IPJM Vol 23

8/12/2019 IPJM Vol 23

1/86

1. Editorial board

Page CO2

2. The impacts of charismatic leadership style on team cohesiveness and overall

performance during ERP implementation

Pages 173-180

Eric Wang, Huey-Wen Chou and James Jiang

3. Standardized project management may increase development projects success

Pages 181-192

Dragan Milosevic and Peerasit Patanakul

4. The use of dependence structure matrix and domain mapping matrix in

managing uncertainty in multiple project situations

Pages 193-203

Mike Danilovic and Bengt Sandkull

5. Project management turnover: causes and effects on project performancePages 205-214

Stephen K. Parker and Martin Skitmore

6. A tool for managing projects: an analytic parameterization of the S-curve

Pages 215-222

Denis F. Cioffi

7. Project Scheduling using Dependency Structure Matrix

Pages 223-230

J. Uma Maheswari and Koshy Varghese

8. Process improvement in project expediting: there must be a better way

Pages 231-236

Keith A. Willoughby

9. The success of international development projects, trust and communication:

an African perspective

Pages 237-252

Amadou Diallo and Denis Thuillier

International Journal of Project ManagementCopyright 2006 Elsevier Ltd and the International Project Management Association (IPMA). All rights reserved

Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages 173-256 (April 2005)

8/12/2019 IPJM Vol 23

2/86

10. The Project Management AZ: A Compendium of Project Management

Techniques and How to Use Them

Pages 253-254

Dennis Lock

11. John M. Nicholas, Project Management for Business and Engineering (second

ed.), Elsevier, ButterworthHeinemann, Burlington, MA, USA (2004) ISBN 0-

7506-7824-0 p. 603 (paperback), 29.99.

Pages 254-256

Dennis Lock

8/12/2019 IPJM Vol 23

3/86

8/12/2019 IPJM Vol 23

4/86

The impacts of charismatic leadership style on team cohesivenessand overall performance during ERP implementation

Eric Wang a, Huey-Wen Chou a, James Jiang b,*

a Department of Information Management, National Central University, No. 300, Jung-da Rd., Jung-li City, Taoyuan, 320 Taiwan, ROCb Department of Management Information Systems, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA

Received 11 June 2004; received in revised form 5 August 2004; accepted 24 September 2004

Abstract

Though several key enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation factors, including top management commitment and

support, change management, and consultantssupport haven been broadly discussed in literature, other factors such as leadership

style and team cohesiveness have recently received more attention in technical project implementation [Thite M. Leadership styles in

information technology projects. International Journal of Project Management 2000:18;23541; Jiang JJ, Klein G, Chenoun-Gee H.

The relative influence of IS project implementation policies and project leadership on eventual outcomes. Project Management Jour-

nal 2001;32(3):4955]. The charismatic leadership style has often been adopted by organizational leaders, primarily in Asian coun-

tries including Taiwan. The present study, based upon the team leadership theory proposed by Zaccaro, Rittman, and Marks [The

sociology of religion [Transl. Ephraim Fischoff]. Boston: Beacon Press; 1963], serves as an initial step towards understanding the

impacts of charismatic leadership style on ERP implementation. Three-hundred companies listed in the Top 500 of The Largest

Corporations in Taiwan 2001, that have implemented ERP systems, were surveyed. The results confirm that leaders should dem-

onstrate more charismatic behaviors to establish the ERP project team members cohesiveness and, thus, improve team perform-

ance. The positive relationship between team cohesiveness and overall team performance was also statistically supported.

Implications on future study are discussed.

2004 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Enterprise resource planning; Charismatic leadership; Project team performance; Cohesiveness

1. Introduction

Many firms view standard ERP packages as a key to

overcoming the problems of their legacy systems and to

increasing global competitiveness [16]. ERP systemshave been adopted by over 60% of Fortune 500 compa-

nies in the USA [31]. However, studies have indicated

that the implementation of an ERP system could be

an extensive, lengthy and costly process. For example,

the Standish Group reports that ERP implementation

projects were, on average, 178% over budget, took 2.5

times as long as intended and delivered only 30% of

the promised benefits [23]. Due to its complexity and

scope, ERP implementation is handled by a cross-func-tional team, composed of members of diverse back-

grounds and interests. As a result, the ERP leaders

effectiveness and the cohesiveness among ERP team

members have become critical success factors for ERP

implementation [14]. Unfortunately, it is generally rec-

ognized that technical employees lack the leadership

skills necessary to effectively manage people[18]. In spite

of its importance, little attention has been paid to the

nature of IS project leaders leadership styles[33].

0263-7863/$30.00 2004 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.09.003

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 407 823 4864; fax: +1 407 823

2389.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E. Wang), hwchou@

mgt.ncu.edu.tw (H.-W. Chou), [email protected](J. Jiang).

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 173180

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROJECTMANAGEMENT

8/12/2019 IPJM Vol 23

5/86

Leadership is critical to any group environment. Sev-

eral studies have highlighted the essential leadership

qualities and skills required by IS project managers to

ensure success, such as the ability to manage people,

stress, emotions, bureaucracy, and communication.

Charismatic leadership behaviors are identified as

among the most critical leadership behaviors in termsof satisfaction[33]. Weber[34]first introduced the term

charisma and described it as a somewhat super-

human attribute, or an endowment with the gift of

divine grace. According to Weber, a charismatic lea-

der is viewed as a mystical, narcissistic, and personally

magnetic saviour [5]. Attributed personality traits that

others consider extraordinary define one characteristic

of charisma [8]. Some researchers argue that charis-

matic leaders fuse each members personal goals with

the team or organizational mission. Team members

identify at a personal level with the purposes and goals

of the collective as a whole and therefore feel more

team commitment and cohesiveness, which improves

subsequent performance.

Group cohesiveness can be thought of as the degree

to which members are attracted to the group and are

more motivated to remain part of the group[29]. In spite

of the lack of attention received in the IS literature,

cohesiveness has long been identified as a factor exerting

considerable influence over work group performance

and is considered central to the study of group dynamics

in other disciplines [36].

The purpose of this study is to examine the influence

of project managers charismatic leadership styles on

project teamscohesiveness and thus the team

s overall

performance during ERP implementation in Taiwan.

More specifically, the study attempts to address the fol-

lowing questions:

1. Does the charisma leadership style have a positive

influence on the ERP project teams cohesiveness?

2. Does the charisma leadership style have a positive

influence on the ERP project teams performance?

3. Does team cohesiveness have a positive relationship

with the ERP project teams performance?

This study makes a number of contributions. First, to

our knowledge this is the first empirical study in the IS

literature that examines the charisma leadership style

and its impacts on the group cohesiveness and team

performance in the context of ERP implementation.

Second, this study identifies another critical success fac-

tor (i.e., project leaders leadership style) for ERP imple-

mentation beyond the more well-known factors such as

top management support, consultant competence, and

the fit between the ERP system and business processes.

Third, this study provides empirical evidence confirming

the relationship between a project leaders leadership

style (i.e., charismatic leadership) and team cohesive-

ness. This is important, given that team cohesiveness is

central to understanding group dynamics. Fourth, this

study provides the first empirical evidence that leader-

ship style has a significant impact on technology-ori-

ented project implementation, which is an issue raised

recently in the IS literature [33]. Finally, the proposed

research model provides a framework for future studiesthat examine the impacts of other leadership styles (e.g.,

intellectual stimulation) on IT implementation project

team performance.

2. Background and research hypotheses

The term team may be defined as a social system

of three or more people, which are embedded in an

organization, whose members perceive themselves as

such and are perceived as members by others, and

who collaborate on a common task (teamwork)

[1,11]. According to Katzenbach and Smiths[19]defi-

nition, teamwork represents a set of values that

encourages listening, responding constructively to views

expressed by others, providing support and recognizing

the achievement of others. In this study, the term ERP

project teamrefers to a small group in which individuals

work together outside of traditional hierarchical lines of

authority on a temporary basis on ERP implementation

projects to reach some predetermined standards such as

quality, within time and budget constraints.

Effective team performance derives from several fun-

damental characteristics[35]. First, team members need

to successfully integrate their individual actions. Teamprocesses become a critical determinant of team per-

formance. Second, teams are increasingly required to

perform in complex and dynamic environments. These

performance requirements heighten the need for mem-

ber coordination and cohesion. Team leadership repre-

sents a third characteristic of effective team performance

[28].

Kotter [22] noted that providing leadership means

influencing others to take responsibility for identifying,

developing, retaining, and motivating talented profes-

sionals on the team. The most popular leadership style

classification contrasts transactional and transforma-

tional leadership styles. The transactional leadership

style represents traditional views on leadership, which

focus on the contractual relationship between the leader

and his/her subordinates in terms of expected perform-

ance in return for certain rewards [33]. The leader

follower relationship is reduced to the simple exchange

of a certain quality of work for an adequate price. It is

believed that such a cost-benefit exchange process will

only lead to as expected outcomes and subordinate per-

formance. On the other hand, the transformational

leader, who strongly motivates followers to perform

beyond their expectations, increases the followers sense

174 E. Wang et al. / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 173180

8/12/2019 IPJM Vol 23

6/86

of the importance and value of tasks, and stimulates

members to look beyond their own interests and direct

themselves to the interests of the team, organization or

larger community [26].

Although there is no single leadership style applicable

to all project situations, some IS researchers [7,33] rec-

ommend behavioral charisma for enhanced leadershipeffectiveness. For example, Cheung et al.s[7] empirical

survey conducted in Hong Kong indicated that the char-

ismatic leadership style has the most impact on team

member satisfaction. Interestingly, the charismatic lead-

ership style is often the most dominant style in Asian

countries[7].

Contemporary thought suggests that charismatic

leadership results in a strong internalization of the lea-

ders values and goals by the followers, moral commit-

ment to these values, and a tendency for followers to

transcend their own self-interests for the sake of the col-

lective[17]. Meanwhile, Kayworth and Leidner[20]dis-

covered that highly effective team leaders act in a

mentoring role and exhibit a high degree of understand-

ing (empathy) toward other team members. Other

researchers[19] suggest that making the team members

enthusiastic about the project, developing trust, building

confidence and commitment, and acting as a role model

are the critical behaviors for effective team leadership. In

short, the literature suggests that the charismatic leader-

ship style is an effective behavior style for project

managers.

Meanwhile, cohesion is viewed as the single strongest

predictor of group behavior. The definition of group

cohesiveness for this study is the extent to which groupmembers feel a part of the group and desire to remain in

the group. According to Levin and Moreland [24],

groups can be made more successful by strengthening

their cohesion. Highly cohesive groups are better able

to force members to comply with group positions

[4,32].Group cohesiveness also results in uniformity of

group members [25], and makes the group more effec-

tive. Cohesion is one of the important facets of team-

work quality. There are several factors, including

leadership style[35], that influence the will of team mem-

bers to remain on the team and work to each other. If

there is no desire for members to work together and to

commit with each other, it will be impossible to main-

tain the team and for members to perform their jobs

well.

Past studies focus on measuring team performance in

terms of whether the team meets predetermined quality,

time and cost objectives [10,15], or in terms of team

members work satisfaction [15]. Hackman [12] pro-

posed a three-dimensional model of group performance,

which provides a comprehensive framework for the

understanding of group performance. This framework

considers the groups contribution to: (1) its embedded

organization; (2) to itself, and (3) to its composite mem-

bers. For the first dimension a groups performance is

measured by the degree that the group meets quantity,

quality, and timeliness standards. The second dimension

focuses on the degree to which the process of carrying

out the work enhances the capability of members to

work together interdependently in the future. Finally,

the third dimension measures the group performanceas the degree to which the group experience contributes

to the growth and personal well-being of team members.

2.1. Research model

Fig. 1depicts this studys research framework. Three

constructs are included in the research framework; the

charismatic leadership style that the ERP project leader

exhibits, thecohesivenessof the project team, and overall

team performance. The proposed model suggests that

charismatic leadership will have a positive influence on

the project teams cohesiveness and the project teams

overall performance. Furthermore, we argue that the de-

gree of team cohesiveness has a positive relationship

with project teams overall performance. Support for

these arguments is provided in this section.

Charismatic leaders excite and transform previously

dispirited followers into active followers by heightening

motivation and instilling a sense of purpose[6].The lea-

der is idealized and becomes the model of behaviour that

engenders followers commitment [30]. Charismatic

leadership is often positively related to the effectiveness

of the leader. For example, charismatic leaders have

been shown to receive higher performance evaluations

[5] and have been rated by superiors as top performers[13]. Based upon Zaccaro, Rittman, and Marks [35]

proposed team leadership theory, leaders functions

(behaviors) will influence team motivational processes.

In particular, leaders planning and goal setting and

motivation of team members can enhance team cohe-

siveness. Although there is no empirical evidence found

in the IS literature, studies in other disciplines (such as

management) show that charismatic leadership is posi-

tively related to team membersefforts and commitment

to the team[21]. Based upon team leadership theory and

the empirical findings discussed above, we, therefore,

propose the following hypothesis:

Cohesiveness

Project Team

PerformanceCharismatic

Leadership

Fig. 1. Research model.

E. Wang et al. / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 173180 175

8/12/2019 IPJM Vol 23

7/86

H1: The charismatic leadership style will positively

influence the extent of team cohesiveness during ERP

implementation.

Team leadership theories specify leadership as a cen-

tral driver of team processes and team performance.

Many studies examine leadership style effectiveness

resulting from charisma, although most organizationsare primarily interested in project team member effec-

tiveness. After all, the goal of effective leadership is in-

creased positive results from subordinates and the

resulting effects on organizational outcomes. Some

empirical studies show the link between charismatic

leadership and team performance, both in the US and

abroad [3]. In the IS literature, Thite [33] also argued

that transformational (or charismatic) leadership can in-

crease teamsoverall performance. Based upon the team

leadership theory and the empirical findings, we propose

the following hypothesis:

H2: The charismatic leadership style will positively

influence the overall project team performance during

ERP project implementation.

The relationship between group cohesiveness and

group performance has been well studied. Two recent

meta-analytic studies conclude that there is a positive

relationship between group cohesion and group per-

formance [9,27]. Although some researchers argue that

other variables (e.g. work environment) may moderate

the relationship between team cohesiveness and per-

formance, team development theorists, in general, agree

that cohesiveness is central to the study of group dynam-

ics and performance [36]. Unfortunately, the IS litera-

ture offers no empirical evidence of the relationshipbetween IT project team cohesiveness and team per-

formance. Based upon the above discussion, we propose

the following hypothesis:

H3:There is a positive relationship between extent of

the team cohesiveness and project teams overall

performance.

3. Research method

3.1. Sampling

Three hundred companies listed in the Top 500 of

the largest corporations in Taiwan 2001 that had

implemented ERP systems were sent a questionnaire.

Any key person, except the leader, of the ERP project

teams in each company was asked to fill out and send

back the questionnaire. Before the questionnaire was

delivered to the respondents, each company was ap-

proached at least two times to locate the key respondent.

Background information on the research theme was

provided to the respondent. Among the 300 companies

surveyed, 106 returned the questionnaire, which makes

a response rate of 35.3%. Given that the data were col-

lected in Taiwan, detailed demographic information is

provided below.

Among the 106 respondent companies, more than

half had implemented more than seven ERP system

modules. About 21.4% of respondent companies have

fully implemented the ERP systems. About 63.7% of

the implemented ERP systems came from local vendors

in Taiwan, such as DSC (15.6%), IE (5.8%), ProYoung

(5.8%), with the rest coming from foreign vendors, such

as SAP (10.7%), Oracle (13.6%) (seeTable 1).

More than half (52.4%) of the ERP implementation

project teams have more than 10 people in implementing

ERP systems. The majority of respondents (77.5%) re-

port that they have been with their current company

form more than three years. A minority (41.2%) of theERP project leaders had no experience in ERP imple-

mentation. Very experienced leaders were relatively rare

(14.4%). Fifty-six of the 103 respondents companies as-

signed the information department manager to be the

ERP project team leader (seeTable 2).

The respondent companies represent various indus-

tries, such as electronic product (21.4%), information

products (11.7%), iron and steel (10.7%), other various

manufacturing (16.5%) and service industries (10.7%).

About 21.6% of respondentscompanies have more than

one thousand employees, while 52% of respondents

companies have more than 350 employees. About 35%

of them have an information department with more

than ten employees. About 63.6% of respondents com-

panies have capital in excess of 500 million NT dollars.

Finally, the companies, on average, have been in exist-

ence for more than 20 years (seeTable 3).

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Charisma leadership style

The questionnaire developed by Cheung et al.[7] and

based on Basss [5] Multifactor Leadership Question-

naire, was adapted to measure charismatic leadership

Table 1

Background information on ERP systems

Characteristics Categories Responses Percentage

Number of

modules

15 38 46.6

610 62 50.5

>10 3 2.9

ERP systemvendor type

Domesticvendor

DSC 16 15.6IE 6 5.8

Proyoung 6 5.8

Fast 2 1.9

Others 36 35.0

Foreign

vendor

SAP 11 10.7

Oracle 14 13.6

JDE 2 1.9

Baan 1 1.0

Others 9 8.7

176 E. Wang et al. / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 173180

8/12/2019 IPJM Vol 23

8/86

style. The wording of some items was refined to reflect

the ERP project team context. A five-point response

scale was used (from 1 = never to 5 = always) to meas-

ure the frequency of the charismatic leadership

behaviors.

3.2.2. Cohesiveness

Items used in this study to measure team cohesiveness

were developed by Hoegl and Gemuenden[15].All items

were on a five-point Likert scale (from 1 = never to

5 = always) to indicate the frequency of aforementioned

behaviors.

3.2.3. Team performance

Questions from Gemuenden and Lechler [10]

and Hoegl and Gemuenden [15] were employed to

measure team performance. Four items were used tomeasure team effectiveness and three items were used

to measure team efficiency. Each question was measured

on a five-point Likert scale (from 1 = strongly disagree

to 5 = strongly agree).

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted

to examine the validity of the constructs used in this

study. When conducting a CFA, if the model provides

a reasonably good approximation to reality, it should

provide a good fit to the data. The CFA for the meas-

urement model resulted in a Root Mean Square Resid-

ual of 0.05 (60.10 is recommended), a v2/Degree of

Freedom ratio of 2.31 (60.3 is recommended), a Com-

parative Fit Index of 0.90 (P0.90 recommended), and

a Non-normed Fit Index of 0.90 (P0.90 recommended).

The measurement model was adequate for the data set.

Convergent validity can be assessed through t-tests on

the factor loadings, such that the loadings are greater

than twice their standard error [2]. The t-tests for the

loadings of each variable are in Table 4. The constructs

demonstrate high convergent validity since all t-values

are significant at the 0.05 levels. In addition, the reliabil-

ity of each construct is examined by the Cronbach a-

value. The Cronbach a-values exceeded the recommend

level of 0.70. Discriminant validity is assessed by the

confidence interval test[2].A confidence interval test in-volves calculating a confidence interval of plus or minus

two standard errors around the correlation between fac-

tors, and determining whether this interval includes 1.0

(or 1.0). If the interval (for each pair of constructs)

does not include 1.0, the discriminant validity is demon-

strated. The results of the confidence interval tests sup-

port the discriminant validity of the constructs in this

study.

4. Data analsysis and results

A path analysis with structural equation modeling

was conducted to test the hypotheses. The theorized

model inFig. 1fit the data reasonably well, with a Root

Mean Square Residual of 0.04, a v2/Degree of Freedom

Fit of 1.83, a Comparative Fit Index of 0.92, and a Non-

normed Fit Index of 0.90. Table 5 shows the results of

the structural equation model analysis. Hypotheses

H1, H2, and H3 were all supported with path coeffi-

cients of 0.44, 0.48, and 0.37, respectively. The t-statis-

tics for these three hypotheses all exceeded significance

at the 0.05 level, indicating these relationships hold sta-

tistical significance.

Table 2

Background information on ERP teams

Characteristics Categories Responses Percentage

Size of ERP

implementation

team

20 24 23.3

Average tenure

of team

members

13 23 22.4

35 31 30.1

57 21 20.4

79 16 15.5

>9 11 10.7

N/A 1 1.0

Leaders experience

on ERP

implementation

(from 1 = no

experience to

7 = very experienced)

1 40 38.8

2 3 2.9

3 7 6.8

4 6 5.8

5 19 18.4

6 8 7.8

7 14 13.6

N/A 6 5.8

Leaders affiliation Information 56 54.4

Production 4 3.9

Accounting/finance 11 10.7

Human resource 2 1.9

Marketing 1 1.0

Others 28 27.2

N/A 1 1.0

Table 3

Background information on respondent companies

Characteristics Categories Responses Percentage

Industry type Electronic product 22 21.4

Information product 12 11.7

Iron and steel 11 10.7

Others 58 56.3

Total number

of employees

1000 22 21.4

Number of employee

in information

department

50 7 6.7

E. Wang et al. / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 173180 177

8/12/2019 IPJM Vol 23

9/86

5. Discussion and conclusions

ERP implementation projects often require intensive

cross-functional coordination and cooperation. As a re-

sult, ERP project success is heavily dependent on hu-

man factors such as project leaders and team

members efforts and commitments. Jiang et al. [18]

and Thite [33] found that project leadership is an

important factor to the successful delivery of an infor-

mation system. Specifically, the charismatic leadership

style of ISD project managers has been argued as an

effective management behavior for fusing team mem-

bers personal goals with team missions and, thus,

establishing the groups cohesion [7]. Zaccaro et al.

[35] also argued that the charismatic leadership style

has direct effects on team task cohesiveness and subse-

quent performance. Nevertheless, there is a paucity of

empirical studies on the impact and role of charismatic

leadership style in ERP implementation. The present

study serves as an initial step to explore the impacts

of charismatic leadership style on team cohesiveness

and, thus, team performance in the context of IT

implementation.

The results indicate that the ERP project leaders char-

ismatic leadership style significantly influences the level

of team cohesiveness, which, in turn, affects the overall

project team performance. This result is consistent with

Cheung et al.s [7] findings that charismatic behavior

has a significant influence on project team members

behaviors and efforts. The result also confirmed with

Thites [33] study that charismatic leadership style can

have significant effects on project performance. Given

that the culture studied in Cheung et al. [7]and this study

is similar, confirmation of the earlier study provides evi-

dence of the external validity of the findings of this study.

To further examine the generalizability of this finding,

two additional demographical variables (i.e., project

managers experience and industry type) were included

as control variables. The results did not change signifi-

cantly. Interestingly, while industry type did not have a

significant influence on project outcomes, the project

managers experience had a significant, positive impact.

This result indicates that, regardless of the leadership

style adopted by the managers, the project managers

experience has a positive influence on the final project

outcomes.

Table 4

Measurement model confirmatory factor analysis results

Construct indicators Standardized loadings t-Value Alpha

Charismatic leadership 0.93

CL1 makes the team members enthusiastic about the project 0.68 7.64*

CL2 is a model for me to follow 0.79 9.42*

CL3 makes me feel good to working with him 0.78 9.30*

CL4 makes me feel proud to be associated with him 0.87 10.94*

CL5 as a member of the project team member, I have complete faith with him 0.91 11.80*

CL6 readily trust his judgement to overcome any obstacle 0.88 11.21*

Cohesiveness 0.94

C1 it was important to the members of our team to be part of this project 0.88 11.20*

C2 the team members strongly attached to this project 0.93 12.33*

C3 the members of our team felt proud to be part of the team 0.91 11.75*

C4 every team member felt responsible for maintaining and protecting the team 0.85 10.62*

Project team performance 0.88

PT1 going by the results, this project can be regarded as successful 0.83 9.98*

PT2 from the companys perspective, all project goals were achieved 0.67 7.36*

PT3 the project results was of high quality 0.83 9.92*

PT4 the product proved to be stable in operation 0.72 8.06*

PT5 from the companys perspective one could be satisfied with how the project progressed 0.76 8.76*

PT6 the project was within schedule 0.64 6.91*

PT7 the project was within budget 0.52 5.38*

RMSEA: 0.04 (60.10 recommended); Bentlers CFI: 0.93 (P0.90 recommended);v2/DF ratio: 1.80 (

8/12/2019 IPJM Vol 23

10/86

The present study provides several important impli-

cations for business managers interested in the imple-

mentation of ERP systems. First, a qualified leader is

critical to ERP project team performance. In addition

to the ERP project team leaders technical proficiency,

top management should place more emphasis on the

project leadersleadership style. Second, the results spe-

cifically indicate that there are potential benefits from

considering the charismatic leadership model when

selecting and training ISD project managers.

Finally, today a considerable amount of IS project

work is contracted out to independent ISD contractors

who have little or no organizational loyalty. In addition,

there is a growing trend to perform ISD through global

virtual teams where members come from different parts

of the world, which affords few opportunities to interact

face-to-face, yet face challenging group tasks. Given the

importance of project leadership, organizations must

understand the impacts of various different leadership

styles in such dynamic situations. As pointed out previ-

ously, the impact of ISD project managers leadership

styles on project team performance is just beginning to

receive attention from IS researchers. This study pro-

vides the first empirical evidence of the importance of

ISD project managers ability to instill a strong sense

of purpose, beliefs and values in team members. This

has a positive influence on team memberscohesiveness,

which, in turn, impacts team performance.

More research is needed to investigate how charis-

matic leadership behavior brings about higher team per-

formance. Currently, most studies examine the impact

of charisma on team leader effectiveness, while projectteam performance may be of greater interest to many

organizations. To the best of our knowledge, this is

the first empirical study in the IS literature that exam-

ines the relationship between charismatic leadership

and project team performance. Understanding how

far-reaching and long-lasting the effects of charismatic

leadership are is also an area for future research. One

can be deemed an effective charismatic leader, but given

todays wider spans of control and increased emphasis

on self-management, future project teams performance

may drop if the effects of charisma fail to be robust

and long-lasting. In this study, group cohesiveness was

identified as a mediator between charismatic leadership

behavior and project team performance. Other variables

needed to be identified that may impact the effect of

charismatic leadership on project teams. This is an area

of research that should be examined further. Another

interesting future research direction is the relationship

between project managers experience and their leader-

ship styles (and their interactions) on the IS project

development and implementation.

A major limitation of this study should be noted.

The data examined in this study were collected in Tai-

wan and, due to culture differences, the results of this

study may not hold in other countries. Several factors

mitigate this limitation. First, detailed demographic

information about the organizations were provided

allowing readers to better interpret the findings. Sec-

ond, the proposed research model was supported by

strong theoretical arguments. Finally, the results are

consistent with previous studies conducted in othercountries. Arguably, without hard evidence to the

contrary, we expect the results of this study to hold dur-

ing IS implementation projects in other countries (espe-

cially, in Asia). Certainly, future research that replicates

this study with different samples would not only en-

hance the external validity of this study but could also

provide additional insights of our understanding on

project managers leadership styles.

Acknowledgement

This research is supported by the MOE Program for

Promoting Academic Excellence of Universities under

the Grant No. 91-H-FA07-1-4.

References

[1] Alderfer CP. An inter-group perspective on group dynamics. In:

Lorsch JW, editor. Handbook of organizational behavior. Engle-

wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1987. p. 190222.

[2] Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in

practice: a review and recommended approach. Psychol Bull

1988;103:41123.

[3] Avolio BJ, Waldman DA, Einstein WO. Transformationalleadership in a management game simulation. Group Organ Stud

1988;13:5980.

[4] Back K. Influence through social communication. J Abnorm Soc

Psych 1951;46:923.

[5] Bass BM. Leadership and performance beyond expecta-

tions. New York: Free Press; 1985.

[6] Burns JM. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row; 1978.

[7] Cheung SO, Ng ST, Lam KC, Yue WM. A satisfying leadership

behavior model for design consultants. Int J Project Manage

2001;19(7):4219.

[8] Conger JA, Kanungo RN. The empowerment process: integrating

theory and practice. Acad Manage Rev 1988;13(3):47182.

[9] Evans CR, Dion KL. Groups cohesion and performance: a meta-

analysis. Small Group Res 1991;22:17586.

[10] Gemuenden HG, Lechler T. Success factors of project manage-ment: the critical few. Reviewed paper, Portland international

conference management of engineering technology, Portland,

Oregon; July 1997. p. 2731.

[11] Hackman JR. The design of work teams. In: Lorsch JW, editor.

Handbook of organizational behavior. NJ, Englewood

Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1987. p. 67102.

[12] Hackman JR. Groups that work (and those that dont): creating

conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass;

1990.

[13] Hater JJ, Bass BM. Superiors evaluations and subordinates

perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership.

J Appl Psychol 1988;73:695702.

[14] Herb K. Ensuring E-business success by learning from ERP

failures. IT Prof 2000;2(1):227.

E. Wang et al. / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 173180 179

8/12/2019 IPJM Vol 23

11/86

[15] Hoegl M, Gemuenden HG. Teamwork quality and the success of

innovative projects: a theoretical concept and empirical evidence.

Org Sci 2001;12(4):43549.

[16] Holland CP, Light B. A critical success factors model for ERP

implementation. IEEE Software 1999;16(3):306.

[17] House RJ, Spangler WD, Woycke J. Personality and charisma in

the US presidency: a psychological theory of leadership effective-

ness. Acad Manage Proc 1990:21620.

[18] Jiang JJ, Klein G, Chenoun-Gee H. The relative influence of IS

project implementation policies and project leadership on even-

tual outcomes. Project Manage J 2001;32(3):4955.

[19] Katzenbach J, Smith D. The discipline of teams. Harvard Bus

Rev 1993:11120.

[20] Kayworth TR, Leidner DE. Leadership effectiveness in global

virtual teams. J Manage Inform Syst 2001;18(3):740.

[21] Kirkpatrick SA, Locke EA. Direct and indirect effects of three

core charismatic leadership components on performance and

attitudes. J Appl Psychol 1996;81(1):3651.

[22] Kotter J. The leadership factor. New York: Free Press; 1988.

[23] Krumbholz M, Galliers J, Coulianos N, Maiden NAM. Imple-

mentation enterprise resource planning packages in different

organizational and national cultures. J Inform Technol

2000;15:26779.

[24] Levin JM, Moreland RL. Progress in small group research. Ann

Rev Psychol 1990;41:585634.

[25] Lott AJ, Lott BE. Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction:

a review of relationships with antecedent and consequent

variables. Psychol Bull 1965;64:251307.

[26] Mackenzie SB, Podsakoff PM, Rich GA. Transformational and

transactional leadership and salesperson performance. J Acad

Market Sci 2001;29(2):11534.

[27] Mullen B, Copper C. The relation between group cohesiveness

and performance: an integration. Psychol Bull 1994;115:

210227.

[28] Nygren R, Levine EL. Leadership of work teams: factors

influencing team outcomes. In: Beyerlein MM, Johnson D,

Beyerlein ST, editors. Interdisciplinary studies of work teams.

Team leadership, vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; 1996. p.

67104.

[29] Schermerhorn Jr JR, Hunt JG, Osborn RN. Organizational

behavior. New York: Wiley; 2000.

[30] Seltzer J, Bass BM. Transformational leadership: beyond initia-

tion and consideration. J Manage 1990;16(4):693703.

[31] Stewart G, Milford M, Jewels T, Hunter T, Hunter B. Organi-

zational readiness for ERP implementation. Am Conf Inform Syst

2000:96671.

[32] Thibaut JW. An experimental study of the cohesiveness of

underprivileged groups. Hum Relat 1950;3:25178.

[33] Thite M. Leadership styles in information technology projects. Int

J Project Manage 2000;18:23541.

[34] Weber M. The sociology of religion [Transl. Ephraim Fisc-

hoff]. Boston: Beacon Press; 1963.

[35] Zaccaro SJ, Rittman AL, Marks MA. Team leadership. Leader-

ship quarterly 2001;12(4):45183.

[36] Zander A. The psychology of group processes. Ann Rev Psychol

1979;30:41751.

180 E. Wang et al. / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 173180

8/12/2019 IPJM Vol 23

12/86

Standardized project management may increasedevelopment projects success

Dragan Milosevic a,*, Peerasit Patanakul b

a Department of Engineering and Technology Management, Portland State University, Portland , OR, USAb Wesley J. Howe School of Technology Management, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, USA

Received 20 July 2004; received in revised form 17 September 2004; accepted 23 November 2004

Abstract

Companies frequently opt to implement standardized project management (SPM), which can be defined as a standardized set of

project management practices. These companies expect that such an approach will carry significant potential for improving project

performance. To investigate this potential, we undertook an exploratory study into the impact of SPM on project performance in

development projects in high-velocity industries. Our research started with the qualitative method using case study research to iden-

tify the major factors in SPM efforts on the organizational project management level (as opposed to the individual project level).

Then, we developed hypotheses based on these factors and performed hypothesis testing to identify factors that impact project suc-

cess. In addition, we conducted the follow-up interviews to enrich and refine our findings. Three major findings came out of this

study. First, the variables of SPM tools, leadership skills, and process showed themselves to be of higher interest to standardization

than the other independent variables because they may impact project success; second, these variables of higher interest are typically

customized to fit the strategic purpose of the company; and third, companies tend to standardize project management practices only

to a certain level.

2004 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Standardization; Project management; Development projects; Project performance; Success factors

1. Introduction

According to multiple empirical studies, a companys

effectiveness partly depends on the success of its projects

[1,2]. Consequently, many researchers have investigated

those factors affecting project success, including product

definition, quality of execution, and even project man-

agement techniques [24]. Common to these studiesare that they are done on the individual project level

and they tend to see these success factors as fitting all

project situations [5]. In addition, the studies are not

specifically conducted for projects in high-velocity

industries.

Some companies in high-velocity industries have rec-

ognized standardized project management (SPM, see

Table 1 for acronyms in this paper) as a strategy for

managing development projects. For example, Brown

and Eisenhardt[6] suggested that critical success factors

can hinge on the degree of standardization of projectpractices. Recently, the Project Management Institute

(PMI) issued a new standard, the Organizational Project

Management Maturity Model (OPM3) [7], which sug-

gests SPM as a major strategy. These references suggest

that SPM may have a significant place in many compa-

nies approach to PM.

Given the significance of SPM in the industry, it

comes as a surprise that empirical research on the topic

remains sparse, especially on the organizational project

0263-7863/$30.00 2004 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.11.002

* Corresponding author. Address: 1900 SW 4th Avenue, Floor LL,

Suite 50, Portland, OR 97201, USA. Tel.: +1 503 725 4660; fax: +1 503

725 4667.

E-mail address: [email protected](D. Milosevic).

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 181192

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROJECTMANAGEMENT

8/12/2019 IPJM Vol 23

13/86

management (OPM) level. Prompted by this paucity of

research, we designed an exploratory study into SPM.

In particular, this study aims to identify and then get a

better understanding of the factors that may impact pro-

ject success and, thus, be of interest in future research

related to SPM efforts in development projects in high-

velocity industries. Specifically, the goal is to address

two research questions: What are the major factors in

SPM efforts on the OPM level?And, what SPM factors

on the OPM level are of interest because they may impact

project success?

2. Conceptual background

The context of this research is the high-velocity elec-

tronics, computer, and software industries. According to

Eisenhardt [8], a high-velocity environment aboundswith rapid and discontinuous changes in demand, com-

petition, and technology; in addition, that information is

often inaccurate, unavailable, and obsolete. Lengnick-

Hall and Wolff[9]proposed that in these industries:

Disequilibrium and perpetual, discontinuous, radical

change makes all competitive advantages temporary

Organization units and actions are loosely coupled,

stimulating entrepreneurial behaviors

Any advantage is temporary, contributing to sur-

prise, flexibility, and unpredictability to a firms stra-

tegic weapons

Continuous disruption is a nonlinear process, and

risk is viewed as a factor to capitalize on

Destabilizing the current environment is focused in

such a way that a succession of fleeting advantages

lead to high performance.

In such context, while recognizing Brooks views[10]

of the uniqueness of software development (SWD) pro-

jects, in this study, we believe that there are enough sim-

ilarities between new product development (NPD) and

SWD projects, especially in the electronics, computer,

and software industries. The similarities are in terms

of the level of technological uncertainty, system com-

plexity, and risk involvement, etc. These similarities

and a phenomenon that a multitude of project products

in the electronics and computer industries include both

the NPD (hardware) and SWD (software) components,

led us to study such NPD and SWD projects together,

called development projects.

Technological uncertainty: This issue is closely

related to the degree that the project uses novel versus

mature technologies. Projects involving more novel

technologies are considered to have a higher techno-

logical uncertainty than those with more mature tech-

nologies. For example, breakthrough NPD projects

that create product platforms based on a new gener-

ation of technology are characterized by a higher

level of technological uncertainty than derivative

NPD projects, whose purpose is to adapt the plat-

form for a certain market niche [11]. Similarly, an

SWD project focusing on maintenance, including

minor upgrades, has a lower level of technological

uncertainty than a breakthrough program. Since the

essence of NPD and SWD projects is innovation advan-

tage,a large portion of these projects deal with a med-

ium to high level of technological uncertainty.

System complexity: This issue can be conceptualized

as a combination of product characteristics, func-

tional mission, and organizational structure. For

example, imagine a project with a single component

and a single function of a limited scale that is imple-

mented within a functional group, such as the devel-

opment of a computer hard drive or development of asoftware translator. In contrast, a complex project

would have multiple components and multiple func-

tions and require the involvement of multiple organi-

zations, e.g., development of a new generation of

computers or a large software suite. Many NPD and

SWD projects have medium to high levels of system

complexity, which causes further complexities in their

development process (e.g., complexity of team com-

munication, project structure, and project schedule)

and product [10].

Risk involvement: NPD and SWD projects are

among the riskiest endeavors for the modern com-

pany and those risks tend to hit NPD and SWD pro-

jects from many angles. A risky situation may be

severe when the firm has limited knowledge and expe-

rience with the product and process technologies that

they intend to incorporate into the product [11]. In

both NPD and SWD projects, the risk level increases

if the project involves many personnel, has a high

application complexity, involves a high number of

technology acquisitions, and lacks of sufficient

resources and team expertise. Generally, a significant

number of NPD and SWD projects are exposed to

medium to high severity of risk.

Table 1

Acronyms used in this paper

Acronyms

ISO International Standards Organization

OPM Organizational Project Management

PM Project Management

PMBOK Project Management Body of Knowledge

SWD Software DevelopmentNPD New Product De velopment

OPM3 Organizational Project Management Maturity Model

PMI Projec t Management Inst itute

SPM Standardized Project Management

WBS Work Breakdown Struc ture

182 D. Milosevic, P. Patanakul / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 181192

8/12/2019 IPJM Vol 23

14/86

2.1. Measures of project success

Project success measures literature in general PM and

NPD includes several rigorous empirical studies[12,13].

Its dominant view seems to be a stakeholder approach

to project success, wherein each stakeholder group

e.g., customers, senior management, etc. takes a viewof the project success from a different angle. The logic

here is that measures of project success need to include

the diversity of stakeholder interests.

In the context of high-velocity industries, project suc-

cess measures literature offers some rigorous empirical

research but much more of trade literature. Examples

from the rigorous empirical research include measures

such as: on time to market (anticipates markets), on tar-

get to market (product meet needs of current custom-

ers), schedule [6] and schedule, cost, quality; quality of

the project management process; customer satisfaction

[14]. Trade literature examples point to schedule, bud-

get, customer satisfaction[15], and market share, profit-

ability index, schedule, budget, staffing level [16].

Overall, these measures follow the stakeholder ap-

proach. In addition, the measures can be grouped as

(a) internal measures (e.g., cost, time, quality) and (b)

external measures (benefiting organization, e.g., market

share, time to market, profitability index; and benefiting

customer, e.g., customer satisfaction).

2.2. Project management factors critical to project success

Critical success factors can be described as character-

istics, conditions, or variables that can have a significantimpact on the success of the project when properly sus-

tained, maintained, or managed [17]. In our literature

search, we did not find any empirical studies about

SPM factors on OPM level that are critical to the suc-

cess of projects in high-velocity industries. However,

we did find some studies about SPM factors that are

critical to project success on OPM level. The studies of

Toney and Powers[18]and Kerzner[1] include samples

drawn from high-velocity industries while a study of So-

bek et al. [19] collected samples from company in the

capability-based industries[9].

According to Toney and Powers [18], standardized

process (approaches and procedures) is a success factor.

Standardized PM tools and skill sets for project leader-

ship are identified as critical success factors in a case

study about Toyota projects by Sobek et al.[19]. Finally,

Kerzner[1] claims that standard PM metrics and tools

impact standard PM methodology (i.e., process), which

then influences project success. Also according to

Kerzner [1], organizational culture and information

management systems impact project success as well.

Our next step was to generally look at other literature

regarding PM factors critical to project success (not spe-

cific to SPM). In the area of high-velocity industries,

Brown and Eisenhardt [6] demonstrate that process,

communication, and interpersonal relationships (trust,

respect, etc.) impact project success. Other researchers

found success factors such as PM process[14,20], project

organization[14,21],tools[20],metrics[14], and culture

[21]. We can conclude that this literature points up three

ideas. First, in most cases, critical factors are correlatedto a construct of an aggregate measure of project suc-

cess. Second, a great deal of the research exhibits a focus

on a single PM area, e.g. project timeliness while some

of reviewed articles attempt to investigate multiple PM

areas. Third, all this research is directed at the individual

project level.

3. Research method

3.1. Research process

The research approach is summarized inFig. 1.Basi-

cally, this is an empirical study that combines qualitative

and quantitative methods. According to Eisenhardt[22],

the case study research is necessary at times when little

is known about a phenomenon, current perspectives seem

inadequate because there have little empirical substantia-

tion.In our case, such phenomenon isSPM on OPM in

high-velocity industries. Hence, we believe that it is

appropriate to use a case-study research methodology

as the first step to develop SPM constructs drawn from

real-life context, and use its results for subsequent steps

of developing and testing hypotheses for the quantita-

tive study (research step 2). To ensure the validity ofour findings and to enrich and refine them, we imple-

ment research step 3, the follow-up case interviews,

which is again of qualitative nature. We believe that

this research process is very appropriate in searching

for answers to our research questions and environ-

ments in which we undertake our study. Details are as

follows.

In research step 1, we used multiple methods such as

semi-structured interviews with 12 project managers (six

organizations), review of related SPM documents, and

observations. We started informally with open-ended

questions, asking them to tell stories of SPM initiatives.

Then, we asked them to describe their experiences in

SPM efforts and identify variables that make SPM ef-

forts successful. After finalizing individual interviews,

we performed content analysis and a cross-case analysis,

forming ideas, concepts, and insights of the inner work-

ings of SPM initiatives. As is suggested by Eisenhardt

[22], literature review was also performed as part of this

case study research (shown earlier in sections: Measures

of Project Success and Project Management Factors

Critical to Project Success). The purpose of the literature

review was to build internal validity, raise theoretical le-

vel, and sharpen construct definitions [22,23]. The col-

D. Milosevic, P. Patanakul / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 181192 183

8/12/2019 IPJM Vol 23

15/86

lected data were used to develop seven hypotheses and a

questionnaire for the research step two (qualitative re-search). These seven hypotheses were developed based

on seven SPM factors: process, organization, informa-

tion management systems, tools, metrics, project cul-

ture, and leadership, found from case study research.

After being tested by five PM practitioners for clarity

and to ensure construct validity, the questionnaire was

administered to project participants in various PM

workshops. Such collected data were used for testing

our hypotheses (see the next section for measures, sam-

ple, and data analysis methods).

In research step 3, we conducted multiple follow-up

interviews with five individuals from five companies inour sample. We selected these companies because they

had a solid SPM level. The purpose was to add rich-

ness to the interpretations of the data analysis results

in other words to verify and enrich findings of

hypotheses testing and learn more about the research

results.

3.2. Measures

Our questionnaire included these measures:

(1) One dependent variable the degree of project

success operationalized as a multi-item construct aggre-

gating four criteria: the degree to which the projectsaccomplished their schedule, cost, quality, and customer

satisfaction goals; as perceived by respondents on a 5-

point Likert scale (5 being the highest degree, 1 being

the lowest degree). Here is an example of a question

measuring project success on cost: Please indicate to

what degree these projects met the following goals

and its format.

Very low Very high

1 2 3 4 5

Cost goals h h h h h

In the sample question, these projects refers to the

frame of reference: recently completed projects in whichthe participants were involved. Similar questions were

asked about schedule, quality, and customer satisfaction

goals. Note that there are several reasons we have cho-

sen these goals. First, most of our respondents did have

limited information about strategic goals mentioned in

the earlier literature review section on project success.

Rather, they had knowledge about the internal view

goals such as schedule, cost, and quality, as well as cus-

tomer satisfaction (the only goal from the external

view). Second, project success measures similar to ours

have been extensively used in some rigorous PM

research on NPD projects some of which are from highvelocity industries[24]. Finally, respondents had limited

time in which to complete this survey; therefore our need

to limit the size of the questionnaire.

(2) Seven independent variables on OPM level:

standardized PM process (Hypothesis 1, referred to as

H1), organization (H2), information management sys-

tems (H3), tools (H4), metrics (H5), project culture

(H6) and leadership (H7).

To illustrate the measuring process, here is an exam-

ple using the first factor, the PM process. In order to

measure the degree of PM process standardization, we

defined standardized according to Stevenson [25]:

the degree of uniformity or consistency applied in imple-

menting PM process. Thus, the highest degree of unifor-

mity (i.e., standardization) is when the PM process is

implemented by all project managers in the same way.

In contrast, when the PM process is inconsistently used

and not shared by all project managers, we considered it

to have the lowest degree of uniformity/standardization.

To capture the numerical responses of our respon-

dents as to the degree of PM process standardization,

we again used a 5-point Likert scale (5 being the highest

degree of standardization, 1 being the lowest degree of

standardization). And we asked questions like the fol-

Step 1:

Qualitative method

Research Question:

1

Research Approach:

Multiple-case approach

Major Activity:Data gathering & analysis

Outcome:

Constructs defined

Step 2:

Quantitative method

Research Question:

1 and 2

Research Approach:

Survey

Major Activity:Data gathering &

hypothesis testing

Outcome:Quantitatively based

findings

Step 3:

Qualitative method

Research Question:1and 2

Research Approach:

Multiple-case approach

Major Activity:Follow-up interviews

Outcome:Qualitatively enriched

findings

Fig. 1. The three-step approach for this research.

184 D. Milosevic, P. Patanakul / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 181192

8/12/2019 IPJM Vol 23

16/86

lowing: To what degree is your OPM process shared

and consistent across projects?

Very low Very high

1 2 3 4 5

h h h h h

Using the same format, we asked questions about the

degree of standardization of PM tools, PM metrics, pro-

ject culture, and leadership skills. Similar questions were

used to measure the degree of standardization of project

organization and information management systems. For

example, To what degree does your organization use

managerial mechanisms (e.g., a project management of-

fice or project approval committee) to ensure consistent

practices in synchronizing and aligning all projects with

the business strategy?

Very low Very high

1 2 3 4 5h h h h h

One question was used for each variable. Such single-

item constructs are generally less effective than multi-

item constructs. However, from the reliability test of

our questionnaire, we found that Cronbachs alphas

were higher than the threshold value 0.7, as recom-

mended by Nunnally[26]. This indicates that our ques-

tionnaire is reliable.

(3) Demographic information: Here, we focused on

the type of organization, the type of project, the size

of the project, and the PM experience of the respondents

(number of years).

3.3. Sample

A final qualifying sample included 55 project partic-

ipants (project directors, project managers, and team

members) from development projects in high-velocity

industries. Of the business units, 31 were in com-

puter/software industries; 24 were in electronics indus-

tries. As for the size of the project budget, 37% of

the projects had a budget greater than $5 million, while

28% had a budget larger than $500,000 but smaller

than $5 million, and 35% had a budget less than

$500,000.

3.4. Data analysis

To test each of the seven hypotheses, we used thesame statistical plan: two methods of bivariate data

analysis along with one multivariate method. The bivar-

iate methods were Pearson product-moment correlation

between each independent and dependent variable, and

t-test, which assesses the significant difference in means

between the top group and the bottom group of cases

in terms of project success. First, we divided all our data

points for project success (dependent variable) into the

low group (average score 12.33 on the Likert scale),

the middle group (average score 2.343.66), and top

group (average score 3.675). Then for each group, we

calculated the mean value of standardization of the se-ven independent variables.

The assumption here is that the top group with the

highest project success will have the highest degree of

SPM factors. If so, the t-test will indicate significant dif-

ferences between the top group and the bottom group

for each independent variable, proving our hypotheses.

Stepwise multiple regression analysis was used in order

to validate the previous bivariate analyses. Several

regression runs were performed, eliminating the correla-

tion effects between the independent variables.

4. Research results

4.1. Case study findings

After finishing interviews, document reviews, and

observation in the research step 1 (seeFig. 1), the con-

tent analysis pointed to the following SPM factors on

OPM level critical to success in high-velocity industries

projects under seven major headings standardized

PM process, organization, information management

systems, tools, metrics, project culture and leadership.

Table 2

Factors affecting the success of development projects

Factor critical to project success Publications that identified the factor as critical

PM process Zmud [20]a; Deephouse et al. [21]; Brown and Eisenhardt [6] ;Sobek et al. [19];

Davidson et al. [27]; Cooper[2]; Hartman and Ashrafi [14]

Project organization Larson and Gobeli[28]; Deephouse et al. [21]; Davidson et al. [27]; Cooper[2] ;

Hartman and Ashrafi [14]; Shenhar et al.[13]

Information management system Davidson et al. [27]

PM tools Zmud [20]; Might and Fisher[3]; Sobek et al.[19]

PM metrics Davidson et al. [27]; Hartman and Ashrafi [14]

Project culture Deephouse et al. [21]; Sobek et al.[19]; Davidson et al. [27]

Project leadership Sobek et al. [19]; Davidson et al. [27]

a Note: Italicized are sources relating to high velocity industries. Other sources are from other industries.

D. Milosevic, P. Patanakul / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 181192 185

8/12/2019 IPJM Vol 23

17/86

As already mentioned, literature review was performed

as part of this case study research [22], and directly-re-

lated (references relating to high velocity industries)

and indirectly-related references (references from other

industries) are included into Table 2.

In particular, the first step indicated that:

SPM factors on OPM level may have a positive cor-

relation with project success. In other words, increas-

ing standardization degree of the factors may lead to

increased project success. Some interviewees believe that there is an inflection

point in this standardization increase. Specifically,

increasing the degree of standardization of the factors

to a certain point may lead to the increase in project

success. Increasing the degree of standardization of

the factors beyond that point tends to lower project

success. Where this inflection point exactly is appears

to be company-specific, meaning that it varies from

company to company.

To verify these findings from research step 1, we

chose a simple design for next two research steps

(Fig. 1). In research step 2 we formulated hypotheses

to test our first findings SPM factors on OPM level

may have a positive correlation with project success

(next section). In research step 3, we conducted fol-

low-up interviews to learn more about our findings

and second finding from research step 1 the inflection

point.

Why did we choose this research design? This is an

exploratory study trying to develop an understandingof basic correlations such as what SPM factors may help

improve project success. Adding to this is the number of

data points that is limited and relatively simple (single-

item constructs). Given such intent and data set we

thought that simple correlation coefficients and linear

regression would be a right choice of testing tools. When

it comes to the inflection point and its location, which is

subjective in nature, we believe that a qualitative method

of follow-up interviews is appropriate.

4.2. Hypothesized factors critical to project success in

SPM

In research step 2, the seven SPM factors were used in

formulating hypotheses and developing questionnaire to

collect data for hypotheses testing. By using the intervie-

wees justification for why these SPM factors impact

project success on the OPM level and acknowledging

the findings from the literature focused on individual

project success, we hypothesize that project success in

SPM on the OPM level in high-velocity industries likely

depends on standardization of the PM factors affecting

project success. In particular, project success likely de-

pends on these hypothetical factors:

Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1 focuses on Standardized

PM Process for OPM: A higher degree of standardizing

PM process tends to increase the success of development

projects in high-velocity industries.

Rationale: Several studies identified the PM process

as an important success factor in development projects

[2,14,20,21]. Based on this logic, then, standardizingthe PM process for development projects on the OPM

level may also lead to their success. In particular, such

a standardized process may drive the quality of execu-

tion of all elements of the process to a higher level,

including standardized project life-cycle phases, project

activities, and milestones. In the words of one group

of researchers, SPM process on the OPM level can save

project participants the cost of reinventing a new pro-

cess for each individual project and have a positive im-

pact on project success [19].

Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 deals with Standardized

Project Organization for OPM: Development projects in

high-velocity industries organized by more standardized

practices of the project organization are more successful.

Rationale: Multiple researchers have found that

cross-functional, team-based project organizations are

more successful than those without such organization

[2,28]. Instead of this well-researched project-level view

of the project organization, our study investigates an

OPM level project organization, a relatively new organi-

zational design said to have an important impact on

project success. Frequent components of OPMs organi-

zational design are project offices tasked to take care ofspecific PM practices, aiming at standardizing ways to

align organizational projects with the organizations

business strategy. Examples of these practices are pro-

ject prioritization, resource capacity management, and

portfolio balancing. The expectation is that the stan-

dardized practices will facilitate the accomplishment of

project goals. As a consequence, this integration of the

companys projects should lead to increased project suc-

cess[1].

Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3 concerns Standardized

Information Management System for OPM: Using a

more standardized OPM-level information managementsystem leads to higher success of development projects in

high-velocity industries.

Rationale: Software-based PM information systems

are often seen as contributing to project success

[27,29]. Until recently, these systems were solely focused

on the desktop software. Currently, an emphasis is also

being placed on a standardized information manage-

ment system on the OPM level, which is designed to

integrate the desktop with Internet and enterprise sys-

tems. That enables management to integrate individual

projects into a coordinated pool, including standardized

186 D. Milosevic, P. Patanakul / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 181192

8/12/2019 IPJM Vol 23

18/86

information input from individual projects and output

for the pool and individual projects. Also, this helps

management to keep an eye on the pool and allocate

necessary resources to it. Consequently, the pool is less

prone to yield negative surprises and unexpected results.

In this way, the systems capacity for gathering, integrat-

ing, and disseminating the standardized informationoutput facilitates the controls in development projects

in high-velocity industries, thus contributing to project

success.

Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 4 focuses on Standardized

PM Tools for OPM: Development projects in high-

velocity industries that use more standardized PM tools

tend to increase their project success.

Rationale: PM tools include procedures and tech-

niques by which a PM deliverable is produced. While

many argue that adequately deployed PM tools have a

significant role in accomplishing project goals, the re-

lated research evidence is scanty. The little available evi-

dence points to the use of certain tools as factors in

project success [3,13,20]. We posit that deploying more

standardized PM tools as an OPM approach ensures

higher quality in implementing project activities and,

thus, a smoother process and the contribution to the

success of projects. Examples of the tools that are often

standardized are a WBS and the Gantt chart.

Hypothesis 5. Hypothesis 5 considers Standardized PM

Metrics for OPM: Development projects in high-velocity

industries using a more standardized system of metrics to

measure and monitor project performance will have higher

project success.

Rationale: Historically called project performance

measures, metrics help measure and monitor project

performance. They are often cited as a key to a develop-

ment projects success[27].If metrics were designed as a

standardized system for OPM, they would include a

structured and consistent set of measures for all strategic

areas of project health. Such a set would also be tiered to

reflect success indicators for all management levels in a

project. Additionally, the sets metrics would be mutu-

ally compatible to create a further level of uniformity

on the OPM level. When consistently applied, this stan-

dardized set would help detect how well the project

strategy works and where and why it is flawed. It can

also help devise actions to eliminate the flaws, hence

increasing chances for success.

Hypothesis 6. Hypothesis 6 focuses on Standardized

Project Culture for OPM: Development projects in high-

velocity industries where cultural values are more stan-

dardized tend to have increased project success.

Rationale:Organizational culture has been cited as a

key success factor in development and innovation pro-

jects [30]. This culture is expressed as a set of clearly

articulated, performance-oriented values [31] that are

designed into PM practices/behaviors and then uni-

formlypracticed (we call this a standardized culture).

The intention here is that project personnel in OPM

have a sense of identity with the cultural values and ac-

cept the need to invest both materially and emotionally

in their project. This should make them more engaged,committed, enthusiastic, and willing to support each

other in accomplishing the project goals. As a result,

they should work harder and be more effective, increas-

ing success.

Hypothesis 7. Hypothesis 7 is related to Standardized

Project Leadership for OPM: Development projects in

high-velocity industries that are managed by project

managers with more standardized skill sets tend to have

improved project success.

Rationale:The concept of a strong project leader as a

key to project success has been a recurring theme of

many studies and many experts [32]. As a consequence,

there is a strong drive in todays OPM approaches to de-

fine standardized project leadership skills. Examples of

the skills include customer intimacy and risk mitigation.

The expectation is, as Sobek et al.[19]argued, that pro-

ject managers equipped with the same set of standard

skills will be more effective in accomplishing their tasks,

hence driving success of development projects.

4.3. Results from hypothesis testing

Tables 3 and 4 present a summary of the bivariate

analysis and stepwise regression results of testinghypotheses 17. We view these results as tentative be-

cause of the exploratory nature of the study [33]. In

summary, out of seven factors hypothesized to have an

impact on project success, three were found to be of

interest: standardized PM tools, leadership, and process.

4.3.1. Standardized project management tools, leadership,

and process are of interest

As shown inTable 3, correlation coefficients of 0.48,

0.46, and 0.43 show a significant relationship between

the standardized PM tools, leadership, and process,

respectively, and project success. t-tests confirmed that

there are significant differences in the standardization

of these three variables between the high and low

groups. This means that there is a possibility that higher

standardization of PM tools, leadership, and process

may contribute to higher project success. Still, the im-

pact of these three SPM factors on project success is

not very high.

Stepwise multiple regression was used to validate the

previous bivariate analyses (see Table 3). Only one fac-

tor standardized PM leadership entered the equa-

tion. In the analysis, one predicted variable may

capture the explained variance of the dependent variable

D. Milosevic, P. Patanakul / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 181192 187

8/12/2019 IPJM Vol 23

19/86

by using its correlated factors. As a result, the correlated

factors may not enter the equation. Since some SPM

factors were strongly correlated with leadership for

example, the correlation values between the leadership

and PM tools and process are 0.42 and 0.39 (at

p< 0.01), respectively it is quite possible to get a short

list of factors in the equation. Specifically, our list in-cludes only PM leadership as this predicted variable

was statistically significant at 0.03 level. The equation it-

self was also strongly significant at the 0.004 level. The

explained variance (adjusted R2) of project success by

using leadership as predictor was 0.25, indicating that

other important factors beyond standardized PM lead-

ership, standardized PM tools, and process impact pro-

ject success as well, not an unusual phenomenon in

studies of this type. For example, the well-cited study

of Cooper and Kleinschmidt[24]had adjusted R2 scores

of 0.27 and 0.21. This modest explained variance indi-

cates that other important factors beyond SPM factors

impact project success. In summary, Hypotheses 1, 4

and 7 were supported.

4.4. The four standardized project management factors of

lower interest

The four factors with little or no impact on project

success in the statistical analysis were standardized met-

rics, the information management system, project cul-

ture, and project organization. This finding was

further corroborated by the stepwise regression, wherein

none of these SPM factors enter the equation (Table 3).

Because they do not appear to impact project success,

Hypotheses 2, 3, 5 and 6 are NOT supported.

Note that in research step 3, we discuss these findingswith the practitioners to enrich and refine these findings.

The results of these multiple-case interviews are summa-

rized in the next section.

5. Discussion

5.1. The state of PM standardization

We made some observations about the overall state

of SPM, something not in our original plan of research.

It appears that the level of PM standardization in our re-search sample is solid. When we calculated the mean

standardization score for all three critical SPM factors,

we found that the mean value is 3.20. A value of 3.20

out of 5.00 may look like a mediocre level of PM stan-

dardization. However, the following two reasons pro-

vided by our interviewees offer an explanation. First,

the PM standardization concept is a relatively new phe-

nomenon that has not had much time to infiltrate com-

panies. Second, an approach of lower standardization

with a sufficient amount of variation in PM methodol-

ogy is actually linked to the inflection point we learned

about in the research step 1 (Fig. 1). In particular, we

learned from preliminary interviews that increasing the

degree of standardization of the factors to the inflection

point may lead to the increase in project success. How-

ever, increasing the degree of standardization of the fac-

tors beyond that point tends to lower project success.

Also, the location of the inflection point seems to be

company-specific. In the follow-up interviews of the step

3, we heard the same. The rationale is that because of

their high speed, complexity and risk level, lower degrees

of SPM factors with a sufficient amount of variation in

SPM are a more appropriate approach to running pro-

jects in high velocity industries. Brown and Eisenhardts

Table 3

Impact of standardized project management factors on development project success (bivariate analysis,N= 55)

Standardized project management factor Correlation

CoeffecientaMean values of standardization of project

management factors

Top vs. low group,

t-test

Low groupb

project success

Middle groupb

project success

Top groupb

project success

Standardized PM process 0.43

c

(p< 0.01) 2.33 2.40 3.25 2.01 (p= 0.05)Standardized project organization 0.05 3.00 2.68 2.92 .14

Standardized information management system 0.27 2.50 2.28 3.21 1.19

Standardized PM tools 0.48(p< 0.01) 2.33 2.88 3.88 3.65 (p< 0.01)

Standardized PM metrics 0.24 2.00 2.88 3.29 2.53 (p= 0.00)

Standardized project culture 0.08 2.33 3.28 3.21 1.62

Standardized project leadership 0.46(p< 0.01) 2.33 3.40 4.00 4.39 (p< 0.01)

a Correlation coefficients.b Mean values of standardization of each PM factors for low, mid, and top groups of projects in terms of project success.c Bold numbers are statistically significant.

Table 4

Multiple regression analysis of project management success versus

standardization of project management factors (multivariate analysis)Standardized project management factor Beta coefficient (p-value)

Standardized Project Leadership 0.24 (p= 0.03)

N= 55; R2 = 34%, R2adj 25%, significant at

8/12/2019 IPJM Vol 23

20/86

research confirms these beliefs of the interviewees in

high-velocity industries[6].

What we have not found out was at what standardi-

zation degree the inflection point was determined. Try-

ing to be pragmatic, it seems that most companies

opted to create an SPM methodology and set a broad

rule that project managers are allowed to decide whento veer off the SPM, and simply improvise within the

boundaries of SPM. In words of one of the interviewees,

we want our project mangers to be process experts, not

process slaves. The point is that this company has a

standardized PM methodology but empowers project

managers who really know the methodology inside out

to change it as an uncertain project task and environ-

ment pose challenges. Some companies followed a pro-

cedure that project managers had to request an

approval for deviating from SPM.

5.2. Three standardized project management factors of

interest

Based upon our results, there is a possibility that

higher standardization of PM tools contributed to high-

er project success in our sample of companies. To better

understand the nature of standardizing PM factors, we

conducted several follow-up interviews (note the small

number of interviews a limitation factor), which also

yielded several best practices, shown inTable 5. If stan-

dardized PM tools are not offered to project managers,

the interviewees argued, it is not reasonable to presume

that each one of them especially the less-experienced

would have the resources and expertise to quickly and

consistently select their own set of tools. According to

the interviewees, having standardized PM tools helps

with project success: more punctual schedules, more sat-isfied customers, better cost-effectiveness, and higher-

quality accomplishments.

This finding was somewhat surprising to us. First,

some research studies found PM tools to drive project

success on the individual project level [3,13]. From this

perspective, our finding is not a surprise. What was a

surprise is that our study indicated that standardized

PM tools (as a group of tools) on OPM level may impact

project success; this is new. The reason for this, as seen

by the interviewees, is perhaps rooted in the practice of a

great many companies, where the standardized PM tools

are integrated with the PM process in order to consis-

tently support process deliverables at necessary times.

According to our results from statistical analysis and

the follow-up interviews, project managers with stan-

dardized project leadership skill sets are likely to be

more successful and effective, thus influencing project

success. It appears that