variety of ways of thinking about culture that are listed in Table 27 serve to underline the
need to gain a better understanding of culture. Models have been proposed and become
established which enable the analysis of culture leading to improved understanding.
While the 7S framework encompassed culture within the element ‘style’, it was not given equal
importance with the other six elements. The Johnson and Scholes model focused on just those
elements that comprise culture in organisations and which act as levers, in an identical way to
the elements of 7S, to facilitate organisational understanding and support change through the
identification of the elements that comprise the prevailing culture. The culture web is shown in
Figure 16 and described in Table 28 (Johnson et at 2008; Cameron and Green 2015).
70
Figure 16. Cultural web (Johnson et al 2008)
Element Description
Paradigm At the centre of the web are the taken-for-granted core values and assumptions. This is identical to the shared values of 7S.
Stories How the past history and current events in the organisation are communicated.
Symbols Artefacts and events that embody the values of the organisation.
Power structures Where power is exercised in the organisation, centrally or dispersed and the basis of power (role, knowledge or charisma).
Organisational structures
The hierarchy, roles and responsibilities and corporate communication.
Control systems How the organisation chooses to monitor its operational performance and rewards its staff.
Rituals and routines
The norms that have come to be established over time.
Table 28. The cultural web (Johnson et al 2008)
Johnson et al (2008) argue for the importance of undertaking cultural analysis as it helps to
identify the workplace behaviours and unspoken assumptions so that these can be exposed for
scrutiny and included in any change process.
The authors of the culture web (Johnson et al 2008) provide examples of how organisations
have conducted their own analyses of the web and how this information has been used within
the organisation to inform change initiatives. Other authors have created their own culture
frameworks, either as 2x2 dimensional matrices or as lists of attributes that can be used in
organisations. These frameworks are listed in Table 29.
71
Year Author(s) Framework
1982 Deal and Kennedy Proposed a dimension based on speed of feedback and a risk dimension.
1983 Hofstede Focused on power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, masculinity and long-term vs short term.
1985 Arnold and Capella Proposed a strong-weak dimension and an internal-external focus dimension.
1985 Ernst Argued for people orientation and response to the environment.
1985 Albert and Whetten Dimensions: holographic versus idiographic.
1986 de Vries and Miller Focused on dysfunctional dimensions of culture.
1992 Martin Proposed cultural integration and consensus, differentiation and conflict, and fragmentation and ambiguity.
1993 Handy Dimensions: centralisation versus formalisation. Leads to 4 cultures: task, role, person and power.
1998 Goffee and Jones Dimensions: sociability and solidarity.
2001 Trompenaars Developed the dimensions: universalism vs pluralism, individualism vs communitarianism, specific vs diffuse, inner-directed vs outer-directed, achieved status vs ascribed status and sequential time vs synchronic time.
2011 Cameron and Quinn
Competing values framework. Dimensions; control-flexibility versus internal-external.
Table 29. Culture frameworks
In this research, Cameron and Quinn’s (2011) model, the Competing Values Framework (CVF)
has been used to capture data about culture in organisations. This model has been chosen due
to its high construct validity. It is well established, there is a validated data capture tool in the
Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) and there are published data from using
the OCAI that can provide useful benchmarking and comparative information for the primary
data of this study (Heritage et al 2014). Cameron and Quinn (2011) support their framework by
asserting it “has been found to have a high degree of congruence with well-known and well-
accepted categorical schemes that organize the way people think, their values and
assumptions, and the ways they process information” and quote a high level or congruence with
earlier foundation work carried out by researchers including Jung and Myers and Briggs.
There are two dimensions or continuums in the CVF:
▪ Stability to flexibility. The vertical dimension differentiates cultures that are either
recognisable by their flexibility and dynamism from those recognisable by their
preference for control, stability and order.
▪ Internal to external focus. The horizontal dimension differentiates cultures that have
an internal focus that favours integration and unity from cultures favouring an external
focus which emphasises rivalry and differentiation (Cameron and Quinn 2011).
The two dimensions intersect to give the 4 quadrants depicted in Figure 17. Each quadrant is a
distinct organisational culture type.
72
Figure 17. The Competing Values Framework (Cameron and Quin 2011)
The four cultures identified by Cameron and Quinn are named Clan, Adhocracy, Market and
Hierarchical and are described in Table 30 (Cameron and Quinn 2011; Cameron and Green
2015).
Culture Description
Clan (CC) With its focus on unity and flexibility, the Clan is so called because the culture is that of an extended family that espouses nurturing, mentoring and participation.
Adhocracy (AC) The Adhocracy culture has an external focus and dynamic orientation making it entrepreneurial and innovative with a risk-taking mentality.
Market (MC) The Market culture also has an external focus but is more controlling which means the culture emphasises task completion, a focus on results and the valuing of competition.
Hierarchy (HC) The Hierarchical culture has high control and the internal focus means it is characterised by structure, coordination and efficiency.
Table 30. CVF cultures
The framework is ‘competing’ in that the four quadrants generate tension. It is the
organisation’s response to these tensions that defines its culture. How the tensions are
resolved is answered uniquely by an organisation and its profile on the framework will
encompass all four quadrants and contain some measure of each quadrant (Cameron and
Quinn 2011).
Based on the framework, the authors developed an instrument to predict the cultural type of an
organisation using a questionnaire, the OCAI (Cameron and Quinn 2011). The OCAI has been
used as the basis for studies where it has demonstrated high reliability as demonstrated in
Table 31:
73
Year Author(s) Outcome
1991 Quinn and Spreitzer
Cronbach’s alpha exceeding .70. Sample of 800 participants from 86 public utility organisations.
1991 Yeung, Brockbank, and Ulrich
Cronbach’s alpha around .80. Sample of 10,000 business executives.
1999 Kalliath, Bluedorn, and Gillespie
Reported “excellent validity and reliability estimates” (p. 143).
2000 Colyer Cronbach’s alpha range of 0.58 to 0.88.
2014 Heritage, Pollock and Roberts
Cronbach’s alpha range of 0.70 to 0.90.
Table 31. OCAI reliability
While reliability is demonstrated by the high values of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, the studies
were less clear on the validity of the OCAI, a common issue with all cultural measurements.
3.7.3 Summary
While this section has discussed the importance of culture to organisations, it is interesting to
note that the word ‘culture’ does not appear in the PRINCE2 manual (OGC 2009). However,
the importance of culture is undeniable based on the evidence presented in this section and it is
therefore important that culture is assessed alongside PMMs. This section on culture has
established the importance of culture in organisations and explored different concepts of culture
and models that can be used to explore and understand organisational culture. The CVF was
introduced and its use in this research was justified. The wide use and acceptance in literature
of the CVF made it a suitable tool to measure culture in this research. The availability of other
studies that used the same framework enabled comparisons and contextualisation of the
findings and also added validity to the research.
The research question within the area of organisational culture is therefore defined as:
Research question 6: How does organisational culture relate to PMMs?
A further element in the project environment that may have an influence on PMMs is
organisational structure. Culture and organisational structure were identified as crucial to
project management by Larson and Gray (2011 p79) when they said “our observation of other
firms, and research suggests there is a strong connection between project management
structure, organizational culture, and project success”. The next section discusses the topic of
organisational structure.
74
3.8 Organisational structure
3.8.1 Defining organisational structure
Structure is the means by which the actions of corporate staff are co-ordinated and their
activities controlled (Winter et al 2006). To co-ordinate and control, tasks are allocated, roles
and responsibilities are defined, authorities are assigned, reporting lines are established and co-
ordinating mechanisms are prescribed (Robbins and Barnwell 2006). The organisational
structure is the formal, documented way in which the corporation is organised and how people
operate within it. Structure is important because of the influence it has on the reporting lines,
processes, systems and procedures used in the organisation (Gardiner 2005). Structure is
therefore included in the scope of this research due to the relationship it may have with project
management methods.
Within the PM literature in the last 50 years, there have been 726 articles that mention
organisational culture. The number of articles by year is shown in Figure 18:
Figure 18. Organisational culture in PM literature
3.8.2 Determinants of organisational structure
The work of Burns and Stalker (1961) on organisational structure represented a third
perspective on organisations that was neither classical nor human relations. In asserting the
primacy of the environment, Burns and Stalker had ushered in the contingency theory approach
which has proved more influential than either of the two predecessors (Burnes 2009). Like
Burns and Stalker, Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) found that the structures used at the
department level were influenced by their environment with, for example, the production
department operating in a stable environment with a short term focus favouring a more
mechanistic structure whereas research departments were more concerned with long term
objectives and favoured more organic structures. There were few IT departments in existence
Num
ber
of
public
atio
ns
75
at the time of the study but it can be postulated that, had there been IT departments they were
likely to have more long term perspectives and thereby tend towards organic structures. Perrow
(1970) developed the work further by linking mechanistic structures with routine and stable
environments and organic structures with environments characterised by less routine and less
predictability. One more tenet of contingency theory was added by the Aston Group’s research
which identified organisational size as a key factor (Robbins and Barnwell 2006). The Aston
Group found that large organisations were more mechanistic, small organisations were more
organic and that size was the strongest influence on structure. While all of these studies are
dated, they do demonstrate the contingency perspective that structure is strongly affected by
the environment. One of the issues faced when trying to use contingency theory is the lack of
agreed definitions for environment, technology or size (Burnes 2009). Donaldson (2006 p23)
questions how organisations will know when they have attained fit when the environment is
constantly changing and proposes that organisations have a “quasi-fit” at any one time rather
than a “full fit”. Another issue is that the cause and effect relationship between structure and
performance is difficult to establish in practice because there are many variables that could
affect performance.
A common feature of the studies of structure is their use of management’s definition of the
organisation’s structure, often in the form of a hierarchy chart, as the basis of the research.
However, as Woodward et al (1965) correctly points out, an organisation can use important
informal structures and relationships that are not shown on any organisation charts. The
existence of these relationships was first exposed in the Hawthorne Experiments (Mayo 2004)
where it was found that the workers’ informal structures had more effect on performance than
the structures put in place by management
3.8.3 Range of structural forms
Structure and working practices may be strongly influenced by external forces such as
legislation and the power of non-governmental regulators and agencies (Shtub et al 2005;
Mullins 2007; Cadle and Yeates 2008). Internal factors may be just as influential with
organisations choosing structures that align with their strategic aims (Shtub et al 2005; Cadle
and Yeates 2008). After the rise in importance of the contingency approach, organisations
began to look at external influences as the basis for organisational structures (Robbins and
Barnwell 2006). As a result, there is now a spectrum of forms that organisations can adopt
The 32 performance criteria are grouped into the four Gartner categories (Scott et al 2007) as
described in Section 3.2.2. Summing the mentions of individual factors allows the relative
importance of the groups to be assessed. The resulting pie chart is shown in Figure 25.
Figure 25. Pie chart of performance criteria groups (sample 1)
Business Management, 4,
14%
People, 7, 25%
Process, 16, 57%
Technology, 1, 4%
108
Figure 25 shows that Technology issues are of minor importance to organisations when
selecting a PMM. Selecting a PMM based on external influences or because of a top-down
requirement from senior management which comprise Business Management accounts for 14%
of the factors in this research and this accords with the quotations given earlier in this section.
This would suggest that PMMs are selected for more internal, operational reasons. This is
supported by the 25% of factors that emanate from the People category (staff productivity,
retention and development) and the largest category, Process, at 57% which links to the key
benefits of PMMs listed in Table 7 in Section 2.3.2, for example, providing standardisation,
credibility to the organisation and best practice operations. The number of performance criteria
identified by the participating organisations are few in number, averaging only 4 per
organisation. It could be concluded from reviewing Table 43 that organisations are taking a
structured approach to deciding why they need a PMM but this would be a mistake. The
process of determining the criteria and generating Table 43 involved searching the transcripts
for key words mentioned by the interviewees and then mapping them to the table of
performance criteria in Section 3.2.2. The set of criteria that had been created before the
interviews proved to be more than adequate because many of the potential factors were not
mentioned during the interviews.
It was expected that the performance criteria would continue to be applicable over time within
the organisation but this proved not to be the case. The changing needs of the senior
management team can be seen as the reason why organisation A has experienced so much
change in its PMM, as Interviewee 1 summarises:
So what has happened here during the time I've been here, so five years, there have
been cycles where the senior organisation has wanted to see much more detail and
much more rigour around the method and the documentation and the artefacts, if you
like, around the whole project management process. Other areas, points in the cycle,
where it's wanted to be very lean and has wanted maybe just two or three key artefacts
to be used, and we're kind of at that point in the cycle at the moment where the desire
for the organisation is to be very lean in our methods, with the anticipation that frees
peoples' attention up for delivery as opposed to control. (Interviewee 1, Organisation A)
Here, Interviewee 1 highlights a performance criterion, that a lean PMM allows PMs more time
for delivery and thus speaks to the need for staff efficiencies. Rather than the organisation
setting out clear goals for the PMM, the staff using the method are left to surmise why the
processes are being changed.
Not everyone in organisation A saw the lean approach as being positive. Interviewee 3,
organisation A, a certified PM, complained how “they subscribe to a PRINCEesque
methodology in that they occasionally use some of the artefacts but basically they don't really
have a method or a methodology that they follow.” Interviewee 3 was an IT programme
manager and had encouraged his section to develop a much more rigorous method that was
109
diametrically opposed to the method adopted by interviewees 1 and 2 who worked in the
programme management office (PMO). The IT department undertook projects for the PMO and
the PMO undertook projects for the organisation. It was notable how the PMO had few, large
projects and that the IT department was undertaking many smaller projects with staff often
working on multiple projects and having additional responsibilities, for example support. Seen
in these contexts, it is rational that the IT department should seek to have more control over its
work through the use of a more structured PMM but it is less clear whether the PMO has made
the correct choice. Neither the PMO nor the IT department had assessed the success of their
selection decisions as neither had clear initial criteria on which to judge.
In analysing the interview transcripts, attention was paid to any mention of problems in the
organisation that the PMM was intended to resolve or address. The problem identification or
diagnosis stage in the normative decision-making model guides users to be clear about the
problems they face in order that potential solutions can be assessed against it (Jennings and
Wattam 1998). The five problem scenarios identified in Table 15, Section 3.2.3, have been
reproduced here and combined with quotations from the interviewees as a way to identify if and
how clearly any problem statements were made. The results of this analysis are shown in
Table 44.
Scenario Quotation
The organisation has no approach
April of 2015, there was a mandate written … it described exactly what the issues were; the things around, sort of, like, governance - how we were going to run governance, how … what we were going to do and what we weren’t going to do, specifically. (Interviewee 17, Organisation F)
Problems with the current method
A reaction to the previous orthodoxy which was seen to be overly engineered and a bureaucracy at the expense of delivery. (Interviewee 1, Organisation A)
Process improvement
A number of areas that were lacking structure, one of which was the programme and how we organised that and how we managed projects. (Interviewee 5, Organisation A)
Senior management requires the project management method
During the time I've been here, so five years, there have been cycles where the senior organisation has wanted to see much more detail and much more rigour around the method and the documentation and the artefacts, if you like, around the whole project management process. Other areas, points in the cycle, where it's wanted to be very lean and has wanted maybe just two or three key artefacts to be used, and we're kind of at that point in the cycle at the moment where the desire for the organisation is to be very lean in our methods, with the anticipation that frees peoples' attention up for delivery as opposed to control. (Interviewee 1, Organisation A)
External factors are forcing the change
One of the big problems we have had with the third party supplier … is the prompt to follow a method but they don't follow that method and they don't provide the artefacts they say they are going to provide and key artefacts like release notes so they will consequently with most of the products they produce for use, they slip by three months and
110
Scenario Quotation
obviously there is a consultancy cost for that. (Interviewee 3, Organisation A).
There are certain sets of criteria that [the organisation] pretty much live by so, you know, about customer experience, there’s a big focus on customer experience, there’s a big focus on financial viability in terms of, you know, whether or not a project should go ahead really, so I suppose they would have been in place. (Interviewee 16, Organisation E)
Table 44. Problem scenarios (sample 1)
Table 44 shows that, even from the small sample of organisations, there are diverse reasons for
selecting a new PMM or revising an existing method. The interviews provide evidence to
support and validate the five problem scenarios produced in Table 15, Section 3.2.3 but shed
little light on any diagnostic process used nor the accuracy or validity of that activity.
A recurring theme in the interviews was the importance of experience in those appointed to
select the PMM. The path dependency model of Johnson et al (2008), described in Section
3.2.6, provides a useful framework to explain how the standards, training and past behaviour
can have a strong influence on decision making. Decisions appear to be heavily influenced by
the past experience and affiliations of the group members as exemplified by Interviewee 15 who
mentioned both of these factors in their response:
They were defined and written by individuals who were employed by [the organisation]
but very much based upon APM. (Interviewee 15, Organisation D)
Similarly, Interviewee 8 emphasised the importance of individual experience in the process.
[Person A] and [Person B] from my team were the main stakeholders to create the
change framework and they were very mature in all sorts of business appraisal, case
appraisal and exactly what project and programme should be doing so they were quite
steeped in it. (Interviewee 8, Organisation B)
Reliance on past experience was justified by Interviewee 18 on the basis that he knew the past
solution had been successful:
I’d used Agile methods as well, and I had used the Managing Iterative Software
Development Projects book. So I guess one criteria was I personally was familiar with
them and yes, past experience and proven to work. (Interviewee 18, Organisation G)
Moving back to the decision-making process, option analysis, the final step in the normative
model in Figure 6, Section 3.2.1, appears to have been left in the hands of the experienced
individuals or task groups with considerable freedom with regard to what they chose to include
or ignore as can be seen from the response from Interviewee 15 in terms of using the APM
111
Body of Knowledge. Interviewee 17 explains how the task group evaluated the PMMs but does
not mention the basis for this evaluation.
That task group looked at all the different options .. different members of the
organisation sort of sat down and worked through all of the different types of, you know,
methodologies if you like. (Interviewee 17, Organisation F)
It is notable that the options analysis sub-theme in NVIVO (shown in Table 36, Section 4.7.3)
was not linked with any of the transcripts because it was not mentioned during the interviews.
When it came to choosing the PMM, this also appeared to be the responsibility of the individuals
or task groups in terms of the recommendation they presented to senior management for
approval.
Only one interviewee commented on the evaluation of the selection process. Interviewee 1
made the point that organisations rarely make time to evaluate decisions such as these and his
comments appear to be supported by the silence on this question from other interviewees. The
same person went on to ponder whether the evaluation may be included in individual post
project reviews and concluded that the evaluation would be in terms of the suitability of the
PMM to support delivery rather than of the decision to select the PMM in the first place, ie it
would be an evaluation of tailoring much more than of the process carried out to choose the
PMM. He said:
I don't think the approach as such is ever really evaluated. I think it is something that is
possibly reflected upon during post-project reviews … the evaluation is always seen in
terms of delivery. (Interviewee 1, Organisation A)
This section has presented and analysed the qualitative feedback that related to the ‘Select’
stage. While the normative decision-making model provides a useful framework by which to
look at the selection process, the evidence from the participants in sample 1 is that the model
has little relevance. It is not that there is an alternative model for the select process that is used
in preference to the normative model but, instead, that none of the organisations in sample 1
appear to use any structured approach to selecting their PMM. The picture of PMM selection
that emerges from sample 1 is that organisations decide they need a method for managing
projects because they do not have a method, senior management require a method, their
current method is inappropriate, they want to improve how they manage projects or there are
external forces influencing adoption. After this stimulus has initiated the process, experienced
individuals or small working groups set about looking for suitable alternatives before
recommending one for approval. In this process, past experience is a very powerful influence
on the selection of a PMM. The goals for the PMM, if they exist at all, are very high level, for
example process improvement and better communication. None of the organisations
interviewed evaluated their selection choice to investigate either the process itself or the
outcome.
112
This section has been based on the qualitative primary data and it should be noted that this was
limited in scope because not every organisation was able to explain the processes used. This
paucity of information was caused by the fact that the information was no longer available in the
organisation because the individuals who had the knowledge were no longer available and
there is no organisational memory of the process. Organisations emerge from the select stage
with a chosen PMM and then begin the process of embedding the new method. The next
section explores how the organisations in sample 1 managed the ‘Embed’ stage.
5.2.2 The ‘Embed’ stage
Embedding is the process in the PMM lifecycle in which the chosen method is brought into the
organisation. Embedding encompasses how users are involved, how organisations surmount
hurdles and take advantage of opportunities during the process, how the change is managed
and the extent to which project staff follow the new method. The conceptual model in Figure 20,
Section 3.9 uses the theoretical underpinnings of Force Field Analysis (Lewin 1952), change
management theory and practice theory to analyse and make sense of the interview transcripts.
The analysis begins with an assessment of change type which was described in Section 3.3.1
using the model of Balogun and Hailey (2008). This model identified four types of change:
evolution; adaptation; revolution; and reconstruction). The responses of the organisations A to
G have been reviewed by the author and, using the rationale for the PMM evident in the
interviews, mapped to the most closely fitting option in the model. The shortcoming of this
process is that it is subjective based on the author’s interpretation. The author wanted to avoid
presenting the interviewees with the range of four options from which to choose as it was
believed this would bias the outcome. The resulting matrix is shown in Table 45.
Change type Organisation
Evolution None
Adaptation A, B, C, D, E, F, G
Revolution None
Reconstruction None
Table 45. Application of the change model to the sample data (sample 1)
With such a small sample and the subjective nature of the allocation to change type, it is
important not to read too much into Table 45. None of the organisations in the sample saw the
embedding of the PMM as a ‘big bang’ approach which ruled out both Revolution and
Reconstruction. The two incremental approaches, Evolution and Adaptation are differentiated
on the basis that the first is transformational and the second is realignment. To be
transformational, Balogun and Hailey (2008) suggest the organisation would need to set out
with very clear goals on what it wanted to achieve with its new method. Transformational
contains within it connotations of importance, something the organisation has a clear plan to
achieve that will bring about much needed benefit to the organisation. No evidence was
presented by any organisation to suggest that the PMM selection and implementation met the
criteria to warrant this label. A pattern of adaptation was however visible in all the
113
organisations. Adaptation in terms of responding to senior management calls for a new way of
managing projects (Organisation A); raising the standard of project management and making
the department more professional (Organisation B); working to industry and corporate
standards (Organisation C); to add value (Organisation D); supporting the “customer
experience” (interviewee 16, Organisation E); a “need to establish a project management
methodology” (interviewee 17, Organisation F); and finding a method suitable for senior
management and project staff (organisation G). On the basis of this analysis, all the
organisations were seen to use an adaptation change type.
Having assessed the change type, the next step in the conceptual model is to investigate the
driving and restraining forces for embedding the PMM in the organisation. This area of enquiry
was prompted by Lewin’s (1952) Force Field Analysis model (described in Section 3.3.2) and
this model is used to structure the responses. According to the coding in NVIVO (Section
4.7.3), 7 participants mentioned driving forces and 12 mentioned restraining forces. The
responses from participants have been analysed and individual responses collated into
common categories to present a clear picture of the interview responses. Table 46 separates
the responses into driving and restraining forces, groups responses into categories within these
two headings and provides supporting quotations from the interviewees.
Force Category Quotation
Driving Compulsion They won't have a lot of choice once we have decided to roll it out on a project because these will be the actual activities they have to book against in their timesheets. So if they are booking against an activity and not doing it, then that's not a good place to be. (Interviewee 3, Organisation A)
It’s compulsory for us. (Interviewee 8, Organisation B)
Leadership [It] was visible that it was considered to be necessary by the person in charge of this department. (Interviewee 18, Organisation G)
Reduction in functional barriers
Functional barriers, even within the IT team, are lessened because people are having a broader view of what is happening. (Interviewee 4, Organisation A)
Experienced staff
I have now got more permanent members of the team who are project managers who are bringing much more experience to the team on that front as well and so they are versed in the process that we need to follow and they will be looking to influence that. (Interviewee 5, Organisation A)
Self-interest You see behaviours slightly change when they know that their role’s about to end. There’s a couple of big programmes that are coming close to closure, and it’s interesting that they suddenly get a bit more interest. (interviewee 9, Organisation B)
Help to PMs and process improvement
Some people within the bigger projects openly admitted that they needed help and so the acceptance by the people who I was working with, that this was likely to help them and that they wanted somebody to sort it out for them. (Interviewee 18, Organisation G)
The intention is to try and reduce the, sort of, duplication and look at the overall programme of works. (Interviewee 17, Organisation F)
114
Force Category Quotation
Restraining Time There was a lot of just general unease in the department that absolutely spilled out onto anything that was new, of which the method is, so it was very difficult to win the hearts and minds of these people.. (Interviewee 3, Organisation A)
I mean our biggest challenge at the moment is trying to get it put into place. (Interviewee 4, Organisation A)
Obviously, sometimes it takes a while to get everybody on board for the single, you know, the single purpose but I think the building blocks have been put in place. (Interviewee 6, Organisation B)
It’s very time consuming and it’s very rare that we just have one project that’s due. (Interviewee 16, Organisation E)
Management understanding
Some of that is trying to persuade them the only intervention is not a five-day training course with an exam at the end; so to think slightly more outside of the … a little more widely about what they’re training. (Interviewee 9, Organisation B)
Motivating individuals
I think any change naturally makes people nervous until they can see the benefits of it so I am just emphasising that we have to give this a try really. (Interviewee 5, Organisation A)
You just can’t get people to be bothered. It’s quite frustrating really. (Interviewee 9, Organisation B)
Process is easy, behaviours are difficult. (Interviewee 9, Organisation B)
The vast majority of people that I’m dealing with are not PM’s. They are doing a bit of PM as part of their day job. (Interviewee 11, Organisation C)
We’ve probably got a mix of behaviours in there in terms of some people that get it and are trying to do something and others that aren’t and are holding it back. (Interviewee 13, Organisation D)
Poor process There is no one kind of overseeing body that can do that so as a group of PMO’s we would agree and then we’d roll out through our PMs. (Interviewee 15, Organisation D)
I feel like the process is very rigid and it’s very heavy in documentation. (Interviewee 16, Organisation E).
Business priorities
The business priority overrides the process when things are tight like that and the process gets side-lined to some extent. (Interviewee 16, Organisation E)
Culture General cultural distrust of project management and perhaps suspicion of me as a new person. (Interviewee 18, Organisation G)
Table 46. Driving and restraining forces (sample 1)
The driving forces in Table 46 show a range of forces from very strong (compulsion) and weak
(more holistic perspective) and from individual forces (what’s in it for me?) to more external
forces (leadership). Despite the small sample, the dimensions of power (strong-weak) and
locus (internal-external) are perceptible in the responses.
It became apparent from the interviews that culture could be both a driving and a restraining
force. Interviewee 6 said the implementation of their PMM was made easier because they
already had a supportive culture whereas Interviewee 3 had the opposite view and felt that the
change was taking longer because the culture did not support the PMM change.
115
There were more restraining forces identified than driving forces and this is reflected in the
analysis. PMMs, like all major change, take time to embed and those involved need to see the
benefits if they are to embrace the change. The omission of these factors presents the change
with restraining hurdles that have to be overcome, delaying or imperilling implementation. If the
chosen process is not clear, does not fit the organisation or is not supported or understood by
senior management, additional barriers can be thrown up. A key factor was the motivation of
individuals and the vital necessity of gaining support and desire for the change. What is
surprising is that none of these factors is unknown in change initiatives which means that all of
the factors could be avoided rather than having to be addressed. Risk management theory is
very clear on the benefits of avoidance over any type of mitigation strategy (Kerzner 2013).
Where an implementation is poorly managed, it is possible to gain a sense of why people start
to deviate from the defined ways of workings and a gap appears between the espoused and in-
use project management processes.
Table 21 in Section 3.4.1 lists the most well-known strategies that have been developed for
managing change. The approach taken to the interviews was, once again, not to prompt the
interviewees with a list from which to choose but instead to try to elicit whether a defined
strategy was adopted from their responses. It was the case with every organisation that no
established change strategy could be identified.
From the interviews, it was clear that the way in which PMMs were implemented was more
reactive, ad hoc and situational and less planned than the literature would suggest is optimal for
managing large scale change. Based on this research, no evidence was found that change
models are used in this context.
From what has already been learnt about the informal approach adopted to change by
organisations in this study, it should not be a surprise to discover that there is little in the way of
formal evaluation of the change. Interviewee 1 expressed a view that encapsulated the
approach of the majority of organisations studied:
I don't think the approach as such is ever really evaluated. I think it is something that is
possibly reflected upon during post-project reviews. (Interviewee 1, Organisation A)
The possible evaluation of the PMM implementation as part of another project’s evaluation
underlines the ad hoc nature of evaluation. In addition to being unstructured, the appraisals can
also be subjective as Interviewee 3 highlighted:
116
I unofficially ran [a] stage using these artefacts and these methods and I believe,
although stage 2 wasn't successful, I believe the use of this trimmed-down methodology
was successful and helped us with the success we did have. (Interviewee 3,
Organisation A)
In this last case, there may be extraneous variables that inhibited the success of a project stage
while still allowing the method to be considered successful but this assessment is doubtful
because the assessor is the same person advocating the new method. More formal
assessments tend to be more objective and generate outputs that have more credibility.
Interviewee 3 raised the valid issue of when to undertake the evaluation. From the changing
situation in organisation A over time, it is clear that very different outcomes from the
assessment would have resulted depending when the assessment was made.
It took a long time to get the process through so I would have said, for about a year, up
till about six months ago, there was a lot of just general unease in the department that
absolutely spilled out onto anything that was new, of which the method is, so it was very
difficult to win the hearts and minds of these people. In the last six months that has
changed drastically, I think, and people are much more acceptant that it’s going to
arrive. (Interviewee 3, Organisation A)
Interviewee 15 has considered the issue of evaluation and concluded “It’s very hard, isn’t it, to
measure the benefit of having the framework in place.” His organisation, F, has considered
metrics including the number of projects using the new method (or Framework using
organisation F’s language), the number of training sessions and the number of audits
conducted. Clearly these are important metrics in the evaluation of the uptake of the method.
However, it is relatively easy to identify process-based metrics from the method but, without
clearly thought out performance criteria at the beginning, it becomes very difficult to have any
meaningful overall assessment of the effectiveness of the method.
The exception to this trend was organisation B who used task groups and project audits to
feedback and improve the implementation process. Interviewee 10 commented how:
It is very difficult [to measure effectiveness] though the benefits of recommendations
has actually helped. How do you measure that; they could argue well we are aware of
it anyway, does it just reinforce what the SRO [Senior Responsible Officer] thought,
that’s added value - how do you measure it? So it just comes back to that SRO
feedback sheet I think, so hoping that they actually complete it and are honest, so
where it doesn’t offer value, we can look to try and improve the service that we offer.
(Interviewee 10, Organisation B)
117
The process is evidently successful because Interviewee 6 (Organisation B) was proud to
announce “across government we’re seen as, you know, one of the exemplars”.
Having looked at how organisations embed PMMs, the attention now switches to the extent to
which those processes are used by project staff. The item of interest here is whether staff
follow the defined or espoused way of working as defined in the PMM or use other processes to
carry out their project work. Over half (60%) of respondents commented on the potential
difference between how an organisation professes to manage projects and what happens in
reality. This was a feature of operating PMMs that was first identified in Section 3.5. When
asked this question, a recurring theme amongst the interviewees was that organisations have
defined methods but there is considerable flexibility in how closely they are followed.
Interviewee 4 gave a typical response:
Most of the companies I have worked for use PRINCE2 in name only rather than in
practice so they kind of take the principles but they don’t follow all of the best practice
that is laid out in there so it's a bit difficult so it is probably a bit of a mishmash of
everyone’s experiences elsewhere. (Interviewee 4, Organisation A)
‘PRINCEesque’ in the next quote echoes PINO from Section 3.4.2 where the processes in use
do not match the espoused method.
So, with my organisation and within PMO they subscribe to a PRINCEesque
methodology in that they occasionally use some of the artefacts but basically they don't
really have a method or a methodology that they follow. (Interviewee 3, Organisation A)
Interviewee 14 suggested that flexibility was widespread in their experience.
The framework that we currently use was set up about eight years ago and it gets used
in various different levels of fidelity across the organisation as I think you’ll find in most
places. (interviewee 14, Organisation D)
Several interviewees highlighted the fact that the key principles of the PMM were followed in
their organisations.
In general, the high level principles are adhered to, maybe the detail isn’t quite as much
as it should be. So, we tend to have, a mix is a way people want to do this.
(interviewee 12, Organisation D)
A variety of reasons are provided to why this gap exists. These have been collated in Table 47.
118
Reason Quotation
Personality
The generalisation is that we’re not as strict as we think we are. (Interviewee 18, Organisation G)
Efficiency It’s something that’s not formalised but is widely accepted as a way of being more efficient. (Interviewee 16, Organisation E)
You might flex some of the products, you know, if they’ve done something slightly different and it’s a low risk project but it’s still got the detail it need it might be in a slightly different … you’re not going to die in a ditch over here. (Interviewee 6, Organisation B)
PMM lacks relevance
I think what’s happened is that people have stopped taking it quite so seriously if I’m completely honest and are taking it more of a, it’s a good thing to be doing but let’s not get hung up on particular elements of it. (Interviewee 14, Organisation D)
Table 47. Why practice deviates from process (sample 1)
The first two reasons in Table 47 are individual and efficiency explanations for why someone
might deviate from the defined processes, that it is their nature to work to their own rules or that
they are working in a particular way as it is more efficient. The final reason represents an
organisational factor. If the PMM does not offer benefit to the staff using it, use will decline.
The third stage in the PMM life cycle is ‘Tailor’. PMs are expected to tailor their method to the
needs of the project so the final factor in Table 47 is an entirely acceptable reason for deviation
from the PMM.
It is to be expected but also evident in the data that there is a close correlation between the
reasons why performance can deviate from the standard and the restraining forces on PMMs.
To combat the deviation, organisations use a variety of techniques. For example, organisation
B, who are strongly process-based, use internal assurance teams to carry out ad hoc
compliance checks on projects.
When business cases are reviewed, particularly for the change framework gates three,
four and five, that’s an opportunity to see whether they’re following the change
framework appropriately. (Interviewee 6, Organisation B)
From the responses from participants it is reasonable to conclude that deviation from defined
processes is widespread and there are multiple factors involved. Although the practice may be
widely accepted, negative outcomes may result, for example from a negative audit as might
occur in organisation B. Interviewee 3 noted how the search for more efficient ways of working
should only be permitted when adequate experience had been gained and linked deviation from
the defined processes with experience.
In my mind you can’t take shortcuts until you know the long way round. There may be
some reasonable, let’s say, cost cutting techniques they can employ, because shortcut
never sounds a good phrase, and I think in my experience that’s what I think I bring and
119
that’s what I see other experienced PMs bringing whereas your more junior project
managers need to follow the guidelines very closely. (Interviewee 3, Organisation A)
A further potential downside but this time from not deviating when deviation would be beneficial
is explained by Interviewee 13.
We’ve kind of created this culture where we’ve got a process and the project managers
follow the process. They do what the process says and they stop thinking, they
stopped … it’s almost kind of narrow field of vision. So they’re not getting that pace and
agility that we need to think about and that’s not necessarily the processes inhibiting us
but they’re not thinking about the process. So, the process says, yes we go through
these different gates, so they’re forcing it through all of these different gates.
(interviewee 13, Organisation D)
Here, following the process leads to a loss of creativity and the process was followed even after
it ceased to add value to the organisation. This issue touches on organisational culture and this
particular aspect of conformity versus creativity is discussed in more detail in Section 5.2.4.
The conclusion that must be drawn from this section is that there are gaps between espoused
and in-use processes, that these are widely known and accepted, that there are a variety of
explanatory reasons for the gaps and that the gap can have positive and negative
consequences for organisations.
The importance of context was raised in the interviews which links to the next section where the
focus changes to the first of the three environment variables, maturity.
5.2.3 Maturity
While the majority of the primary data regarding organisational maturity emanated from the
questionnaire because of the incorporation of the maturity assessment, the interviewees were
also asked their views on this topic. The issue was mentioned by 10 interviewees and a total of
19 times (see Table 36, Section 4.7.3).
When selecting a PMM, the participants referenced the need for the method to fit the
organisation. No organisation selected their method in isolation. Instead, the selection process
had to be aware of the environment in which the methods would be used. From the literature
review, this consideration can be framed in terms of organisational maturity and the work of
Kerzner (2013), discussed in Section 3.6.1, who linked the successful deployment of PMMs with
organisations who are at least at level 3 in the maturity hierarchy. While no one made mention
of maturity as a constraining factor, the assumption can be perceived in the responses from
participants. For example, interviewee 5 expressed this requirement concisely when stressing
the need to find the ‘right level’ of features and process for the organisation:
120
It is important to understand what position the organisation is rather than going from
zero to all bells and whistles and too much rigour, it is trying to find the level through
negotiation and discussion with team leaders who represent their teams and others,
whilst insisting upon a minimum kind of process and data set if you will to find out what
the right level is of control that we need to put in place. (Interviewee 5, Organisation A).
None of the interviewees alluded to how the ‘right level of control’ within their PMM was
identified. None reported carrying out any pre-analysis work to provide input to the working
groups as might be expected from the models from authors such as Waterman et al (1980) and
Balogun and Hailey (2008), discussed in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. Explanations for this inability
to identify the appropriate level of control may emanate from a lack of understanding of maturity.
The response from interviewee 1 was typical of organisations that possessed only a vague idea
of their own level of maturity.
I would probably say on a maturity index we are probably quite low in terms of how well
methods are documented, understood, shared, implemented, reviewed and assessed.
(Interviewee 1, Organisation A)
In place of formalised and more objective methods of maturity assessment, organisation A is
using a very subjective method of dubious validity.
What we do do is compare, well, what I have just started doing actually is, been to a
couple of external seminars and compared what we do with other universities. And it
does seem at the moment that we are quite mature in our thinking. (Interviewee 2,
Organisation A)
It is unclear what benefits such an assessment would offer to organisation A and how that could
be translated to the PMM. Other employees in the same organisation display greater
awareness of maturity and a recognition that raising maturity takes time.
We haven’t even thought about that because I don’t even think we’re at a maturity level
1 … where we actually have things written down because we don’t always. We don’t
have the processes all fully documented. Well, documented loosely even and followed
in places so I would have said we’re probably aspirational for one in quite a few areas,
so, you know, we’re a long way from doing any measurements of that sort of thing. …
At the moment, we are probably far from that. (Interviewee 4, Organisation A)
It is evident from organisation A that there is an awareness of maturity and what it involves but
there is no drive or requirement to investigate this area further. This lack of interest in maturity
was mirrored in organisations B, C and D where no maturity assessment had been carried out
in recent years. Interviewee 11 from organisation C apologetically answered “So there are
those maturity models out there, again hand on heart I’ve got to be honest, I haven’t recently
121
used them.” and interviewee 15 from organisation D noted the last assessment was “a few
years ago” and that maturity is not “considered the highest priority at the moment”. The fact that
organisation B had not revisited maturity in the last 8 years could indicate they found little value
in the process. However, interviewee 6 believed their level of maturity to be “somewhere
around the four” which could be interpreted that they have reached their required level of
maturity and needed to assess it no longer but this would seem unlikely given the degree of
change that organisation D is going through (based on the collective interviews from this
organisation).
Where PMM maturity assessments had taken place, and with the exception of organisation D,
they were internal exercises. It was not clear if or how the information has been used.
The questions about the linkage between maturity and industry and project size will be
addressed in the quantitative sections on maturity (6.2.5 and 6.3.5).
While organisation F had not looked into maturity in any way, organisation G had loosely
considered maturity saying “I haven’t measured it in any precise way” (interviewee 17) but then
demonstrated an awareness of the appropriateness of different maturity levels for PMMs. This
echoes the views of Wheatley (2007) and Christoph Albrecht and Sprang (2014) that choosing
the right level of maturity is important. Interviewee 18, organisation G, demonstrated a
preference for more subjective assessment dismissing the notion that higher maturity is better
when she said “I’m kind of not too interested in that kind of stuff [maturity assessment] because
I feel that increasing level maturity … would be aiming to add levels of precision and
repeatability and control that probably, individually our projects don’t warrant”. The literature
review in Section 3.6.1 does suggest that higher levels of maturity are not necessarily beneficial
for organisations but this assessment does require that organisations know their current levels
so that they can make a judgement on the appropriateness of that level for the management of
their projects. It is not clear how interviewee 18 is judging the maturity in her organisation and
may be dismissing the concept purely on the basis of the potential overhead that higher than
necessary levels impose.
The overall view from the participants was that maturity was not a major issue for them and
there was no visible link between maturity and the PMM. While all organisations had a level of
maturity in their project management processes, none knew their level accurately. Few
organisations had benchmarked themselves against others and the benefits of maturity were
known only to a subset. Unawareness of maturity and its impact on performance and PMMs
was also an issue. The extent to which maturity affects the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages was
therefore difficult to determine on the basis of the interview responses.
122
5.2.4 Culture
Culture appeared frequently in the interviews being mentioned by 13 participants and a total of
35 times (see Table 36, Section 4.7.3). The importance of culture in organisations and the
effect this had on PMMs was a recurring theme both from negative and positive perspectives.
In designing the data collection, it had been envisaged that the majority of the information on
culture would have been derived from the questionnaire because of the incorporation of the
OCAI (described in Section 3.7.2). However, the interviews proved to be an unexpectedly rich
source of information in this area.
Interviewee 3, organisation A, highlighted how a negative culture was initially a barrier to
implementing a new PMM. In this organisation, the negative culture was the result of other
changes in the department but the effect was to create a backdrop that inhibited and affected
other initiatives even if they were not connected with those issues originally causing the
negativity. The influence of culture on organisational performance (Hartnell et al 2011;
Sackmann 2011) was expressed very clearly by this participant. This comment suggests that,
even if a PMM will help the organisation, it will be difficult to implement successfully without a
supporting culture being in place. He said:
When I joined two years ago we definitely didn’t have that culture. To be quite honest,
it was a fairly demoralised IT Services group. There were reasons for that. We were
going through a restructure, people were unsure about their future … it was very difficult
to win the hearts and minds of these people. In the last six months that has changed
drastically, I think, and people are much more acceptant that it’s going to arrive.
(Interviewee 3, Organisation A).
The recent change to a more accepting culture in his department has brought about his positive
view of the future implementation of the PMM and the expectation of the linkage between
culture and performance.
The vital importance of culture was summed up by Interviewee 17, organisation F, who
concluded that culture was the most important item in the implementation of their PMM. In this
large health service provider, the need to move to a more collaborative, less departmental, way
of working was seen as a major inhibitor to progress.
Our one biggest stumbling block at the moment, I said that, is our culture. That is
massive. I mean, I think it’s one fundamental thing that we need to tackle because the
way that people work, I’ve never heard the word ‘silos’ used so much here. They work
so much on their own within the organisations … the plan for that is to change the
culture, because that is fundamental to everything we’re doing here. (Interviewee 17,
Organisation F)
123
At the departmental level, multiple participants commented on discrete areas of their
organisation and their intention to create a culture within projects that was specific to these
areas. In this way, culture is being seen more as operational ways of working than a philosophy
and thus something that can be manipulated. The first quote from Interviewee 13, organisation
D, discussed attitudes (rather than cultures but the two are conflated) with regards to project
budget ownership and the desire to change this attitude.
We do have a bit of a silo culture and people get emotionally tied with the money and
they say, it’s my money - I will use it on my stuff and we’re trying to break down some of
those sort of silos and barriers because it’s about doing the right thing for [this
organisation] not necessarily for themselves. We’re trying to get people to see it as
more of the group’s money and value rather than anything else. (Interviewee 13,
Organisation D).
This view of culture is shared by Interviewee 11, organisation C, who made the statement that
“In terms of the culture within the organisation, there’s a very close focus on cost”. Here culture
is seen as being amenable to change based on leadership and management desire in line with
the sources of culture defined by Johnson et al (2008) and Schein (2010) and shown in Table
25, Section 3.7.1. Neither of these two interviewees is using this language to describe their
view of culture but their comments can be interpreted in this way. While some interviewees are
clear on what they want to do to influence their culture, this is not shared by all as this exchange
with Interviewee 13, organisation D, demonstrates:
Interviewer: And do you have a clear view of what culture you’re trying to achieve in
terms of culture change? Do you know where your vision is leading you?
Interviewee: No.
It is possible that this participant had not given thought to how culture can assist or inhibit the
implementation or effectiveness of PMMs. Alternatively, this interviewee may be taking the view
of authors such as Bresnen and Marshall (2000) who suggest that trying to impose culture ends
in failure because of resistance from staff or the creation of unintended consequences, for
example, the substitution of alternate methods, but this interpretation is less likely. As the
interview with participant 13 continued, it became clear that his organisation was working to
influence the culture of the project management team through leadership and encouragement
(steps 3 and 4 in the Culture origins in Table 25, Section 3.7.1) using more of a libertarian
paternalism approach (Thaler and Sunstein 2008). Interviewee 13 said:
The second phase from that was around behaviours. So we took the six attributes of
our new leadership framework and we ran a discussion with the team to say, what do
you think this means to you as a project leader of the future. So it allowed us to take
away and forget that you’re a project manager and you might behave this way or that
way - think about project leader of the future and what might be a positive attribute and
124
a negative attribute. So we tried to get the team sort of talking and discussing and
thinking around that. (Interviewee 13, Organisation D)
The phased approach to the management of projects used by organisation D can be interpreted
as a systematic tactic to influence project culture in their company and it is possible to view this
either as a light-touch implementation of a change strategy or a persistent nudging in the
desired direction. As can be seen from the earlier response from the interviewee, confirmed by
other interviews with the same organisation, this is not seen by organisation D as a systematic
approach but more as a number of phases of work that support the implementation of their
PMM and improve the chances of its success. This is a more likely interpretation than the view
that organisation D sees the influencing of organisation culture as negative.
So far the findings on culture have been descriptive with the interview results being assessed
from different perspectives none of which have displayed any level of conflict. However, as
Cameron and Quinn (2011) suggest in Section 3.7.2, culture, while it may have a dominant type
(based on the OCAI), all organisations have within them a level of conflict caused by the
competing values that exist. No organisation is a pure example of one of the four types but
each will have a level of the other three types within it (Cameron and Quinn 2011). One of
these competing values relates to the potential dilemma between the demands of complying
with the PMM and the need for creativity and problem-solving, two of the key attributes of
project managers (Morris et at 2011). It is contradictory for organisations to, at the same time,
encourage project managers to follow a defined set of procedures and also encourage them to
be innovative and project focused. Interview 18 described this well when he said:
There’s always a certain amount of tension between applying a method across a group
of people and the fact that they’re all very clever and have their own opinions and their
knowledge and all the rest of it so … and you want them to be, by nature of the job,
they’re doing software design which requires them to be creative and R&D which
requires them to be able to challenge things and take risks, and in a sense the project
management is working against parts of the types of people that we want to have, their
mind-sets, so there’s always a tension but I think the tension is as productive and
healthy as it can be. (Interviewee 18, Organisation G)
Reflecting on this section and Section 5.2.2 where this topic also featured, it is clear that culture
has an influence on PMMs. This importance was underlined by Interviewee 17 who
emphasised that culture was the key aspect of the PMM implementation process. Not all of the
different paths of culture that were outlined in Table 25, Section 3.7.1, were reflected in the
interviews. Instead, there was a greater focus on the desire within many of the organisations to
positively influence the culture and thereby make a beneficial contribution to the PMM
implementation. However, as section 3.7 demonstrated, culture is a broad and nebulous
concept and striking the appropriate balance, between for example compliance and innovation,
makes culture a constant tension within PMM implementation.
125
5.2.5 Organisational structure
Only 3 interviewees discussed the issue of organisational structure (see Table 36, Section
4.7.3). Structure did not appear to be an important factor related to PMMs for any of the
participants. Organisational structure for many organisations is a result of prior business
decisions in terms of the organisation of the enterprise. In no interview was the organisational
structure linked to PMMs, either positively or negatively. The use of functional, matrix and
projectised structures had little prominence in the interviews.
The view from the interviews was that PMMs needed to be flexible to cope with a wide variety of
structures and that structure should not be a constraint on managing projects. Interviewee 4
commented on how the matrix structure can be problematic because staff can be involved in
multiple and potentially conflicting projects when he said “they do a mixture of support and
development, which can have issues”, a general response to matrix management rather than
anything specific to PMMs.
Interviewee 15 identified how the structure can complicate communication by saying:
that’s where our organisation structure makes things a bit tricky because you would
have to be targeting the different areas and there is no one kind of overseeing body that
can do that so as a group of PMO’s we would agree and then we’d roll out through our
PMs. (Interviewee 15, Organisation D)
While the creation of a Project or Programme Management Office (PMO) was one structure that
many organisations had adopted, this follows the recent trend in companies that carry out
project management (Morris et al 2011; Kerzner 2013; Pinto 2013). The PMO is frequently
used because of its capacity to act as a central hub for project management related information
and processes that cuts across organisational structures and provides a focal point (Morris et al
2011). Recognising that project management exists in many divisions of an organisation, the
PMO can add benefit in co-ordinating activities. The co-ordinating role of the PMO was
recognised by interviewee 15 who said:
One of the things that we have done in the last 12 months has been to create a
community, a PMO community, so recognising that we’re all in different areas,
recognising that we may be operating slightly differently, but let’s try where we can, to
operate as an [organisation] PMO and see if we can pick up some key areas that we
might focus on and try to do that as similarly as possible and that’s having, you know,
some affect, again with anything, change takes time. (Interviewee 15, Organisation D)
The previous section addressed the issues around culture and PMMs. One interviewee
connected PMOs to culture to demonstrate that culture extends to all facets of the business. In
the same way that culture can be linked to performance, Interviewee 17 makes the point that
126
the success of different organisational structures can be supported or inhibited by culture. He
said:
So, as much as we’re trying to implant the PRINCE framework, or the PMO framework,
I should say, it doesn’t really fit in with the way the culture is at the moment.
(Interviewee 17, Organisation F)
While not strictly organisational structures in the way this question was intended, PMOs are
structural elements in organisations. PMOs, if they exist, are usually the owners of a PMM in an
organisation (Kerzner 2013) and are therefore important organisational elements for companies.
Other than the PMO, the evidence from the interviews is that whether the organisation uses a
functional, matrix or projectised structure, there is little visible relationship to PMMs.
5.3 Conclusion
Interview data is vital to this research because it provides insights that are unlikely to be
available via other means. The questions around ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ have allowed these
stages in the PMM life cycle to be investigated in detail in this chapter, shedding an informative
light on how organisations approach these stages. Based on the literature, models for the
‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages were developed but, in light of the findings in this chapter, these
models proved to be poor predictors of the realities of selecting and embedding the PMM. On
the basis of the organisations in this research, none were found to operate in a structured,
process-driven way with regard to these stages and there was no evident use of the available
models. The impact on PMMs of the environmental variables, maturity, culture and
organisational structure can be estimated by the responses to the interview questions and the
prevalence of related key words in the thematic analysis. Based on the assessment of these
two aspects, it can be concluded that maturity has little influence, culture a strong influence and
organisational structure little influence on PMMs.
Having assessed the qualitative research information, the next chapter investigates the
questionnaire data that was collected.
127
6 Quantitative findings and analysis
6.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the findings from the quantitative primary data from this project and
comprises the questionnaire responses from sample 2 (staff from participating organisations)
and sample 3 (other project management professionals). The data from samples 2 and 3 is
presented separately in order that similarities and differences in the results can be discussed in
the next chapter.
The sections for samples 2 and 3 follow the same structure. They begin with an overview of the
survey participants so that the reader can gain an understanding of the range of people who
participated. Next, there is an assessment of the respondents’ suitability to provide data for this
research. This is followed by descriptive and analytical results for each section of the
questionnaire. The statistical tests, described in Section 4.8.2, were duplicated for sample 3 to
facilitate comparison.
Question numbers are used to provide a link to the questionnaire which can be seen in
Appendix 11.
In order to conduct analysis on some of the response data, new variables were created in
SPSS. A description of the data transformations can be seen in Appendix 12.
6.2 Sample 2 findings and analysis
Sample 2 comprised project staff working in the organisations that participated in this research.
While the original intention had been to collect data from all seven participating organisations, it
was only possible to collect responses from four of the organisations. These four organisations
are identified by the letter codes defined in Table 41, Section 5.1 and contributed the 28
responses that comprise sample 2.
6.2.1 Descriptive statistics about sample 2
The participants came from the private sector (43%) and public sector (57%). The breakdown
of the data is displayed in Table 48.
Sector Frequency Percent
Public 16 57.1
Private 12 42.9
Total 28 100.0
Table 48. Sector analysis (sample 2)
Table 49 shows that participants reported more industries than there were organisations. All
the diversity in the table derives from the large industrial organisation whose employees report
themselves as working in the different industries in which the company operates.
128
Industry Frequency Percent
Education 3 10.7
Energy 2 7.1
Finance 2 7.1
Government 12 42.9
IT 2 7.1
Manufacturing 2 7.1
Other 5 17.9
Total 28 100.0
Table 49. Industry analysis (sample 2)
The next Table, 50, shows in which department respondents worked.
This analysis underscores the importance of embedding in the PMM life cycle because the
quality of the implementation process has a strong association for the benefits organisations
gain from using the method. It is not possible to make the statement that a high quality
implementation leads to benefits from the PMM, only that these two variables are highly
associated.
The finding in Wells (2012) that experience was related to the benefit from PMMs was tested.
Wells (2012) found that more experienced staff find more organisational benefit from PMM
whereas less experienced staff find more personal benefit. In this research, project
management experience was segmented into three groups; less than 5 years, 5–10 years and
more than 10 years. No scale is given in Wells’s (2012 p56) research for experience making a
direct comparison impossible. A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted
between years of experience and organisational benefit. No statistically significant differences
were identified, F (2, 27)=2.315, p=0.120, although the ‘U’ shaped result reported in Wells was
partially seen in sample 2 with respondents with more than 10 years of experience seeing
greater organisational benefit that those with 5–10 years of experience.
Question 22 asked about the most valuable aspect of a PMM to an organisation. Respondents
were presented with 7 choices with the option of adding their own aspect. The results of this
question are shown in Table 71.
141
Organisation Overa
ll
meth
od
Co
mm
on
la
ng
uag
e
Wid
e
ap
pli
cab
ilit
y
Co
ntr
ol
– t
imelin
ess
Co
ntr
ol
– c
os
t
Co
ntr
ol
– p
eo
ple
Co
ntr
ol
– q
ua
lity
Oth
er
Org A 1 1
Org B 3 3 1 2 1 1 1
Org C 4 3 1 2
Org D 2 1
Total 7 5 1 3 5 2 4
Table 71. Most valuable aspect of a PMM (sample 2)
Based on the literature, it was expected that the first option, the ‘overall method’ would have
been chosen most frequently because the benefits of PMM can accrue from using all the
aspects. While ‘the overall method’ was the most frequent answer, cost and quality control and
the use of a common language each received five votes. The two organisations that chose the
‘overall method’ were B and C, the larger organisation. The wide range of views on the most
valuable aspect of a PMM reflects how organisations are valuing different component parts of
the PMM and are perhaps using the methods available to help manage those aspects of the
project that are most important to them.
Question 23 asked how PMMs are supported in the organisation. Likert-type responses to five
questions using an agreement scale are shown in Table 72, using rounded up percentages.
Questions En
tire
ly
dis
ag
ree
Mo
stl
y
dis
ag
ree
So
mew
hat
dis
ag
ree
Un
decid
ed
So
mew
hat
ag
ree
Mo
stl
y
ag
ree
En
tire
ly
ag
ree
Do
no
t kn
ow
23.1. The PMMs are kept
up to date 7% 4% 4% 18% 36% 32%
23.2 The PMMs are supported by templates and exemplars
7% 21% 32% 40%
23.3 The PMMs are well documented
7% 4% 29% 18% 43%
23.4 The PMMs are supported by a project support office
7% 4% 4% 11% 7% 68%
23.5 You have the opportunity to suggest improvements to the PMM
4% 11% 4% 14% 18% 50%
Table 72. How PMMs are supported (sample 2)
The overall view from sample 2 is that the PMMs are well supported within organisations
because the majority of answers are in agreement. The modal answers to all five questions are
either ‘mostly agree’ or ‘entirely agree’. The area with the strongest agreement related to the
142
support given to PMMs by the project support office. Keeping the PMM up to date was the area
with weakest agreement.
To be able to conduct statistical analysis on question 23, answers to this question were recoded
into new variables called q23_x_no8 which excluded the final option in the Likert range ‘Don’t
know’. A mean of the five sub questions was computed into a new variable called
pmm_support to generate a Likert scale. These two transformations are described in Appendix
12. The Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.917 shows that this scale has excellent reliability. The
mean score of 84% (m=5.9, sd=1.3, n=28) demonstrates that sample 2 strongly agrees that
PMMs are supported in their organisations.
As the variable pmm_support passed the normality test, it was used to investigate a relationship
with the PMM implementation success and PMM benefit using Pearson’s product-moment
correlation coefficient. There was a significant but weak correlation between pmm_support and
implementation success (r=0.412, n=28, p<0.05) and no significant relationship between
pmm_support and PMM benefit (r=0.346, n=28, p=0.071).
Concluding this section on the organisational view of PMMs by the participating organisations, it
is clear that a detailed understanding of the use of PMMs in their organisations has been
uncovered. From a ‘Select’ point of view, 45% of sample 2 was involved in the process but 71%
feel that PMs should be involved in selecting the PMM. Sample 2 are deeply entrenched in
PMMs. 86% report that using the PMM is mandatory with the use for other respondents being
dependent on project-related factors. PRINCE2 and in-house methods are the dominant
methods. 77% agree that that the PMM is embedded and 84% that the PMM is supported.
Implementation success averages at 69% and PMM benefit at 72%. The advantages of using
PMMs appear to be linked to organisation size with the larger organisations in this sample, B
and C, frequently reporting greater levels of advantage but the sample size is too small to
suggest this is a significant finding. The main benefits accrue from the overall methods but
other factors such as cost and quality control and the use of a common language are also
highlighted as positive elements of PMMs.
In the next section, the focus changes from the organisational to the personal aspects of PMMs.
6.2.4 PMMs – the personal perspective
While the questionnaire was primarily focused on the organisational perspective as discussed in
the previous section, there were 3 questions that asked about respondent’s own experiences of
PMMs. This personal perspective was investigated in questions 16, 17 (part) and 19. In
addition, page 9 of the questionnaire asked about the respondent. Most of the responses have
been used in 6.2.2 to assess the credibility of sample 2 to participate in the questionnaire and
this section describes the responses to the remaining item (question 38). As this section
focused on personal views, the results have not been disaggregated by organisation as in the
previous section.
143
Question 16 asked how many distinct project management methods the respondent used. The
range of options was none, 1, 2 or more than 2. The responses appear in Table 73.
Distinct PMMs Frequency Percent
None 2 7.1
1 13 46.4
2 9 32.1
>2 4 14.3
Total 28 100.0
Table 73. Number of distinct PMMs (sample 2)
Table 73 shows that approximately half (46%) of respondents use a single method, 32% two
methods and 14% more than 2 PMMs.
Question 17 shed light on the individual experiences of using PMMs. This was a multipart
question with sub-questions 17.6 – 17.8 and 17.10 – 17.11 being relevant to the individual’s
alignment with the PMM in terms of following the method, not finding it restrictive and being
supported with training and certification in the method. The responses, in rounded percentages,
are shown in Table 74.
Questions En
tire
ly
dis
ag
ree
Mo
stl
y
dis
ag
ree
So
mew
hat
dis
ag
ree
Un
decid
ed
So
mew
hat
ag
ree
Mo
stl
y
ag
ree
En
tire
ly
ag
ree
Do
no
t kn
ow
17.6 Using the PMM(s) was a big personal change for me?
11% 14% 29% 4% 25% 14% 4%
17.7 Using PMMs restrict your ability to manage your projects effectively?
18% 25% 21% 7% 11% 14% 4%
17.8 You follow the PMM most of the time?
4% 4% 14% 32% 46%
17.10 You are fully trained in the PMM(s)?
4% 7% 7% 7% 32% 42%
17.11 The organisation supports you in gaining certification in PMM
7% 4% 4% 18% 21% 46%
Table 74. Alignment with PMMs (sample 2)
The data transformations described in 6.2.3 for these questions were also conducted for the
remaining 5 sub questions of question 17. The negatively worded sub question 17.7 was
reversed into the variable q17_7_no8 as described in Appendix 12. The Likert scale
pmm_alignment was tested using the Cronbach alpha technique producing a coefficient of 0.5
which suggest the scale is an unreliable measure of PMM alignment. The scale would be made
more reliable by the exclusion of question 17.6 (alpha of 0.595) or the exclusion of question
17.7 (alpha of 0.677). Removing question 17.6 from the scale is defensible on the grounds that
144
the amount of personal transformation in respondents is probably not an indicator of their
willingness to align with the method. Removing question 17.7 is a more doubtful decision
because respondents are likely to be more aligned to the method if they believe it does not
restrict their ability to manage projects effectively. As a result, the scale variable
pmm_alignment was recalculated to comprise 17.7, 17.8, 17.10 and 17.11. The resulting alpha
coefficient was 0.6 which can be interpreted as moderate reliability. The mean value of
pmm_alignment of 5.6 demonstrates that sample 2 is closely aligned to the PMM with an overall
agreement score of 80%. A paired samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the embedding
and alignment aspects of PMMs. There was no statistically significant difference in the
embedding view (m=5.4, sd=1.5) and the alignment view (m=5.6, sd=1.1), t=(28)=-0.720,
p=0.477 in sample 2 which shows that positive views of embedding are associated with positive
views of alignment and the same for negative views.
Question 19 asked why the participants did not always follow the PMM. There were responses
from 6 people. Not following the defined method, or tailoring, can be considered to be a positive
reason why the espoused processes are not followed. This is what PMM suppliers expect to
happen (OGC 2009; PMI 2017b). However, this concept could have a more negative
connotation where the agreed/defined processes are not being followed for reasons other than
those expected or endorsed by the process. The responses were analysed and grouped in
categories of similar responses. The perspective taken to ascertain whether the reason for the
deviation was positive or negative was that of the PMM process. If an actor varied the process
in a way that made the method less efficient, that was seen as negative whereas a beneficial
change was seen as positive. The resulting analysis is shown in Table 75.
During the analysis of the whole dataset, it became apparent that the rationale for tailoring could
be considered to have a positive or negative direction. The positive direction links to the aspect
of tailoring that has just been discussed. Where respondents were considered to have positive
reasons for deviation, the reasons given included working more efficiently, matching the
process to the needs of the project and varying the degree to which the processes are used
rather than using all the processes all of the time. Changing the process because of constraints
external to the project was categorised as a negative direction.
Direction Rationale Frequency Percent
Positive Tailoring. Meeting the demands of the project. Taking a more flexible approach. Scalability. Included in this category were changes made to the PMM due to customer requirements.
5 83.3
Negative Constraints. “Time, resources and senior management do not always allow for PMMs to be followed to the letter”.
1 16.6
Table 75. Rationale for deviating from a PMM (sample 2)
The predominant view (83%) was that the rationale for deviation was positive in that PMMs
were being tailored to the needs of the project to improve the efficiency of the method. The
145
negative rationale gives voice to the fact that PMMs exist in environments where the priority
may not always be the efficiency of the method or the delivery of the project.
To further complicate the matter, whether an actor in a project is following the defined PMM
may not always be clear so there is an added level of complexity in that a respondent to a
questionnaire may not say they deviated from the process if the deviation was not easily
detectable. This factor might influence the reporting of the level of non-compliance with the
PMM.
Question 38 investigated the use of PMMs, certification and how respondents have benefited
from using PMMs. Table 76 displays the range and numbers of qualifications achieved by
sample 2. As would be expected from a sample drawn from the UK, there is a dominance of
qualifications from bodies that are most active in the UK, the APMG and APM.
Qualifications Frequency Percent
PRINCE2 foundation (APMG) 17 60.7
PRINCE2 practitioner (APMG) 15 53.6
MSP (APMG) 9 32.1
APMP (APM) 6 21.4
In-house 8 28.6
Other 5 17.9
Table 76. Qualifications (sample 2)
The other qualifications encompassed agile, the APM Registered Project Professional, PPSO
(Programme and Project Support Office) and the APMG Change Management Practitioner. As
respondents could possess multiple qualifications, the number of qualifications was summed to
give a total number of qualifications per individual. For sample 2, the average was very close to
2 qualifications per person (m=1.96, sd=1.14, n=28).
The next sub question asked the extent to which project management training and certification
had developed knowledge skills and attitudes on a scale of 1 (little) to 10 (greatly). The
responses are shown in the bar chart in Figure 30. For sample 2, the mean value of 7.4
suggests respondents are seeing value from training and certification (m=7.4, sd=1.5, n=24).
146
Figure 30. Contribution from training and certification (sample 2)
The last sub question asked about the extent to which the respondent had made an increased
contribution to the organisation because of the training and certification, using the same scale.
Figure 31 shows the results from this question.
Figure 31. Contribution to the organisation (sample 2)
The mean value of 7.6 suggest that respondents do feel they are making a greater contribution
because of their training and certification (m=7.6, sd=1.3, n=25).
The relationship between the extent to which training and certification has developed
knowledge, skills and attitudes and the extent to which training and certification in PMMs have
facilitated greater organisational benefit was investigated using Spearman’s rank order
correlation coefficient because the two variables failed the normality test. There was a
147
moderate positive correlation which suggests that training and certification is moderately
correlated with contribution to the organisation (r=0.565, n=24, p<0.004).
The personal perspectives on PMMs have been explored in this section. In sample 2 the
majority of respondents, 46%, used a single method but the same percentage, 46%, used two
or more methods. This was a surprising result because the wide application of a PMM means it
should be appropriate to a broad range of uses in organisations. In sample 2, 80% were found
to be aligned to the method in terms of following the method, finding it was not restrictive and
being trained and certified in its use.
Where respondents were not following the method all of the time, 83% did so for positive
reasons, that is, tailoring or improving the efficiency of the method. Sample 2 averaged 2
qualifications per person and these were aligned with the certifying bodies in the UK: APMG
and APM. The average level of benefit of training and certifications to the individual was 74%
and to the organisation 76%. With the exception of the issue of the number of methods used, it
can be concluded that sample 2 are individually aligned to the PMMs and seeing personal and
organisation benefits from training and certification.
In the next section, the focus changes to the first of the environmental factors surrounding
PMMs, organisational maturity.
6.2.5 Maturity
Core to the questionnaire were questions about the organisation’s level of maturity which
enabled an overall maturity level to be determined using the scale in Table 23, Section 3.6.1.
The measure of maturity focused at the project-level. The areas being measured were;
The linkage between years of experience and PMM benefit, identified by Wells (2012) and
discussed in 6.2.3, was again examined. No linkage was found in the Sample 3 data:
F (2, 42)=0.223, p=0.801.
Question 22 asked about the most valuable aspect of a PMM to an organisation. Respondents
were presented with 7 choices with the option of adding their own response. The results of this
question are shown in Table 112.
Most valuable aspect of a PMM Frequency Percent
The overall method 13 30.2
Common language 6 14.0
Wide applicability 4 9.3
Project control (timeliness) 6 14.0
Project control (costs) 3 7.0
Project control (people) 1 2.3
Project control (quality) 7 16.3
Other 3 7.0
Total 43 100.0
Table 112. Most valuable aspect of a PMM (sample 3)
168
The results for sample 3 were similar to sample 2 in that a wide range of aspects of PMMs were
identified as being valuable. There was stronger support in sample 3 for the ‘overall method’
and also more focus on time than for sample 2. The other options selected included centralised
document storage, the ability to plan on delivering value from the project and the ability to
generate consistent reports about project progress.
Question 23 asked how PMMs were supported in the organisation. Five Likert-type questions
were asked. The results are shown in Table 113.
Questions En
tire
ly
dis
ag
ree
Mo
stl
y
dis
ag
ree
So
mew
hat
dis
ag
ree
Un
decid
ed
So
mew
hat
ag
ree
Mo
stl
y
ag
ree
En
tire
ly
ag
ree
Do
no
t kn
ow
23.1. The PMMs are kept up to date
5% 5% 16% 7% 28% 26% 12% 2%
23.2 The PMMs are supported by templates and exemplars
2% 2% 9% 21% 35% 28% 2%
23.3 The PMMs are well documented
2% 9% 9% 2% 30% 30% 14% 2%
23.4 The PMMs are supported by a project support office
12% 7% 7% 5% 14% 21% 30% 5%
23.5 You have the opportunity to suggest improvements to the PMM
7% 5% 2% 16% 23% 42% 2%
Table 113. How PMMs are supported (sample 3)
Sample 3 shows a wider spread of responses to these questions compared to sample 2
however the predominant view is that respondents agree that PMMs are supported in
organisations which accords with sample 2. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for pmm_support
was calculated to be 0.807 which can be interpreted as a very good level of reliability for this
scale variable. Using pmm_support, the overall figure for sample 3 is 74% agreement that
PMMs are supported in their organisations (m=5.2, sd=1.3, n=42). The weakest area relates to
the documentation of the PMMs and the strongest area to the opportunity for respondents to
suggest improvements to the PMM.
The investigation into a relationship between pmm_support and both implementation success
and PMM benefit was based on Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient and
Spearman’s rank order correlation respectively. There was a significant and moderate positive
correlation between pmm_support and implementation success (r=0.570, n=42, p<0.000) and a
moderate positive link between pmm_support and PMM benefit (r=0.452, n=42, p=0.003).
Looking back at the organisational aspects of PMMs for sample 3, it can be seen that the
reasons for initiating projects are for business needs, growing revenue, reducing costs and
addressing regulatory and technology demands. It was shown that 38% of respondents had
169
been involved in the select process but that 86% believed that project managers should be
involved. In terms of PMMs, PRINCE2 was the dominant method with in-house again showing
strongly at 42%. 86% reported being able to tailor their method. The average score for
implementation success was 60% and for PMM benefit was 71%. There is 71% agreement that
the PMM is embedded and 74% agreement that the PMM is supported. The chief benefits
come from the overall methods but other factors such as cost and quality control and the use of
a common language are also highlighted as positive aspects. In the next section, the focus
moves from the organisational to the personal perspective.
6.3.4 PMMs – the personal perspective
The personal perspective was investigated in questions 16, 17 (part) and 19 in addition to
sections of part 9 as discussed in 6.2.4. Question 16 asked participants about the number of
distinct PMMs they used. Table 114 shows the results. The results for sample 3 were in line
with the sample 2 with approximately half (49%) using a single method. 21% of the sample
used two methods and the same proportion used more than two methods.
Distinct PMMs Frequency Percent
None 4 9.3
1 21 48.8
2 9 20.9
>2 9 20.9
Total 43 100.0
Table 114. Number of distinct PMMs (sample 3)
Table 115 displays the results for the five questions related to the personal perspective in
Question 17.
Questions En
tire
ly
dis
ag
ree
Mo
stl
y
dis
ag
ree
So
mew
hat
dis
ag
ree
Un
decid
ed
So
mew
hat
ag
ree
Mo
stl
y
ag
ree
En
tire
ly
ag
ree
Do
no
t
kn
ow
17.6 Using the PMM(s) was a big personal change for me?
30% 14% 16% 2% 12% 12% 9% 5%
17.7 Using PMMs restrict your ability to manage your projects effectively?
38% 38% 16% 2% 2% 2% 2%
17.8 You follow the PMM most of the time?
5% 9% 5% 21% 26% 33% 2%
17.10 You are fully trained in the PMM(s)?
7% 14% 2% 2% 12% 56% 7%
17.11 The organisation supports you in gaining certification in PMM
7% 2% 7% 9% 16% 19% 35% 5%
Table 115. Alignment with PMMs (sample 3)
170
The data transformations described in 6.2.4 for this questions were also conducted for the 5
individual sub options of question 17 for sample 3. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for
pmm_alignment was 0.745 which reflects a good level of reliability. The mean value of 5.6 for
pmm_alignment demonstrates that sample 3 is seeing positive benefits from the range of
factors with an overall agreement score of 80%. A paired samples t-test was conducted to
evaluate the embedding and alignment aspects of PMM. There was a statistically significant
difference in the embedding view (m=5.0, sd=1.3) and the alignment view (m=5.6, sd=1.2),
t=(42)=-3.011, p=0.04 which shows that sample 3 is viewing alignment with a higher level of
agreement than embedding.
Question 19 asked why the participants did not always follow the PMM. This question had 22
responses. The analysis is shown in Table 116.
Direction Rationale Frequency Percent
Positive Tailoring. Meeting the demands of the project. Flexibility and scalability.
10 45.5
Negative Constraints. Imposed by the environment for example “accelerated delivery timescales” and the primacy of “potential commercial benefits”.
3 13.6
Negative The PMM itself is at fault. PMM is inflexible and bureaucratic.
7 31.8
Negative The PMM implementation is at fault. The language used in the PMM is not widely understood. Senior management do not support the PMM or understand its benefits.
2 9.0
Table 116. Rationale for deviating from a PMM (sample 3)
The marginally predominant view (54%) was that the rationale for deviation was negative. The
negative reasons given fell into three areas: the PMM is constrained by factors in the
environment; the PMM was not appropriate for the organisation or the PMM could be
considered to have been poorly implemented. The responses from sample 3 did use language
that could be interpreted directly with practice theory, discussed in Section 3.5, for example
using the language of Feldman and Portland (2003) that the ostensible aspects of some PMMs
were failing to meet their requirements with the result that different performative routines were in
use to cope with the management of projects. The lack of senior management support and
narrow familiarity with the shared language of projects can be understood in the context of the
work by Okhuysen and Bechky (2009), in Section 3.5.2, in that respondents were diverging from
using the espoused PMM because not all the factors were in place for the PMM to be regarded
as a complete means of co-ordinating projects. As a result, this incompatibility between actors
in projects (Narduzzo et al 2000) led respondents to feel they could substitute their own ways of
working.
Qualification in PMMs was the subject of the multi-part question 38. The first part asked about
current PM qualifications with the option to add additional items. The results are shown in
Table 117.
171
Qualifications Frequency Percent
PRINCE2 foundation (APMG) 30 69.8
PRINCE2 practitioner (APMG) 30 69.8
MSP (APMG) 9 20.9
MoP (APMG) 1 2.3
P3O (APMG) 5 11.6
CAPM (PMI) 1 2.3
PMP (PMI) 4 9.3
ICPM (APM) 2 4.7
APMP (APM) 6 14.0
In-house 15 34.9
Other 11 25.6
Table 117. Qualifications (sample 3)
The other qualifications recorded by sample 3 included other professional and academic
achievements. The project management qualifications were limited to agile. The range of
qualifications gained by sample 3 was greater than for sample 2, possibly because the range of
organisations was much greater. The number of qualifications was summed to give a total
number of qualifications per individual. For sample 3, the average exceeded 2 qualifications per
person (m=2.40, sd=1.12, n=43). The second part of the question asked respondents, on a
scale of 1 (little) to 10 (greatly), how much had project management training and certification
developed their knowledge, skills and attitudes. The responses are shown as a bar graph in
Figure 39.
Figure 39. Contribution from training and certification (sample 3)
Figure 39 shows that respondents see personal benefits from training and certification (m=7.5,
sd=2.3, n=43). The modal answer in Figure 39 was 10 which demonstrates that the participants
strongly believe that training and certification is beneficial. The final part of this question asked
172
respondents, using the same scale, how much had training and certification enabled them to
make a greater contribution to their organisation. Figure 40 shows the results.
Figure 40. Contribution to the organisation (sample 3)
From Figure 40 it can be seen that respondents were strongly positive that training and
certification has enabled them to make a greater contribution to their organisation (m=6.9,
sd=2.7, n=42). The standard deviation of the two sub questions for sample 3 was much higher
than for sample 2 which shows a broader spread of views. Only sample 3 recorded responses
of 1 and 2 in answering this question. The relationship between the extent to which training and
certification has developed knowledge, skills and attitudes and the extent to which training and
certification in PMMs have facilitated greater organisational benefit was investigated using
Spearman’s rank order correlation coefficient because the two variables failed the normality
test. There was a strong positive correlation which suggests that training and certification is
strongly correlated with contribution to the organisation (r=0.799, n=42, p<0.000).
The personal perspectives have been reported and analysed in this section. For sample 3, 49%
of respondents used a single method with 42% being the proportion that used two or more
methods. This result was in line with expectations because of the ability of a single method to
cater for a wide range of applications. 80% of respondents were found to be aligned to the
method. Where respondents deviated from the method, this was analysed to be for positive
reasons in 46% and for negative reasons in 54% of the cases. Sample 3 averaged 2.4
qualifications per person and these were aligned with APMG in particular and also with the
other awarding bodies and in-house methods. The average level of benefit of training and
certification to the individual was 75% and to the organisation was 69%. Overall, sample 3 are
individually aligned to the PMMs and seeing personal and organisational benefits from training
and certification. In the next section, the findings and analysis moves on to look at
organisational maturity.
173
6.3.5 Maturity
Maturity for sample 3 was calculated in the same way as for sample 2. The results of analysing
the maturity levels for sample 3 are shown in Figure 41.
Figure 41. Maturity level (sample 3)
Figure 41 shows the range of maturity levels that the literature in Section 3.6.1 predicts.
Participants reported aggregate levels of maturity from 1 (awareness) to 5 (optimised). The
modal value of 2 is below the average from other studies of maturity (see Table 24, Section
3.6.1).
The cross tabulation of maturity level and sector is shown in Table 118 and Figure 42.
Sector Maturity level
Total 1 2 3 4 5
Public Count 1 4 5 2 12
% 8.3% 33.3% 41.7% 16.7% 100.0%
Private Count 3 10 5 3 1 22
% 13.6% 45.5% 22.7% 13.6% 4.5% 100.0%
Charity Count 3 3
% 100.0% 100.0%
Other Count 1 1
% 100.0% 100.0%
Total Count 4 17 10 6 1 38
% 10.5% 44.7% 26.3% 15.8% 2.6% 100.0%
Table 118. Cross tabulation of maturity level by sector (sample 3)
174
Figure 42. Maturity level by sector (sample 3)
The sector analysis shows that private sector organisations have a broader span of maturity
levels with a strong modal value of 2 which is below the average level. Public sector
organisations have a majority at the higher levels of 3 and 4 showing an average maturity that is
higher than the private sector. The analysis also shows that maturity is lower in charity
organisations than the overall modal maturity level but the sample of charities is very small.
The analysis of industry and maturity level is shown in Table 119.
Industry
Maturity level Total
1 2 3 4 5
Charity 2 2
Construction 1 1 1 3
Consulting 1 1 2
Education 3 1 4
Finance 1 4 1 6
Government 2 1 3
Healthcare 2 1 3
IT 1 1 2 2 6
Telecommunications 1 1 1 3
Utilities 0 1 1
Other 2 2 4
Total 4 16 10 6 1 37
Table 119. Cross tabulation of industry and maturity level (sample 3)
A visual inspection of Table 119 shows no discernible pattern. The small dataset prevented the
use of statistical tests on this cross tabulation.
175
The association between the levels of maturity and implementation success was investigated
using a one-way between-groups analysis of variance. There was no statistically significant
difference at the P < 0.05 level for the 5 levels: F (4, 37)=2.021, p=0.114. The association
between the levels of maturity and PMM benefit was investigated using a Kruskal-Wallis test but
found no significant differences: 2 (4, n=38)=6.719, p=0.152.
This section has explored the relationship between maturity and PMMs. Sample 3 reported the
full range of maturities. The analysis showed that private sector organisations have a broader
range of maturities than public sector organisations but that public sector organisations have a
higher modal level of maturity. As with sample 2, a surprising finding of this research was that
no relationship was identified between either implementation success or PMM benefit with
maturity.
In the next section, attention moves from maturity to organisational culture.
6.3.6 Culture
The background to the analysis of the culture data is explained in 6.2.6. This section replicates
the analysis for sample 3. The responses to the OCAI questionnaire by sample 3 were checked
for accuracy. For the 34 respondents to the OCAI (m=99.85, sd=0.97), it can be concluded that
the data had been input to a high degree of accuracy and the data can be used for further
analysis.
The results for the four culture types are shown in Table 120.
Culture N Minimum Maximum Mean SD
Clan 34 8.33 70.00 30.3922 14.09784
Adhocracy 34 3.33 46.67 18.0490 9.65713
Market 34 3.33 45.83 18.8578 12.58608
Hierarchy 34 3.33 63.33 32.5539 13.90345
Table 120. Culture types (sample 3)
Following the same method as in sample 2 to determine the dominant culture in the
organisation, the results are shown in Table 121.
Clan
(CC)
Adhocracy (AC)
Market
(MC)
Hierarchy
(HC) N
Count 11 2 7 13 33
% 33.3% 6.1% 21.2% 39.4%
Table 121. Culture dimensions (sample 3)
Table 121 shows that CC and HC have similar frequencies, that MC is less frequent and that
AC has very low frequency.
176
To test for an association between the predominant culture type in an organisation and
implementation success, a one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted. No
statistically significant differences were identified: F (3, 32)=0.870, p=0.468. The conclusion to
be drawn from this test is that there is no relationship between culture and how well the PMM
was implemented. A statistical test was carried out into the association between predominant
culture and PMM benefit using the Kruskal-Wallis test but found no significant differences: 2
(3, n=33)=5.216, p=0.157.
The analysis of PMM usage and culture type is shown in Table 122.
PMM usage
Total Mandatory Optional
Culture Clan 6 4 10
Adhocracy 2 2
Market 3 3 6
Hierarchy 5 8 13
Total 14 17 31
Table 122. Cross tabulation of PMM usage and culture type (sample 3)
Whereas for sample 2, 88% of respondents indicated their PMM was mandatory, the figure for
sample 3 was 45% and there is a much more even split between mandatory and optional for
sample 3 across all the cultural dimensions.
This section has looked at the role of culture in PMMs. For sample 3, a preference for the
Hierarchy culture was revealed, accounting for 39% of respondents. The Clan, Market and
Adhocracy cultures accounted for 33%, 21% and 6% respectively. Unlike sample 2, the
analysis showed that the Hierarchy culture was less likely to mandate the use of a PMM and
that the Clan culture was more likely than not to mandate a PMM. Lastly, no relationship was
found between culture type and either implementation success or PMM benefit.
The final section in the analysis of sample 3 relates to organisational structure.
6.3.7 Organisational structure
43 respondents answered this question and the frequency of response is shown in Table 123.
Organisational structure Frequency Percent
Functional 15 34.9
Weak matrix 5 11.6
Balanced matrix 12 27.9
Strong matrix 6 14.0
Projectised 4 9.3
Don’t know 1 2.3
Total 43 100.0
Table 123. Organisational structure (sample 3)
177
The dominant organisational form is the matrix if the three types of matrix structures (weak,
balanced and strong) are combined. Functional is the next most frequent and finally the
projectised structure. This was the same order as in sample 2.
Table 128 uses the variable Orgtype to combine the three matrix types. The frequency
distribution for the new variable is displayed in Table 124.
Organisational structure Frequency Percent
Functional 15 34.9
Matrix 23 53.5
Projectised 4 9.3
Total 42 97.7
Missing 1 2.3
Total 43 100.0
Table 124. Summarised list of organisational structures (sample 3)
A cross tabulation of organisational structure and sector, depicted in Table 125, shows no
discernibly pattern. A chi squared test for independence could not be conducted because the
assumption that cell sizes exceed 5 was not met.
Sector
Organisational Structure
Total Functional Matrix Projectised
Public 4 8 2 14
Private 10 13 1 24
Charity 1 2 3
Other 1 1
Total 15 23 4 42
Table 125. Cross tabulation of organisational structure and sector (sample 3)
The cross tabulation of organisational structure and size is shown in Table 126. It is difficult to
discern any patterns in the data.
Employees
Organisation Structure
Total Functional Matrix Projectised
<50 2 2 2 6
50-250 4 1 5
251-1,000 2 2 4
1,001-10,000 5 11 16
10,001-20,000 3 1 1 5
20,001-50,000 1 1
>50,000 1 3 4
Don’t know 1 1
Total 15 23 4 42
Table 126. Cross tabulation of organisational structure and size (sample 3)
178
A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the effect of
organisational structure on implementation success. This test was suited to exploring the
relationship between the two variables. There was a statistically significant difference at the
P < 0.05 level for the 3 organisation types: F (2, 41)=8.173, p=0.001. Post hoc tests indicated
that, for implementation success, there were significant differences between functional and both
matrix and projectised. The projectised group scored the highest mean (m=8.5) and saw the
most implementation success, followed by matrix (m=6.48) and functional (m=4.60). An
independent samples Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to explore the relationship between
organisational structure and PMM benefit. The test identified a significant difference between
the three structures (functional, n=15; matrix, n=23; projectised, n=4) 2 (2, n=42)=6.161,
p=0.046. The projectised group scored the highest mean rank (m=32.13) and therefore saw the
highest benefit, followed by matrix (m=23.0) and functional (m=16.37).
A one-way between-groups analysis of variance to explore the effect of structure on maturity
was conducted. No significant relationship was found at the P < 0.05 level for the 3 levels:
F (2, 36)=1.160, p=0.329 but it was identified that projectised organisations reported the highest
level of mean maturity (projectised mean=3.68, matrix mean=2.89 and functional mean=2.96).
In reviewing this section, it can be seen that the dominant organisational structure is the matrix
for respondents in sample 3. The matrix is the preferred method of organising regardless of
sector or size. Tests for a relationship between organisational structure and both
implementation success and PMM benefit found that the three types were ordered with
projectised first, then matrix and lastly functional in terms of both implementation success and
PMM benefit.
This concludes section 6.3 and the analysis of sample 3 across the seven dimensions of
descriptive information, validity, organisation and personal results and the three environmental
factors of maturity, culture and organisational structure.
6.4 Conclusion
This chapter has analysed and presented the findings from the quantitative data capture of
samples 2 and 3. The purpose of sample 3 was to validate the findings and analysis of sample
2 to ensure that the respondents in sample 2 were representative of the target population for
this study. The similarity in the findings from samples 2 and 3 as demonstrated in Sections 6.2
and 6.3 give credence to the view that both samples are very similar and that it is likely that the
samples do represent the population of users of PMMs. The description of the samples in
Sections 6.2.1 and 6.3.1 coupled with the analysis of the questions about the respondents’
experience, shown in Sections 6.2.2.and 6.3.2, demonstrate that the respondents have relevant
experience, confidence in project management, work in roles relevant to the study and come
from a range of industries. Once the validity of the samples had been established, this chapter
followed the structure of the questionnaire that can be seen in Appendix 11.
179
Key findings in this chapter are that while some projects staff are involved in the ‘Select’ stage,
a higher percentage would like to be involved (45% and 71% respectively for sample 2). The
use of the PMM was more strongly mandated in sample 2 than sample 3. PRINCE2 was the
dominant recognised method in use but the highest proportion of respondents used in-house
methods. Both samples report high rates of implementation success and PMM benefit. There
was a strong positive correlation between implementation success and PMM benefit which
gives support for the importance of the ‘Embed’ stage. The samples reported high levels of
alignment to their PMM, deviated from the methods for largely positive reasons and believed
that certification had both individual and organisational benefits. For the environmental
variables, the quantitative analysis failed to show a relationship between implementation
success or PMM benefit with maturity and culture but a modest relationship with organisational
structure in Sample 3.
The quantitative data that has been analysed in this chapter consisted of a dataset comprising
169 variables and 71 records. This information was analysed descriptively and statistically to
understand the answers given in the questionnaire. Using appropriate and justified statistical
procedures, multiple tests were carried out to search for relationships and correlations between
the variables in an attempt to gain a deeper understanding of the use of PMMs. While many of
the statistical tests failed to identify significant outcomes, the results contributed to the available
information on PMMs. Despite having a medium-sized dataset available, the temptation was
avoided to search for statistically significant results to report (Levitin 2016) and instead the
focus was maintained on describing and analysing the data in line with the research questions.
Tools to aid the researcher contributed significantly to this chapter. SPSS and Excel enabled
the quantitative data to be analysed and were used to generate the tables and figures in this
chapter.
The next chapter will combine the qualitative and quantitative results and discuss the main
themes identified in this research within the context of the aim and objectives.
180
7 Discussion
7.1 Introduction
In the previous chapters the primary data gleaned from the qualitative (Qual) and quantitative
(Quan) data capture was presented as two separate chapters. The primary data capture was
configured in this way to ensure that all the research questions could be addressed. Table 127
shows the contribution that both data sources have made to the research questions.
Goal Stage Area Research Question Qual
data
Quan
data
Goal A. Understand how organisations select PMMs
‘Select’ Decision-making
1. How are PMMs selected? Major source
Minor source
Goal B. Understand how organisations embed PMMs
‘Embed’ Driving and restraining forces
2. How is the change situation diagnosed?
Major source
Minor source
Change 3. What is the change process for PMMs?
Sole source
Change 4. Are espoused PMM processes different to in-use PMM processes?
Source Source
Goal C. Investigate how maturity, culture and organisational structure affect the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages
‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages
Maturity 5. How does maturity relate to PMMs?
Minor source
Major source
Culture 6. How does organisational culture relate to PMMs?
Minor source
Major source
Structure 7. How does organisational structure relate to PMMs?
Minor source
Major source
Table 127. Mapping research questions to primary data
The objective of this chapter is to bring these two sources together to discuss the findings with
reference to literature and this study’s goals and research questions.
This chapter begins by assessing Goal A, what has been understood about how organisations
select PMMs. Next Goal B, the understanding acquired from the project about the embedding
of PMMs is discussed. The third section assesses Goal C, the environmental issues of
maturity, culture and organisational structure, to understand what the research indicates for
these areas and their relationship with PMMs. The assessment of the goals is followed by a
review of the validity of the PMM life cycle and conceptual models. A revised PMM life cycle
model is presented and a descriptive model of how organisations ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ PMMs is
discussed.
181
7.2 Goal A – Understand how organisations select PMMs
7.2.1 Introduction
The ‘Select’ stage is the first stage in the PMM life cycle and its importance is widely supported
in the literature. On the one hand, ‘Select’ is important because of the way it shapes and
influences the stages that follow (Cooke-Davies et at 2009) and, on the other hand, because of
the risk to the organisation that poor selection can introduce which have been identified by
numerous authors (MacMaster 2002; Shenhar et al 2002; Charvat 2003; Burke 2011; Lientz
2013). A weak selection process may fail to take into consideration the factors involved, may
choose an inappropriate method or too few methods, be overly influenced by external
stakeholders or manage the process in such a way that the people using the new method are
alienated from the very first step. Given the impact ‘Select’ has on the subsequent stages and
the risks associated, it would therefore be difficult to argue that ‘Select’ is not a critical first step
in the PMM life cycle.
The research into the ‘Select’ stage was underpinned by decision-making theory with the
normative model acting in a central role in the conceptual model due to the lack of any more
appropriate models for PMMs in literature. As a normative model, the decision-making process
identified steps that decision-makers could follow when selecting the method for their
organisation. The interviews with participants attempted to assess the applicability of the
normative model and to discern how the participating organisations carried out the process in
reality.
7.2.2 Research question 1: How are PMMs selected?
While the normative model, discussed in Section 3.2.1, is both rational and logical (Jennings
and Wattam 1998) it was not expected that it would offer a good fit for decision making in reality
and this proved to be the case. The divergence between theory and practice began before the
first step in the normative model. Whereas prior research (Wells 2013) had identified a link
between organisational requirements and the decision-making process, the evidence from
sample 1 was that, if requirements were communicated at all, they were high level and it was
more often the case that the managers working in the project sphere would identify the need for
a PMM and make the case to senior management. While this process weakens the link
between the needs of the organisation to achieve its strategic goals and the actions it carries
out, the process of creating projects to fill operational needs is prominent and well documented
in portfolio and project management literature (OGC 2010; APM 2012). Given this way of
working, it should not come as a surprise that the top-down method for initiating the ‘Select’
stage was sparsely evidenced in the interviews. The benefits of the bottom-up method can be
seen from the involvement of subject matter experts who operate in the specialist domain of
project making justified and supported recommendations for senior managers to then make a
decision on the strategic appropriateness of the PMM proposal.
182
Having clear organisational goals is seen as important in the normative model because those
requirements allow the performative criteria for the PMM to be clearly defined. Table 14 in
Section 3.2.2 collated 32 performance criteria that could be used in the decision-making
process. The criteria were categorised into the broad areas of business management, people,
process and technology with the expectation that organisations would give some thought to how
the PMM could either add benefit to the organisation or diminish a negative aspect of
operational practice. The interviewees were purposefully not presented with the list of possible
performance criteria to avoid the post-select rationalisation of their decisions. Instead, the
transcripts were searched for examples of performance criteria. Process was the dominant
category, identified by 57% of responses with people, business and management and
technology accounting for 25%, 14% and 1% respectively. The bottom-up process for selecting
the PMM is possibly the reason why process was the dominant category with those managers
involved in project management being most concerned with how the activities were carried out.
The business and management category, which comprises as many factors as Process in Table
14 including organisational benefit, the reduction of risk and uncertainty and stakeholder
acceptance, accounted for only 25%. The explanation may come from the bottom-up approach
to defining the criteria and the assumption that a top-down approach would have a greater
emphasis on the business and management aspects of the PMM because these are more
closely identifiable with the role and experience of senior managers who are probably unfamiliar
with the processes associated with project management.
The process of identifying the organisations’ performance criteria (Table 43 in Section 5.2.1)
appeared to be clear and straightforward until it began. While a few interviewees (for example
Interviewee 2’s understanding of senior management requirements) did mention the existence
of criteria that fed into the selection process, it is not clear at what point in the selection process
(or later) the other criteria were identified. In the case of organisation F, their performance
criteria evolved as they learned and continued to develop. Interviewee 17 from organisation F
explained how his organisation started from a basic requirement of understanding their project
portfolio. He said “people didn’t know whether projects were, you know, what stage they were
at in their projects, what the actual products were delivered, all of that.” This raises the question
whether it matters that performance criteria are established at the very beginning or whether
they can evolve as use develops. For those organisations with a strong history in PMM (for
example organisation B), the selection process can begin with clear performance criteria
because there is a high level of experience. However, in organisations such as F that were new
to PMMs, their inexperience makes it more difficult for them to pre-define the criteria and a more
workable solution may be, as organisation F has, to start with a general goal of improving the
way projects are managed and to develop the process in light of their experience. In this way,
performance criteria definition can be seen as an on-going process rather than an activity that is
carried out only once.
It is not possible to assess or evaluate the criteria used by sample 1 with existing literature
because this is the first time that a comprehensive list of performance criteria has been
183
assembled for PMMs and empirically tested. While the analysis of the performance criteria
categories is illuminating and potentially beneficial for organisations, it should not be forgotten
that the criteria used in sample 1 was identified post-hoc. It was the case that none of the
organisations interviewed had clearly defined criteria at the outset. This confirms earlier
research from Thomas and Mullaly (2007) who found that, despite the potential benefits
identified by senior managers, project staff and consultants, no attempt was made to quantify
the benefits. For the participants in this study, selecting and implementing a PMM was
sufficient. Although some may see the identification of performance criteria as unnecessary,
they matter for two reasons. First, without criteria, it is not possible to measure the benefits of
the PMM to the organisation and thus there is no opportunity to make an evidence-based
assessment of the pros and cons of the investment and resources committed. Second, the
criteria offer a broad range from which organisations could select appropriate criteria and it is
envisaged that the availability of such a list would benefit organisations by exposing them to the
reasons for selecting a PMM. Such a list may enable organisations to seek more benefits from
a prospective PMM by listing all the opportunities available to them. Selecting a PMM based on
no or poorly defined criteria wastes the business, process, people and technology benefits that
could potentially be exploited if they were targeted by the organisation.
The next stage in the normative model encourages decision-makers to analyse the situation
and define the problem at the heart of their decision. This is the ‘why’ for the decision (Jennings
and Wattam 1998). Table 15 in Section 3.2.3, based on the work of the APMG (2002), Charvat
(2003), Kerzner (2013), Burke (2011) and the PMI (2014a), lists the five categories of problems
that PMMs can address. While it was not clear how organisations had reached this diagnosis,
the evidence from sample 1 was that all five problems were applicable and it was possible that
more than one problem could be present in an organisation. This finding caused the
interpretation of the problem statement to be revised from an anticipation that organisations
would have one problem to the view that organisations could face several problems
simultaneously. The vagueness with which organisations define the issues to be addressed by
PMMs may not be a concern. That said, diagnosing the situation and defining the problem or
problems scenario more clearly would provide more focus on ensuring the chosen method
addresses the problem to as great an extent as possible and that organisations would benefit
from this approach because they have a higher probability of resolving the problems they face
once they have been framed and they understand what they are (Stanovich 1999; Thaler 2015).
The third stage in the normative model involves the identification of suitable options that can be
chosen. This step requires pre-existing performance criteria against which the competing
options may be judged (Jennings and Wattam 1998). This step, as defined in the model was
largely omitted by organisations in sample 1 because they did not possess the necessary
foundational work. On the basis of this research, the normative decision-making model has low
correlation with the process in reality, at least amongst the participating organisation in this
research. The evidence from sample 1 was that the decision-making process was very much
shortened and contained no discernible steps that were followed. The qualitative data had
184
identified that the staff involved in ‘Select’ were primarily operational managers who were
experienced in project management with the quantitative data reflecting that project managers
were also involved, albeit at a lower level than they would wish. Of the theories proposed to
explain the normative-descriptive gap (Stanovich 1999), the theory that most accurately
explains the decision-making in sample 1 is alternate problem construal and in particular how
the past experience of those we know to be involved in the ‘Select’ process and how that
experience influences both how they see the ‘Select’ stage and the decisions they make. A
strong thread running through the interviews was how the participants were influenced,
consciously or subconsciously, by the processes they had used in the past for managing
projects. For those interviewees involved in selection, there was a high correlation between the
PMMs used in the past and the PMM selected. Behavioural economists such as Kahneman,
Tversky (1973, 1985, 2011) and Thaler (2015) would regard such behaviour as entirely
predictable but it probably comes as a surprise because it is so far removed from the normative
model which makes eminent cognitive sense despite having no empirical support in this
research. There is a potential danger in basing the selection of a PMM on past experience
because, as Taleb (2007) identifies, the flawed memories of past experiences can influence our
future actions. While alternate problem construal appeared to offer the best explanation for the
actions of sample 2, it was not possible to ascertain why this was the case. It is possible that
the other explanations advanced to explain the short-comings of the normative model may be
the reasons why decision-makers appear to rely on their past experience. Uncertainty or
complexity in the environment (March 1994) or expertise (Beach and Connolly 2005) may
encourage decision-makers to take decisions that may be objectively sub-optimal but which are
‘good enough’ given the situation (Simon 1966). Interviewee 3, organisation A, provided a
succinct phrasing of the dilemma of having to make a decision under uncertainty and opting for
a choice that offers some (albeit undefined) benefit to the organisation when he said:
I have gone back to previous projects that I have worked on and taken methodologies
that I have either been given or developed in the past and I have trimmed that down or
customised it to what I believe would be useful. (Interviewee 3, Organisation A)
A striking aspect of the ‘Select’ phase was its long term influence in some, but not all,
organisations. In the case of organisation D, the method had been introduced 8 years
previously and for organisation C the method had been used for the last 16 years. The long-
term nature of PMMs, coupled with the movement of staff within and between organisations,
meant that some interviewees were unaware of how their PMM was selected. In many of the
organisations that took part in the research, the selection of the PMM had preceded the
interviewees’ employment and was therefore not something that could be discussed in detail.
However, not all the organisations took the same long-term perspective with some much more
active in the ‘Select’ phase. For example, organisation A had introduced a highly structured
method 4 years ago, had replaced this 2 years ago with a very flexible PMM and were now
considering adding more structure to their method. The Head of the PMO explained:
185
Originally we went down to PRINCE2 route prior to the PMO being set up. I think that
was the right thing to do at the time because the organisation was very disorganised
and we needed some rigour brought into their organisation. So that worked very well
but when we started to set up the PMO what I was asked to do was look at a slightly
more quicker route perhaps to do that so we have our own methodology which is
loosely based on PRINCE and probably on the APM processes. (Interviewee 2,
Organisation A)
7.2.3 Conclusion
From the information available, it is apparent that organisations do not follow a clear process in
the ‘Select’ stage. The normative decision-making model has been shown to be a poor
predictor of performance. It would be easy to dispense with the normative decision-making
model due to its low predictive capability of the actual process but it does have aspects that
mean it should not be dismissed totally. The explanations for decision-making from the more
recent studies of Kahneman and Tversky (1973, 1985, 2011) and Thaler (2015) in terms of
alternate problem construal and past experience provide a persuasive explanation of the
‘Select’ stage. The benefits of defining or being aware of the problem and the role of the PMM
in satisfying performance requirements are aspects of the ‘Select’ process that can add value to
organisations. The dominant model is that managers in the PM sphere select PMMs because
they are trusted to do so by their senior management teams and they use their past experience
and expertise to guide them in what is suitable for their organisational needs. Intuitively thinking
that the past PMM choices will be suitable and relevant to an organisation today is dangerous
because it may indeed be a narrative fallacy (Taleb 2007) but this does go some way to
providing an explanation for why managers omit the identification of performance criteria and
problem statements – they do not think they are necessary. Those managers already know the
answer but this is likely to be to a different question and not relevant to the requirements for a
PMM today (Kahneman 2011). Worse still, the omission of any form of assessment of that
decision means that it is not possible to judge its appropriateness nor question the validity of
past narratives which can lead to the perpetuation of established ways of framing and deciding.
The ‘Select’ work is largely undertaken by managers with some involvement of project staff.
Project staff would like to have greater involvement in the ‘Select’ stage. The outcome of the
‘Select’ stage is largely seen a positive with PMM benefit scores of 72% for sample 2 and 71%
for sample 3. This could be interpreted as a validation of past experience and suggests that
these managers do make appropriate ‘Select’ decisions. However, there is little evidence from
other research which would assist in interpreting these data to enable an assessment of the link
between the ‘Select’ stage and organisational benefit.
While some PMMs can have a life measure in months, other PMMs can provide support to
organisational project management that is measured in tens of years. Charvat (2003) claims
that PMMs are a strategic decision, but the findings here are that they can also be seen as a
very short term, more operational decision too. The testimony from Organisation A about their
186
repeated ‘Select’ stages and also the brevity of activity within this stage witnessed across all
organisations in this study gives very strong support to the view of ‘Select’ as a short stage in
the life cycle. The stage appears to comprise limited, high level performance criteria and is
heavily influenced by the past experience of those involved. The stage is not seen by
organisations as having great importance because they choose not to set more detailed
performance criteria nor evaluate the decision afterwards.
Looking across all the interviews, it is clear that organisations do not have clear, defined and
agreed criteria when selecting a PMM and they are used for a variety of purposes as other
research has found (Wells 2012). The uniform view that was formed from the interviews was
that organisations had general criteria in mind (for example flexibility, improved project control)
and that no organisation set about defining these in any level of detail that could be measured
and used for later evaluation of the initial decision. The inability to measure the outcomes of
selecting a PMM would seem to be a major weakness because it is impossible to conclude
whether the investment in process and people was warranted and delivered the benefits that
were expected. When discussing the factors, none of the participants expressed any priority
between them and no priority was discernible from the transcripts. It is very likely to be the case
that the factors will have differing importance to the organisation and a recognition of this would
potentially enable organisations to focus their attention on the key factors in their environment.
While there is a large volume of literature on the need to manage the benefits from projects
(Gardiner 2005; Burke 2011; Morris et al 2011; Kerzner 2013; Pinto 2013; Mir and Pinnington
2014), there is an evident paradox in how organisations sought control at the individual project
level from the PMM but did not approach the selection of a new PMM as a project. It is unclear
why the mechanism that would affect so many projects, staff and resources was not controlled
in a more structured way. In a time when IT/IS projects continue to have challenged outcomes
(Cameron and Green 2015), it behoves organisations, whatever their level of experience in
PMMs, to give greater consideration to how the methods are selected, especially given the
evidence from the interviews that, in general, a PMM could operate for many years.
The quantitative data shed light on which PMMs are being selected and where organisations
are arrayed on the PMM continuum. Table 65 in Section 6.2.3 showed that PRINCE2 and in-
house methods were the most popular in sample 2 and Table 106 in Section 6.3.3 confirmed
the dominance of these two choices. The preference for PRINCE2 was understandable given
the UK focus of the research. The organisations choosing PRINCE2 or based on PRINCE2
would be to the right of centre on the continuum (Figure 3 in Section 2.5) whereas the in-house
methods do not recognise any standard or method and would appear to the left of centre.
Organisations wanting to find a fit between the environment and the management of projects
may be swayed in the ‘Select’ stage to develop a bespoke solution, to the left of the PMM
continuum, where they can choose the range and level of tool usage that they believe offers the
highest level of fit for the organisation (Donaldson 2006). Such a conclusion is supported by the
discussion in Sections 3.5.4 and 3.8.2, the findings of Wells (2013) and Joslin and Müller (2016
187
p364) who found that “contingency theory is applicable to the project’s methodology’s selection
and its customization according to the project’s environment”. While creating a more tailored
PMM does have benefits, the further the organisation moves to the left of the PMM continuum
the more the benefits listed in Tables 6 and 7 in Section 2.3 begin to diminish. For example, the
creation of a bespoke method brings with it additional costs for training and the support of
project staff because everyone coming into the organisation and the external stakeholders with
whom they work will have to learn the processes in use and this has a time and efficiency
implication. In bespoke PMMs, the need for and value of certification diminishes because they
are no longer directly applicable to the project staff’s work and behaviours. Supporting
certification may, on the one hand, add to the restraining forces because staff may want to
deploy what they have learnt and on the other hand, certification may be seen by project staff
as a key part of their role due to its link to their performance. Organisation B is a good example
of a company to the right of the continuum that uses processes strongly linked to recognisable
methods and that has invested in training and certifying its managers. Here, contingency theory
would suggest Organisation B is trading away the benefits of close environmental fit for the
advantages of using a standardised method at the lowest cost. Thus it can be concluded that
there is a balance between the benefits of environmental fit and the benefits of standardisation
and that these are key consideration in the ‘Select’ stage.
7.3 Goal B – Understand how organisations embed PMMs
This goal comprises three research questions which will be discussed separately and this will
be followed by a conclusion to bring the different strands together.
7.3.1 Research question 2. How is the change situation diagnosed?
In Section 3.3 the benefits of diagnosing the change situation were discussed. The key benefits
are that diagnosis sets the scene for change, provides lenses to frame thinking and promotes
an exploration of the factors that will support or restrain the change (Beach and Connolly 2005;
Thaler 2015). This better understanding and preparation is linked to more successful change
outcomes (Pettigrew and Whipp 1993; Strebel 1994; Plowman et at 2007; Balogun and Hailey
2008). Based on these benefits identified from the secondary literature, it was expected that
organisations would conduct some form of current situation analysis before embarking on the
‘Embed’ stage but this expectation was not supported by the primary data.
An investigation of the change type using the Balogun and Hailey (2008) model described in
Section 3.3.1 and reported in Section 5.2.2, suggested that all the organisations in the study
were using the adaptation change type where the end result is realignment and the nature of
change is incremental. As none of the organisations explicitly conducted a change type
analysis, the type used by each organisation was inferred from how they described the ‘Embed’
stage (see Table 45 in Section 5.2.2). The small sample size coupled with the subjective
interpretation means that the discussion of the change situation is more theoretical than
empirical. While the literature from Section 3.3.2 suggested that analysing the change type
would be beneficial, the fact that the sample of participating organisations did not undertake this
188
activity raises the question of whether it is merited. The framing aspect of this activity (Thaler
2015) would seem to be helpful in guiding the organisation in how to think about the forthcoming
organisational change. Seeing the change as ‘adaptation’ may guide organisations to think
about how to help staff to transition from the current set of processes given that there is already
a process in place. This may prompt a selection of a change model that is orientated for
definitive change (as summarised in Table 21 in Section 3.4.1) for example, Kotter’s 8 steps.
Assessing the change as evolutionary may prompt the organisation to ask if that is the most
appropriate type of change and whether a more evolution or reconstruction type (using Balogun
and Hailey’s (2008) language), would provide more benefit to the organisation. As all the
organisations were judged to have adopted the adaptation type, it was not possible to assess
whether there was any link between the change type and PMM benefit. A question to be asked
in future research is whether the change type is associated with the outcome of using the PMM.
It is difficult to argue against the merits of conducting a change type analysis. It is not a
complex or time-consuming activity yet it offers many benefits to organisations as they embed
the PMM. Despite these characteristics, no organisation in this study carried out this analysis.
This could be because the sample is small and it failed to include any organisation that did
conduct change type analysis. It is also possible that the organisations omitted this stage
because they were unaware of the tools available to them in change management or, perhaps
more probably given the finding on how organisations select PMMs, discussed in Section 7.2.2,
organisations have not used such tools in the past and there is no organisational memory
(Nelson and Winter 1982) about their benefit. A feasible explanation for this organisational
behaviour is path dependency (Johnson et al 2008) whereby the project staff responsible for the
‘Embed’ stage do not see the need for this level of analysis, a decision potentially prompted by
the fact that they see the change type as adaptation. The issue here, similar to the ‘Select’
stage, is that the omission of some form of diagnosis of the change situation may be a sub-
optimal decision (Taleb 2007) that has an effect on the stages that follow. However, unless
there is some post-embed review, it is unlikely that organisations will identify the impact and
thus the cycle is likely to repeat itself.
Building on an analysis of the change type, the conceptual model suggests that assessing the
driving and restraining forces using models, discussed in 3.3.2, such as 7S (Waterman et at
1980) and force field analysis (Lewin 1952) would be beneficial to the change process. From
the research data it was clear that no organisation explicitly used these or any similar tools to
identify the factors in their ‘Embed’ stages but this did not mean that the factors were not
present. Tables 18 and 19 in Section 3.3.2 show the factors identified from literature and Table
46 in Section 5.2.2 summarises the factors that were identified during the interviews and
categorises these into the driving and restraining forces, using Lewin’s language.
Combining the literature and primary research factors, it is possible to distil a list of the driving
and restraining forces relevant to PMMs. Table 128 lists the forces and their component
189
factors. The third column lists the recommended ways in which the factor can be enhanced in
the case of the driving force and diminished for the restraining forces.
Force Factor Recommendation
Driving Benefits orientation
Set performance criteria for the PMM and achieve those goals. Ensure the benefits include those to be gained by the organisation and those by the individual. Give prominence to those benefits that directly help project staff by saving time, improving efficiency, enhancing customer satisfaction
Capacity building Ensure the necessary resources are in place and that experienced project staff are available for the implementation
Project orientation Treat the embedding as a project and use the tools and techniques of project management. Within this factor is leadership from the senior management team who, through their actions, can positively influence the other driving forces. Framing the embedding as a project will lessen the chance that the project suffers from weak driving forces
Culture Nudge towards a culture that is supporting of the PMM. Motivate project staff to be involved in the change
Good understanding of the change situation
Ensure there is a good understanding of the change situation by taking into account all the factors that will influence the embedding. Fit the PMM to the needs of the organisation
Restraining Risk Identify the risks to the project and manage these. Risk management will be helped by taking a project orientation. A key risk that needs to be managed carefully is the time needed to move beyond surface level embedding
Weak understanding of the change situation
Work to create a thorough understanding of the change situation. Avoid relying on past projects and approach this implementation as if it is the first such project
Culture If the culture is not supporting of the new PMM, identify small changes that will encourage staff to change their views
Resource deficit Avoid underestimating the resources needed to successful implement a PMM. This factor will be helped by taking a project orientation and by having a good understanding of the change situation
Table 128. Driving and restraining forces
This research has generated a list of the factors pertinent to the embedding of PMMs. Based
on this list of factors, further research is needed to identify a mechanism to determine the
magnitude of the factors. It is anticipated that the magnitudes will be determined on an
organisation by organisation basis as no generic model would be able to encompass the
variability in the factors that affect change. A self-scoring, readiness checklist is envisaged that
organisations would complete to identify the factors relevant to their implementation. It is
imagined that a list, expanded from Table 128, could be used as the starting point for
organisations to identify potential driving and restraining factors and their importance in order
that organisations can put in place a plan and resources to deliver an appropriate level of
190
embedding of the PMM. Few would disagree that Lewin’s model, now quite old in change
management literature terms, is still a simple, illuminating and beneficial method for providing a
way to identify and manage the factors and, ultimately, for increasing the chance of
implementation success.
In reviewing research question 2, it is clear that there is a strong normative rationale for
organisations diagnosing the change situation using the models described in this section. Chief
amongst the benefits are the framing of the ‘Embed’ stage and improving the chances of a
successful outcome (Pettigrew and Whipp 1993; Strebel 1994; Beach and Connolly 2005;
Plowman et at 2007; Balogun and Hailey 2008; Thaler 2015). Despite the normative rationale,
there is no evidence from the sample in this research that organisations engage in the diagnosis
step. The primary data in Section 5.2.2 shows that organisations will come across the same
factors that the diagnosis would have brought to light but the factors will present themselves as
project issues that need immediate attention rather than project risks or events for which due
preparation and allowance has been made. It follows therefore that organisations are very likely
to be less well prepared for the appearance of an embedding factor if they have omitted this
step in the stage. All of the factors that appear in the tables of driving and restraining forces (in
Tables 18, 19 and 46) are known to project and change management literature which means
they could be taken into consideration should organisations wish to do so. Not all the factors
will be relevant to every organisation but some factors will be applicable and organisations can
benefit from understanding these forces, their magnitude and how they might manage them.
The step after diagnosis is for organisations to implement the change and embed the PMM in
the organisation. The third research question looks at how organisations achieve this.
7.3.2 Research question 3. What is the change process for PMMs?
Managing the process of change is important if that change is to be successful (PMI 2013d)
because change is difficult (Rogers 2003). The field of change management has a shorter
history than project management and this means that it is still in its immature phase which is
characterised by a multitude of normative models and a paucity of evidence to justify its
existence (Pollack 2017). Behind research question 3 was the assumption that the
implementation of a PMM was likely to be accompanied by some form of change management
because the literature links purposeful change with successful evolution (PMI 2013d). The
expectation had been that organisations would want to manage the change process to increase
the chances that the implementation was successful. The evidence from the participating
organisations was that the change process was not managed in a planned way. Instead,
organisations chose to react to issues that arose and to take a more ad hoc approach to guiding
the implementation. It is noted that this was the same approach to diagnosing the change
situation that was discussed in the previous section. This consistency of approach may be
linked to the finding that all the organisations were aligned to the adaptation change type and it
may be that this framing of the implementation is lessening the need to take a more formal,
planned approach to the change. Had other organisations been involved in the research which
191
had aligned with more disruptive change types, it is possible that the use of change
management may have been evidenced. Contingency theory (Burns and Stalker 1961;
Donaldson 2006; Andersen 2008; Joslin and Müller 2015, 2016) would support this responsive
approach to the environment as the optimal way of making the implementation stage
successful. However, none of the participants made it clear that their approach was
purposefully responsive which means that an explanation based on contingency theory may be
either too generous or inappropriate.
On the basis of sample 1, organisations were perceived to be embedding a PMM from an
adaptation perspective, to take an ad hoc, responsive approach to managing the change and
there is no evidence of any use of change models. It is impossible to comment on the
effectiveness of the change process because none of the organisations assessed the
implementation of their PMM.
7.3.3 Research question 4. Are espoused PMM processes different to in-use PMM
processes?
One of the outcomes of the ‘Embed’ stage is the way in which the processes are used in the
organisation. The issue of espoused versus in-use processes, explored in Section 3.5, is not
therefore an issue at the ‘Select’ stage and relates more to the ‘Embed’ stage in which
organisations are changing processes. The underlying perspectives contained in translation
theory and practice theory provide a valuable lens through with to view how processes are
followed in practice (Nicolini 2012; Feldman and Worline 2016; Drori et al 2014; Wedlin and
Sahlin 2017). In the same way that project maturity views the discipline of managing projects
from a process perspective in order to gain a better understanding, so practice theory allows us
to create insights into how and why actors within organisations conduct their tasks and
activities. The practice of managing projects and using PMMs is sometimes overt (for example
when briefing stakeholders during a meeting) and at other times hidden from view (for example
when undertaking risk assessment or replanning a project). This inability to know exactly what
practices are being followed by actors throughout the process makes a practice theory lens
applicable for assessing project management and the use of PMMs.
The questionnaire asked if the PMM was mandatory in the organisation. In sample 2, 77%
responded affirmatively and the rate in sample 3 was much lower at 24%. While sample 2 did
demonstrate some ability to deviate from the PMM under certain conditions (for example project
characteristics) the optionality reflected by sample 3 was far greater. It is therefore impossible
to generalise on the frequency of non-compliance given the large difference in the responses for
the two samples.
Practice theory can help us to understand the factors at play that compete to produce the level
of compliance in an organisation. While it is recognised that the level of compliance is an
individual decision, the level of analysis is maintained at the organisation level in keeping with
the level in the thesis as a whole. The competition between the compliance factors brings to
192
mind Lewin’s (1952) force field analysis and the mental visualisation of the factors (from Section
3.3.2) and also Cameron and Quinn’s (2011) idea that the elements are in constant flux (from
Section 3.7.2). This would seem to be a helpful way to contemplate and visualise the dynamic
situation that defines, at a point in time, an organisation’s level of compliance with the defined
processes.
Respondents were asked if they follow the PMM most of the time (Question 17.8). 80% in each
sample answered affirmatively. Practice theory offers explanations for the factors that are
driving this level of compliance. Powell and DiMaggio (1991) identified three mechanisms that
lead to conformity and all three are applicable to the embedding of PMMs: Project staff are
encouraged to conform through their contractual obligations with the organisation and will also
be swayed in a less formal way by the culture in the organisation (Cameron and Quinn 2011),
referred to as coercive isomorphism; following a method is a valid response to reducing
uncertainty while delivering a project (mimetic isomorphism); finally, normative isomorphism
comes from actors behaving in an increasingly similar way as the industry in which they operate
becomes more mature and professional. Taking this last point first, the data show that the
respondents in this research see value in certification because the average number of PMM
certifications is two per person and also that respondents believe that certification has
benefitted their knowledge, skills and attitude (see Sections 6.2.4 and 6.3.4). The growth of
certification since its inception (see Figure 2, Section 2.4) suggests that project management is
maturing into a profession and that this development is one of the factors encouraging
compliance. In terms of the second point, we have seen from Tables 6 and 7 in Section 2.3 that
there are organisational and project-level benefits from using PMMs which, taken as a whole,
act to improve the delivery of projects by reducing the uncertainties that can imperil the
management of projects. From the data, it can be seen that approximately 75% of respondents
agree that the PMM processes have been embedded in their organisation in terms of being
used, understood and supported by senior management (sample 2 reported 77% and sample 3
71% based on Tables 66 and 107 in Sections 6.2.3 and 6.3.3 respectively). This demonstrates
that samples 2 and 3 have accepted the use of PMMs as a valid way to manage projects in the
organisation and this high level agreement in the project staff acts to further encourage their
compliance.
Taken together, it is easy to hypothesise that compliance may grow over time as the
isomorphism factors reinforce each other to drive up the rate of conformity so that the PMM
becomes the routine, unquestioned way of managing projects (Nelson and Winter 1982;
Hodgson and Knudsen 2004; Wedlin and Sahlin 2017). Training in PMMs and their repeated
use can be viewed as embedding the routines to the extent that they become the strategies by
which future projects are addressed and the tools and techniques they comprise become the
routines that are followed by project teams across the organisation (Narduzzo et al 2000;
Feldman 2000; Paoli and Principe 2003; Pentland 2003). It is clear from the questionnaire that
respondents value the training they have received because it is useful to their work (Figures 31
and 40 in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.3.4 respectively). Further research of a longitudinal nature
193
would be needed to assess the validity of this hypothesis. It is certainly the case that some
participating organisations have been using their current method for many years so there may
be credence in this hypothesis. Of the three isomorphic factors, coercive is largely under the
control of the organisation while normative is partly organisational and also professional.
Mimetic isomorphism is most influenced by the external environment and may be the factor that
is most involved in causing a change in a PMM. An example would be where the method
ceases to be a useful or beneficial way to manage projects in the organisation so that actors
begin to adapt their routines to deal with the new uncertainty. This interpretation fits
Organisation A well. Organisation A changed to a less formal method and are now
contemplating a different PMM that better deals with the levels of uncertainty they face. While
mimetic isomorphism is perhaps the most likely cause of change and may be slow to evolve,
there are also examples of coercive isomorphism as the agent of change, for example where an
organisation merges or is acquired and the new management team imposes their PMM on the
subordinate party.
There is one further aspect of coercive isomorphism that warrants discussion. Powell and
DiMaggio (1991) note that one effect of this pressure is that conformity is only superficial. On
the surface it looks like change is taking place but underneath there is action but no real, lasting
change. As an example of this, the extent to which organisations engage in PRINCE2 In Name
Only (PINO), explained in Section 3.4.2, has not been thoroughly researched and, while it would
be difficult to research given the sensitivity of the subject, it would merit further investigation.
While it is correct to say that coercive isomorphism is under the control of the organisation, it
would appear that great care is needed to ensure the compliance is deeply rooted rather than
superficial. However, there was no question to respondents about the level of coercion they felt
which meant that this line of thought could not be taken any further.
From what has just been argued, a valid expectation would be that PMMs become the dominant
routine for managing projects in the organisation but this is not necessarily so. Powell and
DiMaggio’s (1991) concept of isomorphism, discussed in the previous paragraphs, contains
three positive reasons for conformity and Pinto (2014) added a fourth reason but one that has a
negative connotation. Pinto (2014) suggested that the gradual acceptance of non-conforming
behaviour can lead, over time, to what he termed the normalisation of deviance. Normalising
non-conforming behaviour is one reason why project staff might go against the espoused way of
working. There are three other reasons for this. First, the concept of path dependency
(Johnson et al 2008) is, as this thesis has already discussed in Section 7.3.1, a powerful
influence of behaviour. Training and education were two factors mentioned in Section 3.2.6 that
are particularly relevant to PMMs. The quantitative data from Sections 6.2.4 and 6.3.4 show
that, in sample 2, 46% of staff use more than one method and the figure for sample 3 is 42%.
With the average number of certifications in project management per person being two, project
staff have alternative methods from which they can choose. Second and linked to training and
certification is experience. The data reflects the many years of experience that staff have built
up in projects (56% of sample 3 has more than 10 years of project experience and the figure for
194
sample 2 is higher at 61% according to Sections 6.3.2 and 6.2.2 respectively). Nelson and
Winter (1982) suggested that people limit the search for alternatives and use their experience to
expedite the search for a solution. It would be logical for project staff, especially if they are
experienced and qualified, as we know the respondents in samples 2 and 3 to be, that they
sometimes substitute a routine or solution that worked successfully for them in the past rather
than search for a solution within the confines of their de facto PMM. If Winter and Nelson are
correct, the data should reflect the fact that the willingness to deviate from the process is
positively related to experience with more experienced staff being more willing to substitute their
own processes. However, the data do not reflect this association. While this is a surprising
outcome, the explanation might be that the sample size is too small to identify such a
relationship or that there are confounding variables, for example culture and the nature of the
project, that are acting to modify the degree to which experience is related to process
substitution. The third issue relates to the driving and restraining forces. Whereas the forces
were discussed as though they represented a discrete step, the forces do not, in reality,
disappear once embedding commences. Over time, the driving and restraining forces will
change in their composition and magnitude. If the embedding is to be successful, focus will still
be needed to ensure the superiority of the driving forces. Organisation A demonstrates the
importance of the continued involvement of the senior management team as a powerful driving
force. The continued attention to the forces is needed because, using the example of
Organisation A, should the senior management team lose interest, this driving force will be
diminished. In reaction to this, the restraining forces may increase in potency leading project
staff to follow the PMM less closely and start to deviate from the espoused processes.
In response to being asked about process substitution, the responses were grouped into
positive and negative directions to facilitate analysis. In hindsight, the delineation into positive
and negative may have been unduly dichotomous. It is not possible to discern from the data
whether a respondent who attributes deviation to “At times flexibility is required to meet the
culture of the project and maintain a give and take” is saying that tailoring is undertaken in line
with the guidelines of the PMM or whether the PMM is being ignored and the respondent is
putting a positive perspective on processes that do not fall into the tailoring range. Tables 75
and 116 (in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.3.4 respectively) reported that twelve respondents mentioned
the needs of the customer as being a persuasive reason to change the process and this could
be seen as being a positive or negative rationale depending on the perspective taken. This
duality of interpretation is a symptom of the perspective (Morgan 1986). In the quantitative
analysis in Chapter 6, the perspective taken was that of the PMM process. The problem is that
a different perspective may give a different outcome. For example, omitting a process from the
defined method would be seen as negative from a PMM perspective but if that omission saved
time and resulted in a financial gain it may be seen as positive from an organisational
standpoint. Since PMMs are there to serve the organisation, it was probably an error to adopt
the PMM perspective in hindsight and a more appropriate choice would have been to assess
non-compliance using the organisation’s view.
195
Without an instrument to measure the location of organisations on the PMM continuum, it is not
possible to investigate whether there is a relationship between the continuum location and
respondents’ willingness to diverge from the defined PMM that was discussed in Section 3.5.
There was a stark contrast between the language used by participants to explain non-
compliance and the practice theory language in Section 3.5. The respondents used language
that was practical, pragmatic and project-oriented and explained their reasons for moving away
from the espoused ways of working in the organisation. There was no deeper reflection from
respondents that the reasons for deviation may be because their past experience suggested a
better way of doing things or that there was inherent flexibility to make changes and
improvements. This is one of the downsides of using a questionnaire to capture data in that it is
not possible to drill down and identify the underlying reasons for a decision or action.
The guidance from the PMM suppliers is that their methods and standards need to be tailored to
the requirements of the project (OGC 2009; PMI 2017b) and there is certainly evidence of
widespread process substitution in samples 2 and 3 that can be assessed as either positive or
negative depending on the stance taken. It was not evident from the participating organisations
that any level of non-compliance was built into the ‘Embed’ stage. A possible explanation for
this is that the flexibility to deviate is built into the third stage of the PMM life cycle, ‘Tailor’. The
scope of this research did not extent to the Tailor stage which meant that it was not possible to
investigate this explanation for non-compliance. An alternate explanation, supported by the
findings from organisations A, C, and D is that the espoused processes are not defined in detail
and that this approach encourages or condones other in-use processes, that is, the
organisations adopt a contingent approach. For example, the PMM in organisation C contained
mandatory stage gates that required explicit documentation to be produced and, while there
was guidance for the processes between stage gates, this was more advisory than mandatory.
Despite this lack of compulsion to follow the processes, the questionnaire respondents from
organisation C did report that they did not always follow the process which suggest either that
they are failing to comply with the mandatory stage gates or, returning to the ideas of
isomorphism, they felt the steps in their PMM are more mandated than was intended.
Practice theory can be very useful when applied to PMMs due to the insights it provides for why
project staff may or may not follow a PMM. Many reasons for following or not following PMMs
were recorded during the data capture stage (listed in Tables 75 and 116, in Sections 6.2.4 and
6.3.4 respectively). The analysis and discussion of these reasons was shown to be very
affected by the perspective taken with a more pro-PMM stance viewing non-espoused
processes in a negative light and a pro-organisation stance viewing non-espoused processes
potentially more positively. The forces driving compliance and non-compliance are likely to be
competing and changeable as the environment in which projects are managed flexes over time.
It is likely that there is a balance within organisation for espoused and in-use processes which
can take the benefits of both to drive overall benefit from the management of projects. For
example, from espoused processes come stability, standardisation, shared understanding, staff
co-ordination and the support for certification and of PMOs. From in-use processes comes
196
adaptation to the environment, flexibility, innovation and the exploitation of prior experience and
knowledge. Now that it has been established that there are differences between espoused and
in-use processes, a future research question would seek to understand the optimal balance
between the two opposing yet complementary ways of working.
7.3.4 Conclusion
Three research questions were set to answer the second research goal about how
organisations embed PMMs. The first of these research questions evaluated the extent to
which organisations diagnosed the change situation. Using models of change type and
situation analysis, the literature review identified the benefits to change initiatives from first
framing the type of change being undertaken (Balogun and Hailey 2008; Thaler 2015) and then
assessing the forces for and against the proposed change (Lewin 1952; Waterman et al 1980).
None of the organisations in this study conducted any current state diagnosis because, it was
proposed, they had not done it before or, in their experience, they had not needed to undertake
analysis. The risks that this approach poses to the implementation process include making sub-
optimal decisions and having to react to issues as they arise even though a list of generic
issues is identifiable before the ‘Embed’ stage begins. This reactive approach by all the
participating organisations was repeated when it came to carrying out the change. One
possible explanation that encompassed both the diagnosis step and the change process was
that the organisations were categorised as implementing an adaptive change type where a less
formal embedding process might be expected. Another explanation centred on the fact that the
change models discussed are normative and there is little evidence of their effectiveness in
managing change. Whatever the reason for not overtly managing the ‘Embed’ stage and,
without any goals or objectives for the stage and no evidence that the stage was reviewed upon
completion, it is not possible to conclude how well the stage was managed and whether the
approach taken could have been improved. In terms of research question 2, the conclusion is
that there is no evidence that organisations diagnose the change situation. In terms of research
question 3, the conclusion is that there is no evidence that organisations manage the process of
change.
Research question 4 addressed the issue of whether espoused processes for managing
projects are different to the processes used in reality. Within goal 2, this question elicited the
most discussion. Using practice theory literature to understand the reasons why processes may
or may not be followed by project staff provided insights into this aspect of the research project.
It was shown that there are reasons for both following and not following PMMs and that the
analysis of these deviations is very affected by the perspective taken. Using an organisational
viewpoint, a deviation from the espoused PMM may be seen as positive whereas a different
perspective, say the PMOs, may view a deviation from the defined process in a negative light.
The factors affecting the balance between espoused and in-use processes would seem to be
the same factors that drive and restrain the embed stage, demonstrating how the diagnosis
activities are less a discrete step in the ‘Embed’ stage and more a continuing activity.
197
7.4 Goal C – Investigate how maturity, culture and organisational
structure affect the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages.
The large OGC study from 2010 found that the main factors constraining the success of PMMs
came from the ‘Embed’ stage and were rooted in the organisational environment rather than the
method itself (Sargeant et al 2010). The third goal of the project was divided into three research
questions related to the environment and these will be discussed in the following sections.
These research questions assess the impact on the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages of three
environmental variables: maturity, culture and structure.
7.4.1 Research question 5. How does maturity relate to PMMs?
The first of the environmental variables to be discussed is maturity which is a measure of the
consistency with which processes are carried out. Project maturity is a popular topic in PM
literature. Figure 13 in Section 3.6 demonstrates that there have been 70 articles per year on
average in the last decade (Biggins et al 2016b). There are also multiple models that
organisations can use as the basis for working with maturity in their environment (Grant and
Pennypacker 2006; Meredith et al 2016). The importance of maturity derives from the linkage
between maturity and strong project management performance (PWC 2004; IBM 2008; Mitchell
et al 2008; Richardson 2010; Swanson 2012).
Based on the merits of maturity management that pervade the literature, it would be expected
that this topic was high on the agendas for organisations. In the samples in this research, this
was not however the case and this came as a surprising result. The summary across sample 1
is that organisations do not value maturity management and many are unaware of the maturity
within their own organisation. This was surprising because the modal maturity for sample 2 was
3, higher than the average maturity found in literature (reported in Table 24, Section 3.6.1) and
at which level it might be expected that sample 2 would have some interest in maturity
management.
The literature review demonstrated the benefits of carrying out maturity assessments (Bryde
2003; Chrissis et al 2003; Mitchell et al 2008; Pinto 2013; Sargent 2016; Meredith et al 2016).
Where assessments had taken place in organisations A to G the majority appeared to have
been conducted internally. Only organisation D made it clear that their assessment has been
conducted by an external organisation. External assessment would have the benefit of
independence and improved objectivity over self-assessment. Interviewee 15, from
organisation D, said the reason why they had stopped external assessment was because they
had not used the information generated by the contractor. The availability of online tools
(Axelos 2017) may reduce the financial cost and demand for external assessment albeit at the
potential validity cost of self-reporting and self-assessment. However, the process will have
little benefit to organisations if the findings and recommendations are not used afterwards. This
suggests that organisations do not see value in the process. It proved impossible to gain data
from Axelos on the usage and trends in their online tool. While this data would have provided a
198
wider understanding of maturity across organisations and sectors, it would not have shed any
light on whether and how organisations subsequently use the information. Conducting the
assessment, regardless of the method, is only the first step in the process of maturity
management and more steps are needed if the potential benefits from increasing maturity that
literature identifies are not to be lost.
The final sentence of the previous paragraph carries with it the assumption that organisations
benefit from higher levels of maturity but doubt has been raised on this issue. Despite nearly a
third of organisations reporting a desire to improve their level of maturity (PWC 2012), some
dismiss the concept that higher maturity is better (Wheatley 2007). Instead of a level of maturity
linked to the organisation, authors such as Christoph Albrecht and Sprang (2014) propose that
maturity be linked to project complexity with more complicated projects requiring a higher level
of maturity. This makes good sense and there is some support for this view in the quantitative
data where sample 3 demonstrated that projectised organisations reported a higher level of
mean maturity than either matrix or functional organisations although these differences were not
statistically significant. This assumes that projectised organisations carry out more complex
projects but there is no evidence to support this view and the questionnaire contained no
measure of project complexity other than could be estimated from the proxy indicators of cost
and duration. Without a better indicator of project complexity, the potential link between
complexity and maturity could not be investigated further in this research. This is a deficiency in
the research design because the inclusion of a project complexity variable would have allowed
the link with maturity to be examined and also whether a relationship exists between PMMs and
project complexity.
Based on the table of maturity levels (Table 23, Section 3.6.1), it had been anticipated that a
link would be found between maturity and both implementation success and PMM benefit. The
rationale was that the more mature the organisation, the better the implementation success and
the higher the benefit from the PMM. In both samples 2 and 3, this link was not found. Neither
was a relationship found between maturity level and industry. Why no links were found is not
clear. The explanation may be attributable to the small sample sizes but it is equally possible
that there is no relationship between maturity and implementation success or PMM benefit.
This is another example where the relationship is strongly predicted but where the empirical
evidence provides no statistically significant support.
The doubt that hangs over the utility of maturity management is borne out in the findings from
sample 1 which demonstrated a disinterest in maturity management and both samples 2 and 3
where no significant relationship was found between the level of maturity and either
implementation success or PMM benefit. These findings suggest that the ‘Embed’ stage is
unaffected by the organisation’s level of maturity. On the one hand this is worrying news for
those organisations that invest time and resources in developing their level of maturity because
there is no proof that this will benefit how projects are managed but on the other hand it means
that organisations new to PMMs are likely to see the same benefits as companies who have
199
used PMMs for many years. It has already been demonstrated in Tables 70 and 111, in
Sections 6.2.3 and 6.3.3 respectively, that organisations see PMMs as being beneficial which
implies that PMMs can positively support organisational project outcomes regardless of the
starting point in the company’s level of maturity. However, the position would appear to be
more complex than merely assessing the organisational level of maturity and that benefit can
only be derived through an understanding of the interplay between the nature of the projects
carried out, the project teams’ levels of maturity and the processes used. Ultimately, it might be
this level of complexity that is dissuading organisations from engaging with maturity
management more readily and, as a result, why few associations between maturity and the
management of projects have been found.
7.4.2 Research question 6. How does organisational culture relate to PMMs?
The second environmental variable that was studied in this research was culture. Culture is a
key variable because of the impact it can have on organisational performance (Hartnell et al
2011; Sackmann 2011). If culture can affect organisational performance, then it can have an
influence on project performance and project management more widely (Cadle and Yeates
Battistella et al 2017). With 150 articles per year, culture is a popular topic in PM literature
(Biggins et al 2016b). The underpinning effect of culture was aptly phrased by interviewee 17,
organisation F, who said “the plan … is to change the culture, because that is fundamental to
everything we’re doing here.”
While the topic of culture featured in the interviews and questionnaire, it was addressed in two
different ways which allows a multi-faceted approach to give a richer picture of culture in
organisations. The fact that not everyone from sample 1 has been involved in the ‘Select’ stage
but everyone in the three samples had been involved in the ‘Embed’ stage meant that the
findings, analysis and discussion were skewed much more to the ‘Embed’ than the ‘Select’
stage. This is not seen as a major shortcoming in the research because, by their very nature,
the cultural influences affecting an organisation at the ‘Embed’ stage are very likely to be the
same at the ‘Select’ stage. However, this does limit the analysis of any factors that are specific
to the ‘Select’ stage, for example how culture might influence conformity to a more normative
decision-making model on the one hand or support a less formal and more intuitive decision-
making process on the other hand. To look more closely into the effects of culture on decision-
making would be to change the level of analysis from the organisation to the individual which is
not the intended purpose here.
Culture was a popular topic in the interviews. 13 interviewees mentioned culture and there
were 35 instances in the transcripts. A key finding from sample 1 was that culture can have
both positive and negative aspects in that it can facilitate or inhibit. In force field analysis terms,
discussed in Section 3.3.2, culture has arrows on both sides of the continuum. The pervading
influence of culture was mentioned by Interviewee 3, organisation A, who noted that the
‘Embed’ stage was initially made very difficult by the negative culture but also how positive
200
changes in the culture had subsequently facilitated the changes that were required. Similarly,
Interviewee 16, organisation E, noted how the PMM matched the culture of the organisation in
being deliberate and slow moving and this was seen as a very positive symbiosis. With culture
being a dual force, it is understandable that people see it as something that can be moulded
and changed to lessen the negative aspects and promote or enhance the positives. Two
participants (Interviewees 11 and 13, from organisations C and D respectively) spoke about
their intention to change the culture in their organisation and Organisation D viewed the culture
as a lever that could be used to increase the chances of a successful implementation. Where
there was an intention to change the culture, the dominant process was to nudge staff towards
the desired change using the libertarian paternalism approach of Thaler and Sunstein (2008),
outlined in Section 3.4.2. This gentle approach is more likely to obtain results as overt
interventions to change the culture have low success rates (Bresnen and Marshall 2000). The
literature review has looked at ways of analysing the culture in an organisation, focusing on the
popular model, the cultural web of Johnson et al (2008) in Figure 16, Section 3.7.2. It was
evident from the interviews that those organisations wishing to influence culture had not carried
out any initial analysis of the culture and thus had no starting or benchmark position. How the
organisations would be able to know if the change had been successful is very unclear. This
situation is very similar to the decision-making element of the ‘Select’ stage where the absence
of problem definitions and performance criteria makes it impossible to assess the quality and
appropriateness of the decision taken. Literature gives strong support to the view that culture is
important (see Table 26 in Section 3.7.1) and there was appreciation in the interviews of the
importance but this only serves to makes the lack of awareness of the current position all the
more inexplicable. It is possible that the multiplicity of conceptualisations of culture (see Table
27 in Section 3.7.2) discourages organisational managers from venturing into the zone of
culture assessment but the problem with this perspective is that the opportunity to leverage a
powerful tool to support change is lost. If Bresnen and Marshall (2000) are correct in their view
of the imperviousness of culture to purposeful change then an approach that assesses the
current culture in the organisation would appear to be a useful strategy to adopt. With so many
culture models available (see Table 29 in Section 3.7.2), it is less important which model is
chosen by organisations and more pressing that organisations use the same model to give
consistent results over time.
The culture model chosen for this research was the Competing Values Framework of Cameron
and Quinn (2011), described in Section 3.7.2. This was chosen because it is an established
model and because it has a proven and validated data capture tool, the Organizational Culture
Assessment Instrument. Samples 2 and 3 were asked to complete the assessment which
identified the dominant type in their organisation using the four categories of culture: Clan (CC),
Adhocracy (AC), Market (MC) and Hierarchy (HC). The four culture types fitted as quadrants
around two dimensions; control – flexibility and internal focus – external focus (see Figure 17 in
Section 3.7.2). As control aligns with the underlying philosophy of PMMs, it would be logical to
presume that MC and HC would use PMMs in greater numbers than would CC or AC. No
research had so far been carried out to investigate the hypothesis that organisational culture is
201
related to PMMs. This hypothesis was borne out in the findings with 85% of sample 2 and 60%
of sample 3 identifying their organisational culture as HC or MC (as demonstrated in Sections
6.2.6 and 6.3.6 respectively). This is an expected but still useful finding because it helps to
explain the comments from, for example Interviewee 16, organisation E, about how the
alignment of organisation culture and PMMs can be a positive combination. To investigate how
positive that alignment could be, tests were carried out on the relationship between
organisational culture and implementation success and PMM benefit. The results of these tests
were disappointing because in samples 2 and 3 the tests failed to show any significant
relationship between culture type and implementation success or PMM benefit. The expected
link between HC and MC with how the PMM was used or how it benefitted the organisation
failed to materialise.
This section began with the example of how the change in culture over time had led to the PMM
being more accepted in the organisation. This example supports authors such as Hartnell et al
(2011) and Sackmann (2011) who assert the correlation between culture and performance but
the evidence from this research reinforces the earlier findings of Rousseau (1990) and Siehl
and Martin (1990) which failed to find a correlation. There are four possible explanations for
this. First, there may be no relationship between culture and PMMs. In this scenario, the CVF
is making valid measurements of the culture type but there is no association between the type
and either implementation success or PMM benefit. The second explanation is sample size. It
is possible that a larger sample may identify a relationship, if one exists. Third, the CVF is
‘competing’ in the sense that all organisations will have elements of the culture types (Cameron
and Quinn 2011) so it is possible that the use of models such CVF to identify a dominant culture
is too reductionist of the many facets of culture and that this is part of the explanation for the
inability to identify a relationship. This view is given support by the analysis reported in Tables
81 and 82, in Section 6.2.6, in which the dominant culture of two organisations was analysed at
the individual level. This level of analysis shows a greater level of variability in the perceived
cultures by individuals than does the single, overall category for the organisation. Certainly, the
plethora of models listed in Table 27, Section 3.7.2, testify to the different conceptualisations
and the complexity of culture because no one model has emerged as the optimal way to
measure culture in the organisation. Linked to the previous point, the fourth explanation is that
the analysis of the data, while it mirrored previous studies using the CVF, was too simplistic and
that this prevented relationships from being identified.
From the literature and the responses from the three samples, the conclusions to this section
are that culture is a strong influencing force during the ‘Embed’ stage for positive and negative
reasons, that Hierarchy and Market types are more frequently seen in organisations that use
PMMs, that managers do not attempt to determine the culture in their organisation yet they
would like to change the culture and that there is no identified association been culture type and
implementation success or PMM benefit.
202
Despite this potential inability to categorise an organisation’s culture, each organisation does
possess a culture. The multitude of factors that combine to create that culture would suggest
that cultures are unique to organisations. One organisation’s culture may be similar to another
organisation but it is unlikely to be identical. The logical conclusion from this would be to
suggest that the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages are also therefore unique within organisations.
Not only is the culture unique but it is also changing, a feature reported in Organisation A. This
suggestion means that the challenges faced during the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages will not be
the same and may even be very different to what has been seen before. Managers relying too
heavily on their prior experiences may therefore draw conclusions and take decisions that are
not well suited to the current situation. This uniqueness implies, from a culture perspective, that
there is no single, best way to manage the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages.
7.4.3 Research question 7. How does organisational structure relate to PMMs?
The third environmental factor to be investigated was organisational structure, that is, the ways
in which the people within the organisation operate together. As PMMs comprise processes
and organisational structures impact processes (Gardiner 2005), the potential link between the
two was examined. Organisational structure may be affected by external influences (Mullins
2007; Burnes 2009) or internal influences (Shtub et al 2005; Cadle and Yeates 2008) such as
PMMs. In response to the internal and external influences, organisations can adopt a range of
structures on the scale from functional, through matrix to projectised (PMI 2017b), as shown in
Table 32, Section 3.8.3, with larger organisations more likely to exhibit multiple organisational
structures (Schein 2010).
In the interviews, organisational structure was not a key concern for the participants and there
was no link evident between structure and PMMs. As the interviews collected the majority of
data on the ‘Select’ stage, as demonstrated in Table 127, Section 7.1, this suggested no
relationship between organisational structure at the ‘Select’ stage. The questionnaire shed
more light on the issue with both samples 2 and 3 responding to questions about organisational
structure which suggested the possibility of a relationship between organisational structure and
the ‘Embed’ stage. The analysis in Sections 6.2.7 and 6.3.7 showed that the matrix structure
was the dominant form in the sample groups accounting for around 60% of organisations.
Approximately 33% were organised on functional lines and less that 7% used a projectised
structure. The chosen structure was shown to have no relationship with either size or industry
which was a surprising result which is probably attributable in this research to the small number
of respondents in each size and industry category.
The search for a relationship between organisational structure and both implementation
success and PMM benefit showed no significant relationship for either matrix or functional
organisations, a result that was consistent across both samples. Where there was a significant
relationship was with projectised organisations. The analysis in Section 6.3.7 showed how, for
sample 3 which had the highest frequency of respondents who worked within this structure,
there was a significant relationship between structure and both implementation success and
203
PMM benefit. This finding is important because it demonstrates that projectised organisations
will find they have greater success in embedding and greater organisational benefit from using
the PMM than organisations that are structured differently. The hypothesis that projectised
organisations would see more benefit from PMMs was raised in Section 3.8.3 and is the first
time that such a relationship has been identified between these two factors. Caution is needed
in placing too much confidence in this finding because of the small size of sample 3 where the
relationship was identified and because no such relationship was found in sample 2. It makes
intuitive sense that projectised organisations will find it easier to embed processes and gain
benefit from them as their corporate existence depends on them executing projects that meet
their customers’ needs. Put simply, projects are more important to projectised organisations
than either matrix or functional organisations. There are several explanations for why
projectised organisations report more successful implementation and higher PMM benefit than
other structural types. It is likely that there would be more driving and fewer restraining forces
at the embedding stage, broader experience and stronger path dependencies across staff and a
culture that promotes projects and their successful delivery. While the analysis of variance test
between organisational structure and maturity level did not produce statistically significant
results, the mean scores for the three groups showed that projectised organisations possessed
the highest level of maturity. All of these factors may combine to give projectised organisation
an advantage when implementing and using PMMs.
In concluding this section on organisational structure, the evidence from this research is that
structure has little effect on ‘Select’, some effect on ‘Embed’ and, overall, a modest influence on
PMMs. While the research identified the dominant structures in samples 2 and 3, no link was
discovered for matrix or functional organisations with regard to implementation success or PMM
benefit. One sample did show a significant association between organisational structure and
implementation success and PMM benefit and this related to projectised organisations. It would
be expected that projectised organisations would have this relationship and this finding confirms
existing research (Hyväri 2006; Lecoeuvre 2016). In spite of this confirmatory finding, it is
concluded that the relationship between organisational structure and PMMs is weak.
7.4.4 Conclusion
Goal 3 consisted of three research questions which assessed the importance of the three
environment variable of maturity, culture and structure on PMMs. While the three variables do
affect the ‘Select’ stage their importance is greater on the ‘Embed’ stage because the ‘Embed’
stage is longer and engages more project staff.
Literature identified maturity as a key variable for PMMs due to the link between maturity and
performance (PWC 2004; IBM 2008; Mitchell et al 2008; Richardson 2010; Swanson 2012).
Despite the participating organisations reporting a higher than average level of maturity and
reporting some maturity activity, there was little interest or awareness in maturity. This finding
was also seen in sample 3. No evidence was found for a relationship between either
204
implementation success or PMM benefit which suggested that the ‘Embed’ stage is unrelated to
the organisation’s level of maturity.
The second environmental variable was culture. Given culture’s impact on organisational
performance (Hartnell et al 2011; Sackmann 2011), it was expected that culture could have an
influence on project performance and project management more widely (Cadle and Yeates
2008; Richardson 2010; Larson and Grey 2011; Buttrick 2013; Lientz 2013). It was found that
culture has a strong influence on the ‘Embed’ stage and that the influences can be negative or
positive. Using the Competing Values Framework, the research showed that the more
structured culture types, Hierarchy and Market, are more frequently seen in organisations that
use PMMs. However, no association was found between culture type and implementation
success or PMM benefit. Managers in organisations are aware of culture and seek to leverage
it to enable or support change but no tools or methods are used to assess organisational culture
which indicates that this potent environmental variable is less well managed than it could be. It
was suggested that each organisation has a unique culture and that this uniqueness implies
that there is no single best way to manage the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages.
Based on this research, the evidence is that organisational structure has little effect on ‘Select’,
some effect on ‘Embed’ and, overall, a modest influence on PMMs. No link was discovered for
matrix or functional organisations with regard to implementation success or PMM benefit.
However, an association between organisational structure and implementation success and
PMM benefit was identified in projectised organisation, a significant but confirmatory finding in
an otherwise weak relationship between organisational structure and PMMs.
Overall and contrary to the findings of Sargeant et al (2010) that organisational issues have a
strong influence on PMMs, this research has found that maturity appears to have no influence
and that structure has only a modest influence on PMMs. Culture is a more powerful but
complex influence on PMMs which could be better managed to support the ‘Embed’ stage in
organisations by increasing the chances of implementation success and PMM benefit.
Having discussed the seven research questions, it is necessary to take a more holistic
perspective and to review the two models on which the research was based, the PMM life cycle
model and the conceptual model.
7.5 PMM life cycle model revision and descriptive model creation
This research has provided the opportunity to test the PMM life cycle model (see Section 2.6)
and to assess its validity. The first two stages have been the focus of this research. The
findings do suggest that the first stage in the life cycle is a selection process where
organisations decide on a PMM. This is them followed by an embedding activity where the
PMM is brought into the organisation. Nothing in the findings suggests there are different
stages in this process and the findings provide empirical evidence of the first two stages in the
life cycle. However, the life cycle model suggests that the ‘Embed’ stage concludes before
205
project-level tailoring commences and the findings cast doubt on this. The model proposes that
project staff are inculcated into the method and then they begin to use it. However, in the same
way in which situation diagnosis is a recurring activity, the time-bound process of embedding
may not exist in reality. While many organisations appear to use a block of activity during
implementation to communicate to staff, train and support users of the PMM, cater for new
members of staff, respond to external influences and to maintain and develop the method, it is
likely that implementation does not stop. This alternate explanation sees the embedding
activities peak at the beginning of the implementation, reduce but not disappear over time and
to overlap the later stages in the life cycle. This is represented in Figure 43.
Figure 43. Revised life cycle model
Figure 43 shows how the cycle begins with the ‘Select’ stage and how the ‘Embed’ stage
overlaps with the ‘Tailor’, ‘Operate’ and ‘Develop’ stages. It is likely that feedback from the
‘Tailor’, ‘Operate’ and ’Develop’ stages will provide input to the continuing need to embed the
processes within the organisation. This interpretation of the ‘Embed’ stage is supported by
organisation B who stood out from the other organisations in this study for the structured way
they continually assessed the performance of the PMM and the use of task groups to effect on-
going change and improvement to the method. This way of working is more akin to continuous
improvement but it may also be viewed to be superior to the time-bound ‘Embed’ stage as it
recognises that embedding is a continual process and that to assess implementation as though
it had been completed is to misunderstand the fluid nature of this stage.
The PMM life cycle model provided the basis for the initial conceptual model in Figure 20,
Section 3.9. While the conceptual model has strong normative support for how project staff
might select and embed PMMs, the findings have repeatedly demonstrated how the conceptual
model is a poor description of the actuality of selecting and embedding PMMs in organisations.
Based on the primary research and analysis in this project, the descriptive model shown in
Figure 44 was developed.
206
Figure 44. PMM descriptive model
In line with the earlier discussion about the life cycle, the descriptive model has the same five
stages. The ‘Select’ stage appears first. This is followed by the ‘Embed’ stage which now
overlaps the last three stages. Organisational goals and objectives appears at the top of the
model as it was the means by which PMMs link back to organisational requirements. But,
instead of a unidirectional arrow, a double headed arrow recognises that the impetus may be
top-down but it may also be bottom-up, that is, from the PM team who make a recommendation
to the senior management team.
The ‘Select’ stage is very much shortened compared to the conceptual model and consists
solely of the choice step which is typically be made by senior managers based on the
recommendation of individuals or teams from within the PM staff, heavily influenced by the path
dependencies of those involved.
The ‘Embed’ stage extends to run alongside the later stages in the model with the expectation
that the embedding effort will reduce but not terminate throughout the remainder of the life
cycle. The ‘Embed’ stage now comprises multiple, inter-connected components rather than
steps within the stage. On the left, the PM management team is taking action to implement the
new method by organising training, building capacity and also reacting to events as they arise
and for which no pre-planning has taken place. To the right, the driving forces are shown as a
207
circle to reflect how they are in constant competition with the PM management team working to
expand the driving forces and minimise the restraining forces. Their work to tilt the forces in
support of the PMM implementation affects their actions and vice versa with their actions
affecting the dynamics within the forces. The extent to which project staff choose to follow the
espoused method is linked to the driving/restraining forces and the tasks and activities that
project staff are asked to do. Again, this relationship is bi-directional to reflect the connection
between these components. For example, staff substituting their own processes in place of
espoused processes will boost the restraining forces against the implementation which, in turn,
may lead to the management team reacting by reinforcing the need for compliance and the
components will then respond in a continuing cycle of stimulus and response.
Finally, the link between the three remaining stages in the life cycle model and the ‘Embed’
stage is shown as a double headed arrow reflecting, on the one hand, how the embedding
affects how projects are managed in the organisation and, on the other hand, how the feedback
from project execution and review drives changes in the ways in which the PMM is continually
embedded.
On the right of the descriptive model, the environmental variables have been reduced to the two
that were identified as influencing PMMs and also changed in size to reflect the greater part
played by culture. The environmental variables affect all the stages of the life cycle with culture
having a significant influence on the driving and restraining forces and the level of compliance
and thus a major influence on the remainder of the life cycle.
The descriptive model is markedly different to the conceptual model but reflects the actualities
of selecting and embedding PMMs in organisations.
208
8 Conclusion
8.1 Introduction
This chapter begins with an assessment of the research by evaluating the research aim, goals
and questions in order to reach a conclusion on the extent to which the aim of the research has
been met. This is followed by a discussion of the four areas in which this research has
contributed to research and practitioner knowledge. The next section contains a list of
recommendations for practitioners which is based on the findings, analysis and discussion.
Finally, the last two sections look at the limitation of this research and at possible routes for
future research.
8.2 Achievement of the research aim
The aim of this research was to gain a better understanding of how organisations select and
embed PMMs. To achieve this, three goals were set, to: A. Understand how organisations
select PMMs: B. Understand how organisations embed PMMs and C: Investigate how maturity,
culture and organisational structure affect the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages. Seven research
questions were created: 1 for goal A, 2 - 4 for goal B and 5 - 7 for goal C. A sample of
experienced and qualified project staff were involved in the interviews and questionnaire to
provide input to the research questions. The level of achievement of the seven research
questions is discussed in Table 129.
Research question Level of achievement
1 How are PMMs selected?
This research question was partially answered.
This question was asked during the interviews as sample 1 was most likely to be involved in the ‘Select’ stage. Although the question was asked in every interview, not everyone was able to provide an answer because they had not been employed in the organisation when the PMM had been selected and there were no records relating to the selection. Information on selection was gathered but only from a few of the participating organisations.
For more information, see Sections 5.2.1 and 7.2.2.
Overall, from the few responses to this question, it was found that organisations select PMMs quickly and the decision is heavily influenced by the past experiences of those involved. The normative decision-making model was found to have little relevance in the selection of PMMs. Organisations appear to complete this stage successfully because the average benefit of PMMs, across the two samples, was 71%.
2 How is the change situation diagnosed?
This research question was fully answered.
This question was asked during each interview because sample 1 was most likely to be involved in the diagnosis of the change situation. The literature review has suggested tools to analyse the change type and a list of driving and restraining factors was collated. Interview responses were analysed to understand how the change was approached.
For more information, see Sections 5.2.2 and 7.3.1.
Overall, there was no evidence that the participating organisations undertake a diagnosis of the change situation and instead they react to the situation as it changes.
209
Research question Level of achievement
3 What is the change process for PMMs?
This research question was fully answered.
This question was asked during the interviews as sample 1 was most likely to be involved in directing the ‘Embed’ stage.
For more information, see Sections 5.2.2 and 7.3.2.
Overall, it was found that none of the organisations in this study used a formal or definable change process. Change is characterised by intermittent actions to encourage the change, the nudging of project staff and reactions to forces in the environment as they arise.
4 Are espoused PMM processes different to in-use PMM processes?
This research question was fully answered.
Questions about process compliance were raised in the interviews and in the questionnaire. Questions about the level of mandatory processes and why project staff might deviate from the espoused processes were used to suggest that there are many reasons why someone might substitute processes and this led to a discussion of the perspectives that are taken when assessing whether non-compliance is a positive or negative phenomenon.
For more information, see Sections 5.2.2, 6.2.4, 6.3.4 and 7.3.3.
Overall, it was found that espoused and in-use processes do differ in organisations.
5. How does maturity relate to PMMs?
This research question was fully answered.
The questionnaire contained the published scale for maturity assessment based on the 5 level scale from the PRINCE2 Maturity Model (OGC 2006, 2010). The reported levels of maturity were then tested using statistical procedures against scale variables including implementation success and PMM benefit.
For more information, see Sections 5.2.3, 6.2.5, 6.3.5 and 7.4.1.
Overall, this research found that maturity does not have any influence on PMMs.
6 How does organisational culture relate to PMMs?
This research question was fully answered.
The established and proven OCAI from Cameron and Quinn (2011) was replicated in the questionnaire to elicit culture information from recipients and culture was mentioned 35 times during the interviews. The analysis showed culture to be a pervasive and complicated environmental variable that was found to have strong influence, in both positive and negative ways, on PMMs, creating a unique mix that means that there is no single, optimal way to manage the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages
For more information, see Sections 5.2.4, 6.2.6, 6.3.6 and 7.4.2.
Overall, culture has a strong influence on PMMs.
7 How does organisational structure relate to PMMs?
This research question was fully answered.
Organisational structure models were taken from the PMBOK (PMI 2017b) and respondents were asked which structure type best described the department in which they worked. The primary structures (matrix, functional and projectised) were then tested using statistical procedures to identify the impact on PMMs. For matrix and functional structures, no relationships were identified. An association between organisational structure and implementation success and PMM benefit was identified in projectised organisations.
For more information, see Sections 5.2.5, 6.2.7, 6.3.7 and 7.4.3.
Overall, structure has a weak influence on PMMs.
Table 129. Achievement of research questions
210
Based on the outcomes of the research questions it is possible to form a view of the level to
which the project goals were achieved. As question 1 was only partially achieved, it is
appropriate to conclude that goal A was also only partially achieved because, while information
on the select stage was gathered, the number of participants able to provide information was
small and this limits the external validity. Input from a wider range of project staff would have
enabled the research question and goal to be fully answered and increased the external validity
of this research. The research questions for goal B were all fully answered which means that
goal B can be assessed to be fully answered. A good understanding of the realities of
embedding PMMs in organisations was achieved. The research questions on maturity, culture
and structure were fully answered with no, strong and weak influences respectively being
identified between the three environment variables and PMMs.
With two goals fully achieved and one goal partially achieved, the conclusion to be drawn on the
overall aim of this exploratory research is that the research has been mostly successful and has
enabled a deeper understanding of how organisations select and embed PMMs to be gained.
As the sample of participating organisations was small and sourced only from the UK, the extent
to which the findings are generalisable to the wider population, its external validity, is limited but
as an exploratory project, the research offers new empirical data and a descriptive model of
how the stages operate that can provide a basis for further research in this growing area of
project management.
8.3 Contribution to knowledge
The synthesis of the literature, findings and analysis, discussion and the descriptive model of
how the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages are conducted provided identifiable contributions to project
management knowledge. These are listed in Table 130.
Item Contribution Explanation / description
1 Closing the research gap between why organisations use PMMs and how they contribute to success
This research has identified the actualities of how organisations select and embed PMMs and thereby fills a gap between research on why organisations choose PMMs (Charvat 2003; Vaskimo 2015) and research on the influence of PMMs on project success (Serrador and Pinto 2015; Pace 2017). Whereas prior research had asked ‘why’ PMMs, this research looked at ‘how’ organisations choose the methods they used and ‘how’ these were embedded in the organisation. Other research attempted to assess the contribution made by PMMs to project success leaving a research opportunity to look at the ways in which the choice and embedding of PMMs may have influenced the use of those methods.
The first contribution is the PMM life cycle model which is the first such conceptualisation to identify the stages in an organisation’s use of a PMM. The first two stages in this model have been validated by the empirical evidence in this research. The model is beneficial because it gives identity to the important stages before a PMM is used and thus provides a validated framework for future research.
211
Item Contribution Explanation / description
Before addressing the ‘Select’ stage it is important to remember the caveat in point 1, Table 129 that the goal of understanding the ‘Select’ stage was only partially met. The findings in the ‘Select’ stage should therefore be treated with caution as there is less evidence to support the conclusions reached compared to the other questions in this research.
This research has demonstrated that the ‘Select’ stage is influenced by the past experience of those staff involved in the process and that the impetus for starting the ‘Select’ stage can be a top-down or bottom-up process. A key finding in the ‘Select’ stage was that organisations do not set performance criteria, define clearly why they are implementing the PMM or measure the quality of the decision. The confidence in past experience promotes the view that the selection of a PMM is a more operational than strategic decision and belies the costs and resource implications of that decision.
The ‘Select’ work is largely undertaken by managers with some involvement of project staff. Project staff would like to have greater involvement in the ‘Select’ stage.
The dominant reason for selecting a method is process improvement.
The research shows that, once selected, the majority of organisations mandate the use of the PMM. It has been shown that project staff report high levels of alignment to their PMM, deviated from the method is for largely positive reasons and there is a belief that PMMs and certification have both individual and organisational benefits.
There is a balance to be struck between the benefits of matching the PMM to the environment and the benefits of adopting a standardised approach.
The embedding of PMMs is an on-going requirement that organisations tend to approach in a reactive way, choosing not to plan the stage, set any goals or measure the benefit/impact of implementation. The continual flux of the driving and restraining forces and the issue of whether project staff are actually following the defined method combine to make embedding, as the descriptive model shows, a very complicated stage.
The importance of the ‘Embed’ stage was underlined by the strong positive correlation between implementation success and PMM benefit.
The strong influence of culture and the fact that cultures are unique to organisations suggests that the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages will be unique to each organisation and that there is no single best way to manage either of these stages.
2 Application of practice theory to PMMs
The literature on practice theory can be applied to explore the reasons why project staff might choose not to follow their PMM. Viewing PMMs in the context of recurring action patterns and a source of organisational memory is one way to understand why project staff may be reliant on their past experiences which may not be relevant. Many reasons for following or not following PMMs were recorded during the data capture stage. The analysis demonstrated the importance of perspective when assessing the deviations.
212
Item Contribution Explanation / description
3 Creation of an ‘for practice’ model of the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages
A key output from the research is the transformation of the conceptual model for the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages to a descriptive model of what happens in reality during these stages. Empirical models are very valuable in PM research as they move from the theoretical, academic view of what should happen to what actually does happen. Literature reflects the demand for empirical models (Winter et al 2006) as these have a practical benefit over and above their academic worth.
The descriptive model (Figure 44) represents both the brevity of the ‘Select’ stage (mentioned above) and also the complexity and inter-relatedness of the components in the ‘Embed’ stage.
A further benefit of the descriptive model is that it is not linked or aligned with any PMM but instead is applicable to whichever PMMs are chosen or developed by organisations. By being PMM-non-specific, the model has wider application.
4 Practical assistance for project staff
This thesis offers practical assistance to any project staff looking to choose a PMM or embed a new or existing PMM. The recommendations for practitioners are listed in Section 8.4.
Table 130. Contribution to knowledge
Building on the contributions to knowledge, the next section identifies the recommendations for
practitioners.
8.4 Recommendations for practitioners
This research adopted a pragmatic approach with the intention of being of use to those working
in the PMM sphere. Table 131 lists recommendations for practitioners for ways in which the
selection and embedding of PMMs can derive more benefit and be undertaken more
successfully for organisations.
Overall and with due allowance for the strength of the ‘Select’ findings, the recommendations
suggest a more project-based approach to selecting PMMs that is more open and which has
more clarity about the issues the PMM seeks to resolve or the benefits it potentially offers. A
very contingent approach to embedding recommends the diagnosis of each unique change
situation followed by actions to guide project staff towards desired practices and the continual
monitoring of those processes.
213
Item Recommendation Explanation / description
1 Adopt a project approach to the selection of PMMs
The research acts as a warning to project staff that PMMs can be selected on the basis of the past experiences of those involved which may not be relevant criteria for the current decision given the uniqueness of the situation. Adopting a more project-based approach is recommended because this supports an objective way to navigate the ‘Select’ stage by being more driven by the process than by the past experience of stakeholders. An open analysis of the options is particularly important to minimise the effects of path dependency and bias.
2 Clarify the objectives of the PMM and track benefits
There are many potential benefits from PMMs as listed in Table 14, Section 3.2.2. Organisations that set out with clear objectives are more likely to achieve them and clear objectives are more amenable to benefit tracking which will allow organisations to measure the gains from their investment in the PMM.
3 Analyse the change situation
As all organisations will have a unique landscape of requirements, experience and culture, it is recommended that some form of diagnosis is undertaken to assess the existence and magnitude of the driving and restraining forces. The factors listed in Tables 18 and 19, Section 3.3.2, should provide a useful start point for this analysis. A clear understanding of the forces prior to commencing the ‘Embed’ stage will allow the key factors to be identified and thereby managed more pro-actively and effectively.
4 Recognise that embedding is more of a process than a stage and requires continual management
The fluidity of the organisational landscape means that the embedding of the PMM will continue throughout its life with the initially high workload tapering off over time. Monitoring the landscape will allow changes to be detected and will facilitate organisations in managing how practitioners are using the method. A nudging strategy of making small changes and corrections is recommended to evolve a culture that is supportive of the aims of the PMM. Over time, less input will be needed as the processes desired by the organisation become embedded in the working practices of project staff.
5 Use the descriptive model (Figure 44)
The descriptive model identified the key components of the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages and prepares practitioners for the tasks to come. Lists of performance criteria, change types, problem statements, risks and the driving and restraining forces can be used by practitioners to create bespoke lists that have relevance and meaning for them and which can be used to raise the chances of a successful implementation.
6 Consider the use of project management maturity modelling
While the participants in this research did not identify benefits from the use of maturity models, the literature does support their use. A further recommendation is therefore that organisations measure their ‘as is’ and ‘to be’ levels of maturity as a way of developing a level that is appropriate to their needs and which can be used as an input to the embedding process to tailor the processes and the PMM to their requirements and the environment in which they operate.
Table 131. Practitioner recommendations
214
8.5 Research limitations
All projects have limitations. The benefit of listing the limitations is that it allows readers to
understand any deficits in the research, the method of execution or interpretation and also
because it allows the framing of the whole research endeavour in light of the limitations that
related to the research. The list of limitations is given in Table 132.
Item Area Description
1 Generalisability and sample size
Only the IT/IS departments of UK-based organisations were involved in this research which means the ability to apply the findings from this project to the wider population of PM professionals is limited to the UK and not advisable in an international context. In addition, the caution already noted about the level of evidence in the ‘Select’ stage is a further impediment to the generalisation of this research.
The small sample size carries with it the danger that the sample is not representative. To guard again this a range of UK organisations were included from different sectors and a third sample was created to compare against the second sample.
2 The use of questionnaires
The sources of questionnaire error were listed in Table 38, Section 4.8, along with the actions taken to address the potential issues. Despite these mitigating strategies and the piloting of the instrument, the fundamental flaws of self-reported questionnaires (for example selective memory, telescoping and exaggeration) remain. As a result, the findings and analysis need to take into account that the information came from two samples who both completed questionnaires.
3 Longitudinal effects As a cross-sectional research design, this project captured data at a point in time for the participants and respondents. During the analysis of the findings, it became apparent that the ‘Embed’ stage was longer than had been anticipated in the initial conceptual model and also that the forces impacting on the ‘Embed’ stage were not static. These findings mean that the results in this study represent a snapshot in time and that richer information may be available about the ‘Embed’ stage if a longitudinal approach is adopted.
4 Low internal validity Internal validity refers to the establishment of causal relationships where stimuli are believed to lead to other conditions (Yin 2011). In this research, possible explanations to explain the findings were suggested in the Qualitative and Quantitative Findings and the Discussion chapters. The explanations were not based on deduction logic but were more potential explanations. For exploratory research, it is expected that the internal validity will be low (Yin 2011). While this research would be expected to have low internal validity, the lack of causal relationships may be viewed as a limitation.
Table 132. Research limitations
Identifying research limitations is a beneficial exercise because it forces the author to look
critically at the work that has been undertaken but also because it is one route to identifying
potential topics for future research.
215
8.6 Recommendations for future research
PMMs are a growing area of research in PM literature and future research into PMMs is
essential, for researchers, to develop the understanding of PMMs and, for practitioners, to
increase the contribution that PMMs make to organisations and the management of projects.
The recommendations for further research are listed in Table 133. The table includes a
reference number, the area of the research or conceptual model to which the suggestion relates
and a final column describing and justifying the suggestion.
Item Area Suggestion
1 PMM life cycle model
This research developed the life cycle model for PMMs and focused on the first two stages. Further work is needed to assess the validity of the remaining stages and to identify how the model can develop the research into and use of PMMs. The life cycle could also be linked to the research into the value of PMMs to organisations and how the contribution made by PMM could be estimated, building on this and the work of Serrador and Pinto (2015) and Pace (2017).
2 Methodology As exploratory research, this project has identified lists of factors and created models that are applicable to PMMs in the first two stages of the life cycle. For example, the list of performance criteria (Table 14), driving and restraining forces (Tables 18, 19, 46 and 128), and the descriptive model (Figure 44). Future, explanatory research would add to the literature and provide useful information to researchers, organisations and practitioners.
3 Methodology This research has focused on only a few organisation types. Archibald (2004 cited in Richardson 2010) identified 20 industry areas in which projects take place. Repeating this research in more industries would ascertain to what extent the factors and findings from this research are more widely applicable. Repetition would also increase the reliability of the methodology and further develop the understanding of PMMs.
4 Select The organisations in this study primarily used one method but most respondents were qualified in and used multiple methods. One direction for future research is to ascertain at what point a single method is insufficient, how far one PMM can be stretched to fit the needs of an organisation and an investigation of how organisations choose between different solutions on the PMM continuum.
5 Diagnosis The change type adopted by participating organisations in this research was adaptation. Research in organisations with other change types and the effect this has on the ‘Embed’ stage would provide information on how change type affects implementation.
6 Diagnosis This research identified but was not able to measure the magnitude of the driving and restraining factors that affect PPMs. A method to help organisations quantify the forces would provide vital input to the management of those forces.
7 Change To help organisation with change management, maturity models are being created as the basis for assessment and improvement. For example, the Change Management Competency Scale (Shah 2014). While it was found that project maturity has no effect in the ‘Embed’ stage, future research could investigate the relationship that change maturity has on the ‘Embed’ stage.
8 Embed If the ‘Embed’ stage has a long duration as Section 7.5 suggests, further research could investigate how the stage could be made effective and efficient, for example through the adoption of theories such as organisational learning (Walker 2016) or practice-based change models (Burke 2017).
216
Item Area Suggestion
9 Culture With a focus on UK-based organisations the research was exposed to a limited range of national cultures. Research suggests that different cultures utilise different thinking processes (Manktelow 2012). It is possible that the PMMs in non-western cultures would produce very different results with further research needed to inform this issue.
10 In-use processes
This cross-sectional study provided a view at a point in time and it was recognised that the fluidity of the environment was likely to lessen the validity of the analysis. The suggestion in Section 7.3.3 for further research is for a longitudinal study into changes in the rates of compliance over time that would provide information on how and why project staff differ in their levels of adherence to the espoused processes.
11 In-use processes
In terms of organisational benefit from PMMs, there is a balance to be struck between espoused and in-use processes as there are benefits and disadvantages for both. Further research is needed to identify the balance point for organisations and the factors that affect it.
12 Data analysis Analyse the data from the 90 other questionnaire respondents from outside the UK to understand the international dimension of PMMs.
Table 133. Recommendations for further research
Many suggestions have been advanced in Table 133 for future research into PMMs.
Recognising that not all the recommendations have equal benefit and therefore priority, the
author would suggest that Recommendations 2, 3, 6 and 11 should be investigated first. Items
2 and 3 are recommended because they broaden and deepen this initial research. Item 6
should be prioritised on the basis that research that improves embedding will be essential to
practitioners. Finally, item 11 has merit because this research has shown widespread
divergence between the espoused and in-use processes which can cause confusion to staff and
is likely to have a detrimental effect on the effective use of the PMM.
Conducting further research will shed more light on the important area of PMMs within
organisations for the benefit of researchers and practitioners by building on this initial,
exploratory research.
217
References
Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management Fashion. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 254-285. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/258636. Mast accessed 18 August 2018.
Abrahamson, E. (2009). Necessary conditions for the study of fads and fashions in science. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(2), 235-239.
Agile Alliance. (2001). The Agile Manifesto. [Online]. Available at http://www.agilealliance.org/the-alliance/the-agile-manifesto. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Ahmed, M S. (2018). Internal Factors Influence on Project Management Maturity Assessment. International Journal of Management and Information Technology, 13(1), pp.3193-3206.
Alasuutari, P, Beckman, L and Brannen, J. (Eds) (2008). The SAGE handbook of social research methods. Sage.
Alderton, M. (2013). Anchoring projects to strategy. PM Network, 27 (8).
Albert, S and Whetten, D A. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in organizational behaviour 7, 263-295.
Alvarez, J. L., & Mazza, C. (2017). Haute Couture and Prêt-à-Porter: The Popular Press and the Diffusion of Management Practices. In The Aesthetic Turn in Management (pp. 157-178). Routledge.
Andersen, E S and Jessen, S A. (2003). Project maturity in organisations. International Journal of Project Management 21 (6), 457-62.
Andersen, E S. (2008). Rethinking project management: An organisational perspective. Pearson Education.
Anderson, D K and Merna, T. (2003). Project Management Strategy-project management represented as a process based set of management domains and the consequences for project management strategy. International Journal of Project Management. 21(6), 387-393.
APM (Association for Project Management). (2012). APM Body of Knowledge. 6th edition. Princes Risborough: Association for Project Management.
APM (Association for Project Management). (2015). APM Competence Framework. Princes Risborough: Association for Project Management.
APM (Association for Project Management). (2017). APM five dimensions of professionalism. [Online]. Available at: http://www.apm.org.uk/APM5Dimensions. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
APMG (APM Group). (2002). Case study: Ericsson Services Ireland. [Online]. Available at: download.ilxgroup.com/docs/downloads/case-study-ericsson.pdf. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
APMG (APM Group). (2012). PM Qualifications – PRINCE2, IPMA, APMP, PMP? [Online]. Available at http://blog.apmg-international.com/index.php/2012/06/01/pm-quals-prince2-ipma-apmp-pmp/. Last accessed 10 April 2016.
Arnold, D R and Capella, L M. (1985). Corporate Culture and the Marketing Concept: A Diagnostic Instrument for Utilities. Public Utilities Fortnightly, 116, 32-38.
Arras People. (2016). Project Management Benchmark Report 2016. [Online]. Available at: http://www.arraspeople.co.uk/the-project-management-benchmark-report-from-arras-people-2016/project-management-benchmark-report-2016/. Last accessed 5 August 2017.
Artto, K, Martinsuo, M, Gemünden, H G and Murtoaro, J. (2009). Foundations of program management: A bibliometric view. International Journal of Project Management, 27(1), 1-18.
Atkinson, R (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it’s time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management 17:6, 337-342.
Axelos. (2015). The Portfolio, Programme and Project Maturity Model. [Online]. Available at: https://www.axelos.com/best-practice-solutions/p3m3. Last accessed 4 February 2015.
218
Axelos. (2017). P3M3 Maturity Model. [Online]. Available at https://www.axelos.com/best-practice-solutions/p3m3/p3m3-maturity-model.aspx. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Aydin, M N and Dilan, E. (2017). Project Management Method Adoption: A Service Industry Case Study. International Journal of Information Technology Project Management (IJITPM), 8(2), 17-33. doi:10.4018/IJITPM.2017040102.
Balogun, J and Hailey, V H. (2008). Exploring strategic change. Pearson Education.
Barney, J B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32(10), 1231-1241.
Battistella, C, Nonino, F and Palombi, G. (2017). Unveiling the role of culture for effective Project Management. In ISPIM Innovation Symposium.
Beach, L R and Connolly, T. (2005). The psychology of decision making: People in organizations. Sage.
Beach, L R and Lipshitz, R. (2017). Why classical decision theory is an inappropriate standard for evaluating and aiding most human decision making. Decision Making in Aviation, 85.
Becker, M C. (2004). Organizational routines: a review of the literature. Industrial and corporate change, 13(4), 643-678.
Beckhard, R and Harris, R T. (1977). Organizational transitions: Managing complex change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Beins, B. (2009). Research methods. Pearson Education.
Betts, M and Lansley, P. (1995). International Journal of Project Management: a review of the first ten years. International Journal of Project Management, 13(4), 207-217.
Biedenbach, T and Müller, R. (2011). Paradigms in project management research: examples from 15 years of IRNOP conferences. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 4(1), 82-104.
Biggins, D. (2015). Perspectives on Project Management Methods. British Academy of Management Conference, Portsmouth, 8 - 10 Sep 2015. [Online]. Available at https://brian.bournemouth.ac.uk/viewobject.html?id=196455&cid=1. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Biggins, D, Trollsund, F and Høiby, A L. (2016a). Applying a life cycle approach to project management methods. European Academy of Management Conference, Paris, 1-4 June 2016. [Online]. Available at http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23753/2/Biggins%20D%20-%20Applying%20a%20life%20cycle%20approach%20to%20project%20management%20methods.pdf. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Biggins, D, Lawlor-Wright, T and Truelove, L. (2016b). Trends in project management 1966-2015. British Academy of Management Conference, Newcastle, 6 - 8 Sep 2016. [Online]. Available at http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/24268/1/Trends%20in%20PM%201966-2015.pdf. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Bliss, L. (2008). Media review: Green J C (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(2), 190-192.
Bloch, M, Blumberg, S and Laartz, J. (2012). Delivering large-scale IT projects on time, on budget, and on value. [Online]. Available at http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digital-mckinsey/our-insights/delivering-large-scale-it-projects-on-time-on-budget-and-on-value. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Blomquist, T, Farashah, A D and Thomas, J. (2017). Feeling good, being good and looking good: Motivations for, and benefits from, project management certification. International Journal of Project Management.
Boddy, D and Macbeth, D. (2000). Prescriptions for managing change: A survey of their effects in projects to implement collaborative working between organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 18(5), 297-306.
219
Boehm, B and Turner, R. (2003). Observations on balancing discipline and agility. Agile Development Conference. Proceedings of the IEEE.
Boehm, B, Koolmanojwong S, Lane J A and Turner, R. (2012). Principles for successful systems engineering. Procedia Computer Science 8, 297-302.
Boonstra, J J. (2013). Cultural change and leadership in organizations: a practical guide to successful organizational change. John Wiley & Sons.
Boud, K, Keogh, R and Walker, D. (1994). Reflection: turning experience into learning. London: Kogan Paul.
Brady, T and Davies, A. (2004). Building project capabilities: from exploratory to exploitative learning. Organization studies, 25(9), 1601-1621.
Bradley, G. (2010). Benefit Realisation Management: A practical guide to achieving benefits through change. Gower Publishing, Ltd.
Braun, V and Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. APA Handbook of Research methods in Psychology, volume 2. The American Psychological Association.
Bredillet, C N. (2003). Genesis and role of standards: Theoretical foundations and socio-economical model for the construction and use of standards. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 463-470.
Bredillet, C N. (2008). Exploring research in project management: Nine schools of project management research. Project Management Journal, 39:3.
Bredillet, C N. (2009). Mapping the dynamics of the project management field: Project management in action (part 3). Project Management Journal, 40: 2-5. doi: 10.1002/pmj.20139.
Bresnen, M and Marshall, N. (2000). Problems in construction: a critical review of issues, problems and dilemmas. Construction Management and Economics 18, 229-37.
Bridges, W. (1991). Managing Transitions, Perseus. Reading, MA.
BSI (British Standards Institution). (2010). BS 6079-1:2010. [Online]. Available at: http://shop.bsigroup.com/ ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030170007. Last accessed 11 May 2015.
Bryde, D J. (2003). Modelling project management performance. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20(2), 229-254.
Bryman, A and Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods. 3rd Edition. Oxford: OUP.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
Bullock, R J and Batten, D. (1985). It's just a phase we're going through: a review and synthesis of OD phase analysis. Group & Organization Management, 10(4), 383-412.
Burgan, S C and Burgan, D S. (2012). A case study on the adoption of project management in an organization. Paper presented at PMI Global Congress 2012-North America, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Burke, R. (2011). Advanced project management: Fusion method XYZ: A project methodology systems approach for the project sponsor to develop and implement corporate strategy.
Burke, R. (2013). Project management: planning and control techniques. New Jersey, USA.
Burke, W W. (2017). Organization change: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.
Burnes, B. (2009). Managing change. London: FT.
Burns, R B and Burns R A. (2013). Business Research Methods and Statistics Using SPSS. Sage.
Burns, T E and Stalker, G M. (1961). The management of innovation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
220
Buttrick, R. (2013). The project workout: the ultimate handbook of project and programme management. Pearson UK.
By, R T. (2005). Organizational Change Management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369-80.
Cadle, J and Yeates D. (Eds) (2008). Project management for information systems. Pearson education.
Calhoun, C. (1995). Critical social theory: culture, history, and the challenge of difference. Wiley-Blackwell.
Cameron, E and Green, M. (2015). Making Sense of Change Management: A Complete Guide The Models, Tools And Techniques Of Organizational Change. London: Kogan Page.
Cameron, K and Quinn R. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: based on the competing values framework, third edition, Books24x7, EBSCOhost.
Cao, Y and Zhao, L. (2011) Intellectual property management model in enterprises: a technology life cycle perspective. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 08:02, 253-272.
Carden, L and Egan, T. (2008). Does our literature support sectors newer to project management? The search for quality publications relevant to nontraditional industries. Project Management Journal, 39(3), 6-27.
Carnall, C. (2014). Managing Change in Organizations. 6th Edition, Pearson (Intl). Available from: Bookshelf Online.
Carstens, D S, Richardson, G L and Smith, R B. (2013). Project Management Tools and Techniques: A Practical Guide. CRC Press.
CCTA (Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency) (1994). PRINCE in Small Projects. London: HMSO.
Chandler, A D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American enterprise. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge.
Charvat, J. (2003). Project Management Methodologies-Selecting, Implementing, and Supporting Methodologies and Processes for Projects. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
Chin, C M M and Spowage, A C. (2010). Defining & classifying project management methodologies. PM World Today, 12(5).
Chrissis, M B, Konrad, M and Shrum, S. (2003). CMMI guidelines for process integration and product improvement. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co.
Christoph Albrecht, J and Spang, K. (2014). Linking the benefits of project management maturity to project complexity: Insights from a multiple case study. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 7(2), 285-301.
Cleland, D I and Ireland, L R. (1999). Project management: strategic design and implementation (Vol. 4). McGraw-Hill.
CMMI Institute. (2013). [Online]. Available at www.cmmiinstitute.com. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Cohen, M D, March, J G and Olsen, J P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative science quarterly, 1-25.
Cohen, M D, Burkhart, R, Dosi, G, Egidi, M, Marengo, L, Warglien, M and Winter, S. (1996). Routines and other recurring action patterns of organizations: contemporary research issues. Industrial and corporate change, 5(3), pp.653-698.
Collis, J and Hussey, R. (2014). Business research: A practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students. Fourth edition. Palgrave Macmillan.
Colyer, S. (2000). Organizational culture in selected western Australian sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 14, 321-341.
221
Cooke-Davies, T J. (2004). Measurement of organizational maturity. Innovations-Project management research, 211-228.
Cooke‐Davies, T J, Crawford, L H and Lechler, T G. (2009). Project management systems:
Moving project management from an operational to a strategic discipline. Project Management Journal, 40(1), 10-123.
Cooper, R G. (2007). Managing technology development projects. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 35(1), 67-76.
Crawford, L. (2004). Global Body of Project Management Knowledge and Standards, in The Wiley Guide to Managing Projects (Eds Morris, P W G and Pinto, J K), New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Crawford, L, Pollack, J and England, D. (2006). Uncovering the trends in project management: Journal emphases over the last 10 years. International Journal of Project Management, 24(2), pp.175-184.
Creswell, J W and Plano Clark, V L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Third edition. Sage.
Creswell, J W. (2014). Research design. Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods approaches. Sage.
Crozier, M. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon. Tavistock Publications and University of Chicago Press.
Cyert, R M and March, J G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
D’Adderio, L. (2009). The influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines’ dynamics: from representation to performation. Organizational routines: Advancing empirical research: 185.
Dannemiller, K D and Jacobs, R W. (1992). Changing the way organizations change: A revolution of common sense. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 28(4), 480-498.
Deal, T E and Kennedy, A A. (1982). Corporate Cultures. Addison-Wesley.
Dean, J. (1950). Pricing policies for new products. 28:6, 45-53.
Dean, P. (1997). Examining the Profession and the Practice of Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 16(15), 1637-1649.
Deming, W E. (1993). The new economics: for industry, government and education. Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Demir, C, Ayyildiz Unnu, N and Erturk, E. (2011). Diagnosing the organizational culture of a Turkish pharmaceutical company based on the competing values framework. Journal of Business Economics & Management, 12, 1, 197-217.
De Vries, M F K and Miller, D. (1986). Personality, culture, and organization. Academy of Management Review, 11(2), 266-279.
Dhalla, N K and Yuspeh, S. (1976). Forget the product life cycle concept. Harvard Business Review 54.1, 102-112.
Dillman, D A. (2007). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Second edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Dolan, K. (2010). Addressing project failure through PRINCE2. [Online]. Available at: https://www.axelos.com/case-studies-and-white-papers/addressing-project-failure-through-prince2. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Donaldson, L. (2006). The Contingency Theory of Organizational Design: Challenges and Opportunities. In: Burton R M, Håkonsson D D, Eriksen B, Snow C C. (Eds) Organization Design. Information and Organization Design Series, vol 6. Springer, Boston, MA.
222
Doolen, T, Hacker, M, and Van Aken, E. (2003). The Impact of Organizational Context on Work Team Effectiveness: A Study of Production Team, IEEE Transactions On Engineering Management, 50, 3, 285-296.
Doorewaard, H and Van Bijsterveld, M. (2001). The osmosis of ideas: An analysis of the integrated approach to IT management from a translation theory perspective. Organization, 8(1), pp.55-76.
Drori, G S, Höllerer, M A and Walgenbach, P. (2014). Unpacking the glocalization of organization: From term, to theory, to analysis. European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, 1(1), 85-99.
Egeland, B. (2009). A project management historical timeline. [Online]. Available at: www.pmtips.net/project-management-historical-timeline. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Elsevier. (2016). Scopus content. [Online]. Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/content. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Engwall, M. (2003). No project is an island: linking projects to history and context. Research policy, 32(5), 789-808.
Ernst, R C. (1985). Corporate cultures and effective planning: An introduction to the organization culture grid. Personnel Administrator, 30, 49-60.
Eskerod, P and Östergren, K. (2000). Why do companies standardize project work. Project Management, 6(1), 34-39.
Eveleens, J L and Verhoef, C. (2010). The rise and fall of the Chaos report figures. Software, IEEE, 27(1), 30-36.
Farjoun, M, Ansell, C and Boin, A. (2015). Perspective—Pragmatism in organization studies: Meeting the challenges of a dynamic and complex world. Organization Science, 26(6), 1787-1804.
Feldman, M. (2000). Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change. Organization Science 11 (6), 611-629.
Feldman, M and Rafaeli, A. (2002). Organizational Routines as Sources of Connections and Understandings. Journal of Management Studies 39 (3), 309-332.
Feldman, M and Pentland, B. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative science quarterly 48.1 94-118.
Feldman, M and Worline, M. (2016). The practicality of practice theory. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(2), 304-324.
Fernandes, G, Ward, S, Araújo, M, Loureiro, I and Braga, A. (2014). Perceptions of Different Stakeholders on Improving and Embedding Project Management Practice in Organisations. Procedia Technology, 16, 957-966.
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Fifth edition. Sage.
Fortune, J, White, D, Jugdev, K and Walker, D. (2011). Looking again at current practice in project management. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 4(4), 553-572.
Frame, D. (1995). Managing Projects in Organizations, second edition. Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Frankel Pratt, S. (2016). Pragmatism as ontology, not (just) epistemology: Exploring the full horizon of pragmatism as an approach to IR theory. International Studies Review, 18(3), 508-527.
Galbraith, J R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co Inc.
Galliers, R D. (1992). Information Systems Research: Issues, Methods and Practical Guidelines. Blackwell Scientific Publications.
GAPPS (Global Alliance for Project Performance Standards). (2013). About us. [Online]. Available at: https://globalpmstandards.org/about-us/. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
223
Garcia, S. (2005) How standards enable adoption of project management practice. IEEE Software, 22(5), 22-29.
Gardiner, P D. (2005). Project management: A strategic planning approach. Palgrave Macmillan.
Garrity, E J, and Sanders, G L. (Eds) (1998). Information systems success measurement. IGI Global.
Gartner (2016). Gartner Says Global IT Spending to Reach $3.5 Trillion in 2017. [online]. Available at: http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3482917. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Ghauri, P and Grønhaug K. (2010). Research methods in business studies. 4th edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis (Vol. 241). University of California Press.
Gleicher, D. (1969) in Beckhard, R. (Ed), Organisation Development: Strategies and Models, Addison‐Wesley, Reading, MA.
Goffee, R and Jones, G. (1998). The character of a corporation: How your company's culture can make or break your business. Harper Business.
Grant, K P, and Pennypacker, J S. (2006). Project management maturity: An assessment of project management capabilities among and between selected industries. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions On Engineering Management on, 53(1), 59-68.
Graves, D. (1986). Corporate Culture: Diagnosis and Change. St Martin’s Press, New York.
Greene, J. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7-22.
Groysberg, B, Lee, J, Price, J and Cheng, J. (2018). The Leader's Guide to Corporate Culture How to manage the eight critical elements of organizational life. Harvard Business Review, 96(1), 44-52.
Grundy, T. (1994). Implementing Strategic Change: A Practical Guide for Business. Kogan Page Limited.
Hai, D M (Ed). (1986). Organizational behavior: Experience and cases. West Publishing.
Hammersley, M. (2017). On the Role of Values in Social Research: Weber Vindicated?. Sociological Research Online, 22(1), 1-12.
Hampden-Turner, C. (1990). Creating corporate culture: from discord to harmony.
Handy, C. (1993). Understanding Organisations. London: Penguin Books.
Harrison, R. (1972). Understanding your organization’s character. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 4, 119-28.
Hartnell, C A, Ou, A Y and Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework's theoretical suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 677-694.
Head, I and Spafford, G. (2016). Avoid these 10 common failings for successful ITSM projects. [Online]. Available at https://www.gartner.com/document/3249017?ref=solrAll&refval=181296929&qid=bf96108d97ea92a683d55e68edc53ff8. Last access 11 January 2017.
Heath, C and Heath, D. (2011). Switch "How to Change Things When Change Is Hard". Random House Business.
Heritage, B, Pollock, C, and Roberts, L. (2014). Validation of the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument. PLoS ONE, 9(3).
HERMES. (2017). HERMES - the Swiss project management method. [Online]. Available at: www.hermes.admin.ch. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
224
Hernon, P. (1994). Information life cycle: Its place in the management of US government information resources. Government Information Quarterly, 11(2), 143-170.
Herzberg, F. (2003). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 81(1), 87-96.
Hobday, M. (2000). The project-based organisation: An ideal form for managing complex products and systems? Research Policy. 29. 871-893.
Hodgson, G M and Knudsen, T. (2004). The complex evolution of a simple traffic convention: the functions and implications of habit. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 54(1), 19-47.
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of international business studies, 14(2), 75-89.
Hölzle, K. (2010). Designing and implementing a career path for project managers. International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 779-786.
Hox, J and Boeije, H. (2005). Data collection, primary vs secondary. Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, Vol 1, 593-599.
Huffman, T P. (2018). Paradigmatic tools for communication scholar–activists: toward a pragmatic and relational epistemology. Review of Communication, 18(1), 19-36.
Hughes, M. (2011) ‘Do 70 per cent of all organizational change initiatives really fail?’ Journal of Change Management, 11(4), 451-64.
Hussey, J and Hussey, R. (1997). Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students. London: Macmillan Press.
Hyväri, I. (2006). Project management effectiveness in project-oriented business organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 24(3), 216-225.
Ibbs, C W and Kwak, Y-H. (2000). Assessing project management maturity. Project Management Journal. 31(1), 32-43.
IBM Corporation. (2008). Making change work. [Online]. Available at: http://www-07.ibm.com/au/pdf/making_change_work.pdf. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
IBM Corporation. (2014). Making change work ... while the work keeps changing. [Online]. Available at: http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=XB&infotype=PM&appname=GBSE_GB_TI_USEN&htmlfid=GBE03618USEN&attachment=GBE03618USEN.PDF. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
IEEE. (2016). IEEE Xplore Digital Library. [Online]. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/home.jsp. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
IIL (International Institute for Learning). (2008). The Unified Project Management Methodology (UPMM) Software Suite. [Online]. Available at: www.iil.com/pm/upmm/UPMM_Brochure _10_08.pdf. Last accessed 13 February 2014.
Ika, L A (2009). Project success as a topic in project management journals. Project Management Journal 40(4), 6-19.
IMF (International Monetary Fund). (2017). World economic outlook: Update January 2017. [Online]. Available at: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/update/01/. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
IPMA (International Project Management Association). (2013). IPMA Competence Baseline. [Online]. Available at: http://ipma.ch/resources/ipma-publications/ipma-competence-baseline/. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2012). New ISO standard on project management. [Online]. Available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/news_index/news_archive/ news.htm?refid=Ref1662. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2017). Standards [online]. Available at http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards.htm. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
225
Jenner, S. (2012). Managing Benefits. London: The Stationery Office.
Jennings, D and Wattam, S. (1998). Decision making. An integrated approach. Second edition. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Jesseph, L and Morris, E. (2013). The social side of the 7s model: Where social media and social capital connect. Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Jick, T D and Sturtevant, K D. (2017). Taking Stock of 30 Years of Change Management: Is It Time for a Reboot?. In Research in Organizational Change and Development (pp. 33-79). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Johnson, G, Scholes, K and Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring corporate strategy. [electronic resource]: text & cases. Harlow: Pearson Education, 2008.
Joslin, R and Müller, R. (2015). Relationships between a project management methodology and project success in different project governance contexts. International Journal of Project Management, 33(6), 1377-1392.
Joslin, R and Müller, R. (2016). The impact of project methodologies on project success in different project environments. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(2), 364-388.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin Books.
Kalliath, T J, Bluedorn, A C and Gillespie, D F. (1999). A confirmatory factor analysis of the competing values instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 143-158.
Kaplan, R S and Norton, D P. (2004). Strategy maps: Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Harvard Business Press.
Katane, J and Dube, S. (2017). The influence of organizational culture and project management maturity in virtual project teams. Cell, 72(398), 4764.
Keeney, R L. (1977). The art of assessing multiattribute utility functions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19(2), 267-310.
Kellogg, K C, Orlikowski, W J and Yates, J. (2006). Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization science, 17(1), 22-44.
Kerzner, H. (2006). Project Management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling and controlling. Ninth edition. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Kerzner, H. (2011). Project Management Metrics, KPIs and Dashboards - A guide to Measuring and Monitoring Project Performance. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Kerzner, H. (2013). Project Management, A systems approach to planning, scheduling and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.
Khatua, S., (2011). Project management and appraisal. Oxford University Press.
Kloppenborg, T J and Opfer, W A. (2002). The current state of project management research: trends, interpretations, and predictions. Project Management Journal, 33(2), 5-18.
Kotler, P and Keller, K L. (2012). Framework for Marketing Management: Global Edition. Pearson Education.
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J and Heskett, J L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. Free Press.
Kriegsman, M. (2012). Worldwide cost of IT failure (revisited): $3 trillion. [Online]. Available at: http://www.zdnet.com/article/worldwide-cost-of-it-failure-revisited-3-trillion/. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Kűbler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. The Macmillan Company.
Kwak, Y H and Anbari, F T. (2009). Analyzing project management research: Perspectives from top management journals. International Journal of Project Management, 27(5), 435-446.
226
Larson, E W and Gray, C F. (2011). Project management: The managerial process. McGraw-Hill International.
Latour, B. (1984). The powers of association. The Sociological Review, 32(S1), 264-280.
Lawrence, P R and Lorsch, J W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 1-47.
Lecoeuvre, L. Ed. (2016). The Performance of Projects and Project Management: Sustainable Delivery in Project Intensive Companies. Routledge.
LeCompte, M D and Goetz, J P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of educational research, 52(1), 31-60.
Lehmann, V. (2010). Connecting changes to projects using a historical perspective: Towards some new canvases for researchers. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 328-338.
Lehtonen, P and Martinsuo, M. (2006). Three ways to fail in project management and the role of project management methodology. Project Perspectives, 28(1), 6-11.
Levitin, D. (2016). A Field Guide to Lies and Statistics: A Neuroscientist on How to Make Sense of a Complex World. Penguin UK.
Levitt, B and March, J G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual review of sociology, 14(1), 319-338.
Levitt, T. (1965). Exploit the product life cycle. Harvard Business Review. 81-94.
Lewin, K. (1952). Field Theory in Social Science. London: Tavistock Publications Ltd.
Lientz, B P. (2013). Project Management: A problem-based approach. Palgrave Macmillan.
Lock, D. (2013). Project Management. Farnham: Gower.
Lynch, J. (2015). Standish Group 2015 Chaos Report - Q&A with Jennifer Lynch. Available at: https://www.infoq.com/articles/standish-chaos-2015. Last accessed 16 April 2018.
MacMaster, G. (2002). Choosing the Right PM Method. PM Network, 16(3), 48-51.
Mahon, K, Kemmis, S, Francisco, S and Lloyd, A. (2017). Introduction: Practice theory and the theory of practice architectures. In Exploring Education and Professional Practice, 1-30. Springer.
Manktelow, K I. (2012). Thinking and reasoning: An introduction to the psychology of reason, judgment and decision making. Simon and Schuster.
March, J G. (1994). Primer on decision making: How decisions happen. Simon and Schuster.
Marcoulides, G A and Heck, R H. (1993). Organizational culture and performance: Proposing and testing a model. Organization science, 4(2), 209-225.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. Oxford University Press.
Matthews, B and Ross, L (2010). Research Methods. A practical guide to the social sciences. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Maxwell, J A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage.
Meyer, J W and Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American journal of sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
Maylor, H and Blackmon, K. (2008). Researching business and management. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mayo, E. (2004). The human problems of an industrial civilization. Routledge.
Mento, A, Jones, R and Dirndorfer, W. (2002). A change management process: Grounded in both theory and practice. Journal of Change Management, 3(1), 45-59.
Mercer, D. (1993). A two‐decade test of product life cycle theory. British Journal of Management
4.4 269-274.
227
Meredith, J R, Mantel, J and Shafer, S M. (2016). Project management: A managerial approach. Wiley.
Microsoft (2008). The IT Service Lifecycle. Available at http://www.technet.microsoft.com/em-us/library/cc543217.aspx. Last accessed 8 August 2015.
Millar, M and Dillman, D. (2011). Improving response to web and mixed-mode surveys, Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 2, p. 249-269.
Mir, F A and Pinnington, A H. (2014). Exploring the value of project management: linking project management performance and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 32(2), 202-217.
Merriam Webster. (2015). Definition. [Online]. Available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/methodology. Last accessed 4 January 2015.
Mitchell, S, Linger, H and Owen, J. (2008). The benefits of project management maturity assessments--an analysis of OPM3 cases from Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. [Online]. Available at: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/organizational-project-management-maturity-model-cases-7071. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Moraes, R de O and Laurindo, F J B. (2013). Maturity and Performance in Information Technology Project Management. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation 8, 25-37.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organisations. Sage.
Morris, P W G, Patel, M B and Wearne, S H. (2000). Research into revising the APM project management body of knowledge. International Journal of Project Management, 18(3), 155-164.
Morris, P W G, Crawford, L, Hodgson, D, Shepherd, M M and Thomas, J. (2006). Exploring the role of formal bodies of knowledge in defining a profession - The case of project management. International Journal of Project Management 24(8), 710-721.
Morris, P W G, Pinto J K, Söderlund, J. (Eds) (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Project Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mullaly, M. (2006). Longitudinal analysis of project management maturity. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 62–73.
Mullins, L J. (2007). Management and organisational behaviour. Pearson Education.
Mumford, I, Mrschbeim, G, Fitzgerald and T. Wood-Harper. (Eds) (1994). Research Methods in Information Systems, Proceedings of the IMP WG8.2 Colloquium September 1994 Manchester Business School. Amsterdam Elsevier Science Publishers, 315-320.
Nadler, D and Tushman, M. (1997). Competing by design: The power of organizational architecture. Oxford University Press.
Narduzzo, A, Rocco, E and Warglien, M. (2000). Talking About Routines in the Field: The Emergence of Organizational Capabilities in a New Cellular Phone Network 16. The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities, p.27.
Nelson, R R. (1995). Recent evolutionary theorizing about economic change. Journal of economic literature, 33(1), 48-90.
Nelson, R R and Sampat, B N. (2001). Making sense of institutions as a factor shaping economic performance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 44 (1), 31-54.
Nelson, R R and Winter, S G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, Mass; London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
NCS (National Careers Service). (2015). Job profiles – Project manager. [Online]. Available at: https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/advice/planning/jobprofiles /Pages/projectmanager.aspx. Last accessed 6 February 2015.
Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford University Press.
228
Oaksford, M and Chater, N. (1995). Theories of reasoning and the computational explanation of everyday inference. Thinking & Reasoning, 1(2), 121-152.
Oaksford, M and Chater, N. (2009). Précis of Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(1), 69-84.
O’Donovan, G. (2018). Creating a culture of partnership between Project Management and Change Management. [Online]. Available at: https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/pmwj66-Jan2018-ODonovan-creating-culture-of-partnership-project-management-and-change-management.pdf. Last accessed 26 April 2018.
OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2002a). Tailoring PRINCE2. London: The Stationery Office.
OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2002b). People issues and PRINCE2. London: The Stationery Office.
OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2005). Managing successful projects with PRINCE2. London: The Stationery Office.
OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2006). PRINCE2 Maturity Model. London: The Stationery Office.
OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2009). Managing successful projects with PRINCE2. London: The Stationery Office.
OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2010). Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3). Introduction and Guide to P3M3. London: The Stationery Office.
Okhuysen, G A and Bechky, B A. (2009). 10 coordination in organizations: an integrative perspective. Academy of Management annals, 3(1), 463-502.
ONS (Office for National Statistics). (2016). Public sector employment, UK: March 2016. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/ publicsectorpersonnel/ bulletins/publicsectoremployment/march2016. Last accessed 3 March 2017.
Ouchi, W G. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Oxford Dictionaries. (2018). [Online]. Available at http://www.oxforddictionaries.com. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Pace, M. (2017). Project management methodology’s influence on project success: A correlation study. Doctoral thesis. Available at Capella University.
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Paoli, M and Prencipe, A. (2003). Memory of the Organisation and Memories within the Organisation. Journal of Management and Governance 7 (2), 14.
Parker, D W, Charlton, J, Ribeiro, A and Pathak, R D. (2013). Integration of project-based management and change management: Intervention methodology. International Journal of Production Performance Management, 62(5), 534-544.
Parry, K W and Proctor-Thomson, S B. (2002). Perceived integrity of transformational leaders in organisational settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(2), 75-96.
Pasian, B. (2011). Project management maturity: a critical analysis of existing and emergent contributing factors. [Online]. Available at: https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/2100/1258. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Pasian, B. (2018). Project Management Maturity and Associated Modeling: A Historic, Process-Oriented View. In Developing Organizational Maturity for Effective Project Management (pp. 1-24). IGI Global.
229
Pells, D. (1997). Global status of the project management profession: Where are we now? Project Management Institute 28th Annual Seminars & Symposium. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.
Pemsel, S, Müller, R and Shao, J. (2014). Organizational enablers in project-based organizations: the case of project governance and governmentality. Paper presented at Project Management Institute Research and Education Conference, Phoenix, AZ. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Pentland, B T. (1995). Grammatical Models of Organizational Processes. Organization Science, 6 (5), 541-556.
Pentland, B T and Feldman, M S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and corporate change, 14(5), 793-815.
Perrow, C. (1970). Organizational analysis: A sociological view. London: Tavistock.
Peters, T and Waterman, R. (1982). In Search of Excellence. London: Harper & Row.
Pettigrew, A M and Whipp, R. (1993). Managing change for competitive success. Wiley-Blackwell.
Pettigrew, A M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 570-581.
Pinto, J K and Levin, D P. (1988). Project success: Definition and measurement techniques. Project Management Journal 19(1).
Pinto, J K and Kharbanda, O P. (1995). Lessons for an accidental profession. Business Horizons, 38(2), pp.41-50.
Pinto, J K. (2013). Project management: achieving competitive advantage. Pearson.
Pinto, J K. (2014). Project management, governance, and the normalization of deviance. International Journal of Project Management, 32(3), 376-387.
Pitagorsky, G. (2003). The Business Value of Embracing a unified PM methodology. [Online]. Available at: Allpm.com. Last accessed 14 March 2013.
Plowman, D A, Baker, L T, Beck, T E, Kulkarni, M, Solansky, S. T and Travis, D V. (2007). Radical change accidentally: The emergence and amplification of small change. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 515-543.
PMI (Project Management Institute). (2012). Project Management Institute commends ISO 21500 Standard for alignment with PMBOK Guide. [Online]. Available at: http://www.pmi.org/en/ About-Us/Press-Releases/ISO-21500-Standard-for-Alignment-with-PMBOK-Guide.aspx. Last accessed 5 March 2013.
PMI (Project Management Institute). (2013a). Organisational project management maturity model (OPM3). Third edition. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.
PMI (Project Management Institute). (2013b). Industry growth forecast: Project management between 2010 and 2020. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.
PMI (Project Management Institute). (2013c). Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). Fifth edition. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.
PMI (Project Management Institute). (2013d). Managing Change in Organizations: A Practice Guide. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.
PMI (Project Management Institute). (2014a). Implementing Organizational Project Management: A Practice Guide. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.
PMI (Project Management Institute). (2014b). Global Jobs Report: Hottest Industries, Highest Salaries. [Online]. Available at http://www.pmi.org/learning/PM-Network/2014/global-jobs-report.aspx. Last accessed 1 February 2015.
230
PMI (Project Management Institute). (2015a). Certifications. [Online]. Available at http://www.pmi.org/certification.aspx. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
PMI (Project Management Institute). (2015b). PMI’s Pulse of the Profession. [Online]. Available at: http://www.pmi.org/~/media/PDF/learning/pulse-of-the-profession-2015.ashx. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
PMI (Project Management Institute). (2015c). Improve your organisation’s performance. [Online]. Available at: http://www.pmi.org/BusinessSolutions/Pages/OPM3.aspx. Last accessed 1 February 2015.
PMI (Project Management Institute). (2016). Pulse of the profession. [Online]. Available at: http://www.pmi.org.
PMI (Project Management Institute). (2017a). Pulse of the profession. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.
PMI (Project Management Institute). (2017b). Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). Sixth edition. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.
PMI Today. (2016). Fact File. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.
Pollack, J and Adler, D. (2015). Emergent trends and passing fads in project management research: A scientometric analysis of changes in the field. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 236-248.
Pollack, J. (2017). Change management as an organizational project capability. In Sankaran, S, Müller, R, Drouin, N. (Eds) Cambridge Handbook of Organizational Project Management, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ISBN: 978-1-107-15772-9, Ch. 16, 236-249.
Polli, R and Cook, V. (1969). Validity of the product life cycle. Journal of Business. 385-400.
Powell, W W and DiMaggio, P J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press.
Project Management Association of Japan. (2013). A guidebook of project and program management for enterprise innovation ‘P2M’. [Online]. Available at: https://articulospm.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/p2mguidebookvolume1_060112.pdf. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Prosci. (2018). AKDAR model. [Online]. Available at: http://www.prosci.com/adkar-model/overview-3/. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Pugh, D S and Hickson D J. (1996). Writers on organisations. Penguin Books.
PWC (Price Waterhouse Coopers). (2004). Boosting business performance through programme and project management. [Online]. Available at http://www.pwc.com/us/en/ operations-management/assets/pwc-global-project-management-survey-first-survey-2004.pdf. Last accessed 9 September 2013.
PWC (Price Waterhouse Coopers). (2007). Insights and trends: Current portfolio, programme and project management practices. [Online]. Available at http://www.pwc.com/us/en/ operations-management/assets/pwc-global-project-management-survey-second-survey-2007.pdf. Last accessed 9 September 2013.
PWC (Price Waterhouse Coopers). (2012). Insights and trends: Current portfolio, programme and project management practices. [Online]. Available at http://www.pwc.com/us/en/public-sector/publications/global-pm-report-2012.jhtml. Last accessed 9 September 2013.
Quinn, R E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. Jossey-Bass.
Quinn, R E and Spreitzer, G M. (1991). The psychometrics of the competing values culture instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life. Emerald.
Rad, N K. (2012). PMBOK 5 and the New Knowledge Area. [Online]. Available at: http://www.theprojectbox.us/2012/09/pmbok-5-and-the-new-knowledge-area. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
231
Ramazani, J and Jergeas, G. (2015). Project managers and the journey from good to great: The benefits of investment in project management training and education. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 41-52.
Richardson, G L. (2010). Project management theory and practice. CRC Press.
Rigby, D and Bilodeau, B. (2007). Bain's global 2007 management tools and trends survey. Strategy & Leadership, 35(5), 9-16.
Robbins, S P. (1990). Organization Theory: Structures, Designs, And Applications. Third edition. Pearson Education.
Robbins, S P and Barnwell, N. (2006). Organisation theory: Concepts and cases. Pearson Education Australia.
Rogers, E M. (2003). Diffusion of innovation. Fifth edition. New York: Free Press.
Rollinson, D. (2008). Organisational behaviour and analysis: An integrated approach. Pearson Education.
Rousseau, D M. (1990). Assessing organizational culture: The case for multiple methods. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational culture and climate (153-192). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Røvik, K A. (2011). From fashion to virus: An alternative theory of organizations’ handling of management ideas. Organization Studies, 32(5), 631-653.
Ruuska, I and Vartiainen, M. (2005). Characteristics of knowledge sharing communities in project organizations. International Journal of Project Management. 23, 374-379.
Saaty, T L. (1986). Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 32(7), 841-855.
Sackmann, S A. (2011). Culture and performance. In N Ashkanasy, C Wilderom and M Peterson (Eds), The handbook of organizational culture and climate. Second edition, 188-224. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Salaman, G. (Ed) (2002). Decision making for business: a reader. Sage.
Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Sargeant, R, Hatcher, C, Trigunarsyah, B, Coffey V and Kraatz, J. (2010) Creating value in project management using PRINCE2. [Online]. Available at: eprints.qut.edu.au/52853/.
Sargent, W. (2016). Strategies to Improve Project Management Maturity Processes. [Online]. Available at http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4106&context=dissertations#page=13&zoom=auto, 118,778. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Sargent, W and Ferreira, G A. (2018). Strategies to Improve Project Management Maturity. Developing Organizational Maturity for Effective Project Management (pp. 279-295). IGI Global.
Sarif, S M, Ramly, S, Yusof, R, Fadzillah, N A A and bin Sulaiman, N Y. (2018). Investigation of Success and Failure Factors in IT Project Management. International Conference on Kansei Engineering & Emotion Research (pp. 671-682). Springer, Singapore.
Saunders, M, Lewis, P and Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business students. 6th Ed. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.
Schein, E H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.
Schlichter, J. (2015). Did PMI screw OPM3 up? [Online]. Available at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/did-pmi-screw-opm3-up-john-schlichter-opm3.
Scott, D, Pultz, J E, Holub, E, Bittman, T J and McGuckin, P. (2007). Introducing the Gartner IT Infrastructure and Operations Maturity Model [Online]. Available at: https://www.gartner.com/doc/527814/introducing-gartner-it-infrastructure-operations. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
232
Senge, P. (1993). The fifth discipline: The art and science of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Senge, P, Kleiner, A, Roberts, C, Ross, R, Roth, G, Smith, B and Guman, E C. (1999). The dance of change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations.
Serrador, P and Pinto, J K. (2015). Does Agile work? A quantitative analysis of agile project success. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), 1040-1051.
Shah, M H. (2014). An Application of ADKAR Change Model for the Change Management Competencies of School Heads in Pakistan. Journal of Managerial Sciences, 8(1).
Sheard, S A. (1997). The frameworks quagmire, a brief look. People, 829(830), 1012-1016.
Sheffield, J and Lemétayer, J. (2010). Critical Success Factors in Project Management Methodology Fit. PMI Global Congress 2010 - Asia Pacific.
Shenhar, A J. (2001). One size does not fit all projects: Exploring classical contingency domains. Management Science, 47 (3), 394.
Shenhar, A J, Dvir, D, Lechler, T and Poli, M. (2002). One size does not fit all-true for projects, true for frameworks. In Proceedings of PMI Research Conference, 14-17.
Shenhar, A J, Dvir, D, Guth, W, Lechler, T, Milosevic, D, Patanakul, P, Poli, M and Stefanovic, J. (2007). Project strategy: the missing link. Linking project management to business strategy, 57-76.
Shi, Q. (2011). Rethinking the implementation of project management: A Value Adding Path Map approach. International Journal of Project Management, 29(3), 295-302.
Shtub, A, Bard, J F and Globerson, S. (2005). Project management: Processes, methodologies, and economics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Siehl, C and Martin, J. (1990). Organizational culture: A key to financial performance? In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (241-281). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Silverthorne, C. (2004). The impact of organizational culture and person-organization fit on organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Taiwan. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(7), 592-599.
Silvius, G. (2018). Developing Project Management Maturity as an Organizational Change Process. Developing Organizational Maturity for Effective Project Management (pp. 296-308). IGI Global.
Simon, H A. (1957). Administrative behaviour. A study of decision-making process in administrative organisation. London: Collier Macmillan Ltd.
Simon, H A. (1964). On the concept of organizational goal. Administrative Science Quarterlys, 11-22.
Simon, H A. (1966). The new science of management decision. Harper & Row.
Simon, H A. (1983). Reason in human affairs. Stanford, USA: Stanford University Press.
Singh, A. (2013). A Study of Role of McKinsey's 7S Framework in Achieving Organizational Excellence. Organization Development Journal, 31(3), 39-50.
Small, M. (2011). How to Conduct a Mixed Methods Study: Recent Trends in a Rapidly Growing Literature, Annual Review of Sociology, 57.
Smyth, H J and Morris, P W G. (2007). An epistemological evaluation of research into projects and their management: Methodological issues. International Journal of Project Management, 25(4), 423-436.
Söderlund, J. (2004). On the broadening scope of the research on projects: a review and a model for analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 22(8), 655-667.
233
Stacey, R. (2006). Complex responsive processes as a theory of organizational improvisation. Experiencing risk, spontaneity and improvisation in organizational change: Working live, 124-141.
Spalek, S. (2014). Does investment in project management pay off? Industrial Management and Data Systems, 114, 832-856. doi:10.1108/IMDS-10-2013-0447.
Stanovich, K E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Psychology Press.
Stanovich, K E and West, R F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral And Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645-665.
Stewart, R A. (2008). A framework for the life cycle management of information technology projects: ProjectIT. International Journal of Project Management. 26(2), 203-212.
Stokes, P. (2011). Key concepts in business and management research methods. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Strangler, D and Arbesman, S. (2012). What does Fortune 500 Turnover mean? [Online]. Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2078162.
Straub, D W. (1989). Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS quarterly, 147-169.
Strebel, P. (1994). Choosing the right change path. California Management Review, 36(2), 29.
Stubbart, C I and Knight, M B. (2006). The case of the disappearing firms: empirical evidence and implications. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(1), 79-100.
Stuckenbruck, L. (1986). Project Management Framework - An overview of the Project Management Body of Knowledge. Project Management Journal 1986(August), 25-30.
Sturdy, A. (2004). The adoption of management ideas and practices: Theoretical perspectives and possibilities. Management Learning, 35(2), 155-179.
Swanson, S. (2012). Measuring maturity. PM Network, 2012(5), 40-45.
Sydow, J and Staber, U. (2002). The institutional embeddedness of project networks: the case of content production in German television. Regional Studies, 36(3), 215-227.
Tabachnick, B G and Fidell, L S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson Education.
Taleb, N N. (2007). The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. New York: Random.
TechPro Research. (2015). Research: IT budget - drivers, trends and concerns in 2016. [Online]. Available at: http://www.techproresearch.com/downloads/research-it-budget-drivers-trends-and-concerns-in-2016/. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Teddlie, C and Tashakkori, A. (2012). Common ‘Core’ Characteristics of Mixed Methods Research: A Review of Critical Issues and Call for Greater Convergence. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6).
Thaler, R H and Sunstein, C R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. London: Penguin Books.
Thaler, R H. (2015). Misbehaving: The making of behavioural economics. Alan Lane.
Themistocleous, G and Wearne, S H. (2000). Project management topic coverage in journals. International Journal of Project Management, 18(1), 7-11.
Thomas, J and Mullaly, M. (2007). Understanding the value of project management: First steps on an international investigation in search of value. Project Management Journal, 38(3), 74-89.
Thomson Reuters. (2014). Web of Science core collection. [Online]. Available at: http://wokinfo.com/media/pdf/wos_core_collection_qrc.pdf. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Too, E G and Weaver, P. (2014). The management of project management: A conceptual framework for project governance. International Journal of Project Management, 32, 1382-1394. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.07.006.
234
Trompenaars, F. (2001). Riding the Waves of Culture, 2nd edition. London: Brealey.
Turner, J R. (2008). Handbook of project-based management. McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing.
Turner, R, Ledwith, A and Kelly, J. (2010). Project management in small to medium-sized enterprises: Matching processes to the nature of the firm. International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 744-755.
Tversky, A and Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232.
Tversky, A and Kahneman, D. (1985). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. In Environmental Impact assessment, technology assessment, and risk analysis, 107-129. Springer: Berlin.
Tylor, E B. (1871). Primitive culture: researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, art, and custom (Vol. 2). Murray.
Urli, B and Urli, D. (2000). Project management in North America, stability of the concepts. Project Management Journal, 31(3), 33-43.
Valentin, E K. (1994). Anatomy of a fatal business strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), 359-382.
Vaskimo, J. (2015). Organizational project management methodologies: Structures, contents, and use. Doctoral thesis. Available at: https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/19005/isbn9789526065861.pdf. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Vincke, P. (1992). Multicriteria decision-aid. John Wiley & Sons.
Vroom, V H and Yetton, P W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Vroom, V H and Jago, A G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Prentice-Hall.
Walker, D H. (2016). Reflecting on 10 years of focus on innovation, organisational learning and knowledge management literature in a construction project management context. Construction Innovation, 16(2), 114-126.
Walliman, N. (2006). Social research methods. Sage.
Waterman, R H, Peters, T J and Phillips, J R. (1980). Structure is not organization. Business Horizons, 23(3), 14.
Wedlin, L and Sahlin, K. (2017). The imitation and translation of management ideas (pp. 102-127). London, England: Sage.
Wells, H. (2012). How effective are project management methodologies (PMMs)? An explorative evaluation of their benefits in practice. Project Management Journal. 43(6), 43-58.
Wells, H. (2013). An exploratory examination into the implications of type-agnostic selection and application of project management methodologies (PMMs) for managing and delivering IT/IS projects. Proceedings IRNOP 2013 Conference.
Wheatley, M. (2007). Maturity Matters: Maturity is an obvious choice for companies looking to increase their ROI in project management, but they need to carefully examine what it takes to get where they want to go. PM Network, 21(7), 48.
White, D and Fortune, J. (2001). Current practice in project management - an empirical study. International Journal of Project Management. 20(1), 1-11.
Whittington, R, Pettigrew, A, Peck, S, Fenton, E and Conyon, M. (1999). Change and complementarities in the new competitive landscape: A European panel study, 1992–1996. Organization science, 10(5), 583-600.
235
Williams, S. (c2010). A Description of Papers Published in the PM Journals 1998-2007. [Online]. Available at: http://buildingthepride.com/jobie/uploads/JOBIEV19I125.pdf. Last accessed 20 April 2018.
Williamson, O. (2005). Transaction cost economics and business administration. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 21(1), 19-40.
Winch, G, Meunier, M, Head, J and Russ, K. (2012). Projects as the content and process of change: The case of the health safety laboratory. International Journal of Project Management, 30(2), 141-152.
Winter, S G. (1985). The case for “Mechanistic” decision making. Organizational strategy and change, 99-113.
Winter, M, Smith, C, Morris, P and Cicmil, S. (2006). Directions for future research in project management: The main findings of a UK government-funded research network. International Journal of Project Management 24(8), 638-649.
Woodward, J, Dawson, S and Wedderburn, D. (1965). Industrial organization: Theory and practice. London: Oxford University Press.
Yazici, H J. (2010). The role of project management maturity and organisational culture in perceived performance. Project Management Journal 40(3), 14-33.
Yeung, A K, Brockbank, J W and Ulrich, D. (1991). Organizational culture and human resource practices: An empirical assessment.
Yin, R K. (2011). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publishing.
Zobel, A M and Wearne, S H. (2000). Project management topic coverage in recent conferences. Project Management Journal, 31(2), 32-37.
236
Appendix 1 – A brief history of PM and PMMs
With their history in construction, engineering and government (especially defence), the tools
and techniques of project management had existed in isolation before the 1950s and it is from
this time that the pre-cursors of project management are traceable. Professions such as
medicine, accounting and law have a much longer history than does project management which
only started to take shape as such after the Second World War. These initial steps in the
development of an identifiable subject were the first stages of the creation of the profession of
project management. The evolution of project management from an additional responsibility
augmenting a different primary duty into a role in its own right occurred in the 1990s. In their
1995 article Pinto and Kharbanda repeated the popular phrase, the ‘accidental profession’, first
used by authors from the mid 1980s to reflect the fact that there were no formalised ways to
select and train project managers and there was no definable career path.
The criteria for defining a profession were identified by Flexner in the 1920s (Dean 1997).
Crawford (2004) reduced this list to the five pillars of a profession as qualifications, education /
training, standards, body of knowledge and research. She saw project management
methodologies as a necessity component for project management to be seen as a profession.
As early as 1986, the PMI, in discussing the creation of the body of knowledge recognised that
“an accepted ‘profession’ must have a unique, well-defined body of knowledge (BOK) that can
be studied and learned through formal education.” (Stuckenbruck 1986). Following a similar
definition to the PMI, the APM (2017) listed the five dimensions of professionalism as the body
of knowledge, competence frameworks, qualifications, continuing professional development and
a code of conduct.
Several authors have charted the key milestones in the history of project management (Kerzner,
2013; Egeland 2009; Morris et al 2011). These milestones are shown in Table 134. The table
below is arranged by decade and year in the first two columns. In the third column are the tools
and techniques and in the fourth the PMM developments.
Decade Year Tools/techniques and general developments
PMM developments
1950
to
1959
1953 The term ‘project management’ used
1957 PERT developed for planning and monitoring
Critical Path Method invented by Du Pont
1959 The start of academic research into project management
1960
to
1969
1960s
Operations Research techniques (quality assurance, configuration management etc) adopted
1960 Phased life-cycle planning
1962 Work breakdown structure described
Precedence scheduling developed
237
Decade Year Tools/techniques and general developments
PMM developments
1968 Resource scheduling developed
1969 Project Management Institute founded
1970
to
1979
1972 International Project Management Association founded
1975 PROMPTII
HERMES started
1976 Australian Institute of Projects Management formed
1979 CCTA adopts PROMPT II
1980
to
1989
1983 PMBOK published containing 6 knowledge areas (scope, time, cost, quality, HR and communication)
1986 Total quality management SCRUM named as a method
1987 PMBOK issued as a white paper
1989 PRINCE
1990
to
1999
1990 Concurrent engineering The term ‘project methodology’ is used
1992 APMBOK 1st edition
1994 Life cycle costing APMBOK 2nd edition
GAPPS founded
1996 PMBOK 1st edition
PRINCE2
APMBOK 3rd edition
1997 Project offices developed
1998 IPMA published the Competence Baseline
2000
to
2009
2000 PMBOK 2nd edition
APMBOK 4th edition
2001 Maturity models P2M (Japanese)
2002 P2M (English)
2004 PMBOK 3rd edition
2005 Six sigma project management
2006 APM BOK 5th edition
2007 Lean project management
2008 PMBOK 4th edition
2009 PRINCE2: 2009
PRiSM started
From 2010
2010 BS 6079
2012 APMBOK 6th edition
ISO 21500
2013 PMBOK 5th edition
2017 PMBOK 6th edition
Table 134. A brief history of project management
238
This chronology highlights four key points in the development of project management:
▪ The early history of project management is dominated by the development of
standalone tools and techniques, created from a number of different industries.
▪ It is only in the 1990s that the term project method starts to be used (Charvat 2003).
▪ The many competing standards reflect the immature status of the project management
profession.
▪ The frequency of revisions to the published standards and methodologies demonstrates
the considerable efforts being made to advance project management.
239
Appendix 2 – Project management methods
Table 135 lists the most popular methods and standards that comprise PMMs.
PMM Description
APM BOK Association for Project Management Body of Knowledge
Developed by the Association for Project Management
A body of knowledge which, in the 6th edition (2012), covers the sections of context, people, diversity and interfaces. The scope of the APMBOK is wide and encompasses portfolio and programme management, soft skills, and ‘interfaces’ to accounting, health and safety, sustainability etc.
Accreditation system: Yes
P2M A Guidebook of Project and Program Management for Enterprise Innovation ‘P2M’
Developed by the Project Management Association of Japan (2013)
A project and programme management framework focused on adding value while delivering successful projects. The P2M Project Management Tower consists of entry criteria, project and programme management processes and frame elements (for example risk, finance etc).
Accreditation system: Yes
BS 6079 British Standard 6079-1:2010. Project management. Principles and guidelines for the management of projects
Owned by the British Standards Institution
A set of guidelines covering many types of projects and providing guidance on sponsorship, management, planning, undertaking projects and application of project management techniques. Influenced by the APMBOK.
Accreditation system: No
ISO 21500 International Organization for Standards 21500:2012 Guidance on project management (ISO 2012)
Owned by the ISO
Contains concepts and processes for project management that are considered good practice, usable by any type of organisation for any project. Influenced by the PMBOK.
Accreditation system: No
PMBOK A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge
Owned by the Project Management Institute
Created in 1986, the first edition was published in 1996 and is updated every four years. Consists of five process groups (initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing) and 10 knowledge areas. There are four million copies of the PMBOK in print (PMI 2012)
Accreditation system: Yes
PRINCE2: 2009 Projects in Controlled Environments
Owned by the Cabinet Office
With the 2009 edition, the method was simplified and made easier to customise. Focus on the seven principles of the business case, organisation, plans, risks, progress, quality and issues/changes.
Accreditation system: Yes
Agile Agile Software Development
Based on the Manifesto for Agile Software Development, 2001 (Agile Alliance 2001)
An adaptive software development approach that focuses on short tasks with a high level of customer involvement
240
PMM Description
Agile methods/implementations include Scrum (1995), Extreme Programming (1999), Dynamic Systems Development Method (1994) and others.
Accreditation system: Yes
Table 135. Project management methods
In researching Table 135, the following points were noted:
▪ Initially, the focus of attention for the approaches was on individual projects and, while
this has strengthened in subsequent revisions, the scope has broadened to include
programme and portfolio issues, people and extensions to related disciplines such as
legal and accounting etc.
▪ The component parts of the PMMs that have been developed are consistent and
comprise a defined way of working, a procedural life cycle, tools, techniques and
templates.
▪ The PMMs share a common set of elements which each considers vital (for example
risk, scheduling, scope management) but there is less consensus about where the
boundaries of knowledge should be drawn. This is to be expected in a young
profession that is still developing and one which is defining its own territory by including
knowledge that was previously in a different subject area (Crawford 2004). This is most
visible in the APMBOK which has the widest scope of any of the PMMs.
▪ While initially the PMMs were created based on practitioner experience, the later
editions (PMBOK 4th edition, APMBOK 5th edition and P2M) have all been influenced by
academic research but this influence has been limited by the requirement to minimise
change because of the link to certification (Morris et al 2006).
▪ Increasingly, PMMs are becoming leaner and more agile (Sheffield and Lemétayer
2010).
While there are other project management approaches, these are based on the approaches in
Table 135 and are not therefore different approaches. Examples include the Unified Project
Management Method (based on PMBOK) and Methods 123 Project Management Methodology
(based on PMBOK). The Global Alliance for Project Performance Standards reports a 99%
similarity with the IPMA ICB (2013) and 93% similarity with PRINCE2 (GAPPS 2013). These
few examples demonstrate that there is no lack of competing approaches. Jayaratna has
estimated that there are one thousand methodologies used by organisations (Wells, 2012).
241
Appendix 3 – Software development methods
In Table 136 are listed the most common software development approaches. Agile has already
been listed under PMMs and is not repeated here.
Software method Description
HERMES Handbuch der Elektronischen Rechenzentren des Bundes, Methode für die Entwicklung von Systemen
Developed by the Swiss Federal Government
A staged project method for IT and communications projects
HERMES (2017)
IDEAL Initiating, Diagnosing, Establishing, Acting and Learning
Developed by the Software Engineering Institute
A software development method based on the Capability Maturity Model
MITP Managing the Implementation of the Total project
Developed by IBM
Consists of four phases; commencing; establishing; implementing and ending
MSF Microsoft Solutions Framework
Developed by Microsoft
A set of processes and proven practices focusing on the software life cycle. The MSF project management process includes planning, change control, budgeting, scheduling, resourcing, procurement, risk management and quality management
RUP Rational Unified Process
Created by Rational Software Corporation
A tailorable framework for software development
IIL (2008)
TSP Team Software Process
Developed by the Software Engineering Institute since 1998
The application of engineering practices to software development
Waterfall Waterfall Model
Attributed to Winston Royce in 1970
A sequential process model for software development
Table 136. Software development methods
242
Appendix 4 – Change management models
This appendix lists the most popular change management models.
Author / model Description
Lewin (1952)
Three step model
Lewin introduced the concept of competing forces driving and resisting change in an organisation. He proposed that organisational change consists of three stages; unfreezing the current situation to illuminate the driving and resisting forces; introducing the new state and then refreezing to make the change permanent. Lewin saw organisations as organisms that possesses change inertia and thus change required great effort to move to the new state and then sustain the change for example by setting new standards, introducing new policy and procedure and rewarding those who supported the change. In the review of total quality change management projects, Binney (1992) found that two thirds of projects had embarked on the change stage but ultimately returned to the initial state with the result that no lasting change was made.
Bullock and Batten (1985)
Planned change
A 4 stage model of change consisting of exploration, planning, action and integration. Applicable to change projects where a desired end state can be articulated and reached using a known solution. This model presumes a machine view of organisations and can be difficult to implement successfully where planning and control are less application to the change situation
Kotter (1996)
Eight steps
Kotter’s 8 steps to transforming an organisation is broader in scope than the preceding models as it recognises greater complexity in the change process. The steps are: 1. Establish a sense of urgency. 2. Form a powerful coalition. 3. Create a vision. 4. Communicate the vision. 5. Empower other to act on the vision. 6. Plan for and create short-term wins. 7. Consolidate improvements. 8. Institutionalise new approaches. Similarities can be seen with Lewin’s three step model with Kotter’s steps 1 to 4 equating to unfreezing, steps 5 and 6 to change and 7 and 8 to refreeze. Based on Kotter’s consultancy experience, the model represents his normative view of change in organisations. This project’s author has personal experience of using this model in change project where it appeals to organisations because of its logic and simplicity. Often used as the core activities of a change initiative, the model has a successful record.
Gleicher (1969)
Change formula
The original formula was C = (ABD) > X where C is change; A is dissatisfaction with the current state; B is the desired future state; D represents the steps to the desired state and X is the cost of the change.
Beckhard and Harris (1977)
Change formula
Extending both Lewin’s (1051) and Gleicher’s (1969 cited in Cameron and Green 2015) work, and building on Beckhard’s 1969 book Organisational Development, Beckhard and Harris developed a change formula: C = [ABD] > X as a way of focussing on organisation transition in large organisations. In this formula C is the change; A the level of dissatisfaction with the existing state; B the attractiveness of the future state; D the practicality of change and X the cost of change. The authors introduce the concept of the cost of change and the equation shows how change can be effected if the costs are less than the combined effect of A, B and D. Re-writing the formula as A x B x D > C add the notion that if A, B or D is at or close to zero, the change is unlikely. For a change to be likely, all three components must have a magnitude. Beckhard and Harris envisioned a stage in the change process, similar to Lewin’s unfreeze step where A, B and D are discussed and their magnitude ascertained. This model lacks any
243
Author / model Description
implementation or sustaining phases and is thus more of a diagnostic tool and more akin to the force field analysis of Lewin.
Dannemiller and Jacobs (1992)
Change formula
Building on earlier work, Dannemiller produced a version of the change formula which focused on the factors affecting resistance to change. In this way the change formula can be seen as an extension of the Lewin force field analysis. D x V x F > R where D is current state dissatisfaction; V the future vision; F are the first steps that can be taken to achieve the vision. If the produce of these three components exceeds R (resistance), change is possible. As with the Beckhard and Harris (1977) formula, if any component is close to zero, change is less likely.
Nadler and Tushman (1997)
Congruence model
The congruence model aids in understanding the pressures inside an organisation undergoing change. Using an organism metaphor, the model views change as a set of inter-connected sub systems that react to flux in the external environment. Not a change process, the congruence model structures thinking to help those involved in change to make sense on it.
At the core of the model are the four sub-systems of:
1. Work. Include the tasks carried out by individuals, procedures and reward and recognition.
2. People. The skills and characteristics of those affected by the change, including their histories and hopes for the future.
3. The formal organisation. The documented aspects of the organisation including the hierarchy, systems, standard operating procedures etc.
4. The informal organisation. The undocumented aspects of organisations including communication pathways, influence, power, values and established business practices.
Inputs to managing change include the organisations strategy, available resources and the contextual environment. The sub-systems influence the transformation of the inputs into outputs relating to activities, behaviours and performance, working at three levels (individual, group and total).
The model is based on the sociotechnical perspective on organisations which includes within its remit the managerial, strategic, technical and social aspects. This perspective places emphasis on the inter-relatedness of the components and predicts that the level of alignment or congruence of the elements will directly affect performance. The higher the congruence, the better the system will perform.
Nadler and Tushman assert that organisations that do not attend to all four elements will not be successful in making lasting change and the old equilibrium of homeostasis to use the organism metaphor will re-establish itself. Ignoring some elements with create opposition in the organisation, similar to Lewin's ideas of resisting forces. Resistance, Nadler and Tushman argue, is created because individuals fear the unknown and prefer stability. A lack of involvement in the change can generate resentment as this provokes feelings that change is being enforced and that independence is being lost.
The models of change in this section are different in terms of their focus and breadth. The Congruence Model emphases the important characteristics of the change process itself and pays less attention to the preceding steps of vision and strategy and the later steps of implementation. Thus the model is narrow that Kotter's step model yet provide more details within the planning phase of the change process.
There are other models that can be deployed to provide checklists for issues to be considered in change. For example, the McKinsey 7S
244
Author / model Description
model (staff, skills, systems, style, shared values, strategy and structure) arguably has a broader perspective than the Congruence Model. However, the inclusion of the informal organisation by Nadler and Tushman, which highlights the importance of the political powers with an organisation adds, in the author's opinion, a vital view point not considered in the 7S model.
Bridges (1991)
Managing transitions
More a transition process model than a change model, Bridges (1991) separated physical, planned change (for example an office move or organisational restructure) from the more complex, more psychological transition which involved new ways of thinking or new behaviours. Changing a situation can be planned whereas change involving human actors is more difficult to manage. Change happens to use and can be rapid whereas transition is a cognitive journey that takes time. Bridges' research focuses on the transition to better understand the process and make it more effective (Bridges 1991).
For Bridges, the change process consists of three stages; ending, neutral zone and new beginning. It may seem counter intuitive to begin with the ending but in this context the initial stage acknowledges that the current way of working is coming to an end and that there will be winners and losers in the process.
The neutral zone marks the hiatus between what was and what is to be. In the neutral zone, the people affected can feel disoriented, demotivated and anxious.
These first two stages are reminiscent of the individual change and adjustment model (denial; anger; bargaining; depression; acceptance) defined by Kubler-Ross (1969) and this makes sense because Bridges is more concerned with the internal thought processes of change.
Managers need to keep a close eye on the change process and take appropriate action to help those involved to cross the neutral zone successfully and reach the final stage, new beginning. Whereas less complex change can be planned, transitions need to be nurtured, encouraged and supported and their final form is therefore emergent and unpredictable. To exit the neutral zone Bridges (1991) suggests those involved need four elements; the purpose of the change; a vision of how the future looks; the path to reach the goal and the ability to participate in the change.
Reaching Kubler-Ross's acceptance stage is the start point for the new beginning at which people feel able to commit emotionally to the new way of working. Those leading the change are likely to reach this point far earlier than those affected by the change. Bridges sees this temporal gap as a cause for impatience on the part of managers.
Carnall (2014)
Change management model
Carnall's change management model (2014) emphases the importance of management capability in three areas. When managing transitions (for example by creating an open atmosphere in which those involved feel able to try something new and take risks), when dealing with culture (for example by using transparency, information flows and delegation/autonomy to create more open cultures) and when handling organisational politics (such as factions, coalitions and hidden agenda that may support or inhibit the process).
By managing these three areas, Carnall (2014) believes that an environment can be created that facilitates successful change through creativity, risk-taking and the (re)building of self-esteem.
Heath and Heath (2011)
Switch framework
Lewin’s competing forces from his 1952 work on force field analysis can be seen in the Heaths’ model where the rational mind (driving force) is set against the emotional mind (retraining force). The rational mind may desire change but the emotional mind prefers the comfort and stability of the status quo. As with Lewin’s model, if the emotional mind can be overcome, change is possible. The authors visualise these competing forces as a rider on an elephant. The rider represents
245
Author / model Description
rationality and logic. If the rider is presented with a persuasive argument, he will follow that path. However, the elephant possesses inertia and is much larger than the rider. Unless the driver can coax the elephant forward towards the goal, nothing is going to change.
Persuading the driver requires three components; bright spots (positive aspects that can be built on and expanded), scripts (that can be followed to provide quick wins) and a postcard to show how the destination looks. Motivating the elephant also requires three components; creating in the individual a feeling that change is needed, breaking the change down into manageable chunks that can build toward more profound change and lastly, encouraging and inspiring those involved to accept change.
The third component of the Heaths’ model is the path down which the rider and elephant progress. This too has three components; tweaking the environment (making the workplace conducive to change), building habits (repetition of new processes builds habitual use) and rallying the herd (creating momentum in a group of people who others will want to join).
Senge et al (1999)
Systemic model
Senge et al looked at why organisations fail to implement sustainable change and came to the conclusion that it is because of the strength of the forces that want to retain the status quo (resistance). The authors’ comment how most large change projects have to tackle the long-established processes installed by previous management. “These include managers’ commitment to change as long as it doesn’t affect them; ‘undiscussable’ topics that feel risky to talk about; and the ingrained habit of attacking symptoms and ignoring systemic causes of problems”. Their model suggests starting with a pilot, growing steadily, not attempting to plan the whole change initiative and to expect challenges on the way.
In his earlier work, Fifth Discipline (1993) Senge says that organisations can be seen an overlapping and inter-related systems and that since the actors for change are part of those systems, it is very difficult to see the whole situation which leads to managers focussing on subsets of the whole which have limited success because changing he subset is not the same as changing the whole.
Senge et al focus on the stages relating to initiation, sustaining change when it starts to affect the organisation and rethinking, the point when organisation processes begin to be affected.
The resisting forces identified by Senge at the initiation stage are time, resources, relevance and the visible commitment from managers.
At the sustaining stage, the resisting forces emanate from people who are against the change (for example because they have not been included or do not feel understood) but also from people who support the change (for example being impatient at the slow pace of change).
At the rethinking stage, the resisting forces come from competing views of the best way forward, how and to whom knowledge of the change is disseminated and about the strategic direction and purpose of the organisation.
Stacey (2006)
Complex responsive processes
Using the concept of flux and transformation as a starting point, the authors believe it is impossible to accurately predict the future and instead this will materialise as the result of how the change has been handled and the magnitude of the driving and resisting forces.
Managers are intimately involved in the change process which, as Senge (1993) notes, makes it difficult to objectively understand and manage the process.
246
Orders of change (2013d) PMI
There are three orders of change: 1. first order which affects procedures and modifies how work is done. Short duration, not difficult, easily reversed. 2. Second order which affects policies and makes a more significant change. Medium duration, moderately difficult, irreversible. 3. Third order which affects values and thinking. Long duration, very difficult and irreversible.
Prosci (2018)
ADKAR model
A model for managing organisational change, initially developed in 1999. The acronym stands for Awareness (raising the need for change), Desire (creating a want to change), Knowledge (providing employees with requisite information), Ability (enhancing employee skills) and Reinforcement (rewarding employees for displaying new behaviours).
Pettigrew and Whipp (1993)
Four step dimension model
Pettigrew identifies how the interaction of context, content and process generates environmental complexity which can inhibit change. Pettigrew views strategic change as a complex, context-dependent and continuous process. The three dimensions of context (internal factors of resources, capabilities, culture and politics and the external factors of politics, society and the economy), content (assessment and choice, objectives and goals) and process (models of change, change managers and implementation) (Pettigrew and Whipp (1993)). The strong influence of politics in change is acknowledged with Pettigrew identifying the powerful as having most sway in determining the outcomes. Who in the organization has the power is not constant but depends on the situation.
Pettigrew saw change as having four sequential steps:
1. The development of concern. This involves identifying the problems and legitimising the need for change.
2. Understanding the problem.
3. Planning and acting. Moving towards a future state.
4. Stabilising change. Ensuring the continuity of the change
Table 137. Change management models
247
Appendix 5 – Maturity models
This appendix lists the most popular maturity models. Table 138 identifies the focus of the
capability model, name and description.
Focus Maturity model
Description
Portfolio, programme and project
P3M3 Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model
Maintained by the Cabinet Office
A maturity assessment model for portfolio, programme and projects
Portfolio, programme and project
OPM3 Organizational Project Management Maturity Model
Published by the Project Management Institute since 1998
A maturity assessment model for portfolio, programme and projects
Software development
CMMI for Development
Capability Maturity Model
Developed by the CMMI Institute from 1989
Focuses on the development of product and services
CMMI (2013)
Table 138. Maturity models
248
Appendix 6 – Interview and questionnaire topic guide
The following topic guide provides an outline of the areas covered during the interviews:
▪ Context/introduction
o The participant’s role in the organisation
o Role in projects/PMMs
▪ Selection
o How did your organisation develop/choose its project method?
o What was the process?
o What were the goals?
o What factors are important in the selection process?
o How was success measured?
o How long did selection take? Who was involved in selection?
▪ Embedding
o How did your organisation approach implementation?
o What was the process?
o How long did it take?
o Who was involved?
o Were goals defined for implementation?
o How successful was implementation?
o If I ask the users of the PMM, what would they say about implementation?
o If you were to implement another method, what would you do differently and
why?
o Did you certify PMs to use the PMM?
▪ Current performance
o How is the PMM performing? How do you know?
o How much is the PMM used? Which elements are use/not used?
o How much, where and why has your organisation modified the method since
implementation?
o Knowing what you know now about PMMs, what benefits have they brought to
your organisation?
o Were there any unintended consequences from using the PMM?
▪ Context / environment
o What is your level of maturity and how does this impact PMMs?
o How does culture impact PMMs?
o Do organisational structures affect PMMs?
249
Appendix 7 – Invitation to participants
Subject: Invitation to take part in research on project management methods
Dear <Participant name>,
I am writing to invite you to take part in a research project looking at how organisations select
and implement project management methodologies in the IS/IT function that is being conducted
by a doctoral researcher at the University of Manchester.
As part of this study, I will be interviewing representatives from your organisation to gain a
better understanding of how project methodologies are chosen and deployed. As someone
involved in projects, your input and contribution would be appreciated. I would therefore like to
invite you to take part in this study. Participation is entirely voluntary. Should you choose to
participate, I would like to ask you questions about projects and methodologies during a face-to-
face interview or video conference. The interview will be conducted by myself and will last
approximately one hour.
If you would like to participate in this study, please contact me by phone or email (details above)
and I will send you further details, including possible dates for an interview.
If you have any questions about the interview and the research project, I have attached a
participant information sheet. Furthermore, I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have by phone or email.
I look forward to hearing from you soon,
David Biggins
250
Appendix 8 – Participant Information – Interviews
How do organisations select and embed project management methods?
Introduction You are invited to take part in a research project looking at how organisations
select and implement project management methodologies in the IS/IT function that is being
conducted by a doctoral researcher at the University of Manchester. As part of this study we
would like to interview managers responsible for choosing and embedding the organisation’s
project management methods to better understand how the selection is made and how the
process is brought into the organisation. Before you decide whether you would like to take part
in this research, it is important for you to understand why the research is being undertaken and
what it will involve. The following will give you a brief overview of the project:
What is the purpose of the study? The purpose of this study is to explore how organisations
choose and implement methodologies to manage projects in the IT/IS sphere.
Where is this research taking place? This interview will take place in your organisation and
during working hours. This will be arranged at a time convenient to you if you decide to take
part.
Who is being asked to participate? We are seeking to involve the people responsible for the
selection and adoption of projects methods. This includes people with job titles such as project
manager, programme manager, PMO manager, business change manager, company executive
and director.
What would I be asked to do if I took part? If you decide to take part the researcher, David
Biggins will arrange an interview at a time and place that is convenient to you. The interview will
last approximately 1 hour, during which time we will ask you a set of questions focusing on the
selection and embedding of project management methodologies. The discussions will be audio
recorded so that it can be transcribed when the interview finishes.
Do I have to take part? No. It is up to you whether you take part. If you do decide to take part
you will be asked to sign a consent form and you are free to withdraw at any time from the
research without giving a reason.
Will my taking part be kept confidential? Yes. This study is conducted by a research student
at the University of Manchester and the interviews will be protected in accordance with the
University’s ethical code. The interviews will be recorded, transcribed and analysed for key
themes. The transcriptions will be anonymous; your name will not be attached to any records
the researcher keeps or reports that are written. Encryption will be used to protect data and
hardcopies will be kept under lock and key.
How will this benefit me? You will have the opportunity to have your opinions heard, and the
research team will be grateful for your contribution and participation.
251
What are the risks? The interview will not place you in a risky or dangerous situation. You are
not obliged to answer any question you do not feel comfortable answering and you are free to
stop the interview at any stage, for any reason.
What if something goes wrong? If you find the discussions during the interview in any way
distressing, we will stop the interview and attempt to resolve the situation.
What if I want to complain? If you wish to complain about how this interview is being
conducted, please let the researcher know and he will stop the interview immediately to discuss
and address your concerns. If at this stage you are not satisfied, you can speak to the following
persons, who will investigate your complaint and report back to you:
Where can I find more information if I need it? If you require any more information about the
project or if you would like to take part, please contact:
252
Appendix 9 – Participant Information – Questionnaire
How do organisations select and embed project management methods?
Introduction You are invited to take part in a research project looking at how organisations
select and implement project management methodologies in the IS/IT function that is being
conducted by a doctoral researcher at the University of Manchester. As part of this study we
would like to ask those people involved in projects to complete a questionnaire on their
experience and opinions of project methodologies and how they have been deployed in the
organisation. Before you decide whether you would like to take part in this research, it is
important for you to understand why the research is being undertaken and what it will involve.
The following will give you a brief overview of the project:
What is the purpose of the study? The purpose of this study is to explore how organisations
choose and implement methodologies to manage projects in the IT/IS sphere.
Where is this research taking place? We would like you to complete an online questionnaire
which means that you can answer the questions at a time and place that suits you.
Who is being asked to participate? For the questionnaire, we are seeking to involve the
people who use the methodologies to manage projects. This includes people with job titles such
as project manager, team manager and project worker.
What would I be asked to do if I took part? If you decide to take part the researcher, David
Biggins will arrange for the URL of the survey to be sent to you. The questionnaire will last
approximately 40 minutes.
Do I have to take part? No. It is up to you whether you take part. If you do decide to take part
you will be asked to sign a consent form and you are free to withdraw at any time from the
research without giving a reason.
Will my taking part be kept confidential? Yes. This study is conducted by a research student
at the University of Manchester and the questionnaire will be protected in accordance with the
University’s ethical code. The questionnaire will ask for information such as your job title,
qualifications, years of experience etc but will not ask for your name. Encryption will be used to
protect data and hardcopies will be kept under lock and key.
How will this benefit me? You will have the opportunity to have your opinions heard, and the
research team will be grateful for your contribution and participation.
What are the risks? The questionnaire should not involve any risk. You are not obliged to
answer any question you do not feel comfortable answering and you are free to suspend or end
the questionnaire at any stage, for any reason.
What if something goes wrong? If something untoward should happen, we will attempt to
resolve the situation.
What if I want to complain? If you wish to complain about how this questionnaire is
conducted, please let the researcher know and he will address your concerns. If at this stage
253
you are not satisfied, you can speak to the following persons, who will investigate your
complaint and report back to you:
Where can I find more information if I need it? If you require any more information about the
project or if you would like to take part, please contact:
254
Appendix 10 – Consent Form
Title of the project: How do organisations select and embed project management methods?
Please initial the boxes to confirm:
a. I confirm that I have read and understood the information sheet
provided for the above study and have had the opportunity to ask any
questions and have had these answered satisfactorily
b. I understand that participation in this research is voluntary and I am
free to withdraw at any time, without giving any reason
c. I understand that any information that I give will be used anonymously
d. I understand that this interview is being audio recorded or
questionnaire is being stored electronically for use by the researcher
and that the data would be managed confidentially
e. I understand that the information gleaned may be used anonymously
in future academic research and in academic papers
f. I agree to take part in this study
Name of Participant Signature Date
Name of Researcher Signature Date
255
Appendix 11 – Facsimile of the questionnaire
The screenshots that comprise this appendix show the questions asked and the format of the
online questionnaire.
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
Appendix 12 – Data transformations and new variables
This appendix lists the transformations conducted and new variables created based on the
questionnaire data in SPSS prior to its analysis.
Questionnaire area Data transformation
1. Maturity. Responses to the 7 maturity areas (management control, benefits management, financial management, stakeholder engagement, risk management, organisational governance and resource management) were measured using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 to 5 (Not applicable, awareness, repeatable, defined, managed and optimised). This data was collected from question 25. The transformation was verified by exporting the data to Excel, creating an average Figure and comparing it to the value in SPSS’s Mean Maturity variable.
Lastly, the scale variable MeanMaturity was transformed into a grouped variable called MeanMaturityGroup.
A new variable called MeanMaturity was created to contain the mean of the 7 elements. The range of MeanMaturity was 0 to 5.
Before the new variable was created, the value labels were modified so that a response of N/A had a value of 0 rather than 1. This meant that a response of 1 (awareness) then has a score of 1 and the MeanMaturity value once calculated, was correct.
2. OCAI. Following the convention of the OCAI, 6 questions were asked about organisational culture (Dominant characteristics, Organisational leadership, Management of employees, Organisational glue, Strategic emphases, and Criteria for success). Within each question, 4 options were presented to the participant and they were asked to distribute 100 marks across the 4 options. The OCAI data was collected from questions 26 to 31.
The OCAI is scored as follows: Clan: Sum of Q1a, Q2a, Q3a, Q4a, Q5a and Q6a divided by 6.
Adhocracy: Sum of Q1b, Q2b, Q3b, Q4b, Q5b and Q6b divided by 6.
Market: Sum of Q1c, Q2c, Q3c, Q4c, Q5c and Q6c divided by 6.
Hierarchy: Sum of Q1d, Q2d, Q3d, Q4d, Q5d and Q6d divided by 6.
The 24 variables were converted in SPSS from string to scale variables. The data was transformed within SPSS.
3. OCAI check. The total score for the OCAI answers was calculated in order to check that the question had been answered correctly. This variable showed those participants who had allocated either too few or too many marks to the answer boxes. Those scores that were outside the target mark of 100 by more than 10 marks were removed.
4. Total qualifications. The number of qualifications gained by an individual were summed into a new scale variable sum_qualifications. ‘Other qualifications’ were excluded.
5. Follow PMM. Whether a questionnaire respondent follows the PMM.
If the respondent completed Q19, they were treated as not always following the method.
6. OrgType. A recoding of the Q32 into three variables, combining the three matrix options and combining matrix structure sub divisions. Values: 1 = Functional; 2 = Matrix; 3 = Projectised
RECODE Q32 (1=1) (2=2) (3=2) (4=2) (5=3) INTO OrgType
7. PMM usage. A reworking of Q14 to create a new variable with two options. Mandatory maps to Mandatory. Optional covers the 5 ‘Depends on ..’ statements in this question. Values: 1 = Mandatory; 2 = Optional
Recoded in Excel and the result pasted into SPSS. Columns A to G hold the 7 responses. Formula used in column H: =IF(SUM(B2:F2)>=1,1,0). Formula in column I: =IF(A2=1,1,IF(H2=1,2,3))
8. Involved_in_select. A transformation of Q12 into the dichotomous options; 1 = Yes; 2 = No.
RECODE Q12 (1=1) (2=2) INTO involved_in_select
9. Views on PMM aspects, excluding don’t know. The 11 sub questions of question 17 were recoded into new variables to exclude the ‘Don’t Know’ response. 10 of the 11 recodes followed the model for q17_1 shown on the right. As q17_7 was negatively worded, the recording used is also shown.
This appendix contains four papers that were written to support the development of this thesis.
The four papers were presented at international project management and a doctoral conference
in the UK and France in 2015 and 2016. The four papers are summarised and explained in
Table 140.
Paper Details Rationale
1
in
Appendix 14
Title: Perspectives on project management methods
Conference: British Academy of Management
Date: Portsmouth, September 2015
This was the first paper created to support the thesis and explored my thinking on PMMs in general. The paper covered the definitions of PMMs, their dimensions and their importance. The paper then listed different perspectives on why people use PMMs. Lastly, the data from the initial two organisational interviews was applied to the perspectives to map why the organisations were using PMMs.
The feedback from the presentation was positive about the structure and flow of the paper but critical both of the definitions of the perspectives and the application of the primary data to the perspectives. The perspectives were later dropped from the thesis and the useful information included elsewhere in the thesis; as part of the rationale for using PMMs and the performance criteria.
The feedback was useful in improving the scope and content of the final thesis.
2
in
Appendix 15
Title: Applying a life cycle approach to project management methods
Conference: European Academy of Management
Date: Paris, May 2016
The life cycle model was developed as part of this research and the initial intention was that the thesis would cover all 5 stages in the model. This paper was my attempt to set out the rationale for a PMM life cycle and to expose this for comment and feedback.
The feedback received at the conference was that the model appeared to be valid based on the experience of the attendees who were all PM academics. There was also agreement that there was little research on the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages which confirmed my decision to focus on the first two stages in the life cycle.
3
in
Appendix 16
Title: How do organisations select and embed project management methods?
Conference: British Academy of Management, Doctoral Symposium
Date: Newcastle, September 2016
The doctoral forum is an opportunity to present research to fellow students and academic staff and to gain feedback and suggestion on taking it forward. The paper outlined the background, purpose and contribution of the research, the method and an indication of the initial findings.
The discussion after the presentation was very helpful in reviewing the research method and gaining feedback and suggestions for
278
improving the methodology. In particular the number of research questions was raised and these were subsequently reduced from 15 to 7. An early version of the conceptual model has now been superseded by a revised and more representative model that appears in this thesis.
4
in
Appendix 17
Title: Trends in project management, 1966 - 2015
Conference: British Academy of Management
Date: Newcastle, September 2016
The objective of this paper was to research and identify the trends in project management research in the previous 50 years. The research created a dataset containing 116,000 records that were subsequently analysed for trends over time using keyword searches. The rationale for undertaking this work was to identify the growth in literature on PMMs and to provide evidence and data for inclusion in this thesis.
As a result of this paper, I received feedback on the categories used to group PM terms but nothing that related to the thesis.
Table 140. Supporting papers summary
When originally published, each paper contained its own list of references. As all the
references in the papers are included in the References section of this thesis, the references
have been removed from the papers.
279
Appendix 14 – Supporting paper 1
Title: Perspectives on project management methods
Author: David Biggins
Conference: British Academy of Management 2015 Conference Portsmouth, September 2015
Abstract
Projects are increasingly being carried out with the support of project management methods
(PMMs). PMMs include standards such as the Project Management Institute Body of
Knowledge (PMBOK) and also process-based methods such as PRINCE2. PMMs are
buttressed and promoted by professional bodies and reinforced by accreditation schemes which
qualify practitioners in their use. The evidence on the roles played by PMMs is diverse. PMMs
can be viewed from many perspectives including organisational routines, co-ordination
mechanisms, structures of controls and rational choice. This paper discusses the perspectives
that can be applied to PMMs to help understand how they can best be used. Two case studies
are presented in which the organisations are assessed against the 10 perspectives to gain an
initial view from the very limited sample of whether the list of 10 has validity.
280
Introduction
A study by the Anderson Economic Group estimates that, by 2016, 32.6 million people in 11
countries will be participating in business projects, an increase of 8 million in the space of a
decade (ISO 2012). People are being drawn to work on projects because projects are
increasingly used to both maintain and transform business operations (OGC 2009). As the
number, size, complexity and importance of projects within organisations grows, so does the
requirement to ensure that projects achieve a high level of success. The future of organisations
depends on their ability to execute projects well (Pitagorsky 2003). While the definitions and
measures of success vary widely between organisations, industries and cultures, the need to
achieve success is constant.
The barriers to project success have been well documented and are wide-ranging. For
example, the UK Government’s Cabinet Office identified the primary causes for project failure
including communication, leadership, co-ordination, management, planning and benefits
management (Dolan 2010).
Practitioners and project management bodies have been developing individual tools and
techniques in attempts to address these shortcomings since the 1980s. These developments
have been combined into approaches to managing projects collectively known as project
management methods (PMMs). PMMs are a factor in successful projects because of the
standardisation they bring to an organisation through a set of common practices, tools and
techniques, a shared vocabulary and way of working (Chin and Spowage 2010). The adoption
of repeatable processes is one method employed to raise the maturity of the project practices
within an organisation (Pitagorsky 2003). The more mature an organisation’s practices, the
more successful it is (Ibbs and Kwak 2000).
Defining PMMs
Under the umbrella of PMMs are methods, standards and frameworks. These are defined in
Table 1.
Concept Definition
Method A method is the ‘how’ or a “set of guidelines or principles that can be tailored and applied to a specific situation. In a project environment, these guidelines might be a list of things to do … a specific approach, templates, forms, and even checklists used over the project life cycle.” (Charvat 2003 p17). The OGC define a method as “An approach to a process that is secure, consistent and well-proven.” (OGC 2009 p4).
For example: PRINCE2
Standard More a ‘what’ than a ‘how’, a standard is a “document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose” (ISO 2013). “Document approved by a recognised body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidance, or characteristics for products, processes or services with which compliance are not mandatory.” (PMI 2013c p563).
281
For example: Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), the Association of Project Managers (APM) Body of Knowledge (APMBOK) and the ISO 21500:2012
For example: International Project Managers Association Competence Baseline (IPMA ICB)
Table 1. Types of PMM
Figure 1 provides a visual representation of PMMs, based on the author’s view, using the
dimensions of ‘what’, ‘how’ and the scope (ie how much of project management is covered) of
the PMM:
Figure 1: PMM dimension map
The diversity amongst those entities, collectively called PMMs, helps to explain how it is that
there are multiple perspectives. PRINCE2 and PMBOK are two of the most widely used PMMs.
For example, PRINCE2 is the de facto standard for project management in the UK, Europe and
Australia and is used in more than 150 countries (OGC 2009). Across all sectors, there is a
widespread and growing popularity in the use of PMMs (PWC 2012). Coupled with this, an
increasing numbers of managers are taking qualifications to certify their use of a method. The
number of people who have passed certification examinations in PRINCE2 exceeded 1 million
in 2012 (APMG 2012) and the PMI has awarded over 500,000 certificates (PMI 2015a).
The importance of PMMs
The growing importance of certification is supported by evidence that 90% of large
organisations that use a method also certify their managers in that method (PWC 2012). The
combination of the wider use of PMMs and increasing availability of qualified practitioners
should intuitively result in better-managed projects and therefore more successful projects but
Scope
How What
PMBOK
PRINCE2
APMBOK
ISO 21500
IPMA ICM
282
the evidence does not support this conclusion. Longitudinal studies report that between 2012
and 2015 over one third of projects, 37±1%, fail to meet their goals (PMI 2015b).
The adoption by an organisation of a PMM is a strategic business decision (Charvat 2003;
Wells 2013). The costs of implementation can be significant and full implementation requires
considerable resources. It can be difficult to choose a method from the many available (Sheard
1997) and, once chosen, to encourage users to adopt the standard (Garcia, 2005). The
implementation complexity has meant that success has been difficult to achieve. For the last
decade, project management approaches have been in the list of the top ten factors causing
project failure (Wells 2012).
One tactic used by organisation to inhibit PMM complexity has typically been to customise how
projects are managed using a combination, in varying degrees, of established PMMs for
example PMBOK, experience of those involved and the characteristics of the projects
undertaken. This approach has led many organisations to implement a customised PMM that is
believed to maximise the benefits of a structured way of working while at the same time
minimising the perceived disadvantages of the established methods. Figure 2 shows how the
PMM used by an organisation can be plotted on a continuum that begins with a totally
customised PMM and ends with a way of working that precisely follows a structured method
such as PRINCE2.
Figure 2: The PMM continuum
The 2012 study by PWC is one of the few to have recently looked into this area. From their
small sample of 1,524 respondents, PWC found that 41% of organisations used PMBOK, 3%
used PRINCE2, 12% an in-house method or combination of methods and 9% used ‘other’
which, frustratingly, was not explained further but did not include software development
methods. Figure 3 visualises how the PWC data could be plotted on the continuum.
Figure 3: The PMM continuum with PWC data
PMM continuum
Full alignment to
established methods
No alignment to
established methods
PMM continuum
PMBOK
PRINCE2 In-house
283
More research along the lines of that undertaken by PWC is needed to establish how
organisations are arrayed along this continuum but it has been the author’s experience, based
on PMMs used by UK organisations, that there is a large group of organisations to the left of
centre, often identified by their use of descriptive terms for their PMM including ‘PRINCE-like’
and ‘PMBOK-lite’.
Perspectives on PMMs
The existence of the PMM continuum suggests that there are many ways of working that fall
with the remit of a PMM. At the left extreme of the continuum, project managers may not
recognise the use of a PMM whereas at the other extreme a project manager may feel
constrained and restricted by unquestioning adherence to a PMM.
An interpretivistic ontology would suggest that the people involved in PMMs will hold differing
views on PMMs and it is to an enumeration of these perspectives that we now turn. The
rationale for this investigation is that an understanding and appreciation of the perspectives on
PMMs will help to explain and justify their use in organisations.
Ten different perspectives of PMMs have been derived from reviewing a wide range of project
management and allied literature to identify the distinct views. In no particular order, these are:
1. Rational choice. PMMs are the organisation’s way of managing change and PMMs are
an evidence-based and rational choice to optimise how projects are managed to combat
the many reasons why projects fail. Following a logical, problem-solving approach to the
issue of improving project management success, a supported and justifiable option will
be the use of a PMM. This view links with the list of project problem areas listed by Dolan
at the beginning of this paper.
2. Uncertainty avoidance. It has long been recognised that different projects require
different approaches (Shenhar et al 2002). PMMs represent a way of managing this
uncertainty because the PMMs are widely applicable. If an organisation undertakes
projects of a similar nature, one methodology may suffice but more methods may be
required if the projects exhibit wide variation (MacMaster 2002). Following a risk
reduction or uncertainty avoidance strategy to managing a narrow or diverse project
portfolio, PMMs can help because of the standardisation and honed/best practice
processes they offer.
3. Proactive action. This internal perspective recognises the importance of projects to the
organisation (Charvat 2003) that projects are linked to benefits realisation (Bradley 2010;
Jenner 2012) and that projects improve business value (Pitagorsky 2003).
4. Competitive advantage. This external perspective acknowledges that if an organisation
can operate more effectively than its competitors, it can enjoy an economic advantage by
284
winning more business or working more efficiently (Williamson 2005). PMMs represent
one way to improve operational efficiency because of standardised processes and use
of a common language (Pinto 2013).
5. Maturity development. PMMs represent a very useful tool to increase an organisation’s
level of maturity. The PMI’s Organisational Project Management Maturity Model (PMI
2015c) and Axelos’s Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model
(Axelos 2015) are two prominent examples of the many maturity models available.
Organisations can use the maturity models to develop their maturity over time to reach a
desired level. The more an organisation’s PMM aligns with an established method, the
more benefit they are likely to gain from maturity development because the models will
be directly relevant to the processes and ways of working in the organisation. Logic
suggests that the more customised an organisation’s PMM, the less applicable the off-
the-shelf maturity model will be. This is not to say that customised PMMs cannot be
linked to maturity levels, more that the matching will require additional work and any
comparisons with other organisations will be less reliable because differing models will
be used as the basis for comparison. A positive correlation between strong project
management performance and the level of maturity in the organisation has been found
in multiple studies (Ibbs and Kwak 2000; PWC 2004; Swanson, 2012).
6. Reactive response. An organisation may opt for a PMM as a response to an external
stimulus. For example, from environmental factors such as the customer or supplier, or
corporate standards (OGC 2009). The author has worked with some organisations who
bid for project work and for whom the demonstrable use of a PMM is an entry condition
for any bid.
7. Staff development. Certifying project managers in PMMs can be seen as developing
the human resources and capabilities of the organisation. The 2014 portfolio and
programme survey by PWC found 64% of CEOs reported that skills development in the
workforce would be a priority in the next three years and 55% of PM professionals
complained there is insufficient time for training and development.
8. Staff retention. In the face of skills shortages in project management (PMI 2014b; NCS
2015), developing project staff and supporting them in their work can aid job satisfaction
and thereby retention (Hertzberg 2003; Hölzle 2010).
9. Organisational routines. Viewing PMMs as organisational routines or recurrent
patterns of activity (Feldman and Rafaeli 2002; Paoli and Prencipe 2003) opens up a rich
vein for analysis. PMMs represent a form of routine in the organisation that regulates
work but also that fluxes due to interaction with the environment and the role of the people
who carry out the processes. Viewed in this way, PMMs might be seen as mindless
routines that people slavishly follow (Simon 1957) or as mindful where the actors interact
285
with the processes dynamically (Pentland 1995; Feldman 2000). The recurring nature of
the routines can be seen as stores of solutions that the organisation used to solve past
problems and which are continued as a form of perpetuating and evolving organisational
memory (Nelson and Winter 1982).
10. Politics/Control. With its roots in critical social theory and postmodernism, an alternate
perspective on organisational routines is that PMMs can be used to limit the freedom of
action and creativity of project staff. The processes within PMMs can be used to control
the work and the workers for political or other advantages that serve only the few
(Calhoun 1995).
Case studies
As part of on-going research, two organisations have been involved in explanatory research of
PMMs. Organisation 1 is a UK higher education institute. Organisation 2 is a UK government
department.
In understanding why PMMs are chosen, qualitative data was collected through semi-structured
interviews and analysed using the data assessment tool, NVIVO. The analysis used key word
matching to identify links to the 10 perspectives. The results of the analysis are shown in Table
2. A tick in the body of the Table shows where the phrase was mentioned by one or more
participants from the organisation.
Rational choic
e
Uncert
ain
ty
avoid
ance
Pro
active a
ctio
n
Com
petitive
advanta
ge
Matu
rity
develo
pm
ent
Reactive
response
Sta
ff
develo
pm
ent
Sta
ff
rete
ntio
n
Org
anis
ational
routines
Polit
ics/
contr
ol
Organisation 1
Organisation 2
Table 2: Analysis of responses
The current sample size is too small to draw any conclusions. However, the Table does give
credence to the view that there are many perspectives on PMMs within individual organisations.
Though limited, the data does bring to light some interesting points. For example, both
organisations identified rational choice in their responses but for opposite reasons.
Organisation 1 was responding to a strong PMM (to the far right of the continuum) and decided
it was rational to loosen the method and was moving quickly to the left. Organisation 2 was
using evidence of the merits of strong PMMs to further develop their method and move it to the
right on the continuum. Thus both organisations believed they were making rational decisions
but they had come to opposing conclusions. No numeric measure exists to plot organisations
on the continuum so it is not possible to determine their relative positions on the continuum.
286
Where next?
With PMMs being increasingly used, it is important that decision-makers take account of the
many different roles that PMMs can play in their organisation and the different perspectives
from which they can be viewed. A greater understanding of the perspectives can help decision
makers to select and use PMMs to the best effect in their organisations.
It is intended to conduct more research with organisations, both through semi-structured
interviews and also via online questionnaires. The research will also consider the contextual
factors such as the influence of culture (Doolen et al 2003; Cameron and Quinn 2011) and
organisational structure on the perspectives of PMMs (Galbraith 1973) in order to further
investigate and understand this aspect of PMMs.
287
Appendix 15 – Supporting paper 2
Title: Applying a life cycle approach to project management methods
Author: David Biggins, Frida Trollsund and Anne Høiby
Conference: European Academy of Management 2016 Conference Paris, May 2016
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to apply the life cycle approach to PMMs, stimulate debate on the
accuracy and merits of the life cycle approach and to facilitate the development of the life cycle
in the future. Currently no life cycle process exists for PMMs.
Developed from desk-based research and empirical evidence, a life cycle has been proposed
consisting of five stages: Select, Embed, Tailor, Operate and Develop. The stages are
explained and a call made for further research to develop and validate the life cycle model.
Keywords: Project management methods, life cycle
288
Introduction - The importance of projects and project management methods
"We are in one of those great historical periods that occur every 200 or 300 years when people
don't understand the world anymore, and the past is not sufficient to explain the future" (Peter
Drucker quoted in Cameron and Quinn 2011 p1). It is often stated by authors like Drucker and
others that modern organisations operate in an increasingly competitive area but the data do
back up the claims (Cleland and Ireland 1999; Stubbart and Knight 2006; Strangler and
Arbesman 2012; Boehm et al 2012). The literature underlines the need for organisations to
change in order to survive with projects being used to facilitate change. As Pinto (2013 p24)
says “Project are one of the principal means by which we change our world .. the means
through which to achieve these challenges remains the same: project management.” The
Anderson Economic Group estimate that in 2016 32.6 million people across 11 countries will be
involved in organisational projects (ISO 2012). As the number, size, complexity and importance
of projects within organisations grow (Pinto 2013), so do the requirement to ensure that projects
perform well. Increasingly organisations are looking for ways in which project success can be
enhanced and one such factor is the use of a project management method (Wells 2012).
There is no agreed definition of PMMs. We define PMMs as the standard organisational or
strategic level processes and procedures used to execute projects rather than the tools and
techniques such as risk management and scope management that are deployed at the
operational level to manage individual project delivery.
Table 1 lists the current, distinct and dominant methods and standards that can be used to run
projects.
Table 1: Project management methods
Method Description
APM BOK
(APM 2012)
Association for Project Management Body of Knowledge
Developed by the Association for Project Management
A body of knowledge which, in the 6th edition (2012), covers the sections of context, people, diversity and interfaces. The scope of the APMBOK is wide and encompasses portfolio and programme management, soft skills, and ‘interfaces’ to accounting, health and safety, sustainability etc.
BS 6079
(BSI 2010)
British Standard 6079-1:2010. Project management. Principles and guidelines for the management of projects
Owned by the British Standards Institution
A set of guidelines covering many types of projects and providing guidance on sponsorship, management, planning, undertaking projects and application of project management techniques. Influenced by the APMBOK.
ISO 21500
(ISO 2012)
International Organization for Standards 21500:2012 Guidance on project management
Owned by the ISO
Contains concepts and processes for project management that are considered good practice, usable by any type of organisation for any project. Influenced by the PMBOK.
P2M
A Guidebook of Project and Program Management for Enterprise Innovation ‘P2M’
Developed by the Project Management Association of Japan
289
Method Description
(Project Management Association of Japan 2013)
A project and programme management framework focused on adding value while delivering successful projects. The P2M Project Management Tower consists of entry criteria, project and programme management processes and frame elements (for example risk, finance etc).
PMBOK
(PMI 2013c)
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge
Owned by the Project Management Institute
First mooted in 1986, the first edition was published in 1996 and is updated every four years. Consists of five process groups (initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing) and 10 knowledge areas. There are four million copies of the PMBOK in print (PMI 2012)
PRINCE2: 2009
(OGC 2009)
Projects in Controlled Environments
Owned by Axelos
With the 2009 edition, the method was simplified and made easier to customise. Focus on the seven principles of the business case, organisation, plans, risks, progress, quality and issues/changes.
The extent to which the methods are used in organisations is unclear with conflicting information
being presented from multiple, small, often national studies (White and Fortune 2001; PWC
2004; Fortune et al 2011; PWC 2012).
While some organisations use PMMs in their pure form, many organisations will tailor the
method to their own requirements. This can be visualised as a continuum with full alignment
with the method at one end and little or no alignment at the other (Biggins 2015). Whether pure
or tailored, project management methods are important because they are a factor in successful
projects due of the standardisation and credibility they bring to an organisation through a set of
common practices, tools and techniques, a shared vocabulary and way of working (Eskerod and
Organisations track their maturity because the underlying belief is that increasing maturity is
beneficial. This view was supported by the PWC report from 2004 which found a correlation
between strong project management performance and the level of maturity in the organisation.
These findings were corroborated by the Project Management Institute’s Pulse of the Profession
survey in 2012 which was based on the feedback of over 1,000 project managers and
concluded that there was a correlation between those organisations with higher levels of project
maturity and the ability to deliver projects successfully (Swanson, 2012). While the evidence
supported the link between maturity and performance, such positive results had not been found
in all studies. Other research has failed to show that higher levels of maturity were linked to
superior performance. One of the issues may be that striving for higher levels of maturity may
add little value to the organisation. Research by Wheatley (2007) shows that the level of
maturity appropriate for an organisation was dependent on their needs. However, the picture is
further complicated by differences in maturity discernible across industries and indeed between
different divisions of the same organisation (Pells 1997). This may explain the lack of
consistency in the research findings with support for a link being found between maturity and
project performance by some (Moraes and Laurindo 2013) but not by others (Yazici 2010).
However, in the same research a significant relationship was found between maturity and
internal and external business performance by Yazici (2010).
Activities in this stage: Maintenance, internal and external review, process improvement (OGC
2006; Kerzner 2011; PMI 2013a).
300
Frequency and duration of the stages
The authors contend that organisations will visit each stage in the PMM life cycle. The Select
and Embed stages are likely to be used only once as the PMM is established in the
organisation. It is expected that the Tailor and Operate stages will be carried out for every
project in the organisation that uses a PMM. Finally, the Develop stage will be used on a
recurring basis to monitor, review and make changes to the PMM. As a result of the reviews,
small changes may be made to the PMM governance guidelines used in the Tailor and Operate
stages with larger changes (for example retraining and revised standards) requiring a greater
degree of change management that is better catered for by the activities in the ‘Embed’ stage.
At this point in the research on the PMM life cycle, it is only possible to estimate the durations of
the stages based on the authors’ practitioner experience. This estimation is depicted in
Figure 2.
Figure 2: The PMM life cycle model showing estimated stage durations The authors fully accept that more research is required to shed light on the frequency and
duration of the stages.
Conclusion
The PMM life cycle which has been proposed and described in this paper arises from the
application of the well-developed life cycle approach to the area of project management
methods, a novel use in the sphere of project management. The model is supported by a wide
range of project management literature and the empirical experience of the authors suggests it
has some internal reliability.
As an embryonic model, the authors recognise that more work is needed to develop and further
validate the model. At present, the boundaries surrounding the model are ill defined, a deficit
that will need to be corrected in future research. For example, the role of leadership may have
a strong impact on the life cycle, especially in the early stages. Culture is also an environmental
factor likely to have a powerful effect on the life cycle. Both of these factors should be reviewed
for inclusion in the next iteration of the model.
In developing the model, the authors’ aim was to fill a gap in project management literature and
also to begin the process of building a framework that practitioners could use when considering
how and why a PMM could be implemented in their organisation. It is the author’s belief that
the first two stages of the model may have a strong influence on the success of PMMs on
organisations. Table 5 provides a summary of the key elements in the PMM life cycle in this
initial version.
301
Table 5: Summary of PMM life cycle
Select Embed Tailor Operate Develop
Objective
Choose an appropriate
PMM
Bring the PMM into the organisation
Based on the project, decide how the method will be configured
Manage the project using the method
Review the operation of the PMM and enhance it
Activities
Align with strategy
Scope definition
Resource assessment
Review options
Decision-making
Goal setting
Set standards and governance
Resource assessment
Selling the PMM
Obtaining buy-in
Integration
Scaling
Capability assessment
Planning
Execution
Monitoring
Control
Risks/issues
Reporting
Benefits
Maintain
Review
Improve
Frequency
Once Once Every project Every project Every review period
Resources involved
Executives
Managers
Executives
Managers
PMO
PMs
Project staff
PMO
PMs
PMO
PMs
Project staff
Managers
PMO
PMs
Project staff
This paper, which is part of wider doctoral study, has identified a number of areas that would
benefit from further research. These can be summarised as:
▪ Critique/validate the model through testing and review. In this descriptive, exploratory
research, only desk-based research was used. Capturing primary data from practitioners
and collecting descriptive data for example from different project types, sectors and
cultures would prove the model, generate empirical support for the model and increase
its analytical and predictive capabilities (Collis and Hussey 2014).
▪ Refine the activities, frequency and resources involved in each stage. While the Tailor,
Operate and Develop stages can be linked to a wide range of supporting documentation,
the Select and Embed stages are notable for the paucity of this information. Developing
the understanding of these two stages would help practitioners to improve the fit of the
PMM to the organisation and its benefit.
302
▪ Develop a measurement system and undertake primary research to establish where
organisations are located on the PMM continuum (Sheffield and Lemétayer 2010; Biggins
2015). This would provide much needed information on how organisations are using
PMMs and facilitate a better fit between the PMM life cycle model and the starting point
for the organisation on the continuum.
▪ How critical are the Select and Embed stages to the success of the PMM within the
organisation? This research would help to indicate the importance of the five stages.
▪ Research the life cycles in programme and portfolio management.
▪ How decision-making is managed in the Select stage.
▪ Is there a different between espoused and in-use processes for PMM? The defined
routines may not be used (Feldman and Pentland 2003; D’Adderio 2009)
▪ Do organisations use a change model when embedding PMMs?
It is hoped to continue and extend this research in the future. The authors would be pleased to
hear from anyone with an interest in PMMs with a view to the exchange of information or future
collaborative research.
303
Appendix 16 – Supporting paper 3
Title: How do organisations select and embed project management methods?
Author: David Biggins
Conference: British Academy of Management, Doctoral Symposium Newcastle, September 2016
Abstract
Projects are the primary method used by organisations to enact change. Project management
methods (PMMs) help organisations to manage and control projects. PMMs are being used
increasingly in organisations and PMs are being certified in their use.
This research looks at how organisations select and embed PMMs and the effects of maturity,
organisational culture and structure. Using a mixed methods approach, interviews and
questionnaires have been conducted with 5 UK companies with the views of other PMs included
as triangulation. The results of this research are still being analysed.
Keywords: Project management methods
304
Background
As a project management practitioner, I am very interested in understanding how organisations
are using project management methods (PMMs) such as PRINCE2 and standards such as
PMBOK. Projects are key in business because they represent the primary means of change
(Pinto 2013).
Many organisations are using PMMs and certifying their PMs in their use (APMG 2012) and
PMMs are seen as beneficial to organisations (Wells 2012). PMMs are one of the growth areas
in PM research (Biggins et al 2016b). However, data about PMMs is sparse.
Purpose and contribution of the research
My motivation for this research is to help other practitioners and organisations to improve the
ways in which they deliver projects and contribute to improving project outcomes from their
current low levels (IBM 2014; Cameron and Green 2015)
Applying the life cycle approach to PMMs generated the 5 stage model shown in Figure 1
(Biggins et al 2016a). Most of the research on PMM focuses on how they are operated. There
is a body of literature on maturity and the development of the PMMs and also on how methods
can be tailored to suit projects and organisations. There are only a few researchers active
working in the PMM space (for example Wells; Sheffield and Lemétayer).
Figure 1: PMM lifecycle
The focus of this research is on the first two stages of the model, how organisations select and
embed project management methods. By concentrating on these stages, this research
explores areas that has not been investigated by any researcher in the past. As a result, this
research contributes to the literature on PMMs and has implications for researchers, PM bodies
and practitioners, specifically:
1. The study has focused on a little researched area of PMMs
2. The study has created knowledge regarding the early stages of PMMs where little
existed before
3. The research questions have been empirically investigated in a range of organisations
that use PMMs
4. The study has produced a set of recommendations for PM bodies and practitioners
Conceptual model
From the secondary literature, the author constructed a model to depict the concepts of interest
in this research and their relationships. The conceptual model is not standalone but is
inextricably linked to the goals of the study and the research questions that have been created.
305
Figure 2 shows the conceptual model for the research. The ‘Select’ stage is based on decision-
making theory. The ‘Embed’ stage uses theories from organisational behaviour and change
management. Influencing factors at the ‘Select’ stage include concepts such as cognitive bias.
The factors thought to affect the ‘Embed’ stage are project maturity, organisational culture and
organisational structure.
Figure 2: Conceptual model
306
Stage 1 – ‘Select’
Given the costs of implementing a PMM, it is clear that not all organisations would benefit from
developing this capability (Charvat 2003). The choice of method is important because of the
way it enables or constrains the stages that follow it. Organisations can underestimate the
importance of this stage by choosing or developing a methodology too quickly (Kerzner 2011).
The criteria to consider when selecting a PMM include the organisational strategy, size of the
project team, priority of projects and the criticality of projects to the organisation (Charvat 2003).
Outside the organisation the PMMs used by partner organisation may constrain the choice of
method due to the need to interact with them in a seamless way (MacMaster 2002).
Central to this decision are the projects themselves. While there is no standard way to define a
project, it is recognised that different projects require different approaches (Shenhar 2002).
These factors affect how organisations choose an appropriate method. If the organisation
undertakes projects of a similar nature, one method may suffice but more methods may be
required if the projects exhibit wide variation (MacMaster 2002).
Stage 2 – ‘Embed’
Embedding is a critical task that organisations need to manage carefully. An OGC study from
2010 found that the main factors constraining the success of PRINCE2 came from this stage in
the life cycle and were routed in the organisational environment rather than the method itself
(Sargeant et al 2010).
It is the author’s contention that the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages are vital in determining the
effectiveness of the method within the organisation. Organisations need to be aware that
methods are generic products created for as broad an audience as possible and, as such,
always require embedding based on the needs of the organisation (MacMaster 2002). If the
wrong methodology is selected or it is not appropriately embedded, the organisation can fail to
Strategy Survey (interview and questionnaire). Pilot used
Analysis NVIVO and SPSS
Ethics Comply with University of Manchester guidelines
Table 1: Methodological choices
Reliability and validity have been carefully considered.
307
Research questions
Based on the conceptual model in Figure 2, the research questions are shown in Table 2:
Objective Research question
1. Understand how organisations select embed PMMs
▪ What are the performance criteria used for PMMs?
▪ How do organisations decide on a PMM?
▪ How do organisations control for bias in decision-making?
2. Understand how organisations embed PMMs
▪ What are the driving and restraining forces relevant to PMMs?
▪ What is the change type of a PMM? (Evolution, adaptation, revolution or reconstruction)
▪ Do organisations analyse the change situation? If so, how do they do it and what driving and restraining forces do they identify?
▪ Do organisations use a specific change strategy? If so, why and how?
▪ Is there a link between change type and change model?
▪ Are change models used in reality?
▪ How is the change evaluated?
▪ Are espoused PMM processes different to in-use PMM processes?
3. Identify the factors affective the select and embed stages.
▪ How does maturity relate to the select and embed stages?
▪ What is the link between organisational culture, as measured by the OCAI, and the select and embed stages?
▪ Are organisations with predominantly Market and Hierarchy cultures more likely to use a PMM than organisations that are predominantly Clan or Adhocracy cultures?
▪ How do organisational structures link to the select and embed stages?
Table 2: Research questions
Initial findings and analysis
I am still in the primary data collection phase. As of today (27 May 2016). I have conducted 15
interviews with 4 more scheduled. 60 questionnaires have been completed.
Primary data collection is the highest risk to my project.
Initial findings suggest there is a spectrum in the use of PMMs:
1. Some organisations use a standard method such as PRINCE2
2. Some organisations use a method that is based on a standard and then tailored to the
needs of the organisation
3. Other organisations use a bespoke method which may be based on one or more
standards but which is identifiably bespoke or in-house.
4. Other organisations use a combination of methods
Figure 3 (Biggins 2015) shows how a continuum for PMMs can be used to understand how
organisations are using PMMs. The continuum begins with a totally customised PMM and ends
with a standard method such as PRINCE2.
308
Figure 3: The PMM continuum
The organisations interviewed so far have all been located to the right on the continuum with
processes aligned to APMBOK or PRINCE2. While there can be a strong alignment to a
method, organisations are also showing varying degrees of flexibility where key milestones are
being monitored and PMs are being allowed freedom of execution. All organisations look to
certify their PMs which explains their close alignment with a method or standard.
All organisations display adaptability when it comes to using the PMMs accepting changes from
the PMs themselves, other parts of the organisation and, as is the case with Agile, from the PM
bodies and the project management community more generally.
When reviewing how organisations select PMMs, the results have not accorded with decision-
making theories. For one organisation, a government body, the use of a PMM was mandated
but for all the commercial organisations the PMM started to be used based on the staffs’
experience of PM in other organisations and the belief that PMMs would aid project delivery.
No organisation has quantified the benefit of the PMM but all believe it contributes to project
outcomes.
Embedding appears to be a lot more ad hoc than I had anticipated. All organisations assess
the magnitude of the change they wish to embed in the organisation and use an appropriate
communication process. Small changes are managed using email, for example, while larger
changes may require training, workshops etc.
There has been no analysis of the survey data yet. The questionnaire provides information on
how PMs view PMMs, looks at the aspects of maturity, organisational culture and structure.
The questionnaire participants have been separated into two samples. PMs from the
organisations who have participated in the interviews are in the first sample. The second
sample contains PMs from any organisation who access the questionnaire via links including
the APM and PMI websites. The ‘public’ version of the questionnaire is being used to gain a
wider view of the use of PMMs and to triangulate the views of those organisations with whom I
am working directly.
PMM continuum
Full alignment to
established methods
No alignment to
established methods
309
Appendix 17 – Supporting paper 4
Title: Trends in project management, 1966 - 2015
Author: David Biggins, Therese Lawlor-Wright, Lynne Truelove
Conference: British Academy of Management 2016 Conference Newcastle, September 2016
Abstract
This study charts the trends and changing emphases in project management. A quantitative,
positivistic study, using frequency analysis and 116,202 records, this paper uses 16 a priori
categories to search for keywords in the period 1966 to 2015.
Graphs are presented for each of the 16 categories showing the percentage of publications in
the study period. The categories were analysed using a linear trend line to predict the future
trajectory of the category.
The key findings were that 13 of the 16 categories of project management were expected to
increase in frequency in the literature. The findings of this study agree and disagree with
previous studies and this was attributed to the different samples used and how the search terms
were identified and grouped.
This paper will be of benefit to those studying project management, to academics who work in
this sphere and to others interested in this subject area.
Keywords: Project management, meta-analysis, research trends, bibliometrics
310
Introduction
As a practice, profession and topic of research, project management has been growing steadily
since the disparate elements we now associate with the topic began to coalesce as a distinct
subject area (Carden and Egan 2008; Artto et al 2009; Bredillet 2009; Ika 2009; Morris et at
2011). With its history in construction, engineering and government (especially defence),
project management practices existed in isolation before the 1950s and it is from this time that
the pre-cursors of project management are traceable. Since this period, the widening use of
project management, in new industries, countries and areas is reflected in the literature as
practitioners and researchers raise issues of concern to them at the time (Urli and Urli 2000;
Bredillet 2003; Crawford et al 2006). This means that a chronological study of the literature can
inform those interested in project management about how the field has changed over time and
can identify the trends, fads and transitory interests of those who have contributed to literature.
There have been a number of previous studies which have looked at changes in the field. This
quantitative, positivistic study adopts a longer time horizon and a wider range of publications in
an attempt to add new information on the trends in project management over the last 50 years.
While this study is based on historical data, it is hoped that some light might be shed on the
future direction of the field, presuming that past interest is indicative of the literature to come.
We do not start this paper with a definition of project management as there are a wide range of
such definitions, for example from the Association for Project Management (APM 2012) and the
Project Management Institute (PMI 2013c) who both offer similar definitions. Instead, we accept
the definitions and descriptions provided by the authors who wrote about project management
using their own words and understanding of the subject area. It is not for us to judge whether
their interpretation was correct because there is no basis for making such a judgement. We
therefore disagree with authors, such as Abrahamson (2009), who would see this perspective
as deficient because the basis for the analysis is undermined if there is not an agreed
understanding in place.
By trend we mean the change, over time, of interest in a topic as evidenced by the number of
publications that mention that particular topic by name. There is a hierarchy of topics. For the
purposes of this study, project management is at the apex of the hierarchy. Below project
management are a number of sub-topics that comprise project management. We call these
categories and examples include risk, planning and project management methods. Categories
represent the unit of analysis in this paper.
The aims of this study and paper are to:
1. Review the literature on trends in project management.
2. Identify the categories in project management research and the topics that comprise
them.
3. Build a dataset of project management literature for the period 1966-2015.
4. Build a search capability to enable the literature to be searched by category and topic.
5. Chart the occurrence of the categories in literature.
311
6. Identify whether the categories are increasing or decreasing in the literature.
7. Make the data available to other researchers and identify further research opportunities.
First we begin with a review of the previous literature.
Previous research
To understand the previous research on project management it is first helpful to review how the
subject has developed in the last 50 years. Several authors have charted the key milestones in
the history of project management (Kerzner, 2006; Egeland 2009; Morris et al 2011). These
significant events are shown in Table 1. Table 1 is arranged by decade to align with the
decades in this study. The year is in the second column. In the third column are the milestones
in the development of project management.
To align with this study, we begin the Table in 1966 by which time there had already been
significant developments in the area (Kerzner, 2006; Morris et al 2011). 1957 saw the
development Program Evaluation Review Technique (PERT) and the Critical Path Method
(CPM) was developed by Du Pont. 1959 witnessed the start of academic research into project
management. In 1962 work breakdown structures were devised and precedence scheduling
was developed by IBM. These early developments were the pre-cursors to a half century of
further development.
Decade Year General developments
1966
to
1975
1968 Resource scheduling
1969 Project Management Institute founded
1970 Waterfall method
1975 PROMPT II; HERMES started
1976
to
1985
1979 CCTA adopts PROMPT II
1983 PMBOK published containing 6 knowledge areas (scope, time, cost, quality, human resources and communication management)
1985 Total quality management
1986
to
1995
1986 SCRUM named as a method; Capability maturity modelling
1987 PMBOK issued as a white paper
1988 Earned value management
1989 PRINCE
1990 Concurrent engineering
1992 APMBOK 1st edition
1994 Life cycle costing; APMBOK 2nd edition; GAPPS founded; IRNOP conferences begin
1996
to
2005
1996 PMBOK 1st edition; PRINCE2; APMBOK 3rd edition; Theory of constraints; PM certification
1997 Project offices developed; Critical chain
1998 IPMA Competence Baseline; PMBOK becomes a standard
2000 PMBOK 2nd edition; APMBOK 4th edition; Concept of programme management; PMI research conferences begin
Abstract; Author Keywords; Index Keywords; Document Type; Source. Of the fields in the
dataset, the four most important to this paper are listed in Table 8:
Field Rationale
Year This field was required to support chronological analysis.
Title While titles do not always reflect the content of the publication as they can be used to generate interest and draw attention, often they do contain the keywords used in this research and were included in the study’s search fields.
Abstract The abstract, where present, allows the authors to provide a concise summary of the publication and is therefore a key field for this study.
Keywords Adding keywords to articles is a way for authors to use established words and phrases that aid researchers when searching for information. Both the authors’ own keywords and the index keywords (added by the publication) were included in the search.
Table 8: Key fields in the dataset
The combination of these four fields is considered to provide a sufficient basis for this research.
The other fields were retained for further investigation as the source of future research.
The data from IEEE Xplore, Web of Science and EBSCOhost did not align with the dataset
structure and therefore required modification. This required data manipulation and this was
carried out in Microsoft Excel. For example, the Scopus terms used to describe document
types were different to the IEEE terms. The IEEE terms were remapped to give consistence, for
example, ‘IET Conference publication’ and ‘IEEE Conference publications’ was both mapped to
the Scopus ‘Conference Paper’. While the mapping of conference papers created no
uncertainty about the validity of the changes, this was not the case with articles. The IEEE uses
categories such as ‘Journal and Magazines’ and these were mapped to the Scopus ‘Article’ but
it is possible that the two categories are not viewed in the same way by both organisations
because of the inclusion of ‘magazines’ in the IEEE category. Collating data from multiple
sources is fraught with such difficulties but these only become manifest when comparing
records by publication type and care therefore needs to be exercised when this information is
presented.
A major issue that arose when combining the data sources was that of duplication, that is,
where the same record was collated from more than one source. To lessen the occurrence of
duplicates in the data set, the Microsoft Excel remove duplicates function was used in a two
stage process. After each individual set of records was added, the function was executed to
check for records where all the fields matched. Such records were removed. Second, a more
granular search for duplicates was undertaken, a duplicate being presumed where the year of
publication, title, volume and issue were matched.
318
With a large dataset such as this, data quality was a key concern. The processes used to
convey the data from the source database to Microsoft Excel required extraction to a CSV file
followed by an import. Sometimes many CSV files were required. For example, the limit of
2,000 records (containing the fields required by this study) in an export from Scopus meant that
58 separate CSV files were first exported from Scopus and then imported to Microsoft Excel.
26 intermediary files were required for Web of Science, 11 intermediary files for IEEE Xplore
and 3 for EBSCOhost. There was no common file format for the EBSCOhost extract and
Microsoft Excel imports and the JabRef software package was used as an intermediary, adding
another layer of importing and exporting to the data extraction and collation stage.
Once the dataset had been created and initial screening for duplicates had been completed, the
third stage, data cleansing commenced.
Data cleansing
The process of cleaning or cleansing the data prior to analysis is key if valid and reliable results
are to be generated (Saunders et al 2012). With a large set of records from multiple sources,
this stage of the process was time-consuming. Table 9 summarises the key areas in data
cleansing.
Area Rationale
Data corruption After importing the information to Microsoft Excel, it was found that some of the data was corrupt, for example text that was imported as special characters rather than text. If the corruption affected the legibility of the record, particularly in terms of the key information needed for this study (date, title, abstract and keywords), the record was removed from the dataset. If, however the corruption related to a few characters in a field or to a field that was not used in the analysis (for example page count), the characters were either deleted or ignored.
Field matching For matching fields in Excel, it was necessary to capitalise the information in order that a like-for-like comparison could be made but even then differences in, for example, the titles of articles meant that this process did not expunge all duplicate records.
Spelling Examples are nouns ending –isation and those ending –ization. For the purposes of the study, -isation, was used throughout and 4,609 changes were made to the dataset. Spelling mistakes were also in evidence, for example “An Exploratory Re-Examination” (Scopus) and “An Expoloratory Re-Examination” (EBSCOhost).
Name consistency It was not possible to match on authors’ name due to the inconsistency with which they are listed in the online databases. For example, Web of Science sometimes lists forenames whereas other sources use only initials.
Missing data It was notable that some records in the dataset did not contain any authors’ names. In addition, the PMJ data in Scopus is only partially present for volumes 44 and 46 and required manual addition to allow for duplicate detection.
Table 9: Data cleansing aspects
Where possible, the process of data cleansing was automated using tools and commands in
Microsoft Excel. Despite the actions taken to clean the data, it is expected that some errors are
319
still present but that these appear with less frequency in those fields used in the study (year,
title, keywords and abstract) and will therefore have less of an effect on the results. Whilst great
care has been taken to base the analysis and findings on the best quality data possible, the
caveat remains that the base data is not wholly accurate. It is believed to be of adequate
quality for the needs of this study and the fact that the findings do accord with similar recent
research (Pollack and Adler 2015) suggests the dataset does possess external validity.
Definition of categories and topics
The section on previous research on the trends in project management identified topics that had
been elicited from 15 academic studies and augmented these with other topics gleaned from
recent practitioner literature. The task in this stage of the method is to devise a logical,
authentic and defensible set of categories and topics that can be used for analysis in this study.
As there is no objective way to create this Table, the authors have based it as far as possible on
past structures and added and moved topics that, in their opinions, provides a valid hierarchy
for analysis. The authors recognise that any definition of categories and topics is affected by
their prior experience and education and also that such hierarchies are malleable and affected
by time and the contextual environment. By making the hierarchy explicit, other researchers will
be able to understand the basis for this study and analyse the information in different ways
using the study dataset.
Table 10 lists the categories and topics that were created for this study.