Buscando El Valor Del Project Management

PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland
7/21/2008
RESEARCHING THE VALUE OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Janice L. Thomas, Ph.D.
Athabasca University
Mark E. Mullaly, PMP

Interthink Consulting Incorporated
2008/07/14
A Conceptual Research Model

PM Constructs PM Implementation
Business Orientation
Organizational Context Fit Value of Project Management Organizational Value
Environment
Process Criteria
Outcome Criteria
2008/07/14
Copyright 2008 Janice Thomas, Mark Mullaly. All Rights Reserved.
7/21/2008
And A Great Deal Of Data

Project Suppliers Project Customers Project E l Employees Project Managers
Project Subcontractors
Unit Of Analysis
Project History
Surveys
Organization
Project Managers PM Management Project Managers Project Sponsors Senior Management
Interviews
Organization Data Collection Researcher Observations
Case Reports
2008/07/14
And A Great Deal Of Data

43 65
Project Suppliers
66
148
Project Customers
Project Subcontractors
418 Projects Summaries
344Employees E l
Project Managers
Project
Surveys
65 Organizations
Project History
447 Interviews
Project Managers PM Management Project Managers Project Sponsors Senior Management
Organization
54 Quantitative 447 Interviews Datasets
Interviews
60 Case Reports
Organization Data Collection Researcher Observations
Case Reports
2008/07/14
7/21/2008
Adopting A Multi-Method Approach

Qualitative Methods
Between- and within-case analysis Manual coding and interpretation Content analysis
Quantitative Methods
Principal Components Analysis Regression analysis Cluster analysis
Integration Of Analysis Approaches

Q Qualitative li i analysis l i h has h helped l df frame quantitative i i exploration l i Quantitative analysis has both framed and reinforced qualitative results
Theory Generation
2008/07/14 PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland 5
To Answer A Comprehensive Question

What Is The Value Project Management Delivers To Organizations?
Organizational Context
How do organizations differ? What differences matter to PM implementations?
PM Implementation
What do organizations do or put in place and call PM?
Organizational Value
What is valuable to organizations and how is it measured?
7/21/2008
How do organizations differ? What differences matter to PM implementations?
ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT
2008/07/14
Descriptive Statistics By Region

China 22% Australia 6% North America 22% South America 8% Russia 8% Europe 29% Middle East 5%
N=65
7/21/2008
Descriptive Statistics By Industry

Government 16% Consulting 11% Research 13% Services 12% Industry 14% Construction 20%
High Technology 14%
N=65
Descriptive Statistics By Project Type

Other, 8 R&D, 22 Internal, 31 Engineering, 31 Software, 31 Product Devlopment, 23 New Product Dev, 23 Organizational Change, 20 Other, 11 Process Development, 24
Customer, 32
N=48 15 companies indicated 100% involvement in 1 type of projects

7/21/2008
Descriptive Statistics By Organization

Limited Partnership 10% Joint J i t Venture V t 4%
Sole Proprietorship 6%
Government Department/Agency 23% Crown Corporation 12% Corporation, Privately Held 29%
Project Driven 31%
Operational 35%
Corporation, Publicly Traded 16%
Strong Matrix 12%
Weak Matrix 22%
N=52
Principal Components - Context

Economic 70% People 60% Principal Components Analysis Context Culture 69% Projects 48% Organizational Attributes 59% Strategic 56%
2008/07/14
Economic Prospects
GDP Growth Rate GDP per Capita Inflation Rate Current Acct Bal
0.962 0.899 0.669 0.792
Seniority PM Experience Positive PM Attitude Innovators Conflict Avoiders Not Customer Focussed Construction Product Development Organizational Change Strategic Construction Government Publicly Held Public Partnerships Privately Held Sole Proprietorships Strategic Innovators Operational Efficiency Customer Intimacy
12
7/21/2008
What do organizations implement that they call project management?
PM IMPLEMENTATION
2008/07/14
13
Principal Components Implementation

Training - Topics 39% Training Delivery 53% Training Duration Principal Components Analysis Implementation Tools 54% People p 55% Motivators 46% Organization
2008/07/14
Full PM Training Lunch & Learn Distance Degree & Diploma Tailored Internal Informal Off-the-Shelf Customized External
Long-Term Training Short-Term Training
67%
Full Toolsets Resource Management Cost Management Clear Roles & Training Trained Experts Traditional Drivers Cultural Drivers Cultural NOT Traditional
36%
PM Authority PMO Influence PMO Size

14
7/21/2008
Project Management Maturity

25
24
20
17
15
10
10
6
5
2 0
0 Level1 1.5 Level2 2.5 Level3 3.5 Level4 4.5 Level5
2008/07/14
N=59
15
Project Management Maturity

25
24
20
17
15
10
"The PM process has become normal and ordinal, which reduced individual heroism in 10 PM." Project Manager, 23
6
2 0
0 Level1 1.5 Level2 2.5 Level3 3.5 Level4 4.5 Level5
2008/07/14
N=59
16
7/21/2008
What is valuable to organizations and how is it measured?
ORGANIZATIONAL VALUE
2008/07/14
17
Components Of Measuring Value

Initial Constructs Of Value
Level Level v Level Level Level 1 2 3 4 5 Satisfaction Aligned g Use of Practices Process Improvements Outcome Improvements Return On Investment (ROI)
Source: Phillips, 1998 2008/07/14 PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland 18
7/21/2008
Components Of Measuring Value

Initial Constructs Of Value
Satisfaction Aligned Use of Practices P Process I Improvements t Outcome Improvements
Derived Constructs Of Value

Return On Investment
What quantifiable benefits can be derived from the implementation? How do these compare to the costs of the implementation?
Fit
What implementations and context are associated with what value?
Principal Components - Value

Satisfaction 38% Alignment 64% Principal Components Analysis Value Consistent Practices
Good Practices Good PM No Practices Desire For Change PM Satisfaction Customer Satisfaction Aligned Organization Aligned Project Management
62%
Better Process Results Better Project Results
Process Outcomes 70% Business Outcomes
Better Organization Results
53%
Benefits Realized 58%

2008/07/14
Positive Value Tangible & Intangible Intangible Value Improved HR/Quality of Life Strategic Alignment & Staff Retention Positive Value, New Services, Retention
20
10
7/21/2008
What contexts create what value? What implementations create what value?
DRIVERS OF VALUE
2008/07/14
21
Principal Components Integrated View

Economic Training Topics Satisfaction Training Duration Tools
De etermines s
In nfluences
People
Imp plementatio on
Training Delivery
Alignment Consistent Practices Process Outcomes Business Outcomes Benefits Realized

22
Context
Culture
Projects
People p Motivators
Organizational Attributes
Strategic
2008/07/14
Organization
Value
11
7/21/2008
Maturity vs. Value - Tangible

0 1 Level 3 2.5
21 44 45 48 55 90 36 87
2
71
3
35
72
73
Level 2
17 18 51 20 53 30 65 39 43 57 81 22 23 24 25 74 75 76
15 1.5
19 52
28 54 64
29 56 82
32 59 84
34 62 86
42 63 26 27 49 51 83 33 89 47
Level 1
88 31 60 70 67 69
2008/07/14
23
Maturity vs. Value - Tangible

0 1 Level 3 "We now bill an additional 20% for project management on all our projects." Senior Manager, 76
21 44 45 48 55 90 36 87
2
71
3
35
2.5
72 73
Level 2
17 18 51 20 53 30 65 39 43
"Project managers have become good at selling additional services." 57 81 22 23 24 25 74 75 76 Senior Manager, 76
1.5 15
19 52
28 54
29 56
32 59
34 62
42 63 26 27 49 51 83 33 89 47
Level 1
"Improved project management should help 64 82 84 86 with share prices because it will increase confidence in the market as we deliver on projects." 88 31 60 70 67 PM Management, 75
69
2008/07/14
24
12
7/21/2008
Maturity vs. Value - Intangible

0 1 Level 3 2.5
90 21
2
71
3
35
36
48
87
44
45
55
72
73
Level 2
30 51 53 57 65
17 39
22 75
23 76
24 81
25
18
20
43
74
15 1.5
34 59 47 62 49 64 51 82 54 84 56 86 19 33 26 42 27 52 28 83 29 89 32 63
Level 1
31 88 61 70 67 69
2008/07/14
25
Maturity vs. Value - Intangible

0 1 Level 3"Project management has a positive influence on creative thinking and enhances the organization's innovation capacity." S Sponsor, 24 2.5
90 21
2
71
3
35
36
48
87
44
45
55
72
73
Level 2
30 51
"Collaboration within and between teams has improved; silos within the organization have diminished. 17 22 23 24 25 53 57 65 Senior Manager, 76 18 20 43 74
39 75 76 81
"It It gives them a sense of accomplishment accomplishment, it 1.5 1 5 34 47connected 49 51 54 56 19 26 give them a sense of being to the 59 an 62 opportunity 64 82 84 86 enterprise, it gives them to33 42 contribute and understand how [their work] relates to the larger operation and to the Level 1 success 31 88 of the organization." 61 70 Senior Manager, 20
2008/07/14
27 52
28 83
29 89
32
63
67
69
26
13
7/21/2008
Maturity vs. Value - Integrated

0 1 Level 3 2.5
21 44 45 48 55 90 36
2
71 71
3
35 35
90 87
21
36 72
48 73
87
44
45
55
72
73
Level 2
17 18 51 20
30 30 53 29 56 82 32 59 84 65 34 62 86 42 63 34 59 26 39 43
51
53 57
57 81
65 22 54 84 56 86 83 19 33
17 39 23 26 42
22 75 24 27 52 33
23 76 25 28 83 89
24 81 75 29 89
25
18 74 32
20 76
43
74
15 1.5
19 52
28 54 64
47 62 27
49 64 49
51 82 51
63 47
Level 1
31 88
88 31
61 61
70 70
67 67
69 69
Intangible Tangible
27
2008/07/14
Maturity vs. Value Direction All Cases

-2 -1 0 1
71
2
35
Level 3 2.5
45
48
Level 2 1.5 15
75
36 55 73 87 90in "Without projects we21would not be72moving any direction, so this work is absolutely critical for this organization. Project Manager, 1917 18 20 22 23 24 30 43 57 39 53 65 74 81
44
25
76
26 47 52 83
28 56 84
32 59 86
34 64
49 82
19 51
27 52
29 62
33 63
42
89
Level 1
2008/07/14
88
31
70
61
67
69
28
14
7/21/2008
Maturity vs. Value Direction High Value

-2 -1 0 1 Level 3 2.5
United States
2
China
71
35
China
China
Australia
72
73
44
Level 2 15 1.5
Canada
China
China
China
Canada Denmark
75
United Kingdom
24
74
22
China Serbia
23
76
25
Russia
47
33
89
Level 1
2008/07/14 PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland
UAE UAE
67
69
29

-2 -1 0 1 Level 3 2.5
United States
2
China
71
35
China
China
Australia
72
73
44
Level 2 15 1.5
Canada
China
China
China
Canada Denmark
75
United Kingdom
24
74
22
China Serbia
23
76
25
Russia
47
33
89
Level 1
UAE UAE
67
69
30
15
7/21/2008

We've not only followed the government regulations, but we've been continuously establishing and innovating our own -2 -1 0 1 management system according to the United States Level company's development and the industry's 3 situation." 71 Industry: Construction Project Manager, 35 2.5
China Initial Implementation China (<1993): PM processes imposed funding 72 by73 agencies Canada
2
China
35
Australia
44
Level 2 1.5 15
75
United Kingdom
Most recent (2007): Review of strategic 24 74 22 23 projects and introduction of lessons China learned
Serbia
China
China
China
Canada Denmark
76
25
Russia
47
Level 1
2008/07/14
"It was only since the 33 adoption of project 89 management methods that the company started to really reform its system and establish new management UAE UAE procedures and processes and to run as an economic 67 69 enterprise. Senior Manager, 35
31

-2 -1 0 1 Level 3 2.5
United States
2
China
Industry: High-Tech Engineering Initial Implementation (<1988): Basic project management practices
Canada China
71
35
China
Australia
72
73
44
Level 2 15 1.5
75
Most recent (2006): Review ofChina practices derive best practices and 24 consolidate/simplify
United Kingdom
China
China
Canada Denmark
74
22
China Serbia
23
76
25
Russia
47
33
89
Level 1
UAE UAE
67
69
32
16
7/21/2008

-2 -1 0 Level 3 2.5
United States China China
1 Industry: Telecommuications
2
China
71 Initial Implementation (2002): Basic project management processes
35
Most recent (2006): Integration of 44 72 73 practices with new parent organization

Canada China China China
Australia
Level 2 1.5 15
Canada Denmark
75
United Kingdom
24
74
22
China Serbia
23
76
25
Level 1
2008/07/14
"All divisions must work like a team to respond 47 to customer needs. Project 33 management 89 contributes to team building and coordination. It greatly improved work efficiency UAE UAE and customer satisfaction. 67 24 69 Project Manager,
Russia
33
Industry: Utilities Maturity vs. Value Direction High Value

-2 Level 3 2.5
Initial Implementation (2000): -1 0 Award-winning Centre of Excellence by 2005 Most recent (2006): ( ) Control-focussed PMO and centralized Program Managers
2
China
United States
71
35
China
China
Australia
72
73
44
Level 2 1.5 15
Canada
75
"The value of project management is tangible. China China Denmark China Canada It's the structure behind the projects. We do 24 74 22 23 76 25 better than industry benchmarks." China Project Manager, 75
United Kingdom Serbia Russia
47 hard value: "Project management provides saving wasted dollars and effort and mitigating the risk of wasting dollars. Level Senior Manager, 75 1
33
89
UAE UAE
67
69
2008/07/14
"The value of project management is control. Project PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland Manager, 75 34
17
7/21/2008
Value Drivers
Creation Of Value
Collective perception of Fit Continuous investment, focus and commitment Perceiving value in project management
Destruction Of Value
Changes in personnel responsible for driving/leading implementation Lack of attention, focus, maintenance, will Over-implementation or over-bureaucratization Inconsistent alignment of needs
Particularly between management and project managers
Uncertainty Of f Value
Political changes and conflicts Control issues/imposition of control frameworks Project management implementation as a fad PM as something that people have to do
PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland 35
2008/07/14
CONCLUSIONS
2008/07/14
36
18
7/21/2008
For This Project To Be Successful
Our Proposal Asserted That We Needed To Demonstrate:

Unequivocal and compelling evidence of the value of project management
To Do This, We Identified The Following Requirements:

A strong, international, multi-disciplinary team An approach that addresses the problems of earlier studies A cohesive and integrated research strategy that explores the overall phenomenon of project management An integrated, multi-method design that develops common, credible and defensible measures of tangible and intangible value Leveraging PMIs investment through matching funds and donations-in-kind from other institutions and organizations
Conclusions
Project Management Delivers Value Why y are a e we so su sure? e? W

Large international team effort Sound multi-method, multi-paradigm approach Cohesive and integrated research strategy Strong reliability and validity within and across paradigms 1.2 M USD from PMI leveraged by additional funds (380,000) and donations-in-kind (~1.2M USD)
19
7/21/2008
Conclusions
Half Our Case Study Organizations Demonstrate Tangible Value Organizations That Could Calculate ROI
Should have data Are those that deliver projects for customers
However, Even Where ROI Could Be Calculated

It isnt The data isnt being collected The answer isnt considered meaningful
Resistance To Calculating ROI Appears To Stem From:

Lack of interest in the answer Fear of accountability Perceived complexity of the measurement
Conclusions

Most Organizations Demonstrate Intangible Value Value Tends To Be Around

D i i making Decision ki Communication Effective work culture Alignment of approach, terminology and values Effectiveness of the organization
Realization Of Intangible Value Is Correlated With The M Maturity i Of O Organizational i i lI Implementation l i This Reinforces The Lack Of Interest Of Many Organizations In Direct Measures Of ROI
20
7/21/2008
Conclusions
Increased Maturity Delivers Greater Value Intangible Value Appears To Increase In Proportion To Maturity
Greater levels of intangible value are reported in organizations with higher level of maturity
However, Tangible Value Is Seen At All Levels Of Maturity

Even organizations with cynical motives for implementation are able to attain tangible value
Conclusions
Implementation AND Value Are Largely Influenced By Culture These Include Differences In:
National culture
Illustrated by different approaches to this study
Organizational culture
Process vs. results driven cultures
Project management culture

PM as control and policing vs. PM as leadership and coaching
21
7/21/2008
Conclusions
Even Organizations That Demonstrate Significant Value Today Are Not Assured Of Continued Value Moving g Forward Many Organizations Appear To Be At An Inflection Point
Continued delivery of value is open to question
Some Organizations Demonstrating Significant Value And Actively Investing In Their PM Implementation Are In Fact Destroying Value
Conclusions
Where Value Is Being Sustained And Continuing To Grow, There Is On-going Focus And Improvement Underway Organizations That Stop Focussing On Value, Or Believe That They Are Done:
Stop demonstrating value The act of not enhancing value appears to destroy value
This Raises A Question On The Nature Of The Decline:

Are organizations actually losing value? Are organizations perceiving a loss of value?
22
7/21/2008
Conclusions
The Value Of Project Management Implementations Are Fundamentally Determined By Fit:
How well what is implemented p meets the needs of the organization
Fit Can Be Inferred By Satisfaction

This is at best a proxy measure
Measurement Of Fit Requires Determining What Contexts And Implementations Deliver What Value
This is what this study has delivered
Future Research Directions
Testing Of Exploratory Theories

Expansion of data collection beyond 65 organizations Large-scale, online, focussed data collection
Additional Analysis On Existing Dataset

Cultural Impacts Professionalization Industries Organizational change and PM
Exploration E l ti Of Additional Additi l Topics T i

What makes PM sustainable? What drives destruction of value? How can we better align management and project manager expectations?
23
7/21/2008
CREDITS & THANKS THE RESEARCH TEAM
2008/07/14
47
Proposal Team
Dr. Frank Anbari Dr. Ben Arbaugh Dr. Tim Brady Dr. Walid Belassi Dr. Christophe Bredillet Dr. Peter Checkland Dr Svetlana Cicmil Dr. Terry Cooke-Davies Dr. Lynn y Crawford Dr. Fathi Elloumi Dr. Young Hoon Kwak Dr. Harvey Maylor Dr. Thomas Mengel Mr. Mark Mullaly Dr. Janice Thomas Dr. Terry Williams Dr. Mark Winter
2008/07/14
48
24
7/21/2008
Workshop 1 Broadway, UK
Dr. Frank Anbari Dr. Erling Andersen Dr. Walid Belassi Dr Tim Brady Dr. Dr. Christopher Bredillet Dr. Peter Checkland Dr. Svetlana Cicmil Dr. Lynn Crawford Dr. Terry Cooke-Davies Dr. Fathi Elloumi Dr. Patrick Fong Dr. Zhai Li Dr. Harvey Maylor Dr. Thomas Mengel Mr. Mark Mullaly Dr. Shi Qian Dr. Maria Romanova Dr. Jonas Soderlund Dr. Janice Thomas Dr. Rodney Turner Dr. Terry Williams Dr. Mark Winter Dr. Zhai Li Dr. Khim Teck Yeo Dr. Harry Stefanou Dr. Edwin Andrews Ms. Janice Janzen
49
2008/07/14
Workshop 2 - Montreal, Canada

Dr. Frank Anbari Dr. Erling Andersen Dr. Tim Brady p Bredillet Dr. Christopher Dr. Peter Checkland Dr. Ping Chen Dr. Svetlana Cicmil Dr. Lynn Crawford Dr. Terry Cooke-Davies Dr. Fathi Elloumi Dr Pernille Eskerod Dr. Dr. Patrick Fong Dr. Merlyn Foo Dr. Stella George Dr. Zhai Li Dr. Harvey Maylor Dr. Thomas Mengel Dr. Qiang Maoshan Mr. Mark Mullaly Dr. Shi Qian Dr. Maria Romanova Dr. Jonas Soderlund Dr. Janice Thomas Dr. Rodney Turner Dr. Vaidotas Viliunas Dr. Terry Williams Dr Mark Winter Dr. Dr. Xue Yan Dr. Khim Teck Yeo Dr. Harry Stefanou Dr. Edwin Andrews Ms. Marguerite LeBlanc
50
2008/07/14
25
7/21/2008
Workshop 3 Esbjerg, Denmark

Dr. Frank Anbari Dr. Walid Belassi Dr. Christophe Bredillet Dr Ping Chen Dr. Dr. Svetlana Cicmil Dr. Terry Cooke-Davies Dr. Lynn Crawford Dr. Zoran Djordjevic Dr. Pernille Eskerod Dr. Stella George Mr. Nils Gerdes Dr. Thomas Lechler Dr. Zhai Li Dr. Thomas Mengel
Mr. Mark Mullaly Dr. Shi Qian Ms. Eva Riis Dr Maria Romanova Dr. Dr. Jonas Soderlund Dr. Janice Thomas Ms. Anne Live Vaagaasar Dr. Vaidotas Viliunas Ms. Jia Ning Wang Dr. Terry Williams Dr. Khim Teck Yeo Dr. Sasa Zivanovic Dr. Edwin Andrews Ms. Marguerite LeBlanc
51
2008/07/14
Workshop 4 Lake Louise, Canada

Mr. Marcos Santos Abreu Dr. Walid Belassi Dr. Ping Chen Dr. Svetlana Cicmil Mr. Martin Cohen Dr. Terry Cooke-Davies Ms. Lisa Danquah Dr. Zoran Djordjevic Dr. Pernille Eskerod Dr. Merlyn Foo Dr. Stella George Ms. Jane Helm Dr. Mimi Hurt Dr. Zhai Li Dr. Thomas Mengel Mr. Mark Mullaly Dr. Shi Qian Ms. Eva Riis Ms. Kathy Sahadath Dr. Janice Thomas Dr. Rodney Turner Ms. Anne Live Vaagaasar g Dr. Terry Williams Dr. Sasa Zivanovic Dr. Edwin Andrews Ms. Dianne Ingram
52
2008/07/14
26
7/21/2008
Case Study Team Leads

Canada

Denmark
Pernille Eskerod
Mimi Hurt Thomas Mengel Mark Mullaly Janice Thomas
Norway
Erling Andersen
United States
Thomas Lechler
Lithuania
Vaidotas Viliunas
Brazil
Marcos Santos Abreu
Sweden
Jonas Soderlund
United Kingdom
Tim Brady Svetlana Cicmil Terry Cooke-Davies H Harvey M l Maylor Janice Thomas
Russia
Maria Romanova
United Arab Emirates

Walid Belassi
China
Ping Chen Shi Qian Xue Yan Zhai Li
Germany
Thomas Mengel
Serbia
Svetlana Cicmil
Australia
Lynn Crawford
2008/07/14
53
Analysis Team
Qualitative Team Dr. Svetlana Cicmil D Pi Dr. Ping Ch Chen Dr. Pernille Eskerod Dr. Zhai Li Dr. Thomas Mengel Mr. Mark Mullaly Dr. Janice Thomas Quantitative Team Dr. Terry Williams M Lisa Ms. Li Danquah D h Dr. Merlyn Foo Dr. Thomas Lechler Dr. J.W. (Mac) McDonald Mr. Mark Mullaly Dr. Janice Thomas
2008/07/14
54
27
7/21/2008
And particular thanks to.
PMI AND THE CASE STUDY ORGANIZATIONS THAT MADE THIS RESEARCH POSSIBLE
RESEARCHING THE VALUE OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Janice L. Thomas, Ph.D.
Athabasca University
Mark E. Mullaly, PMP

Interthink Consulting Incorporated
2008/07/14
56
28

Buscando El Valor Del Project Management

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Buscando El Valor Del Project Management

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland

RESEARCHING THE VALUE OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Mark E. Mullaly, PMP

PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland

A Conceptual Research Model

Organizational Context Fit Value of Project Management Organizational Value

PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland

Copyright 2008 Janice Thomas, Mark Mullaly. All Rights Reserved.

PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland

And A Great Deal Of Data

Organization Data Collection Researcher Observations

PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland

And A Great Deal Of Data

418 Projects Summaries

54 Quantitative 447 Interviews Datasets

Organization Data Collection Researcher Observations

PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland

Copyright 2008 Janice Thomas, Mark Mullaly. All Rights Reserved.

PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland

Adopting A Multi-Method Approach

Integration Of Analysis Approaches

To Answer A Comprehensive Question

Copyright 2008 Janice Thomas, Mark Mullaly. All Rights Reserved.

PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland

How do organizations differ? What differences matter to PM implementations?

PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland

Descriptive Statistics By Region

Copyright 2008 Janice Thomas, Mark Mullaly. All Rights Reserved.

PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland

Descriptive Statistics By Industry

High Technology 14%

Descriptive Statistics By Project Type

N=48 15 companies indicated 100% involvement in 1 type of projects

Copyright 2008 Janice Thomas, Mark Mullaly. All Rights Reserved.

PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland

Descriptive Statistics By Organization

Project Driven 31%

Corporation, Publicly Traded 16%

Strong Matrix 12%

Weak Matrix 22%

Principal Components - Context

0.962 0.899 0.669 0.792

PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland

Copyright 2008 Janice Thomas, Mark Mullaly. All Rights Reserved.

PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland

What do organizations implement that they call project management?

PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland

Principal Components Implementation

Long-Term Training Short-Term Training

PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland

PM Authority PMO Influence PMO Size

Copyright 2008 Janice Thomas, Mark Mullaly. All Rights Reserved.

PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland

Project Management Maturity

PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland

Project Management Maturity

PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland

Copyright 2008 Janice Thomas, Mark Mullaly. All Rights Reserved.

PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland

What is valuable to organizations and how is it measured?

PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland

Components Of Measuring Value

Source: Phillips, 1998 2008/07/14 PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland 18

Copyright 2008 Janice Thomas, Mark Mullaly. All Rights Reserved.