Out 3

An Organization Design Approach to Project Management
A dissertation submitted
by
Korin A. Kendra
to
Benedictine University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Organization Development
This dissertation has been
accepted for the faculty of
Benedictine University.
Peter Sorensen, Ph.D.

Chair
May 31,2003
Thomas Head, Ph.D.

Committee member
May 31,2003
Ramkrishnan V. Tenkasi, Ph.D.

Committee member
May 31,2003
Laura Tapiin, Ph.D.

Committee member
May 31,2003
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI N um ber: 3092851
Copyright 2003 by
Kendra, Korin Ann
All rights reserved.
UMI
UMI Microform 3092851
Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Copyright 2003 Korin A. Kendra
Abstract
This dissertation presents results of a quantitative examination of the adoption of
Project Management (PM) practices in Information Technology (IT) organizations
that have been shown to improve organization project performance based on
Organization Development (OD) system design methods that use Sociotechnical
System Theory (Taylor & Felton, 1993) and open system theory (Emery, 1997).
Quantitative data was collected from 59 IT professionals who performed project work
in different organizations to test and confirm a project management system developed
from a literature review of project success factors that have contributed to projects
being on time, on budget, and of high quality. Structural Equations Modeling (SEM),
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and linear regression statistical methods were
used to test the newly designed project management system. Results from the study
confirmed the system design comprised of a project manager, project teams,
performance measurement systems, and supporting management practices that were
significant predictors of project performance. In addition, the study of organization
culture from an open system theory perspective provides the means to assess the
effect of culture on project performance. Results showed that culture affected project
performance independent of the confirmed project management system. An important
conclusion from this research was that IT organizations that adopt the confirmed
project management system must also consider the type of culture that exists in the
organization to be successful. Specifically, to achieve project success, organizations
must work to develop an achievement-oriented culture (Harrison & Stokes, 1997) to
iii
ensure that projects are on time, within budget, and of high quality to achieve project
success. An implication of this study to the fields of Organization Development and
project management was the confirmation of a project management system that IT
organizations, OD Practitioners, and Project Managers can employ to support the
adoption of project management practices at both the organization and project levels.
IV
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Dedication
This manuscript is dedicated to my family and friends who worked alongside me in
the pursuit of new knowledge. Special thanks are due to my husband, Tim, and my
children, Elise and Ethan. I missed them as much as they missed me. To my friend
Larry, thank you for the unlimited time you spent with me discussing the research
materials and the reality of it all. I give my appreciation to Marianne and Joe for
providing me a home away from home throughout the journey. To my sisters and
mother, thank you for your encouragement and confidence in me and for your support
in the achievement of my life goals.
Thank you to my dissertation committee members who guided me throughout the

doctoral program and offered insight into new areas of knowledge and scholarly
research.
Table of Contents
Abstract
......
....
Dedication
.........
Table of Contents.
List of Figures
......
List of Tables .....
Chapter 1: Introduction
.........
Chapter 2: Literature Review............
....
Carburetors to Automatic Fuel Injectors...
Quality of Work Life
.....
Total Quality Management
.... ............ ............... ......................... .
Business Process Reengineering..................
Top Performers .....
New Racing Circuits ............
Software Engineering.
....
Project Management
.......
Benchmarking.....................
Teardown
..........
Engineering and Design.................
A Systemic View of Racing..........................
Racing Teams
........
Race Car Components and Subsystems....
........
Racing Enthusiasts
.....
System Integration
....
Prototype Design
....
Acceleration and Horsepower- Model Throughput
.....
......
Chapter 3: Research Approach
Instrumentation
.....
Gauges..
......
Driver Skills.....................
Enthusiasm
........
Qualifying
.......
Team Demographics
....
Spectators..
.........
Simulation.................
Finite Element Analysis.......................
Chapter 4: Findings
.........
Qualifying Laps
......
Racing Results
......
Top Qualifier...............................
Winning Design (A1I-X model)
........
vi
..iii
v
vi
.viii
ix
1
7
8
9
11
12
15
17
17
20
25
27
27
32
33
39
49
55
61
63
72
75
75
78
78
80
81
82
83
88
89
95
102
108
109
Winning Performance (All-Y model)

..........
Ready for Race Day.
.....
Winners Circle ......
Team Sponsors..................
Final Standings..............
On to the Next Race.......................
Chapter 5: Discussion ..........
A Winning Combination........................................................
.......
A Day at the Test Track
Winning the Next Race.....................................................................
Teamwork
....
Winning Designs..
.......
......
Key Contributors
Ideal Racing Conditions..........................
Checkered Flags...
...............
The Future of Racing
............
Appendix A: Instrument Design..................
Appendix B: Research Study Instruments.......................
References....
........
110
110
Ill
113
119
124
126
126
129
130
132
137
140
144
146
149
155
156
171
List of Figures
Figure 1. The Nine Knowledge Areas of the Project Management Body of
....
23
Knowledge (PMBOK Guide)
Figure 2. Open Systems View of the Project Success Model
..........
64
Figure 3. Research Design to Test Project Success Model.........................
74
Figure 4. LISREL 8.51 SEM CFA First Order Measurement Model
84
Figure 5. Regression Equations for Factor Analytic Model in LISREL 8.51 Format
for all-X CFA Model for the Independent Variables of the Project Management
86
Success Factors and Project Manager Competencies .....
Figure 6. Regression Equations for Factor Analytic Model in LISREL 8.51 Format
for all-Y CFA Model for the Dependent Variable Defined as Project
Management Performance
.........
87
Figure 7. Line chart of Project Management Success Factors Index and Project
Performance
...............................................
Figure 8. LISREL 8.51 Confirmatory Factor-Analytical (CFA) SEM Model II First
Order Measurement Model for the Project Success Model.............................. 106
Figure 9. LISREL 8.51 Confirmatory Factor-Analytical (CFA) SEM Model II First
Order Model for Project Success Factors and Project Management Performance
.............................................................
Figure 10. Information Technology Organizations Existing Culture Types............ 114
Figure 11. Line chart of the Relationship Between Organization Enlivenment and
Project Management Performance
............................
Figure 12. Adoption of Project Management Success Factors at the Embryonic
Lifecycle Phase (n=23)
......................................
Figure 13. Adoption of Project Management Succes Factors at the Maturity Lifecycle
...................................................
Phase (n=21)
Figure 14. Percentage of Organizations by Dominant Culture Types by Project
Management Lifecycle Phases for N=59....................................
Figure 15. Information Technology Organizations Preffered Culture Types.....
145
viii
123
133
141
List of Tables
Table 1. Social Structures of a Project Management System Presented by Individual
Success Factor and Contributing Author ....
36
Table 2. Technical Structures of a Project Management System by Individual Success
Factor and Contributing Author.............................
40
Table 3.Social and Technical Structures of a Project Management System for IT
Organizations
........
48
Table 4. Critical Success and Failure Factors Associated with the Project
Management Life Cycle Phases.....................
60
Table 5. Participants Demographic Data From Information Technology Organization
Project Teams (N=59)....
94
Table 6. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Project Organization Design as a
Predictor of Project Management Performance (N=59)
.......
96
Table 7. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Performance Measurement Systems
as a Predictor of Project Management Performance (N=59).............
97
Table 8. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Project Managers as a Predictor of
Project Management Performance (N=59).....
97
Table 9. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Supporting Management Practices
as a Predictor of Project Management Performance (N=59)......
98
Table 10. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Success Factor Index as a
............
99
Table 11. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Project Manager Business
Competency as a Predictor of Project Management Performance (N=59)..... 100
Table 12. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Project Manager Personal
Competency as a Predictor of Project Management Performance (N=59)....... 100
Table 13. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Project Manager Interpersonal
Competency as a Predictor of Project Management Performance (N=59)....... 101
Table 14.Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Project Manager Management
Competency as a Predictor of Project Management Performance (N=59)........102
Table 15. SEM CFA Results for Project Success Factors: Organization Design,
Performance Measurement Systems, Competent Project Manager, and
Supporting Management Practices as Indicators of Project Management
Performance
........
108
Table 16. Results from Structural Equation Modeling Confirmatory Factorial
Analysis Testing of the Project Success Factors Model (N59)...................... 109
Table 17. Univariate Normality for Project Management Performance Dependent
Variables and Project Success Factors Independent Variables that were
Significant Predictors of Project Management Performance (N=59) .....
Ill
Table 18. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Culture type of Power as a
Predictor of Project Management Performance (N=59)..... ..................
115
Table 19. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Culture type of Achievement as a
.......... . 116
ix
Table 20.Multiple Regression Results for Project Management Performance, by

Culture Type of Power and Project Success Index (N=59). Project Success Index
is Computed as the Average of the Four Project Success Factors: Organization
Design, Performance Measurement Systems, Competent Project Manager, and
...... .................... .
117
Supporting Management Practices
Table 21. Multiple Regression Results for Project Management Performance, by
Culture Type of Achievement and Project Success Index (N=59). Project
Success Index was Computed as the Average of the Four Project Success
Factors: Organization Design, Performance Measurement Systems, Competent
Project Manager, and Supporting Management Practices
.........118
Table 22. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Culture Enllvenment Index as a
.............. 121
Chapter 1: Introduction
Automotive racing is one of the fasting growing spectator sports (Economaki, 2002).
On race day, 75,000 fans sit in the stands and root for their favorite racing team.
Automotive racing teams have five key components that work together as one entity.
Each component plays a role in the development of a high-performance racecar
capable of competing against other racecars at accelerated speeds. A team manager
provides direction to each of the five racing team components: (a) a design team, (b)
an experienced driver, (c) a support crew, (d) team managers that share an interest in
racing, (e) sponsors, (f) fans; and (g) a small fleet of race cars.
Organizations compete against other organizations to be first in delivering products

and services to their marketplace. Organizations and automotive racing teams rely on
individual team members to perform worka series of tasks that contribute to the
delivery of their products to consumers. A key difference between these two
producers is that racing teams are comprised of specialistsindividuals that have
specific skills and competencies in the design of high-performance racing cars, while
organizations are comprised of generalists and specialists that have a broad range of
skills and knowledge required to deliver a variety of products and services.
Organizations have members that are leaders, engineers, graphic designers, and
support staffsaccountants, administrators, analysts, and human resource
managerswho employ management practices to develop a high-performance

system that competes against other organizations to win in their marketplace.
On race day, all five of the racing team components act as one system, each
component performing in concert with the others. Success of a racing team depends
on a high-performing racecar, a highly efficient support crew, an experienced driver,
and the allocation of resources from the managers to win. In life, racing teams do not
win every race. Racing fans go to every race because of the excitement of watching
the race team in action, the shared enthusiasm of the crowd in the stands, the loud
roar of the engines . The smell of the exhaust and tires as the cars start the first lap, the
sight of the brightly colored cars as they pass by the stands, and the taste of a cold
beer on a hot summer day all enhance the experience of seeing their team pull ahead
of the pack and sharing the anticipation of what team takes home the checkered flag.
At the end of the race, some fans are proud of the winning team, and others are
disappointed that their team did not win.
For organizations, race day equates to the introduction of a new product or service to
the marketplace. Racing is an everyday event in large organizations that produce a
variety o f products. Even so, there is time spent off the track planning and preparing
for each race. Similar to racing teams, organizations invest resourcespeople, time,
and moneyto analyze past races, to design new products, to solicit investors, and to
distribute a product to enthusiastic fans in many locations.
An understanding of how organizations deliver new products and services begins

with a study of the key componentsmanagement practices employedin the
delivery process. This study explores project management practices employed by IT
organizations in the delivery of information system products and services. A
technique that automotive racing teams use to learn about how a racecar design
contributes to the performance of the vehicle is termed a teardown. A teardown
approach entails the disassembly of a racecar into its many parts and subsystems. The
team then uses the knowledge gained from this teardown approach in the
development of a new car in hopes that the improved design leads to improved
performance. The teardown approach used in this research focuses on information
technology (IT) organizations that deliver IT-related products and services by
employing project management practices. Like high-performance racing teams, IT
organizations are comprised of specialists with expertise in technology, systems
engineering, and project management who work together to design and deliver a
winning performance on race day.
Interest in the study of different IT organizations stems from the researchers

experience as a project manager professional (PMP) who delivers information
technology services to the automotive and telecommunication industries. Project
managers need to apply skills and knowledge from multiple disciplineshuman
resources, engineering, and organization behaviorto be effective (Verma, 1995).
4
Since the 1950s and early 1960s, project management has developed into a legitimate
profession from its beginning in the US Government Department of Defense
(Satterthwaithe, 1993). Following the deregulation of governmental contracts, project
management moved from the public sector into the private sector, which led to the
founding of the Project Management Institute dedicated to the development and
promotion of the field (PMI, 2000). Professional memberships in the Project
Management Institute have grown to approximately 95,000 members worldwide, with
chapters in 125 different countries (PMI, 2002). PMI members are individuals
practicing and studying project management in different industrial areas, including
aerospace, automotive, business management, construction, engineering, financial
services, information technology, pharmaceuticals, and telecommunications (PMI,
2002). One of the largest areas of growth is in information technology, where as
many 1124 organizations worldwide have adopted project management practices as a
means to improve organization performance to reduce operating costs by increasing
the number of successful information technology projects (SEI, 2002).
However, a recent study conducted by the Standish Group International (2000) found
that organizations that employ project management practices improve their project
performance success rate. In fact, as many as 28% of information system projects
were successful, an increase from the 16% found successful in their 1994 study. Of
the 28% of projects that were successful, 97% had a project manager assigned, 58%
had a defined measurement system, and 46% used a project management
5
methodology (Standish Group International, 2000). However, further review of these
findings revealed little about how project managers, measurement systems, and a
methodology contributed to project success, which limits the applicability of these
findings to other organizations that are experiencing high rates of project failure.
To expand on the Standish Group International (2000) study of successful projects

and to learn more about how these factors relate to improved project performance,
this study begins with a literature review of past management practices to gain insight
into how these practice designs led to improved organization performance. An
investigation into past management practices is relevant to this study because, like
project management, past practices were seen as innovative approaches to improve
organization performance that focused on redesigning work processes. The
knowledge gained from the review of past practices aids in the development of an
organization design model that adopts project management for improving
organization performance and the odds of winning on race day. Chapter 2 presents the
results of this literature review.
Following the literature review, Chapter 3 documents the quantitative research

approach used to test and confirm the new success model. Data was collected using
four different measurement instruments and was analyzed using linear regression and
Structured Equation Confirmatory Factorial Analysis (SEM CFA) methods. Chapter 4
presents the findings from the data analysis. Chapter 5 discusses findings,
conclusions, and implications for professionals in Information Technology,

Organization Development, and Project Management
Chapter 2: Literature Review

This investigation begins with a literature review that spans the fields of Organization
Development, Software Engineering, and Project Management. Thus, this review
revisits Quality of Working Life (QWL), Total Quality Management (TQM),
Business Process Reengineering (BPR), and Software Engineering to gain knowledge
about how these past practice designs led to improved organization performance.
Organization Development historically has developed work design methods with a

main purpose of improving working relationships between management and
organized labor (French, Bell, & Zawacki, 2000). Over time, these work design
methods have evolved into formal management practices that organizations have
adopted to improve quality, reduce operating cost, and increase productivity as a
means to improve organization performance (French et al., 2000). For instance, in the
1950s, Eric Trisf s studies of autonomous work groupsself-managed teamsin the
British coal-mines formed the foundation for the sociotechnical systems design
method that blends both the social and technical structures of a systemself-standing
work placesbased on Levins system thinking principles (Fox, 1995). Later studies
of sociotechnical systems discovered that there was a need to develop new
organization structures and work processes to increase the skills of workers, while at
the same time improving communication between the workers and management to
achieve a high level of performance (Weisbord, 1987). This new method developed
into quality of working life (Weisbord, 1987). Throughout the years, other
7
management practices have evolved from earlier Organization Development studies

including: Total Quality Management (Shard & Mitki, 1996) and Business Process
Reengineering (Hammer & Champy, 1993).
Carburetors to Automatic Fuel Injectors

Looking back at the early the studies of Trist in the 1950s and past management
practices provides a new perspective from which to explore project management
practices employed by information technology organizations. Previous management
studies suggest that the move from one management fashion (Abrahamson, 1996) to
the next is a result of the limited improvements achieved by the adopting
organizationsperformance improving over the short term and then flattening out or
declining over time (Choi & Behling, 1997; Geisler, 1996). An example of this
movement from one fashion to another occurred in the early 1970s, when
manufacturing companies implemented Organization Development Quality of
Working Life programs to improve relations between management and labor based
on the earlier studies of group dynamics performed by members of the Tavistock
Institute (Weisbord, 1987).
Organization Development encompasses a variety of system design approaches based

on theories developed since the 1930s (French, Bell, & Zawacki, 2000). A look back
provides new perspectives on how past management practices were structured and
adopted in organizations. Studies conducted by Organization Development scholars
(behavioral scientists) provide a deeper insight into how organizations evolve.
9
Furthermore, a review of previous studies allows new perspectives to emerge that
benefit people involved in an active change process. They can reflect on what worked
in the past and apply the learning to future change initiatives rather than focus on the
present and keep the change momentum moving forward regardless of reoccuning
issues that arise from the current change initiative. For example, one may uncover
new factors that contribute to the success of a change program that can enable an
organization to sustain a high level of performance over time (French, Bell, &
Zawacki, 2000). Management practices reviewed in this study for benchmarking
Project Management practices include the following: (a) Quality of Work Life
(Weisbord, 1987), (b) Total Quality Management (Mohsen & Glenn, 1999), (c)
Business Process Reengineering (Hammer & Champy, 1993); and (d) System
Engineering (SEI, 2000).
Quality of Work Life

In the 1970s, Quality of Work Life programs sprang up from earlier studies of group
dynamics (Weisbord, 1987). Quality of Work Life is a tool for building collaborative,
secure working relations between management and organized labor (Weisbord,
1987). To achieve the benefits of a Quality of Work Life program, organizations
restructure using a sociotechnical system work design method (Pasmore, 1988;
Weisbord, 1987). A sociotechnical systems design approach identifies and integrates
the social (people) and technical (processes) structures of an organization to improve
performance. Previous studies have shown that the integration of social and technical
10
structures improves performance because the structures act as one system (Pasmore,
1988).
The contributing factors for Quality of Work Life programs are (a) leadership teams,
(b) acceptance by middle management; and (c) good communications between
management and labor (Weisbord, 1988). While relationships improved between
these two parties, American-based manufacturers faced tough competition with
products imported from Asia-Pacific markets because of poor product quality and
high labor rates in US manufacturing plant operations (Jusela, 2000). Manufacturing
needed to improve their quality while at the same time reduce operating costs to
survive (Jusela, 2000). American companies looked to the east to learn how their
competitors in the Asia-Pacific market managed to produce high-quality products at a
low cost, enabling them to recover large percentages of the US market (Jusela, 2000).
Even though relationships improved between these two parties, American-based

manufacturers were facing tough competition within their markets because newer
products imported from Asia-Pacific were low cost and of high quality than products
manufactured in the US Traditional structures of organizationsspecialized
resources working in separate departmentswere no longer viable, making
reorganization necessary for reducing labor costs, increasing throughput, improving
quality in the US manufacturing facilities, and regaining the lost market share (Jusela,
2000). Therefore, organizations moved towards Total Quality Management to
11
improve performance by restructuring organizations into teams that focused on
reducing material waste and operational costs (Cummings & Worley, 1993).
Total Quality Management

TQM began in the US following World War II, led by W. Edwards Deming and
Joseph M. Juran and their involvement with US-based companies (Cummings &
Worley, 1993). Total Quality Management was a management practice adopted by
many organizations to improve quality and customer satisfaction (Mohsen & Glenn,
1999). At the time, TQM was an innovative approach to improve organization
performance because it focused on the delivery of high-quality products and services
to a companys internal and external customers, wMle at the same time reducing
operating costs (Mohsen & Glenn, 1999). In fact by the late 1980s,
Congress established the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award to
recognize organizations in services and manufacturing for quality
achievement along seven dimensions: leadership, information and
analysis, strategic planning, human resource development and
management, process management, business results, and customer
focus and satisfaction. (Cummings & Worley, 1993, p. 324)
A key factor to the successful implementation of TQM programs related to the overall
organizational design of the system (Shani & Mitki, 1996). The approach used most
often in the design of TQM programs was also sociotechnical systems (Shani &
Mitki, 1996). Even though some companies achieved improved performance, by the
mid-1990s organizations began to move away from TQM. For instance, Choi and
Behlings study (1997) of 500 companies in both US manufacturing and services
firms found that the number of companies that deployed TQM declined from 86% in
12
1988 to 73% in 1991. A main reason cited for the decline was that only one-third of
the companies attributed TQM to their improved performance. In addition, Choi and
Behling (1997) discovered that firms began looking toward Business Process
Reengineering as a means to achieve business performance objectives. Compared to
the slow incremental changes obtained with TQM, reengineering accelerated the rate
of change (Choi & Behling, 1997).
Even though many companies turned to BPR, others continued to focus on their
quality management programs and have improved the quality and reliability of their
products by integrating a set of guiding principles from the International Standards
Organization (ISO, 2002). These new standards help organizations compete in the
global marketplace by defining common formats that facilitate trade, exchange, and
technology transfer through the following: (a) enhanced product quality and
reliability at a reasonable price; (b) reduced waste and improved health, safety, and
environmental protection; (c) greater compatibility and interoperability of goods and
services; (d) simplification for improved usability; (e) reduction in the number of
models and costs; and (f) increased distribution efficiency and ease of maintenance
(ISO, 2002).
Business Process Reengineering

In the 1990s, Business Process Reengineeringa new work redesign method
became a new management approach to accelerate change and to reduce the amount
of time it took organizations to achieve high levels of performance through increased
13
productivity and reduced operation costs (Hammer & Champy, 1993). With BPR,
organizations restructure their core business processes to deliver radical
improvements by automatingreplacing manual operations with computersto
dramatically increase organization efficiency and effectiveness (Hammer & Champy,
1993). An advantage reengineering initiatives had over quality improvement
programs was that BPR aimed at radical improvements through the introduction of IT
systems to dramatically increase organization efficiency and effectiveness (Poilalis,
1996). However, a review of seventy-nine BPR case studies found that the success
rate for BPR projects varied from 52.4% in service companies, to 45.9% in
manufacturing, to only 1.7% in government agencies (Yasar & Aspinwall, 1999). A
conclusion from that study related the low success rate of BPR initiatives to the
absence of the organizations social structures in design process:
A greater focus on working and learning at the expense of a
preoccupation with cost and time could increase the strategic impact
of many re-engineering applications. In general, human factors tended
to be overlooked, and there needs to be a greater concentration of
effort on improving employees' work environment and learning
processes. (Yasar & Aspinwall, 1999, p. 186)
Other studies have shown that reengineering projects failed because of unrealistic
expectations, undocumented goals, and the creation of overly optimistic attitudes
about forthcoming changes (Geisler, 1996). Geisler (1996) attributed the rate of failed
projects to reengineering experts that touted unrealistic expectations and to
insufficient background planning by many companies. This lack of planning led
companies to follow BPR transformation initiatives that were apt to fail because they
14
lacked clear direction on what was to be accomplished from the transformation efforts
and because no baseline was established to measure the success of the change process
(Geisler, 1996).
Hammer and Champy (1993), the founders of BPR, responded to these claims by
contending that radical change was not the most important factor for improving
organization performance. From their experience working with organizations, they
learned that the most important reengineering concept was process:
Weve changed our minds because even more fundamental in
reengineering than the idea of doing things differently is making ones
processes the heart of ones organization. The essence of our approach
is to manage businesses around processes. Sometimes they will require
radical redesign, and sometimes not. This shift of emphasis is not a
wholesale change in our thinking, but a refinement of our
understanding of what is most crucial to reengineering. (Hammer &
Champy, 1993, p. 219-220)
Their perspective still emphasizes the importance of process over the social aspects of
organizationsthe people who are key to the success of any change processas seen
in earlier quality management practices, QWL and TQM, which used sociotechnical
design concepts and principles (Pasmore, 1988). It did not take organizations long to
step back and refocus their efforts on their quality management programs that
produced results (Geisler, 1996). In fact, quality management programs continue to
evolve under the guidance of the International Standards Organization (ISO, 2002).
15
Top Performers
In summary, management practices, like racecars, go through a series of design
changes in an attempt to improve performance. Management practices adopted by
organizations aided in the evolutionary process of moving from one phase of
development to the next based on organizational needs at the time. Furthermore,
management practices such as Quality of Work Life, Total Quality Management, and
Business Process Reengineering became obsolete because improved performance
achieved in the short term was not sustainable over time. According to the research,
organizations moved from one practice to the next because they attempted to find the
right approachbe it improved quality, customer satisfaction, efficiency, or processcompetency levelsto meet their needs at a given time.
Comparisons of QWL to TQM programs reveal that each share a common purpose to
lead an organization through a change process to improve performance that is
sustainable over time (French, Bell, & Zawacki, 2000). We have learned that these
practices are systems designed from many parts and subsystems that work together to
improve performance (French, Bell, & Zawacki, 2000). We know now that a system
alone does not determine the level of performance achieved in an organization.
Improved performance is a result of interactions between the social and technical
design structures of a system and Its environment (Emery & Purser, 1996).
The changeover in management practices is seen in the decline of TQM programs.

With TQM programs, only limited technologies were made available to the
16
organization members, which consequently limited the ability of the quality teams to
perform the required analysis to determine where an organization needed to focus its
quality efforts (Shani & Mitki, 1996). These limitations led organizations to look
toward Business Process Reengineering practices that focused on new technology to
achieve radical improvements in a shortened timeframe (Hammer & Champy, 1993).
Organizations quickly adopted reengineering practices because of the expectation that
improvements were going to occur in less time than with previous management
practices. As organizations started to disassemble their processes and rebuild them,
they soon realized that the challenges they faced were not process related but people
related in that individuals in the organization needed to learn new ways of performing
(Yasar & Aspinwall, 1999). However, BPR did not address this social need in its
redesign method, and a large number of BPR initiatives failed (Hammer & Champy,
1993).
Organization Development design methods that integrate system design structures

with their environment are sociotechnical systems (Van Eijnatten, 1993) and open
systems theory (Emery, 1997). Three decades of studies of organizations that used
these work redesign methods demonstrate the benefits to performance of integrating
the social and technical structures of an organization (Emery, 1997; Van Eijnatten,
1993). In addition, other research studies have integrated the principles from these
two work design methods with other management practice frameworksan eclectic
approach to not only improve performance but also to assist organizations in the
17
transformation process required to adopt to new management practices (Sfaani &
Mitki, 1996). In light of these findings, it is important for this investigation to look for
patterns that exist between past and current Organization Development studies to
improve the adoption project management practices in IT organizations.
New Racing Circuits

Todays IT organizations continue to evolve to keep pace with the changes in
technologysemiconductor processors, telecommunication networks, and wireless
communications. As changes occur in the marketplace, IT organizations restructure to
align themselves with the new technologies while at the same time maintaining a high
level of customer satisfaction and organization performance (SEI, 2002). The trend of
moving from one management practice to the next is evident in IT organization that
are adopting new management practices to improve product quality, productivity,
performance, and customer satisfaction (SEI, 2002). For instance, a quality program
adopted by IT organizations to reengineer their internal software development
processes and to improve performance is the Software Engineering Institute
Capability Maturity Model (SEI CMM) framework (SEI, 2001).
Software Engineering
The Software Engineering Institute (SEI) is a federally funded research and
development center sponsored by the US Department of Defense through the Office
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and
administered by Carnegie Mellon University (SEI, 2001). The Software Engineering
Institute Capability Maturity Models assist organizations in the development of their
18
people and internal processes to improve organization performance (SEI, 2001). The
SEI CMM-I model is an integrated model that consists of different management
practices adopted at different stages. There are five stages, or levels, of maturity: (a)
initial, (b) repeatable, (c) defined, (d) managed, and (e) optimizing. To advance from
one level of the maturity model to the next, an organization needs to continuously
build a knowledge base (i.e., a shared understanding) around the different process
areas associated with each maturity level to obtain certification (Asbrand, 1998). For
Instance, to achieve Level-2 maturity, organizations need to be competent in six
business process areas-(a) requirements management, (b) project monitoring and
control, (c) supplier agreement management, (d) measurement and analysis, (e)
process and product quality assurance, and (f) configuration managementtracking
different versions of key project deliverables as part of their day-to-day operations.
As o f 2002, as many as 1124 IT organizations worldwide (645 US based and 479

offshore) are actively involved in SEI research and development programs (SEI,
2002). SEI developed a five-stage Capability Maturity Model (CMM) that outlines
how IT organizations progress linearly from one level of maturity to the next. For
instance, to move from one stage to the next, information technology organizations
are required to develop core competencies by implementing new work processes as
key ramblers to improve performance (SEI, 2002). To progress from Level 1 to Level
2 in the model, IT organizations must execute repeatable work processes across all
business units (SEI, 2002). To move from Level 2 to Level 3, an organization must
19
demonstrate a high level of performance (i.e., competency) in seven key process
areas: (a) requirements management, (b) project planning, (c) project monitoring and
control, (d) supplier agreement management, (e) measurement and analysis, (f)
process and product quality assurance, and (g) configuration management (SEI,
2002).
In 2002, SEI CMM assessed 1124 organizations worldwide (645 US based and 479
offshore) and found that of the 70.5 % commercial IT companies, 20.2% achieved
Level 1, 45.7% Level 2,19.2% Level 3, 6. 8% Level 4, and only 8.1% at Level 5. As
noted In the study, a majority of organizations achieved only Level-2 maturity, which
focuses on repeatable management processes. In addition, the study found that of the
45.7% of organizations at Level 2,47.4% are in the United States. These statistics
provide some insight into the growth of project management practices in IT
organizations based on the need for organizations to be competent in project
planning, monitoring, and control to achieve Level 2 certification (SEI, 2001). In
other words, the projects of the organization [studied] have ensured that [project]
requirements are managed and that processes are planned, performed, measured, and
controlled (SEI, 2002, p. 11). The requirement to manage projects successfully is
only one step toward improved performance. Based on a more recent study, many of
these organizations (65.9 %) are still working on implementing project management
practices to achieve Level 1 and Level 2 certification (SEI, 2002). These findings
further support the need for organizations to learn how to successfully adopt project
20
management practices to enable them to evolve to the next level of maturity and
achieve improved project success.
A closer look at the CMM framework reveals that the management process areas
outlined for each level of maturity are limited to technical design structures
processes that identify what work needs to be performed within the management
framework. There is no mention of the social structureshow people in the
organization are to perform the work needed to adapt a new management practiceas
seen in past management studies that used system design methods to improve
performance. Perhaps the limited number of organizations that have achieved higher
levels of maturity relates more to the framework design than to an organizations
inability to adapt to the new process areas. An investigation into how organizations
adopt project management may provide additional insight into this phenomenon.
Project Management
Project Management is grounded in work methods employed by the United States
Department of Defense to support their work with outside contractors due to the
privatization of many governmental contracts (Satterthwaithe, 1993; Yasar &
Aspinwall, 1999). As the government continued to deregulate and moved towards
more privatization, they mandated that outside contracting firms adopt project
management practice (Yasar & Aspinwall, 1999). This new mandate marks the
transition point when project management moved from the public sector into the
private sector and the founding of the Project Management Institute (PMI, 2000).
21
Project management has since developed into a management field and community of
practice. Since its early beginnings at the US Defense Department, the institute has
experienced a 20% growth from 2000 members in the 1970s to 95,000 members
worldwide (PMI, 2002). In addition to providing member services, the institute has
published a national standard for the practice of project management and has
developed a professional certification process for project managerspractitioners
that lead change initiatives using a forma! project management methodology (PMI,
2002). Members of the information technology subgroupspecial interest groups
segregated by industryhave experienced the largest growth in membership and
professional certification (PMI, 2002). This is not surprising considering that the
growth period occurred at the same time that firms began to invest in information
systems to automate and improve their business operations and performance, as
evident by the number of organizations that have adopted the SEI CMM quality
programs (SEI, 2002).
The Project Management Institute (PMI) is a professional organization dedicated to

the development and promotion of project management. PMI (2000) developed an
international standard for the profession of Project Management published as the
Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) (PMI, 2000):
PMFs premiere standards document, A Guide to the Project
Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), is a globally
recognized standard for managing projects in todays marketplace. The
PMBOK Guide is approved as an American National Standard
22
(ANS) by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). PMI is
committed to the continuous improvement and expansion of the
PMBOK Guide, as well as the development of additional standards.
(PMI, 2002)
The PMBOK Guides nine knowledge areas presented in Figure 1 are (a) Project
Integration Management, (b) Project Scope Management, (c) Project Time
Management, (d) Project Cost Management, (e) Project Quality Management, (f)
Project Human Resource Management, (g) Project Communication Management,
(fa) Project Risk Management; and (i) Project Procurement Management. The first
knowledge area begins at chapter 4 because the first three chapters of the PMBOK
Guide (PMI, 2000) introduce the guide, provide an overview of project management,
and discuss general project management processes.
23
-I. Project
^hinyiiiKme-nt
4.1 Project PtaUBseiupisient

4.2 Project Pftm B w utia*
4.3 integrated Change Control
- I V o lje c ! t uKf
5. Pri.ijetr Scope
Management
5.11
5.2 Scofs Phasing.
5.3: Scope Bsfiflitisa
5.4 Seope- Verifiatian
5.5 Scope Change Control
P ro ject Quality
Mannj;eK-0r
V(an:tfcraent
7.1 Resoun* Planning
8.1 Quality Planntng

8.2 Quality Assurance
8.3 Quality Control
7.3 <
7.4 Cost Control
6.1 Activity Definition

6.2 Activity Sequencing
6.3 Activity Duration Estimating
6.4 Schedule Development
6.5 Schedule Control
9: PnojectlluHian
R.eso 11n; t! V1a n a * sin t
9.1 Organbatiorsd Planning:
9.2 Staff Acquisition
9 3 Team Development
If).. F rfijtH .T C o r o m i m k ; * i i o o s
i\ j^na^-emem
10.! CotFrauiacaliora Planning
10.2 lafornatntDistfiMtiBBi
10 3 Perti3maefe|torti0g
10.4 Administrative Closure
11.1 Risk Management Pfenni mg

11 2 Risk HeafliSqatraa
11.3 Quafi&five Risk Analysis
11.4 Quantitive Risk Ana%sis
11 5 Risk Response Fiaaraug
11.6 Risk Monitoring and. Control
12 1 PnwurenjeM Manning
- 12 2 Solicitation. Planning
12.3 Solicitation
12:4 Souks Sekstian
12.5 Contract Adtnuriste^son
2.6 Contract Ctoseout
CWWHeKI NOTICE
Pw ject Managenjent fiisttote, A Guide to dm fra jeet Management Beefy o f Kkewfcdge (PMSOK Gtude)^ 20
Edition, Froject Management logti&fe, Ins., 2Q@0L. AM rights. ksovqcL
Source: Project Management Institute Publication Division (PMI, 2000). Reprinted here with
permission from the Project Management Institute.
Figure 1. The Nine Knowledge Areas of the Project Management Body of

Knowledge (PMBOK Guide)
24
This framework mirrors that of a sociotechnical system in that it encompasses both
social and technical design structures that lead to improved performance (Van
Eijnatten, 1993). The introduction to the guide discusses how the inputs of one
knowledge area get transformed into outputs of another knowledge area and how the
different knowledge areas work as one large system (PMI, 2002). Again, what we
have learned about sociotechnical systems is that the structures are just one aspect of
the system (Emery, 1996). What is most important to achieving a high level of
performance is how the different structures interrelate (Pasmore, 1988; Shani &
Mitki, 1996).
A study conducted by the Standish Group International (1999) investigated the

success of project management practices across small, medium, and large size IT
organizations. In their study, they found that the rate of successful projects had
increased from 16% in 1994 to 26% in the 1998 (Standish Group International, 1999).
However, based on what we have learned from past management practices; these
improvements may only be achievable in the short term, and organizations need to be
cautioned about accepting the claims that project management will lead to high levels
of performance sustainable over time. An organization can gain trust in their new
project management practice by applying learning from past managements systemic
approach to the design to a management system that integrated the social and
technical structures of an organization to improve performance.
25
Benchmarking
This study investigates information technology organizations that have adopted
project management practices to learn more about how these practices improve
organization performance. The knowledge gained from this review sets a benchmark
to study project management practices in IT organizations. This type of
benchmarking approachgathering knowledge and insightis similar to a
teardown approach taken by an automotive racing team, which entails
disassembling a car to learn how the cars designparts and subsystemscontribute
to a high level of performance.
While some studies view changes in management practices as an evolutionary

process of continuous improvement efforts, others view the trend as a constant
pursuit to find best practices that will lead to a high level of sustainable performance
(French, Bell, & Zawacki, 2000). In this study, management practices are systems
that consist of many parts and subsystems that work together to produce outputs
consumed by individuals both inside and outside of the system (Emery & Purser,
1996). The view adapted in this study is an open system perspective, which defines
a system by a set of principles that explains how a system behaves Inside of its
environment (Emery & Purser, 1996). A general principle that governs the behavior
of all systems defines the interdependence that exists between a system and its
environment:
A system can only be characterized if we characterize its environment
and, conversely, an environment can only be characterized by
26
characterizing the kinds of systems its supports. This requires
description of each set of transactions, transactions within the system,
between the systems and its environment, between the environment
and the systems, and in the environment itself. (Emery & Purser, 1996,
P- 75)
Information technology organizations are the racing teams under study in this
research. The choice to study IT organizations is based on the researchers working
experience as a Project Management Professional (PMP) in the IT industry and her
interest in understanding why some IT organizations have been successful at adopting
project management practices while others have failed. Information technology
organizations are similar to racing teams because the build systems comprised many
parts and subsystems that work together to achieve a high level of performance. In
racing, it is the high performance racecar. In IT organizations, it is new management
information systems. Information technology organizations rely on their abilities to
integrate the individual parts and subsystems to develop new products and deliver
outstanding customer service to win. This research begins with a look back at
previous management practices and their design principles to uncover the many
different parts and subsystems that contribute to high performanceIT system
project success.
In this study, lessons from past management practices provide a guide to explore how
the design of a project management system employed by IT organizations contributes
to improved performance. This exploration will provide insight and knowledge about
project management practices that will aid organizations in the achievement of their
27
business objectives, as a way to prevent project management from becoming another
passe management fashion (Abrahamson, 1996).
Teartfown
When you lift up the hood of a racing stock, car the first thing that catches your eye is
the Corvette 5.7 liter V8 engine that produces 800 horsepower and accelerates from
zero to sixty in less than four seconds. Under the hood of a project management
system is a variety of project success factorsactions that contribute to successful
project outcomes such as on-time and on-budget completion and compliance with the
stated business requirements of an organization that are associated with different
project management practices. For instance, many project management systems
designs consist of the nine knowledge areas of the Project Management Body of
Knowledge Guide (PMI, 2000), while others are limited to just a few of the
knowledge areas. To better understand what differences exist between project
management systems employed within information technology organizations, this
study takes a research approach that focuses on how different project management
systems contribute to varying project performance levels. This new approach begins
with the development of a theoretical model that represents project management
systems in IT organizations and is based on sociotechnical systems design principles
(Pasmore, 1988).
Engineering and Design

Past management practices reviewed in this study indicate that past practices are
similar in their design approach. For instance, Total Quality Management adopted
28
sociotechnical systems design methods from previous quality programs and combined
them with open system theory (Emery, 1997) to develop an organizational change
model that integrates the social and technical structures of a sociotechnical system
with its environment that exists outside of the systems internal boundaries
(Weisbord, 1987). This type of integrated approach differs from the approach taken
by organizations that adopted Business Process Reengineering (Hammer & Champy,
1993) and Software Engineering (SEI, 2002) in that these two methods focused only
on the technologies needed to advance instead of on integrating the technical and
social structures which we have seen lead to improvements in performance. For
instance, SEI CMM-I introduces at each level of maturity a new business process and
the steps to be followed. Although the tasks within the different steps define the work
to be accomplished, there is no mention of how people in the organization need to be
aligned to complete the management process steps (SEI, 2002).
Shani and Mitki (1996) identified a similar shortcoming in their study of

organizations that adopted TQM and BPR practices. Findings from their study lead to
the development of a new design approach that integrates multiple work design
methods forming an eclectic model. Shani and Mitki (1996) found that
organizations should take an eclectic design approach to the implementation of new
management practices. This approach should blend together design concepts from
Business Process Reengineering, Total Quality Management, and Sociotechnical
Systems (Shani & Mitki, 1996). This type of eclectic design approach leverages the
29
benefits of Total Quality Managements continuous improvement, Business Process
Reengineerings focus on business process redesign and elimination of redundant
work, and sociotechnical systems concepts that emphasize humanistic values to
improve performance (Shani & Mitki, 1996).
Development of a new theoretical model based on past management practice design

methods enables the researcher to view the adoption of project management practices
from a system perspective. In this research a system is a
... a set of entities that are interdependent with respect to the principle
governing the set, that is, the system principle. The system principle is
not sui generis to the set but defines a special relation of
interdependence between the set and its environment. (Emery &
Purser, 1996, p. 76)
The development of a theoretical model may help explain why some organizations
succeed while others fail in the adoption process, because a system perspective
provides a view into how the different success factors identified in this literature
review relate to improved performance. The design methods used in this study to
develop a model of a project management system are sociotechnical systems
(Pasmore, 1988) and open system theory (Emery, 1997). Sociotechnical systems
concepts and principles are used to design a project management framework based on
Pasmores (1988) recommendation:
Whenever there are people, working together in a system with
technology, in an environment that provides resources that the system
needs, there is the possibility of adapting sociotechnical systems
30
thinking to help improve system effectiveness. (Pasmore, 1988, p.
155)
A sociotechnical systems advantages include (a) promoting innovation, (b)

developing human resources, (c) heightening the awareness of external environmental
factors that influence performance, (d) maximizing cooperative effort, (e) developing
commitment and energy, and (f) utilizing social and technical resources effectively
(Pasmore, 1988). For project management systems, a sociotechnical systems design
enables an IT organization to achieve the same advantages by tailoring its practices to
meet its objectives.
From an open system theorists perspective, organizations are groupings of systems

that reside inside a social environment ruled by a set of laws that govern interactions
between the systems and the environment (Emery, 1997; Hatch, 2000). Open system
theory (Emery, 1997) design concepts aid in the development of an organizational
model representing IT organizations that employ project management systems. The
importance of these system laws is that they govern how changes in either the outer
environment or internal system structures must align to obtain a consistent state of
affairs within an organization (Emery, 1997). Emery (1997) defines the effect of
changes in either the environment or the systems as interactions that are either
adaptive or maladaptive relationships, depending on how the interactions align with
the main purpose of the organization. Adaptive relations are changes that work
towards a shared outcome; maladaptive relations cause unexpected outcomes to occur
31
(Emery, 1997). This research focuses on project performance brought about by the
relationships between the internal system design structures of a project management
system and the organization culture that represents one element of the external
organizational environment.
In general, sociotechnical systems and open system theory design approaches are
similar in nature. Both approaches focus on the development of social and technical
structures of a given system, which determines the level of organizational
effectiveness and performance based on three organization theories: contingency,
resource dependency, and population ecology. The contingency theory considers
what practices and social and technical structures organizations have adopted in the
design of their project management system. Resource dependency provides insight
into how systems perform inside their environment. Population ecology aids in
examining a systems life expectancy (Hatch, 2000).
The two methods differ in how they define the social structures of a given system. For
instance, a traditional sociotechnical systems method defines an organizations
culture as a social structure that exist within internal system boundaries. Open system
theory views culture as structure that exists within the external environment and feeds
inputs into the internal systems structures (Pasmore, 1998). These different views of
culture derive from a modernistic understanding of open systems that sees
organizations as living organisms whose survival depends upon resources outside the
32
system. Consequently, systems must adapt to changes in the environment to be
effective (Hatch, 2000). In contrast, sociotechnical systems theorists view
organizations as being mechanistic in that they rely on specialized elements to work
together internally to achieve a high level of performance. Culture is just one of the
many social structures that exist at the system level (Hatch, 2000). This study
explores organization culture as an environmental element that is external to the
project management systems based on open system theory. It investigates how
individualssponsors that work outside of the systemaffect project performance
independent of the project management system employed to leam how organizations
as a whole affect project success.
A Systemic View of Racing

In this study the design of a project management system includes the social and
technical structures defined from a modernist perspective across three dimensions of
complexity, centralization, and formalization (Taylor & Felten, 1993). Whereas
complexity represents the type of technologies adopted by an organization,
centralization represents an organization environment. Formalization of the system is
defined by an individuals perception of how technologies in the organization
contribute to performance. Like a high-performance racing team, project success
relies on many factors. Sociotechnical systems design methods aid in the
identification of the factors that define the social and technical structures of a system
(Taylor & Felten, 1993).
33
Racing Teams
Social structures of a project management system identified in this literature review
include the individual organization members who perform project-related work
within the project management system. Traditional sociotechnical systems design
methods define social structures as autonomous work groups that are characterized by
the absence of a formal leader, with team members determining what and how work
is performed within the group (Pasmore, 1988). From a modernist perspective, social
structures of a system include people in the organization; their attributes, such as
skills and competencies; and relationships that exist between the various groups in an
organization (Van Amelsvoort, 2000). In this study, Table 1 lists the social structures
identified as project success factors. Included are social structures that exist at both
the micro and macro levels of an organization. Micro-social structures comprise
project managers skills and competencies, and macro-social structures are project
teams. These micro- and macro-level design components are comparable to a racing
teams experienced driver and support crew.
An Experienced Driver
Micro-social structures that contribute to project success are individual project
manager skills and competencies that distinguish one type of project manager from
another, as shown in Table 1. Previous studies have shown that project performance
relates to project managers skills and experience (Bander, 1986; Bloom, 1989;
Brousseau, 1987; Jiang, Klein, & Mergulis, 1998; Johnson & Fredian, 1986; Koehler,
1987; Melymuka, 2000; Pinto & Slevin, 1988; Rosenbaum, 1990; Shenhar, 1994;
Steen, 1998; Vemaa, 1997; Zimmerer & Yasin, 1998). For instance, PMI (2000) has
34
recognized that project managers require general management skills such as
administration and financial management, along with the general Project
Management skillsnine knowledge areasto be effective at managing projects.
Additionally, the Standish Group International (1999) believes that bringing an
experienced project manager on board increases a project success rate to as high as
65%.
Dinsmore (2000) add marketing as a key skill for project managers because they need
to sell their ideas to other members outside of the project system. Some studies refer
to a different combination of these management skills, as shown in Table 1, to ensure
that a project remains on time and within budget (Bander, 1986; Melymuka, 2000;
Pinto & Slevin, 1988; Rosenbaum, 1990; Zimmerer & Yasin, 1998). Other studies
identify behavioral characteristicsmotivating, team building, negotiating,
communicating, and othersdemonstrated by successful project managers who built
highly effective project teams (Jiang, Klein, & Mergulis, 1998; Verma, 1997).
Subject area competenciesactions taken by project managers to keep a project on
the right trackinclude planning; managing tasks; leading project teams; interfacing
with the users in the organization; and demonstrating general knowledge of
information technology, business, and human behavior (Bloom, 1989; Brousseau,
1987; Johnson & Fredian, 1986; Koehler, 1987). Further, studies show that varying
the level of breadth and depth of different project manager skills affects performances
35
(Sfaenar, 2001). These differences in performance lead Sfaenar (2001) to develop a
project typology that defines project manager skills by project type:
Leaders (project managers) of high-tech or super high-tech projects
must poses exceptional technical skills, as well as the capability to
assess potential value and risk in new, or not yet developed
technology. Similarly, while assembly projects do not require
extensive managerial skills, managers of system efforts need a wealth
of administrative and organizational capabilities, (p. 412)
An experienced project manager has developed skills and competencies across

multiple disciplinesincluding IT and managementand has many years of
experience leading projects (Sfaenar, 2001; Verma, 1997).
36
Table 1. Social Structures of a Project Management System Presented by

Individual Success Factor and Contributing Author
Structure
Micro
social
Macrosocial
Success Factors
Authors
Project manager skills and competencies:

Leadership behavioral characteristics and
attributes: motivating, team building,
negotiating, communication, and others
Bander, 1986; Jiang, Klein,

& Mergulis, 1998;
Melymuka, 2000; Pinto &
Slevin, 1988; Rosenbaum,
1990; Verna, 1997;
Zimmerer & Yasin, 1998
Subject areas: planning, managing tasks,

leading project teams, interfacing with the
users in the organization, and general
information about technology, business,
and human behavior
Bloom, 1989; Brousseau,

1987; Johnson & Fredian,
1986; Koehler, 1987;
Shenhar, 1994; Steen, 1998
Organizational structures at the project

level:
Matrixed and projectized
Cross-functional team participants:

business client, senior management,
information technology developers, and a
skilled project manager
Collaborative (participative) work

environment
Shenhar, 2001; PMI, 2000;

Wysocki, Beck, & Crane,
2000
Cash & Fox, 1992; Christian,
1993; Gondert, 1996; Jiang,
Kliens, & Means, 2000;
Kaplan, 1998; Kloppenborg
& Plath, 1991; Lewis, 2000;
Grlikowski & Robey, 1991;
Pannar, 1987; Pinto &
Slevin, 1998; Rosenbaum,
1990; Schultz, 1996; Steen,
1998
Herzog, 2001; Standish, 2000
37
Team Members
The macro-social dimension of project success shown in Table 1 represents team
structures that are responsible for effectively managing project resources required to
complete the defined project tasks. PMI (2000) has recognized two types of project
structures: matrixed structures, in which organization members are assigned to
projects from many departments on a temporary basis, and projectized structures, in
which organizations members are not assigned to a functional area but are rotated
from one project to the next. Matrixed structures offered a few advantages: the ability
to leverage expertise from different functional areas to strengthen a teams knowledge
base as defined by the project objectives, and high team morale and performance
(Wysocki, Beck, & Crane, 2000). Verma (1995) notes two advantages of a
projectized structure: resources are assigned to projects based on their skills and
competenciessimilar to those identified for project managersso that teams do not
have to rely on resources from the outside environment, and self-managed project
teams similar to autonomous work groups develop.
In addition to projects, matrixed organization structures have been found to be

effective in reengineering projects, for which a high level of business expertise is
needed to develop new core business practices and IT systems act as key enablers in
improving organizational performance and effectiveness (Jiang, Kliens, & Means,
2000; Kaplan, 1998; Kloppenborg & Plath, 1991; Parmar, 1987; Pinto & Slevin,
1998; Schultz, 1996). Other studies of matrixed structures define project teams as
38
being cross-functional because they are comprised of members from specific areas in
the organization. For instance, a cross-functional team includes one or more of the
following members: (a) a business clientwith expertise in the functional area
impacted by the project, (b) a senior managerto act as executive sponsor/champion,
because of their influence and level of authority in the organization (Barker, 1999;
Benjaminsen, 2000; Cash & Fox, 1992; Devaney, 1991; Johnson & Fredian, 1986;
Pinto & Slevin, 1987,1988,1989; Rosenbaum, 1990), (c) an IT expert (Kaplan,
1998); and (d) a skilled project manager with experience leading IT projects (Cash &
Fox, 1992; Christian, 1993; Gondert, 1996; Lewis, 2000; Pinto & Slevin, 1987, 1988,
1989). Another important factor for success follows the formation of a team: the
development of communication networks that enable positive behaviors among team
members that promote a collaborative work environment where adaptive relationships
axe based on trust The team members work together to attain the project goals and
objectives; otherwise, project teams may fail (Herzog, 2001).
The value that a project team brings to a project is their ability to design a project
schedule that enables the team to complete project tasks on time and on budget by
building a dynamic team structure that brings together expertise across an
organization with a clear focus on the main objective: to win the race against time. An
innovative design team brings this same value to a racing team with its ability to
design a racecar that outperforms other cars on the track of success.
39
Race Car Components and S u bsystem s

Technical structures of a project management system define how organization
members perform work to achieve a desired outcome. In this study, technologies are
defined as activities or processes employed by IT professionals. Furthermore, there
are two types of technology: core technologiescontinuous processes where project
tasks are sequential in natureand long-linked technologieslinear transformation
processes (i.e., a task begins after the previous task is completed) (Hatch, 2000;
Thompson, 1967). The term intensive describes these two types of technologies
that require a high amount of communication to coordinate individual system tasks,
making the overall system effective at processing inputs and outputs (Thompson,
1967). Furthermore, contingency theory implies that the type of technologies that
exist in an organization determines the type of social structures that exist
Technologies define how work is accomplished, which establishes the lines of
communication needed to complete the tasks (Hatch, 2000). Table 2 presents the
technical structures identified in this study as project success factors. These two
technology dimensions represent the many parts and subsystems of a racecar and the
overall performance of the racing team. They include a measurement system used to
evaluate project performance at the micro-technical level and other management
processes that support IT projects at the macro-technical level.
40
Table 2. Technical Structures of a Project Management System by Individual
Success Factor and Contributing Author
Structure
Microtechnical
Success Factors
Authors
Performance measurement systems

individual metrics used to monitor
organization performance
Time, Cost and Quality (information
technology System performancetesting,
operations)
Abba, 1997; Fleming &

Hoppelman, 1996; PMI,
2000; Seddon, 1997; SEI,
2001; Somers, 1999;
Wateridge, 1998
Business objectives: goal setting
Ami, 2000; Baccarini,

1999; Buchok, 2000;
Freeman & Beale, 1991;
Lidow, 1999; Naden,
2000; Stewart, 2001;
Shenhar, Levy, & Dvir,
1997; Wateridge, 1998
Team Performance
Liu & Walker, 1998;

Lynn & Reilly, 2000
Financial Performance: present value

(NPV), discounted cash flow (DCF)
Hanley, 1992; Gardiner

& Stewart, 2000;
Freeman & Beale, 1991
User Satisfaction
Wateridge, 1998
Table 2 continues
41
Structure
Macrotechnical
Success Factors
Authors
Supporting management practices: grouping

of structured business processes or
frameworks
General project management processes used
to plan, control, and execute a project
Fabris, 1997; Hauschildt,

Keim, & Medcof, 2000;
Jacobs, 1997; Jiang &
Klein, 2000; Naden,
2000; Nicholas, 1989;
Pinto & Slevin, 1989;
PMI, 2000; Somers, 1999
SEICMM Process areas
Asbrand, 1998; SEI, 2002
Configuration management of deliverables
Wateridge, 1999
Software development frameworks to

manage activities related to information
technology application (system)
development
Bates, 1986; Kirksey,

1990; Parmar, 1987
Strategic management processes to establish

prioritization of information technology
projects
Adler & Shenhar, 1990;

Somers, 1999
Vendor Management: manage activities

performed by outside information
technology service providers
Chaudhuri & Hardy,

2001
Performance Monitoring
The micro-technical dimension success factors relate to the establishment of a
performance measurement system comprised of discrete metrics used to monitor
project performance. Project measurement systems used in IT projects include
metrics that monitored project time (duration and amount of effort), and cost (budget
variances), and Earned-Value Analysis methods (cost and time variances) (Abba,
1997; Fleming & Hoppelman, 1996). Other metrics measure and track team
performance in meeting business requirements and organization objectives. For
42
instance, the designs of logical framework systems focus on the business objectives
of an organization (Baccarini, 1999). Project measurement systems that monitor and
track financial performance include metrics for calculating return on investment
(Hanley, 1992), net present value (Gardiner Sc Stewart, 2000), and discounted cash
flow (Freeman & Beale, 1991). While other systems track performance by project
milestones (Somers, 1999), some measurement systems combine metrics from
multiple sources (i.e., goal-oriented, dashboard, duck alignment, balanced scorecard)
or use a four-dimensional model (Ami, 2000; Buchok, 2000; Freeman & Beale, 1991;
Lidow, 1999; Naden, 2000; Shenhar, Levy, & Dvir, 1997; Stewart, 2001) to evaluate
success. Additional performance metrics measure project size by time and budget;
others determine size by number of project team members (Standish, 2000), by levels
of team performance (Liu & Walker, 1998; Lynn & Reilly, 2000), or by process
compliance in accordance with the System Engineering Institute Capability Maturity
Model (SEI, 2001).
Information about individual projects is critical to project success because it provides

input into the project team and project manager relative to how the project and the
organization are performing. This information enables the project team members to
react quickly to changes at the project or organization level that have the potential of
affecting project success. In addition, some measurement system designs predict
future performance (e.g., earned value), which enables project members to be more
proactive and make changes at the project level prior to missing deadlines or running
43
over budget. Project performance monitoring and tracking are equivalent to the
constant communication that occurs between the team manager, support crew, and
driver on race day.
Parts and Subsystems
The macro-technical dimension of project success refers to the supporting
management practicesa grouping of structured business processes or frameworks
employed within organizations to support project related work.
The Standish Group International study (2000) includes a project management

methodology as a supporting practice and key success factor. Other studies have
noted general project management processes as factors: (a) human resource
management, (b) risk management, (c) planning, (d) scheduling, (e) monitoring, (f)
control, (g) budgeting, (h) initiating, (i) executing, and (j) closing (Fabris, 1997;
Hauschildt, Keim, & Medcof, 2000; Jiang & Klein, 2000; Jacobs, 1997; Naden, 2000;
Nicholas, 1989; Pinto & Slevin, 1989; PMI, 2000; Somers, 1999). Management
practices not in the PMBOK Guide (PMI, 2000) are identified as success factors
related to an information systems product lifecyclemanagement of an IT product
from birth to death. These lifecycle activities include management of the software and
hardware components, as well as documentation generated to support the projectrelated activities, product use, and training. These specific activities are (a)
configuration management processes to manage different versions of project
deliverables (Wateridge, 1998,1999,2000), (b) software development frameworks to
44
manage software application development activities (Bates, 1986; Kirksey, 1990;

Parmar, 1987; Seddon, 1997), (c) strategic management practices that determined the
prioritization of projects based on a set of predefined criteria (Adler, 1990; Somers,
1999); and (d) vendor management used to manage work that is performed by outside
contractors (Chaudhuri & Hardy, 2001).
Sociotechnicai systems designs are built from technologies that are interrelated, based
on the system principle that states that an output from one process area becomes input
into another process area. How the process areas work together to transform inputs
into outputs determines the level of performance of a system (Emery, 1997).
However, the practices identified in this literature review are independent of each
other, with no reference to supporting management practices that integrate the social
structures of a system. For example, the SEI CMMI framework guides an
organization in the implementation of new technologies throughout the different
levels of maturity. Not until Level 3 do organizations begin to integrate peopleoriented practices (SEI, 2001). This condition is also evident in the large percentage
of organizations performing at Levels 1 and 2 and in the small percentage of
successful IT projects (SEI, 2001).
Aerodynamics
Project success factors identified in this research varied from case study to case study.
For example, one organization identified participation, communication, and system
development process as parts of their successful practice (Nicholas, 1989) while
45
another study highlighted advanced planning, scheduling, technology, and metrics as
keys to their success (Naden, 2000). Furthermore, project success factors are discrete
events that occur during different phases of a project lifecycle (Pinto & Slevin, 1989).
These differing views of project success factors may help explain why some
organizations are successful and others fail. Contingency theorists found that the most
effective way to organize is contingent upon conditions of complexity and change in
the environment (Hatch, 2000, p. 77), and that organizations are different enough by
nature so that it is unrealistic to expect management practices in one organization to
mirror those in another. Moreover, studies of past management practices illustrate the
need to design a management system that integrates the social and technical structures
o f the systemreflecting the people and processes employedso that the structures
work together to achieve a desired outcome (Cummings & Worley, 1993; Emery &
Purser, 1996; French & Bell, 1999; Taylor & Felten, 1993).
46
For example, Total Quality Management programs were implemented using
sociotechnical systems design approaches that included the social and technical
structures required to improve organization performance. Such structures included
quality circlesteams of organization members with specialized skillsstatistical
process control, and work processes aimed at reducing product defects and improving
throughput (Cummings & Worley, 1993; Emery & Purser, 1996; French & Bell,
1999; Taylor & Felten, 1993; Van Eijnatten, 1993). Past studies also indicate that the
design of a system affects performance by altering the established relationships
between the social and technical structures of a system (Emery, 1997). For instance,
studies found that in organizations that changed only their technical structures
implemented new work processespersonnel were confused about what was
expected of them, which led to low levels of performance (Taylor & Felten, 1993).
Similarly, organizations that used open system theory designs methods had mixed
results because of the type of social and technical structures that were inherent in the
system design and the interrelatedness of the structures, which limited the
organizations inability to adapt to new management practices (Emery & Purser,
1996; French et a!., 2000; Van Amelsvoot, 2000).
Organization members must not underplay the importance of integrating the social
and technical structures of a system, as noted in a study by Al-Mushayt, Doherty, and
King (2001) that investigated how managers treated human, organizational,
economic, and technical issues after the implementation of a new system
47
development process. Findings from their study showed that the design of new
system development process changed how mangers addressed issues because of
differing levels of adaptabilitysome workers changed the way they performed their
work based on the new process while others did not change (Al-Mushayt et aL, 2001).
These differences in adaptability manifested into heightened levels of complexity,
uncertainty, and interdependence to resolve routine issues because of the demand for
more coordination between managers, necessitating changes in the system social
structures (Al-Mushayt et al., 2001). As a result, managers resolved business strategy
issues unrelated to the new process, instead of the human, organizational, economic,
and technical issues associated with the implementation of the new development
processissues key to the success of the new process (Al-Mushayt et al., 2001).
These findings further emphasize the need to take a systematic approach to the
adoption of new management practices.
This literature review revealed that project success relates the social and technical
structures of a project management systemproject managers, teams, performance
measurement systems, and supporting management practicesas shown in Table 3.
From a sociotechnical systems analysis perspective (Taylor & Felten, 1993), the
project management system social structures are individual organization members
who perform project-related workwhether as project managers or project team
membersand the technical structures are the performance measurement systems
48
and supporting business processes employed by project members to transform project
requirements into IT products and services.
Table 3. Social and Technical Structures of a Project Management

System for IT Organizations
Structure
Level
Micro
Macro
Social
Project manager skills and

competencies
Organizational structures
at the project level
Technical
Performance measurement
systems
Supporting management
practices
Exploration in this study began with a look at past management practices to uncover
how the designs of these management practices contributed to improved performance.
Knowledge gained from that review was that management practices are systems
comprised of social and technical structures that work together to improve
performance. Based on this new knowledge a review of project management practices
was undertaken to identify the social and technical structures a project management
systems employed by IT organizations to learn how to design a project management
system that would lead to improved performance. A result of this exploration is a new
project management system model that includes the social structures of project
managers and teams and the technical structures of performance measurement
systems and supporting management practices.
49
Racing Enthusiasts
Racing enthusiast are fans and sponsors that love the sport of racing. Racing fans help
support a racing team by attending racing events and buying sports memorabilia.
Sponsors invest in racing teams by providing funds to the team used to maintain the
crew, design team, manager, drivers, and fleet of vehicles. The team sponsors are
evident in the visible markings, or advertisements, on the exterior of the car. In
organizations, sponsors are organization members who actively support projectrelated work by allocating resources. They assign people to projects and remove
barriers that are potential risks to keep projects on schedule and on budget Unlike
racing sponsors, project sponsors have limited visibility because their actions occur
outside of the project; however, without their additional support, projects would fail
(Graham & Englund, 1997).
The study of past management practices revealed that systems reside inside an
organization environmentan open system theoryperspectivewhich plays a role in
the successful adoption of new management practices (Emery, 1997). Furthermore,
organizational ecology theorists view the adoption of a new management as an
evolutionary process:
Organizational evolution begins with the appearance of a new form,
the product of entrepreneurial thought, and ends with the extinction of
the last members of the population that imitation creates around the
founding member. It makes sense to speak of organizational founding
and failure, together with selection, adaptation, learning, populations,
and communities. (Singh & Lumsden, 1990, p. 191)
50
Organizational ecology (Hannan & Freeman, 1989) relates to the adoption of new
management systems because people organizations need to leara new roles and new
ways of socializing within their environment, which takes time. At the same time, the
new system competes with older structures that are highly favored because people are
comfortable with the old ways of performing work, and this type of behavior
increases the liability of new system (i.e., liability of newness theory) (Singh &
Lumsden, 1990). As a result, newer organizations have high mortality rates (Singh &
Lumsden, 1990). Because studies have shown that morality rates decrease as the
system ages, organizations adopting new management practices must consider the
time it takes for the new system to mature (Singh & Lumsden, 1990). For
organizations to adopt project management successfully, they must consider the time
they are willing to invest to complete the transformation from the old systems to the
new and how the different communities inside the organization will transition (Singh
& Lumsden, 1990).
To study the effect that managers and organization members have on the adoption of
a new management practice, one needs to explore how individuals inside and outside
of the system boundaries interact with the new system (Singh & Lumsden, 1990). In
this study, people inside the project management system are project managers and
team members, and people outside of the system are part of the organization
environment. Organization environment consists of seven different sectorscultural,
social, political, legal, economic, physical, and technologicalthat influence how a
51
system performs (Hatch, 2000). To study how different organization environments
influence the adoption of project management, this research investigates different
organization culture types, which represent management ideologies that define an
organization's cultural environment (Harrison, 1995). A modernist perspective,
organization culture represents the assumptions and individual values of organization
members that act as a catalyst to bring about changes needed to adopt new
management systems (Hatch, 2000). Modem sociotechnical systems theory (Van
Ameisvoort, 2000), like open system theory, views culture as a macro-social structure
that sets limits on what organization design structures are employed by organization
members because of the interdependency between the social and technical structure
of a system (Emery, 1997; Pasmore, 1988).
Systems have boundaries that protect them from environmental elements. In this
study, organization culture represents the environment that surrounds a project
management system. A definition of culture is
What gives man his identify no matter where he is bomis his
culture, the total communication framework: words, actions, postures,
gestures, tones of voice, facial expressions, the way we handle time,
space, and materials, and the way he works, plays, makes love, and
defends himself. (Hall, 1989, p. 42)
Another view of culture is that it resides in ones subconscious formed from past
personal experiences, from ones upbringing, education system, language,
environment, previous actions, and personal memories.
52
As individuals come into contact with organizations, they come into
contact with dress norms, stories people tell about what goes on, the
organizations formal rules and procedures, information technologys
informal codes of behavior, rituals, tasks, pay systems, jargon, and
jokes only understood by insiders, and so on. These elements are some
of the manifestations of organizational cultures. When cultural
members interpret the meanings of these manifestations, their
perceptions, memories, beliefs, experiences, and values will vary, so
interpretations will differeven of the same phenomenon. The
patterns or configurations of these interpretations, and the ways they
are enacted, constitute culture. (Martin, 1992, p. 3)
Schein (1996) expanded the definition of culture by recognizing multiple subcultures

that exist in an organization culture. Subcultures derive from individual experiences,
educational backgrounds, and an individuals occupational community (e.g., project
management).
Culture manifest itself at three levels: the level of deep tacit
assumptions that are the essence of the culture, the level of espoused
values that often reflect what a group wishes ideally to be and the way
information technology wants to present itself publicly, and the day-today behavior that represents a complex compromise among the
espoused values, the deeper assumptions, and the immediate
requirements of the situation, (p. 11)
Baba, Falkenburg, and Hill (1996) conducted a case study that evaluated the level of
influence that different cultures had on process redesign projects that encompassed a
new IT system. Their study found that (Baba et al., 1996) that culture had an affect on
how work groups performed because of the new technologies required to form new
communications methods. These new methods did not transfer well across cultural
boundaries and thus reduced organization effectiveness. The study concluded that to
53
adopt new technology effectively organizations must adapt their culture to support the
changes in technology (Baba et al., 19%).
Another study conducted by Cameron and Barnett (2000) of the adoption of quality
management systems found that relationships exist between an organization culture,
the process that was adopted, and organization performance. At the time of the study,
limited research had been done on the development of a quality culture as a
dimension of an organization culture. As a result, Cameron and Barnett (2000)
developed a quality culture model that consists of three stages of development to
evaluate how different quality culture types relate to organization effectiveness and
performance. The three quality culture types identified in the study were
differentiated by the processes and procedures employed in an organization (Cameron
& Barnett, 2000). Key findings from their study of the quality culture types and the
effect on organization performance levels resulted from differences that existed
between the three quality cultures (Cameron & Barnett, 2000). These differences
included rewarding and involving employees in the quality efforts and gathering and
sharing quality data across the organization (Cameron & Barnett, 2000). A conclusion
of the study was that organizations need to balance the tensions of preserving control,
on the one hand, and fostering originality, on the other hand, to achieve high levels of
effectiveness and improvement in quality performance (Cameron & Barnett, 2000).
54
Graham and Englund (1997) designed a project management system that is similar to
Taylor and Feltens (1993) view of sociotechnical systems. The design of a system
starts with the technical structures, which in turn determine the social structures of a
system; thus, the technical structures define project work. Graham and Englund
(1997) contend that there is more to developing a project culture than simply
following their ten-step process. They caution that success relies on the system
processes and people behaviors in the organization:
The processes we were assembling will not stay together without glue,
and the glue has two vital ingredients: authenticity and integrity.
Authenticity means that upper managers really mean what they say.
Integrity means that they really do what they say they will do, and for
reasons they stated to begin with.. .authenticity and integrity link the
head and the heart, the words and the action; they separate belief from
disbelief, and often make the difference between success and failure.
(Graham & Englund, 1997, p. 4)
In another study of culture, Andersen (2001) explored differences that existed

between cultures of 41 IT projects and compared micro-level cultures that exist at the
project level to macro-level cultures that exist in an organization. In his study,
Andersen (2000) defines the ideal culture type for projects as achievement-oriented
based on the Harrison and Stokes (1997) cultural profile model that consists of four
different types of culture that coexist in of an organization. Different management
ideologiessystems of thought that are central determinants of organization
characterinclude four types: (a) power-oriented, (b) role-oriented, (c) achievementoriented, and (d) supporting. Power-oriented characters engage in territorial warfare
about resources. Role-oriented characters use formal agreements, rules, and
55
procedures to define how work is performed. Achievement-oriented characters are
goal focused, allowing nothing to become a barrier to success. Supporting characters
serve the needs of organization members. Andersen (2000) investigated differences
between base cultures environmental level and project cultures system level by
comparing the culture types that existed at each level to his ideal type of achievement.
A key finding from his study was that only 54% of IT organizations had a base
organizational culture type of achievement compared to 83% of projects that were
achievement-oriented (Andersen, 2001). His study also found that there was a direct
correlation between an organizations base culture type and a project culture type
(Andersen, 2001). For example, changes in the base organizations towards more taskoriented culture resulted in project cultures being more task oriented (Andersen,
2001). Interestingly, Andersen (2001) also found that organization members prefer
the qualities of a role-oriented culture type for decision-making, project-control, and
communication purposes. The results of the Andersen (2001) study imply that
projects having a more achievement-oriented culture will achieve higher levels of
project performance compared to projects that have power, role, or supporting
cultures. A limitation of the Andersen (2001) study is that he did not gather any
project performance information to support his findings, which limits the implications
of his study.
System Integration
The decision to use an open system theory or sociotechnical systems organization
design methods was based on an expected outcome of a highly effective system that
enables a high level of organization performance (Emery, 1997; Van Eijnatteo, 1998;
Van Amelsvoort, 2001). Studies reviewed in this research illustrate that project
performance Is monitored and tracked at the system level relative to a projects being
on time, on budget, high quality, and applicable to user requirements and business
objectives. Measurement systems also vary from study to study, which introduces
unexplained variability. To reduce the amount of variability, a consistent measure of
performanceapplicable across IT organizationsprovides a way to define
performance that supports the research method used in this study to confirm the
system design and to evaluate the effect organization culture has os project
performance.
Harold Kerzner (1998) studied the adoption of project management in highperformance organizations. He categorized organizations as high performance based
on their ability to excel at project management and their implementation of six
components of effective organizations. These six components included (a) the
deployment of integrated processes, (b) the understanding of their culture, (c) high
levels of management support, (d) project management training and education, (e)
existence within an informal organization structure, as defined by project role, and (f)
demonstrated behavioral excellenceindividuals in the organization performed their
work with integrity. To measure high-performance organizations, Kerzner (1998)
devised a five-phase lifecycle model that reflected the level of project management
maturity achieved by a given organization that performed project work. The five
57
phases of the project management life cycle model spanned the least well-managed to
best-managed projects based on how well organizations implemented the project
management practices. The five phases from lowest to highest level of project
management performance include (a) embryonic, (b) executive management
acceptance, (c) line management acceptance, (d) growth, and (e) maturity (Kerzner,
1998). What distinguishes one phase from another is the level of commitment the
organization made to the six components of effective organizations previously listed,
the nature of the business, and the culture of the organization (Kerzner, 1998). In
addition, Kerzner5s (1998) documented critical success factors were defined as
adaptive behaviors that needed to exist at each lifecycle phase to support the new
practices and advance the organization to a higher phase in the lifecycle model.
For instance, management's verbal commitment at the embryonic phase reflects

middle and senior managers5recognition of the importance of project management on
the performance of the organization. At the executive management acceptance phase,
managers were observed supporting project management practices by ensuring that
project management was an integral part of their day-to-day business practices.
Organizations that had achieved the line-management acceptance phase had
developed project management training classes that were attended by the organization
management teams at all organization levels. The growth phase was achieved when
(a) a majority of the work performed in the organization applied project management
practices consistently, (b) trained project managers managed projects; and (c) new
58
standards were defined for monitoring project performance. The maturity phase of
project management occurs when organizations integrate their time and costmamgement systems to mirror the work performed on projects. One example of an
integrated cost and time system referenced tracked individual employee time on all
project-related activities and assigned a monetary figure used by the organization to
monitor project performance and retum-on-capital investments.
In his study of high-performance organizations, Kerzner (1998) noted that virtually

every company that achieves some level of project management expertise has gone
through these phases (Kerzner, 1998, p. 27). Culture affects how long an
organization spends at each phase. Further, Kerzner defined critical success and
failure factors including behavioral characteristics that support or hinder an
organizations ability to achieve the highest level of project management maturity.
Table 4 shows these critical success and failure factors for phases 2 through 5 of the
life cycle model. In Kerzners (1998) view
Organizations [that are] excellent in project management create an
environment in which there exists a continuous stream of successfully
managed projects, where success is measured by having achieved
performance that is in the best interest of the whole company as well
as a specific project, (p. 37)
The critical success and failure factors shown in Table 4 represent managers adaptive
and maladaptive behaviors that affect how an organization adopts new social and
technical structures at both the system and environmental levels of an organization.
59
The manager who recognized that cost and schedule were inseparable characterizes
adaptive behavior at the maturity phase of the project management lifecycle. In
comparison, managers who believed that project status can be determined from
schedule alone (Kerzner, 1998, p. 35) characterize maladaptive behavior.
60
Table 4. Critical Success and Failure Factors Associated with the Project
Management Life Cycle Phases
Critical Success Factors
Critical Failure Factors
Executive Management
Consider employee recommendations
Refuse to consider ideas of associates
Recognize that change is necessary
Unwilling to admit that change may be

necessary
Understand the executive role in project

management
Believe that project management

control belongs at executive levels
Line Management
Willing to place company interest before
personal interest
Willing to accept accountability
Reluctant to share information

Refuse to accept accountability
Not willing to see associates advance
Willing to see associates advance

Growth
Recognize the need for corporate-wide
systems
View a standard system as a threat

rather than as a benefit
Support uniform status monitoring and

reporting
Fail to understand the benefits of

project management
Recognize the importance of effective
Provide only lip service to planning
p lanning
Maturity
Recognize that cost and schedule are
inseparable
Believe that project status can be

determined from schedule alone
Track actual costs
See no need to track actual costs
Develop project management training
Believe that growth and success in

project management are the same
Source: Kerzner, H. 1998. In search of excellence in Project Management. Van
Nostrand Reinhold: NY. (pgs. 35-36)
61
Prototype Design
Sociotechnical systems design methods emphasize the interdependence of the social
and technical structures in an organization (Van Eijnatten, 1993). Figure 2 graphically
represents the organization design structures of a project management system
project success factors that have attributed to projects being on time, on schedule,
and within budget as discovered from the literature review in this study. The social
structuresproject managers and teamsalong with the technical structures
supporting management practices and measurement systemsdepict a sociotechnical
systems design (Pasmore, 1988). Arrows between the structures indicate the
interdependence between (a) the make-up of the project managers and project team
design, (b) the management practices employed by the project team and management,
(c) the metrics used to measure performance and the skills needed by the project
manager to execute the project, and (d) different measurement systems that aid in
identifying what actions need to be taken by the project manager and team members
to keep a project on time, within budget, in line with business objectives. The model
also represents the organizational environment in which the proposed project
management system resides. It is based on open system theory that postulates the
existence of adaptive relationships that form linkages between the system and its
environm ent
and that determines the level of performance achieved by an
organization (Emery, 1997; Emery & Purser, 1996; Hatch, 2000). In this model, the
linkages between the system and environment represent inputs and outputs of the
project management system, and the processing of these inputs and outputs
62
determines the level of performance achieved by an IT organization (Van
Amelsvoort, 2000). Open system theory (Emery, 1997) methods also design
organizations based on the interrelatedness of the social and technical structures and
the direct correlation these two structures have on improved organization
performance. Therefore, to achieve a high level of project success, the project
management system must behave as one whole system. For example, changes that
are initiated from the environmentoutside the system boundariesand changes
initiated from inside the systemsocial or technical structuremust work together
efficiently to achieve success; changes in one result in changes in the other structures
(Emery, 1997; Van Amelsvoort, 2000). Otherwise, the system will break down, and
project success will be unpredictable (Emery, 1997).
In summary, the objective of this literature review was to identify what factors have
led to project success in IT organizations and to gain an understanding of how
organizations adopt project management practices. The result of this review is the
process success model in Figure 2, which was built by applying organization design
methodssociotechnical systems and open system theoryfrom past management
practicesQuality of Work Life and Total Quality Managementthat have been
shown in practice to increase organization performance. The discrete structures that
reside inside the project success model represent the social and technical structures of
a proposed project management system for IT organizations, designed to improve
63
project performance. The structure that encompasses the project system is
organization culture that
.. .embodies rules that we follow, both explicit and implicit. Explicit
rules (norms), for example, are what the human resource manual sates
about issues such as mode of dress and hours of work. Implicit rules
are followed but never discussed, informal rules of behavior or codes
of conduct that are not written down but govern much, if not most,
behavior in organizations, for example, conforming to an implicit
norm of subordinates telling their boss what they believe he or she
wants to hear, rather than telling the truth. (Burke, 2002, p. 205)
Therefore, to understand how organizations adapt new management practices, one

needs to explore the implicit rules that exist inside of an organizations culture.
Acceleration and HorsepowerModel Throughput

In the Standish Group International study (2000), organizations improved IT project
success rates by developing collaborative working environments; team members
worked together on a common set of project objectives. Previous sociotechnical
systems research studies also found that organizations needed to develop
collaborative teams to enhance the quality of work life for individuals in the
organization. These studies suggested that increasing the individuals participation in
defining how work was to be performed leads to increased job satisfaction and
organization effectiveness (Taylor & Felten, 1993). Even though the project
management framework appears to be rooted in open systems theory (PMI, 2000),
empirical research studies on the application of sociotechnical systems design
concepts for improving project performance in IT organizations are nonexistent.
64
Open Systems view

Project Managers
Environmental
Culture
Project Teams
Project Management |
System ~
) "*..........-
Figure 2. Open Systems View of the Project Success Model
To better understand how different organizations design and adopt project

management practices, one must study IT organizations that have employed project
management practices for IT-related projects. This study applies a modernist
perspective in the exploration of causal relationships that exist between the social and
technical structures of the project success model, both at the environmental and
system levels. Planned in this research is an investigation into the effect an
organizations environmental culture has on project performance (i.e., culture as a
determinate of performance), as seen in other studies of open systems (Emery, 1997).
The operational definition of organization culture is by different culture types, based
on the Andersen (2000) study of organizations that employed project management
practices. That study identifies achievement-oriented culture types as the ideal for a
project system; however, the study compared projects and culture types that existed
65
only at the environmental level without regard to the effect on organization or project
performance. Therefore, the project success model postulates that culture type is as a
predictor of project performance based on open system theory (Emery, 1997).
Modem sociotechnical systems design methods (Van Amelsvoort, 2000) develop

models based upon open system concepts that integrate social and technical structures
with an organizations environment, where the system transforms inputs from the
environment into outputs of the system (French et al, 2000; Taylor & Felten, 1993;
Van Amelsvoort, 2000; Van Eijnatten, 1993). Adaptation of a modem sociotechnical
design perspective in this study provides an opportunity to design an open system
model. The successful adoption of project management practices that encompass the
technical and social structures at two levelsorganization and systemimproves
project performance. The social structures at the system level are project managers
and project organization structures. The technical structures at the system level are
performance measurement systems and supporting management practices.
Organization members and technologies across an entire organization represent
structures at the environmental level (Hatch, 2000).
Sets of structured hypotheses define causal relationships that exist between the
proposed system design structures, their environment, and project performance. The
hypotheses are based on past management practice designs and Organization
Development system theories (i.e., contingency, resource dependency, and population
66
ecology) (Hatch, 2000). The first set of hypotheses defines relationships that exist
between the social and technical structures of a project management system employed
by an organization and the expected level of performance associated with each
structure.
HI Organizations that employ project organization design structures that are teamoriented achieve higher project management performance.
H2 Organizations that employ performance measurement systems achieve higher
project management performance.
H3 Organizations that employ competent project managers achieve higher project
management performance.
H4 Organizations that employ supporting business practices achieve higher project
H5 Organizations that employ the four project management success factors achieve
higher project management performance.
This second set of hypotheses explores the effect competency levels of project
managers have on project performance in the four areas of business, personal,
interpersonal, and management. Project manager competencies defined in this study
are the success factors identified in previous research studies that associated a high
level of performance to individual project manager skills and competencies. For
instance, the Standish Group International study (2001) estimated that project success
67
rates increase by 65% when a skilled project manager leads a project. Four categories
of project manager competencies differentiate one project manager from another as a
social structure in the system design. This level of analysis aims to better understand
how individual project manager competencies affect project performance. The
exploration into individual competencies is based on a study that found that senior
project managers required interpersonal skills to resolve conflicts between
organization members and to ensure that unresolved issues did not affect project
performance (Strohmeier, 1992).
H6
Organizations that employ project managers with a high level of business

competency achieve higher project management performance.
H7
Organizations that employ project managers with a high level of personal

H8
Organizations that employ project managers with a high level of interpersonal

H9
Organizations that employ project managers with a high level of management

H10 Organizations that employ project managers with a high level of business,
personal, interpersonal, and management competencies achieve higher project
68
This third set of hypotheses investigates the effect of organization culture. In this
study, culture was operationalized by type, based on Harrison's (1995) four
management Ideologiessystems of thought that are central determinants of
organization character. Harrison (1995) found in his research on culture that
organization ideologies define the do's and don ts of an organization and form the
rationale for how individuals in an organization should behave. Furthermore, each
culture types dominance determines the behaviors exhibited by members in the
organization. Four organization culture types coexist at the different levels: (a)
power-oriented, (b) role-oriented, (c) achievement-oriented, and (d) supporting
(Harrison & Stokes, 1997). Relationships that exist between the four culture types and
performance relate to key characteristics exhibited by members in an organization
(Harrison & Stokes, 1997). For instance, the power-oriented culture type typically
engages in territorial warfare about resource management and the sharing of
resources across organization boundaries because they may affect the assignment of
resources to projects. Role-oriented culture types rely on the formal agreements,
rules, and procedures that may be associated with the project management design
structure and are adhered to by members of the organization. Achievement-oriented
culture types are goal focused; nothing is permitted to become a barrier to getting
work done in the organization, which means that project-related issues are given
priority and resolved quickly to ensure that a project is successful. Supporting culture
types serve the needs of members in the organization and rely on consensus as the
main decision-making process, which may delay a project because of the time it takes
69
to gain consensus. Andersens (2001) study selected the achievement-oriented culture
type because the main purpose of a project system is to manage project tasks
effectively and to complete projects successfully. Project-related issues are resolved
quickly and given priority to keep a project on schedule.
HI 1 Organizations that have power as the dominant organization culture type do not
achieve higher project management performance.
HI 2 Organizations that have role as the dominant organization culture type do not
H I3 Organizations that have achievement as the dominant organization culture type
HI 4 Organizations that have supporting as the dominant organization culture type do
not achieve higher project management performance.
To investigate how organization culture affects the design of the project management
system, a set of hypotheses test culture as a moderator of project performance.
H I5 Organizations that have power as the dominant organization culture type and
that, employ the project management success factors do not achieve higher
70
H I6 Organizations that have achievement as the dominant organization culture type
and that, employ the project management success factors achieve higher project
To investigate how organization culture affects competency levels of project mangers

a set of hypotheses test culture as a moderator of project performance based on open
system theory (Emery, 1997).
HI 7 Organizations that have power as the dominant organization culture type and
that employ competent project managers do not achieve higher project
HI 8 Organizations that have achievement as the dominant organization culture type
and that employ competent project managers do achieve higher project
Lastly, a hypothesis to test the effect that culture type has on both the design of the
project management system and on the project manager competency levels based on
contingency theory (Hatch, 2000) and the influence that culture has on the social and
technical structures of an organization.
71
HI 9 Organizations that have achievement as the dominant organization culture type
and that employ project management success factors and competent project
managers do achieve higher project management performance.
The next chapter presents the research methods used to test the different sets of
structured hypotheses to confirmtest reliability and validity of the proposed open
system project management modeland to validate the instruments used in this study
to measure the project success model structures, project manager competencies,
organization culture types, and project performance.
Chapter 3: Research Approach

This research explores relationships that exist between the social and technical
structures of a project management system employed by IT organizations. It draws
upon previous research studies and system design methods used to improve
organization performance. Two design methods applied in this research to develop a
project management system for IT organizations are sociotechnical systems (Taylor
& Feiten, 1998) and open system theory (Emery, 1997). The literature review that
grounds this study focuses on successful IT projects and builds upon the findings of
the Standish Group International study (2000) that found that of the 28% of IT
projects that were successful, 97% had a project manager assigned, 58% had a
defined measurement system, and 46% used a project management methodology.
That literature review revealed that an open system framework facilitates the
successful adoption of project management practices.
The project success models open system framework design contains the social and
technical structures of a project management system. Social structures that exist at the
system level of the model are competent project managers and project organization
designs (i.e., teams). Technical structures of the system model are performance
measurement systems and supporting management practices. Organization culture is
another social structure in the model that resides at the environmental level of a
system.
72
73
The method used to test and validate the design of the project success model
developed in this research study is Structured Equation Method Confirmatory
Factorial Analysis (SEM CFA) (Byrne, 1998), which uses regression analysis to
ex a m in e
postulated relationships that exist between the social and technical structure
of the system based on sociotechnical systems and open system theory principles
(Hatch, 2000). Structured Equation Methods (Byrne, 1998) rely on quantitative data
to test and validate a model design using goodness-of-fit statistical indices.
Four instruments used in this study gather quantitative data on how IT organizations
employed project management practices to improve project performance and to
validate the proposed model design. This chapter presents the research design
approach, the four instruments used in this study, and data analysis methods used to
confirm the model design and to test the reliability and validity of the data collected
and the research instruments.
Figure 3 includes a graphic illustration of the research design that includes the four
instruments used to test the project success model. Demographic questions gather
information about the research participants.
74
In d e p e n d e n t an d M o d erato r V ariab )e(s)
D e p e n d e n t V ariable
F o u r D im ensions
P ro je c t S u c c e s s
<X1)
P ro je c t M a n a g e m e n t Life
C ycles
TO
K endra (2001)
K erzn er (1998)
P ro je c t M an a g er
C o m p e te n c ie s
(X2)
M o d erato r
W ysocki, B eck,
a n d C ra n e (2000)
O rganization
C ulture
T y p es (X3)
D e m o g ra p h ic s
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
P articip an t G e n d e r
P ro je c t M a n a g e r Y e a rs Exp.
IT p roject type
P ro je c t M em b er R ole
P e rc e n t of tim e on projects
P rofessional!'/ certified p roject m a n a g e r
CMM Level
H arrison a n d
S to k e s (1992)
Figure 3. Research Design to Test Project Success Model
The project success model includes the latent (unobserved) construct of project
success factors (XI) as an independent variable. It was measured by four observable
variables of organization design: (a) project structures that are team oriented, (b)
project performance measurement systems used to monitor and track project
activities, (c) project managers, and (d) supporting management practices that are
employed throughout a project lifecycle. The other latent variable in the project
success model is project manager competencies (X2) in four areas: business,
personal, interpersonal, and management skills (Wysocki et aL, 2000). Project
manager competencies were included in the proposed project success model to
evaluate the effect that individual project managers had on project management
75
performance and to determine if project success was attributed to the project manager
that led project activities or to the project success factors. The latent dependent
variable (Y) in the research design is project management performance. The project
management life cycle five-phase model (Kerzner, 1995) is a consistent measure of
project performance used in the IT organizations that participated in this study. The
SEM CFA method was selected as a goodness-of-fit model that will either support or
deny the plausibility of the postulated project success model.
Instrumentation
A new instrument for testing the project success model is developed from the
literature review to assess the employment of the four project management success
factors: assignment of a project manager, performance measurement systems, project
organization design structures, and supporting management practices on organization
project performance levels. A second instrument assesses individual competency
levels in the four areas of business, personal, interpersonal, and management skills
(Wysocki, Beck, & Crane, 2000). These competency levels differentiate project
managers and provide insight into how the different project manager competencies
contribute to success. A third survey instrument evaluates organizational culture types
(Harrison & Stokes, 1992), and a fourth assesses organizational project management
performance (Kerzner, 1998).
Gauges
To measure project success empirically, a new latent construct was needed. This new
constructproject success factors is comprised of four measurable variables:
76
project manager competencies, organizational design, performance measurement
systems, and supporting management practices. All factors important to the success
of IT projects are from the literature review conducted in this study. Next, a survey
instrum ent, that
included a series of structured questions for each variable was used to
determine the four variables respective contribution to project success. The

instrument employed a five-point Likert scale ranging from 5 (contributed to a very
great extent in implementing of project management practices) to 1 (contributed very
little or to no extent).
An initial draft of the project success factor survey was reviewed by ten IT
professionals for clarity of the individual questions and to ensure that the rating scale
measured the project management success factor constructs: project manager, teams,
performance measurements, and supporting management practices. The initial draft
was also used to verify that these constructs represented project management
practices deployed in an organization. Feedback from the initial review was included
in a revised survey distributed to thirty-five individual project managers at a Project
Management Institute (PMI) chapter meeting. Analysis of the data collected from the
chapter members entailed calculating the mean, standard deviation, variance, and
median scores for each survey question. The questions that had mean responses
between 3.0 and 5.0 and median scores of 4.0 or above were considered valid because
they represented the success factors that the participants considered to be key
contributors to project success. Appendix A lists the key contributors from highest to
77
lowest mean scores. In order, key contributors are a competent project manager
(4.29), training and education (4.14), change management process (4.09), system
development process (4.06), configuration management (3.89), organization culture
(3.83), project management strategy (3.83), performance measurement systems
(3.77), and organization project design (3.51). An updated project success factor
instrument incorporated these key contributors based on the preliminary findings. The
four key constructs for evaluating relationships that may exist between the social and
technical structures in the project success model design are project manager
competencies, organization designs, performance measurement systems, and
supporting management practices. To measure the extent that each of these constructs
contributes to project success, a mean score is calculated for each project success
factors.
An additional test using LISREL 8.51 CFA all X-Model analysis methods tested the
project success factors construct validity to determine the goodness-of-fit indices for
the observed X-variables that represented the unobserved success factors.
Three additional instruments were chosen to measure project manager competencies

and organization culture types. These two instruments were chosen based on the
findings from the project success instrument pretest results that showed that
competent project manager (4.29) and organization culture (3.83) were key
contributors to project success. Therefore, it was necessary to explore how the skill
78
sets of competent project managers and the different culture types affected project
performance. Instruments chosen for this study reflect previous research findings that
implied that relationships exist between project manager competencies, organization
culture types, and project performance.
Driver Skills
This study operationalized project manager competencies as skills that project
managers apply during a project lifecycle. Wysocki, Beck, and Crane (2000)
developed an instrument to evaluate project manager competencies in the areas of
business, personal, interpersonal, and management skills. Research participants were
asked to rate themselves on each of the competencies using a five-point Likert scale,
where a high of 5 indicated Strongly agree and a low of 1 indicated Strongly
disagree. Because little is known about the specific types of competencies that
contributed to project success and the adoption of project management, an objective
of this research was to gain an understanding of how the different levels of
competency affect project management maturity. Analysis to test construct validity of
the observed independent variables required a LISREL 8.51 CFA all X-Model
method (Byrne, 1998) to determine the goodness-of-fit indices of the unobserved
variables that represent project manager competencies.
Enthusiasm
In an effort to understand the effects that different culture types may have on the
adoption of new management practices in IT companies, the research participants
completed the Diagnosing Organizational Culture instrument. This instrument
79
evaluated organization culture types (Harrison & Stokes, 1992) based on a previous
study that found that the ideal culture type for IT projects was achievement
(Andersen, 2001; Harrison, 1995). This instrument defined four types of culture that
derive from an organizations predominant management ideology and that represent
the behaviors of organization members and their decision-making processes
governing what work is performed. The four different types of cultures {Power, Role,
Achievement, and Support) were being assessed and tested as part of the research
methodology to determine if different types of cultures mature to different levels. The
testing of the four different culture types as moderators of project performance
evaluated the effect culture has on the design structures of a project management
system. The culture survey contained fifteen beginnings of sentences that describe
some aspect of organizational functioning and design. Following each sentence
beginning were four possible endings. When combined with the beginnings, each
ending formed a complete sentence describing one of four different patterns of
organizational behavior, beliefs, values, etc. Research participants rank ordered the
completion phrases for their (a) existing culture and (b) preferred culture relative to
the implementation of project management in their organizations. The ordered
ranking determined the culture types that were most to least dominant in their
organization. The most dominating culture types were analyzed to determine their
effect on project performance. These types have the highest level of influence on
what practices are adapted by individual organization members (Harrison, 1995).
80
Qualifying
This research hypothesized that interdependencies exist among the project success
factors, project manager competencies, and organizational culture types that
determine how organizations adopt project management practices and reach a
particular level of project performance. The project management excellence
instrument (Kerzner, 1998) used in this study evaluates performance (i.e., project
success) by maturity levels. This instrument derives from Kerzners studies of
organizations (1998) that had adopted project management practices. In his studies,
he evaluates performance based on the number of successful projects completed in an
organization over time. Kerzner (1998) defined a five-phase lifecycle model based on
the results of his studies. These five phases include (a) embryonic, (b) executive
management acceptance, (c) line management acceptance, (d) growth, and (e)
maturity. He then designed the excellence instrument to assess how well
organizations implemented six project management components known to contribute
to success: (a) integrating processes, (b) understanding culture, (c) offering a high
level of management support, (d) providing project management training and
education, (e) working within an informal structure, and (f) demonstrating behavioral
excellence, all of which have advanced the project management adoption process
(Kerzner, 1998). Research participants evaluate their organizations using a scale of
- 3 to + 3, (where a high of + 3 indicates Strongly Agree and a low of - 3 indicates
Strongly Disagree) to a series of statements about the use of project management in
their organization. A LISREL 8.51 CFA all Y-Model analysis (Byme, 1998), used to
test construct validity and to measure the goodness of fit between the observed Y-
81
variables and the project management lifecycle phases, Is run to validate the
reliability of the excellence Instrument.
Team Demographics
Demographic data collected from each participant in this study about projects that
they support in their organizations provides the opportunity to analyze the data based
on the participants gender, organization CMM level, years of project management
experience, project type, project manager role, percentage of time worked on projectrelated activities, and professional certification in project management. The
demographic data elements are based on studies described in the literature review
presented in Chapter 2. One study found that project managers with more than ten
years of experience ranked the importance of leadership behaviors applied throughout
a projects lifecycle differently (Zimmerman & Yasin, 1989). Experienced project
managers ranked the importance of teamwork higher than less experienced project
managers. Another study found, with respect to project types, that project manager
competency levels were dependent on project types (Shenar, 2001). For example, an
application development project requires a project manager to have IT knowledge and
skills about software languages used in developing a product (i.e., Visual Basic was
used to design screen layouts for the user interface) (Shenar, 2001). Data on the SEI
CMM certification level of an organization is important in this study because
organization are required to implement project management practices to achieve
CMM Level II certification (Asbrand, 1997), and it can be assumed that organizations
attaining Level II certification or higher have achieved a higher level of project
82
performance. Finally, the collection of project management certification data is

important to this study because of the assumption that professionally certified project
managers are more competent in project management practices (PMI, 2000).
The importance of gathering demographic data in the study was to determine the
ability to generalize the research findings across genders, years of experience, and
project types. Appendix B provides a complete set of the four instruments that were
used to evaluate (a) project success, (b) project manager competencies, (c)
organization culture types, and (d) project performance. It also includes the questions
used to gather demographic information about the participants.
Spectators
A request for research volunteers published in a Project Management Institute (PMI)
Information Technology Special Interest Group (SIG) quarterly newsletter (Summer,
2001) initiated the data-collection phase of this study. The unit of analysis for this
study is IT projects; therefore, individual participants were asked to respond to the
questions relative to a project they worked on in their organization. Eighty research
volunteers accessed a groupshare web page that contained the four research
instruments (project success factors, project manager competencies, organization
culture, and project management performance). Participants downloaded and
completed the survey on their personal computers, and then uploaded the completed
survey to the Web. Eighty individuals from medium- to large-sized IT organizations
volunteered to participate in the study. Forty-two volunteers completed the survey
83
online, yielding a response rate of 53%. Given the low number of participants, sixty
additional volunteers are from this researchers large-size IT organization, for which
nineteen additional surveys were completed. In total, data collected from fifty-nine
participants yielded an overall response rate of 44% for this research study.
Simulation
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Confirmatory Factorial Analysis (CFA) (Byrne,
1998) is a statistical methodology that takes a confirmatory approach to hypothesis
testing using multivariate analysis (MANOVA) of a structural theory or model. The
project success model tested in this research derives from sociotechnical systems
theory (Van Eijnatten, 1993) principles that govern how the social and technical
structures of a designed system relate to each other. The sociotechnical systems
model for project success is based on proposed relationships that exist among the
project manager competency levels, the project structures that are team-oriented, the
deployment of project management practices, and the effect of organization culture
on project management performance. The project success model is tested statistically
in a simultaneous analysis of the project success models observed variables to
determine its degree of consistency with the data gathered from the four research
instrum ents
used in this study. Figure 4 represents a LISREL 8.51 (Byrne, 1998)
Confirmatory Factor-Analytical (CFA) SEM first order model.
84
H y p otksized S tm cttsri Equation Model - First Onter (AtS fiofcws) M o d d I
8?*
8s ^
Figure 4. LISREL 8.51 SEM CFA First Order Measurement Model
Confirmatory factorial analysis tests the independent variables of project success

factors and project manager competencies as predictors of project performance. The
project success model open system theory design postulates the existence of adaptive
relationships that form linkages between the social and technical structures of an
organization (Emery & Purser, 1996). These linkages are the inputs and outputs of a
project success model that lead to highly effective organizations (Van Amelsvoort,
2000). The model design presents the relationships that exist between the individual
success factor in the model and project performance based on open system theory
design principles (Emery & Purser, 1996). The model also represents relationships
that exist between different project managers that work on projects to determine if the
project management system as a whole predicts performance or if individual project
85
managers predict performance on their own (Standish, 2001). The exploration into
individual competencies is based on a study by Strohmeier (1992), which found that
senior project managers required interpersonal skills to resolve conflicts between
organization members and to ensure that unresolved issues did not affect project
performance.
Figure 5 includes a representation of the structured hypothesis in Structured Equation

Method (SEM) (Byrne, 1998) standard format, required for conducting confirmatory
analysis of the project success system design. The project success factors and project
manager competencies are the observed variables (Xs). The LISREL 8.51 (Byrne,
1998) program analyzes the data collected from the four survey instruments based on
the structured equations. The set of regression equations used to confirm relationships
between the observed variables (Xs), the latent variables (s), and the errors of
measurement (8 s) is in LISREL 8.51 format, as illustrated in Figure 5.
86
L IS R E L F a c to r A n aly sis
R e g re ssio n E q u atio n s
Mearawsiaenf ss-odei fo r the X-variables (exogesows)
X=A*+S
- 2lul +81
=A2ti +&
=Xufy +84
~/v52i +&
=7j>2t2+Ss
= X.72^2
+57
= X82^2
+ 3
Xn
X21
A31
X*t
0
0
0
0
0
Xsi
}jS2
0
0
X72
X*2
011
033
Figure 5. Regression Equations for Factor Analytic Model in LISREL 8.51

Format for all-X CFA Model for the Independent Variables of the Project
Management Success Factors and Project Manager Competencies
The general LISREL 8.51 factor analytic model for aliX CFA model:
X = Ax+ 8
Ax represents the regression coefficients related to the
independent variables
4 (phi) was an n x n symmetrical variance-covariance
matrix among the n exogenous factors (independent
variables)
8 (theta-delta) was a q x q symmetrical variancecovariance matrix among the errors of measures for the
exogenous observed (independent) variables (Byme,
1998, p. 22).
Figure 6 includes a representation of the structured hypothesis in Structured Equation

Method standard format, required for conducting confirmatory analysis of the project
success system' as determinants of project performance. The set of regression
87
equations used to confirm the relationships between the observed variables (Ys), the
latent variables (rjs), and the errors of measurement (es) represents the LISREL 8.51
format shown in Figure 6.
L IS R E L F a c to r A n a ly s is
R e g re s s io n E q u a tio n s
M e a s u re m e n t m odel fo r th e Y -v a ria b le s (en d o g en o u s) d e p e n d e n t v a ria b le .
+8
= Ayr,
yj
ya
- k iir jj + s i
=
+ ss
y3
= L31T}t + S3
y4
= 7,43?}! + S4
ys
yy=
\2\y\x
ys
+ ss
7.U
czs
E3
7-31
7.41
A.52
ys
si
n>
52
53
ns
V a rta n c e /C o v a ria n s s modeSa;
yy4a
y?
7.1)
7.2)
7.3)
7,-)!
Figure 6. Regression Equations for Factor Analytic Model in LISREL 8.51

Format for ail-Y CFA Model for the Dependent Variable Defined as Project
Management Performance
The general LISREL 8.51 factor analytic model for allY CFA model
Y = Ayr} + s
Ay represents the regression coefficients related to the
dependent variables
t}(psi) w a s a n m x m symmetrical variance-covariance
matrix among the m residual errors for the m
endogenous factors (dependent variables)
s (theta-epsilon) was a p x p symmetrical variancecovariance matrix among the errors of measures for the
endogenous observed (dependent) variables (Byme,
1998, p. 25).
88
Finite Element Analysis
Linear regression (ANOVA) is used to test the series of hypotheses regarding the
effect that individual project management success factors, project manager
competencies (Wysocki et al., 2000), and organization culture types (Harrison &
Stokes, 1992) had on IT project management performance, as measured by the project
management Lifecycle phases (Kerzner, 1998). Success factors that are significant at
p < 0.05 are determined to be key contributors of project success.
SEM CFA (Byme, 1998) methods (MANOVA) were then used to confirm the project
success model as a predictor of project management performance, as measured by the
project management lifecycle five-phase model, an integrated model based on
modem sociotechnical theory (Van Amelsvoort, 2000). In addition, SEM CFA tests
were used to determine construct validity and reliability of the study instruments:
project success factors (all x-variables) and project management life cycle phases (all
y-variables). Discussions of the analysis results are in Chapter 4, Findings.
Chapter 4: Findings
The Standish Group International study (2000) finding that only 28% of IT projects
succeed provides the point for this research. The objective of this empirical study was
to gain additional knowledge about project success and to close a gap in the literature
between Organization Development and Project Management by applying work
design methods to the development of a theoretical model that will lead IT
organizations toward improved project performance. This research drew upon
Organization Development open systems theory (Emery, 1997; Hatch, 2000) and
sociotechnical systems design principles (Van Eijnatten, 1993) in the exploration of
how organization design structures affect IT project performance. This type of
research approach is similar to an automotive teardown that disassembles a vehicle
into its many parts and subsystems to leam how the design of the vehicle contributes
to different levels of performancethe amount of horsepower produced, fuel
efficiency, handling of tight curves, and the ability to outperform other vehicles on
race day.
The teardown method used to study project management practices is a quantitative

research design approach, using exploratory analysis, to test and validate a proposed
project success model that expands upon the Standish Group International study
(2000) findings. This research approach used open system theory (Hatch, 2000), a
design approach for improving organization performance, to develop the exploratory
model that posited the existence of the social and technical structures that define the
89
90
work performed by members of an IT organization that employs project management
practices as a means to improve project performance. The Project Management Body
of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) (PMI, 2000) framework formed a basic
understanding of the profession of project management. The PMBOK Guide
identifies nine management knowledge areas employed throughout a project life
cycle. The frameworkopen system designIdentifies the inputs, outputs, tools, and
techniques used in each knowledge area to transform business requirements into new
products or services. For example, a software application enables an organization to
process data required to complete a business transaction.
This research study began with a look back at previous management practices
adopted to improve organization performance. This brief review revealed that the
design of past management practices are similar in that they consist of social and
technical structures that work together to improve performance. The next step taken
in this research was an investigation into project management practices recently
adopted by IT organizations. The investigation of project management practices
focused on factors that have contributed to project success in IT organizations. The
investigation uncovered that project success factors vary from one organization to the
next, and that no two practices are alike. It also showed that success factors were
discrete events that occurred during a project lifecycle rather than a set of interrelated
events that are part of a project management system. Past management practices have
shown us that the successful adoption of new management practices rely on the
91
integration of social and technical structures that exist within an organization to
improve performance. To study the adoption of project management practices, one
must understand how the social and technical structures relate to improved
performance. Therefore, a new project management system model was designed that
incorporated the social and technical structures of an IT organization, based on the
success factors identified from the literature review conducted in this study. Studies
of sociotedmical systems (Van Eijnatten, 1998) and open system theory (Emery &
Purser, 1996) imply that these two organization design methods lead to improved
performance.
The newly proposed project management open system model framework includes
social and technical structures that exist within IT organizations. The social structures
in the model include (a) a competent project manager, (b) organization members that
work on project-related work, and (c) organization culture. In the model, technologies
that transform project work into outputs, known as deliverables, are performance
measurement systems and supporting management practices. The expected output of
the proposed system design is improved project performance.
Following the design of the model, data was collected and analyzed to test a set of
structured hypotheses that defined relationships that exist between project
management system structuresp oject managers, performance measurement
systems, project structures and supporting management practices, project manager
92
competencies, organization culture and project management performanceas
speculated in the project success model. To test the proposed model, quantitative data
was gathered from fifty-nine IT professionals who performed project-related work.
Based on their personal perceptions and observations, research participants evaluated
the extent to which the proposed project management system structures in their
organizations contributed to project success by being on time, within budget, and in
accordance with the stated business requirements identified for a given project..
Participants also assessed their project management competency levels in four
areaspersonal, interpersonal, business, and managementtheir organization culture
type, and the level of project management maturity within their organization.
Linear regression and confirmatory statistical analysis methods using Structured

Equations Method (SEM) Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) (Byme, 1998) tested
and validated the proposed model design. The data analysis confirmed the proposed
project management structural design, which implies that the social and technical
structures in the model are determinants of organization project performance. In
addition, SEM CFA (Byme, 1998) goodness-of-fit statistics tested and validated the
design of the constructs defined in the project success factors and project performance
instruments administered in this study.
Demographic data was also collected in this study about the research participants
gender, organization CMM level, years of project management experience, type of
93
project they support, project role, percentage of time worked on project-related
activities, and project management certification. The gathering of demographic data
was important to this study because it provided some control over outside variables
that could affect the reliability and validity of the study and its findings and helped to
determine the ability to generalize this research.
Fifty-nine IT professionals that worked on fifty-nine different projects in different

organizations provided the research data for this study. Participants provided the data
based on their individual observations and perceptions about the employment of
project practices in their organizations and the type of culture that exists in their
environment. In addition, participants evaluated their personal project manager
competencies in the areas of business, personal, interpersonal, and management.
Table 5 presents a breakdown of research participants by demographic characteristics.
Thirty-seven respondents (63%) were female, and a majority (60%) of all the
respondents performed the role of project manager. In addition, two thirds (63%) of
the participants worked on application development projects while the other 20%
provided project management consulting. Overall, 80% had five or more years of
experience in project management. Based on the demographics of the respondents
and the small sample size, the ability to generalize the research findings was limited
to IT professionals with more than five years of project management experience. At
the organizational level, over one third of the organizations involved (35%) had
progressed to Level II and III on the Capability Maturity Model (CMM). In other
94
words, these organizations had implemented management practices that enabled them
to achieve a high level of quality in their products and services. Organizations
reached Level I certification based on their project success rate at the project level,
while organizations at Level MI certification had success rates at the organizational
level (Asbrand, 1998).
Table 5. Participants Demographic Data From Information Technology

Organization Project Teams (N = 59)
f
Demographic
Gender
Male
22
37.3
Female
37
62.7
21
35.6
II
21
35.6
in
14
23.7
IV
0 .0
5.1
1 less than 5 years
13
22.0
5 less than 10 years
10
16.9
10 less than 20 years
23
39.0
20 more than 30 years
11
18.6
More than 30 years
3.4
SEICMM Level
Project experience
Table 5 continues
95
f
Demographic
Project types
Consulting
11
18.6
Application dev.
37
62.7
Enterprise systems
6.8
Networking
5.1
Customer Assistance
5.1
No response
0.0
Team member
10.2
Project manager
35
59.3
Program manager
10
16.9
Department manager
11.9
No response
0.0
Less than 25%
10
16.9
25% less than 50%
12
20.3
50% less than 99%
24
40.7
100%
15.3
No response
6.8
Yes
20
33.9
No
39
66.1
Project role
Percent of project work
Certified Project Manager Professional
Qualifying Laps
HI
Organizations that employ project designs that were team oriented achieve
96
Hypothesis HI is supported. Organization project designs are shown to be a predictor
of higher project management performance, as illustrated in Table 6, with F (1,57 ) = 9.5
andp
<
0 . 01 .
Table 6. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Project Organization Design as

a Predictor of Project Management Performance (N = 59)
Source
SS
df
MS
F
9.513
Organization design
27.879
27.879
Error
167.037
57
2.931
Total
194.915
58
p
0.003
H2 Organizations that employ performance measurement systems achieve a higher

Hypothesis H2 is supported. Performance measurement systems are shown to be a

predictor of higher project management performance, as seen in Table 7, with
17.88 where p < 0.001.
97
Table 7. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Performance Measurement
Systems as a Predictor of Project Management Performance (N = 59)
SS
Source
df
MS
Performance
Measurement
46.534
46.534
Error
148.381
57
2.931
Total
194.915
58
17.876
0.001
H3 Organizations that employ competent project managers achieve higher project

Hypothesis H3 is supported. Competent Project Managers are shown to be a predictor

of higher project management performance, as seen in Table 8, with Fp^) = 4.74 and
p < 0.05.
Table 8. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Project Managers as a

Predictor of Project Management Performance (N = 59)
Source
SS
df
MS
Project Manager
14.956
14.956
Error
179.959
57
3.157
Total
194.915
58
4.737
0.034
H4 Organizations that employ supporting business practices achieve higher project

98
Hypothesis H4 is supported. Supporting management practices are a proven predictor
of higher project management performance, as seen in Table 9, with Fp^) = 23.9 and
p < 0.001.
Table 9. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Supporting Management

Practices as a Predictor of Project Management Performance (N = 59)
SS
df
MS
Management Practices
57.575
57.575
Error
137.339
57
2.409
Total
194.915
58
F
23.895
p~~
0.001
H5 Organizations that employ the four project management success factors achieve
Hypothesis H5 is supported. Information technology organizations that employ the

four project management success factorscompetent project manager, organization
project design, performance measurement systems, and supporting management
practiceswere computed as a success index (sum of four factors divided by the
number of factors) and achieved a higher level of project management performance,
as shown in Table 10, with F(i;5 7 ) = 28.05 and p < 0.001.
99
Table 10. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Success Factor Index as a
Source
2S.053
< 0.001
Project Success Index ' 62.064
62.064
Error
126.962
57
2.212
Total
188.170
58
Analysis of four project manager competenciesbusiness, personal, interpersonal,

and managementdifferentiated between project managers in the study and
evaluated the social structure of the project management model. The set of proposed
hypotheses were as follows:
H6 Organizations that employ project managers with higher levels of business

competency achieve a higher project management performance.
Hypothesis H6 is not supported. Project manager business competency is not a

predictor for project management performance, as seen in Table 11, where F(i;5 7 ) =
0.07 and p > 0.05.
100
Table 11. Analysts of Variance Summary Table off Project Manager Business
Competency as a Predictor of Project Management Performance (N = 59)
SS
df
MS
F
0.074
Business
0.251
0.251
Error
194.664
57
3.415
Total
194.915
58
0.787
H7 Organizations that employ project managers with higher levels of personal

Hypothesis H7 is not supported. Project manager personal competency is not a

predictor of project management performance, as seen in Table 12, where Fp^) =
3.04 and p > 0.05
Table 12. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Project Manager Personal

Competency as a Predictor off Project Management Performance (N = 59)
Source
SS
df
MS
Personal
9.864
9.864
Error
185.051
57
3.247
Total
194.915
58
F
3.038
P
0.087
H8 Organizations that employ project managers with higher levels of interpersonal

101
Hypothesis H8 is not supported. Project manager interpersonal competency is not a
predictor of project management performance, as seen in Table 13, where
= .30
and p > 0.05.

Table 13. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Project Manager
Interpersonal Competency as a Predictor of Project Management Performance
(N = 59)
Source
SS
df
MS
Interpersonal
1.029
1.029
Error
193.887
57
3.402
Total
194.915
58
0.302
0.585
H9 Organizations that employ project managers with higher levels of management

Hypothesis H9 is not supported. Project manager management competency is not a

predictor of project management performance, as seen in Table 14, where
2.03 and p > 0.05.
Table 14. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Project Manager

Management Competency as a Predictor of Project Management Performance
(N = Sf)
SS
Source
Df
MS
Management
6.690
6.690
Error
188.225
57
3.302
Total
194.915
58
F
2.026
P
0.160
H10 Organizations that employ project managers with higher levels of business,
personal, interpersonal, and management competencies achieve higher project
Based on the insignificance of the individual project manager competencies as

predictors of project management performance, this hypothesis was not tested.
Racing Results
The latent variables in the project success model are four independent variables (Xs):
organization design, performance measurement systems, competent project manager,
and supporting management practices. The results of the SEM CFA MANOVA
(Byme, 1998) analyses of the four success factors (observed variables) confirm that
the project success factor model developed in this study is a valid framework to
predict project performance as defined by the five phases of project management
lifecycles (Ys) (Keraier, 1998). Figure 7 provides a graphical representation of the
relationship between the success factorsproject managers, project organization,
103
performance measurement systems, and supporting management practicesand
project management lifecycle (performance). To further illustrate the relationship
between the project management model design and increased performance levels, a
new success indexthe average score by organization of the individual responses for
the four factorsthat represents the employment of project management across the
different organizations studied demonstrates the how the employment of the four
factors positively affects performance. Figure 7 graphically depicts organizations
project performance levels by lifecycle phase and success indexan indicator of how
well IT organizations adopted the new project management practices. As shown,
organizations that employed the factors at a level of 3 or higher achieved the higher
lifecycle phases of growth and maturity compared to organizations that employed the
factors at lower levels.
104
Parformance and the Adoption of Project Management Practices
Lifecycle Phase and Success Index
Maturity
5.00
Growth
Too
3.00
--
2.00
1.00
0.00
o f IT
Success Index j
Figure 7. Line Chart of Project Management Success Factors Index and Project
Performance
In addition, project manager competency levels in four areaspersonal skills,

interpersonal skills, business, and managementwere analyzed to determine if they
predicted project management performance levels. The results of the regression
analyses of the four competency areas indicated that the individual project manager
competencies did not predict project performance in the five phases of project
management. These findings could be attributed to the lack of variability in the
individual project manager competency data that was collected or to the distribution
of competencies for project teams that participated in the study. For instance, 74% of
105
the research participants rated their business competency at a senior project manager
level, 51 % rated personal competency at the same level, 67% rated their
interpersonal skills at the project manager level, and 42 % rated their management
skills at the senior project manager level.
Another explanation for the lack of significance may be related to the participants
self-reflection as project managers, in that they view themselves as less important to
success. These perceptions may relate to their perceptions and beliefs that project
success is dependent on the other factors outside of themselvesthe project team
members, management practices, and measurement data that provides them
information relative to ongoing project performanceas postulated in the PMBOK
Guide. A third explanation may be that project managers are not critical to success
and that previous studiesbecause of the lack of empirical evidence to support their
claimsoverestimated the value that project managers contribute to success.
Competencies were removed from the proposed project success model, given the
statistical insignificance of individual project manager competencies as predictors of
higher project performance, as shown in Figure 8. The remaining variables in the
model are the independent latent variable of project success factors (X)project
managers, teams, measurement system, and supporting management practicesand
the dependent latent variable of project performance (Y) only. Figure 9 represents the
updated first order SEM for project success factors as predictors of project
106
management lifecycle phase and as fell structural and measurement models (Byme,
1998) in the LISREL 8.51 format used to analyze the existence of causal relationships
between the project success factors and project management performance.
Structural Equation Modd-First Order (All factors) Model II
Si
Tit
Project
Growth
S*
Mgt. practices
Figure 8. LISREL 8.51 Confirmatory Factor-Analytical (CFA) SEM Model II

First O rder Measurement Model for the Project Success Model
107
Structural Equation Model - First Order (All factors) Model II Confirmatory
Factorial Analysis
Structural model:
rjl = yl 11 + y21l + y 31 l+ y 4 1 l + 1
ii = r + 1
n
Measurement Model
41 = 1.051 +81
2 = X211+S2
3 = 1311 +83
4 = 1411 + 84
\j/l = l.Orjl + si
\|/2 = 121ril + e2
\|/3 = 131rjl + e3
\j/4 = 141rjl + e4
\j/5 = 151r)l +e5
Figure 9. LISREL 8.51 Confirmatory Factor-Anafytical (CFA) SEM Model II

First O rder Model for Project Success Factors and Project Management
Performance
In the SEM model above, one independent variable (Xs) and one dependent variable
are set to a value of 1.0 for statistical identification of the regression coefficients to
establish a scale for the observed factors variance as required by the LISREL 8.51
program. The results obtained by setting the two variables to 1.0 are used to
determine the degrees of freedom of the structural models and to identify the unique
set of parameters that were used to transform the variance-covariance matrix of the
108
observed variables. Table 15 presents the results of the SEM CFA (Byme, 1998) for
the model design structures shown to be indicators of higher project performance.
Table 15, SEM CFA Results for Project Success Factors; Organization Design,
Performance Measurement Systems, Competent Project Manager, and
Supporting Management Practices as Indicators of Project Management
Performance
Path
Loading
R2
Organization design to performance
LOO
3.91
<0.01
34%
Performance measurement to performance
1.04
3.91
<0.01
46
Project manager to performance
0.94
3.38
<0.01
31
Management practices to performance
1.77
4.34
<0.01
76
Top Qualifier
Goodness-of-fit indices are an output of the SEM CFA (Byme, 1998), which
confirms the structural design of the project success model in the study. Goodness-offit indices (GFI) are statistical indicators of the level of confidence that the confirmed
model was (a) reliable and valid and (b) able to predict project performance. Table 16
presents the various goodness-of-fit indices used to evaluate the project success
model. Choosing which goodness-of-fit indices to validate the model requires
calculating the fitness for small sample sizes and taking into account degrees of
freedom of the proposed system model. The standardized Root Mean Square Residual
(RMR) represents the average value across all standardized residuals value derived
from fitting the variance- covariance matrix to the hypothesized model (SQ) to the
sample data (S). Well-fitting model indices are small (less than .05). The
109
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was derived from the comparison of a hypothesized
model with the independence model (null model) that was completely independent of
all variables in the model (i.e., correlations among variables was zero). Good-fitting
models have CFI values that range from zero to 1.00. The Incremental Index of Fit
(IF!) addresses parsimony and sample size and takes into account the model degrees
of freedom. IFI values range from zero to 1.00, with higher values indicating superior
fit. The last goodness-of-fit (GFI) index was the absolute index used in this study
because It compares the hypothesized model with no model at all. GFI values for the
proposed system model range from zero to 1.00, as illustrated by the well-fit model in
Table 16.
Table 16. Results from Structural Equation Modeling Confirmatory Factorial
Analysis Testing of the Project Success Factors Model (N = 59)
CFA Tests
RMR
CFI
IFI
GIF
All X-Model - Project Success Factors
0.04
0.91
0.92
0.94
All Y-Model - project management Performance
0.02
1.00
1.00
0.98
SEM Model II - Project Success Factors and

Performance
0.06
0.96
0.96
0.88
Winning Design (ASI-X model)

In Table 15 the goodness-of-fit measures for the project success factors (i.e.,
organization design, performance measurement systems, project manager, and
supporting management practices) were shown to be RMR = 0.04, CFI = 0.91, IFI =
0.92 and GIF = 0.94. The indices validate that the design of the instrument accurately
measures the observed variablesproject manager, project designs, performance
110
measurement systems, and supporting management practicesof the project success
factor construct that were used in this study to gather data on the extent to which the
four factors contributed to project performance. The goodness-of-fit analysis results
indicate that the new instrument to measure the latent construct of project success
factors is reliable 91% to 96% of the time in determining how IT organizations have
adapted project management practices.
Winning Performance (All-Y model)

Similarly, the goodness-of-fit measures shown in Table 16 for project management
performance validate the lifecycle phase model (Kerzner, 1998) used in this study, to
measure the adoption of project management practices. The results of the analysis
show that the instrument is reliable 98% to 100% of the time, as indicated by the
respective fit indices ofRMR = 0.02, CFI = 1.00, IFI - 1.00, and GIF = 0.98.
Ready for Race Day

Table 16 shows goodness-of-fit indices of RMR = 0.06, CFI = 0.96, IFI = 0.96 and
GIF = 0.88 for the project success model using the M l first order structural equation
for project success factors as indicators of organization project performance. These
values confirm the project success model to be a good-fitting model for predicting
organization performance from 88% to 96% of the time, based on the study sample
size of 59.
Test of Univariate Normality for Continuous Variables
Table 17 presents the Univariate normality (z-scores) for the dependent variable of
project management performance and the independent variables for project success
Ill
factors. The z-scores for skewness and kurtosis demonstrate that the sample data was
reliable. The z-score values range from -3.79 to 2.037, indicating slightly skewed
data values for the embryonic phase that range outside of the z-statistic for d f= 26 of
|2.479| for p < 0.01. The remaining variables in the model are normally distributed;
therefore, this research rejected the null hypothesis at the 0.01 level of significance.
Table 17. Univariate Normality for Project Management Performance
Dependent Variables and Project Success Factors Independent Variables that
Were Significant Predictors of Project Management Performance (N = 59)
Variable
Skewness Z-Score
Kurtosis ZScore
Embryonic
- 3.794
2.037
Executive Line
- 1.123
- 1.932
Line Management
- 0.916
- 2.787
Growth
- 2.430
1.811
Maturity
- 2.270
0.663
Organization design
- 0.992
0.406
Performance measures
-0.681
-0.621
Competent project manager
0.645
0.314
Management practices
-1.150
- 0.700
Winners Circle
Results from the data analysis of the four project success factors (observed variables)
support the series of structured hypotheses that postulated that a relationship existed
between the four success factors identified in this research study and organization
project performance. Specifically, the results prove that team-oriented organization
112
design structures, performance measurement systems, competent project managers,
and supporting management systems were all determinants of project management
performance in the IT organizations studied. Furthermore, the SEM CFA (Byme,
1998) methods used in this study validated the project success model as a project
management framework based on open systems theory (Hatch, 2000) and
sociotechnicai design principles (Van Amelsvoort, 2000). This combination integrates
the social aspect of organization structure with the technical aspects that leads to
improved organization performance (Pasmore, 1988). Moreover, the project success
model predicts project management performance 93% of the time based on the
goodness-of-fit (GIF) index.
Gathering data on the individual competency levels of the study participants in four
areasbusiness, personal, interpersonal, and managementaimed at differentiating
project managers within the project management system. However, results of the
analysis show that the data collected in this study was insufficient in measuring the
effect different project managers have on project performance. This lack of
significance had three causes: a lack of variability In the competency data collected,
individual bias on behalf of the research participants, and the design of the instrument
used to gather competency data. Therefore, project managers are an integral part of
the project management system. As a whole, the systemnot the individual project
managerssupports improvements in project performance.. This discoveiy is
113
surprising because previous studies have identified individual project managers as
key contributors to project success.
Team Sponsors
The Culture Diagnostic Survey (Harrison & Stokes, 1997) assessed the type of
culture that existed in the IT organizations studied. All culture typespower,
achievement, supporting, and roleexisted in the fifty-nine information
organizations studied. Frequencies of particular culture types that existed in the IT
organizations studied are in Figure 10, by type and dominance. The frequency of
existing culture types by dominance level ranged from Power (n = 29), Achievement
(n = 24), Supporting (n = 4), to Role (n = 2).
Findings from Harrisons (1995) previous studies show that the most dominant
culture type that exist in organizations has the strongest influence on what and how
work is performed in an organization. Consequently, to analyze the effect that culture
type has on project performance, the most dominant culture types are used. Therefore,
regression tests were done for power culture types, which represented 49% of the IT
organizations in the study, and achievement culture types, which represented 41% of
the organizations.
114
Numtser of Organizations Existing Culture Types

By Predominance
(N59)
37
29
21
20
'C
ri
Most Dominant
Next Dominant
Dominant
Least Dominant
Culture Profiles
Q Power Role 0 AchievemenO Supporting!
Figure 10. Information Technology Organizations Existing Culture Types

by Level of Dominance (N = 59)
HI 1 Organizations that have power as their dominant organizational culture type do
not achieve higher project management performance.
Hypothesis HI 1 was supported. The power-oriented culture type a predictor of

project management performance, as seen in Table 18, with F(i,5 7 ) = 10.41 and p <
0 . 01 .
115
Table 18. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Culture type of Power as a
Source
SS
if
MS
Power oriented
30.100
30.100
Error
164.815
57
2.891
Total
194.915
58
10.410 0.002
H I2 Organizations that have role as their dominant organization culture type do not
achieve a higher project management performance.
This hypothesis was not tested because of insufficient data for the role organization
culture type (n = 2 ).
H I3 Organizations that have achievement as their dominant organization culture type

achieve a higher project management performance.
Hypothesis H13 is supported. The achievement-oriented culture type was shown to be

a predictor of project management performance, as seen in Table 19, with Fp^) =
6.00 and p < 0.05.
116
Table 19. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Culture Type of Achievement
as a Predictor of Project Management Performance (N = 59)
ss
tf
Achievement oriented
18.557
18.557
Error
176.358
57
3.094
Total
194.915
58
5.998
0.017
HI 4 Organizations that have supporting as their dominant organization culture type

do not achieve a higher project management performance.
This hypothesis was not tested because of insufficient data for the supporting
organization culture type (n = 4).
HI 5 Organizations that have power as their dominant organization culture type and
employ the project management success factors do not achieve a higher project
Hypothesis HI 5 is supported. The power-oriented culture type was shown not to be a

moderator of project management performance, with F (3 ,5 5 ) = 14.61 and p > 0.01.
Table 20 shows the results of the analysis that determined that culture type was an
independent variable that had a significant effect on project management performance
117
but did not have an effect on the employment of the project success factors. However,
the project success index remained a significant predictor of project performance at p
<
0 .001 .
Table 20.Multiple Regression Results for Project Management Performance, by

Culture Type of Power and Project Success Index (N = 59). Project Success
Index is Computed as the Average of the Four Project Success Factors:
Organization Design, Performance Measurement Systems, Competent Project
Manager, and Supporting Management Practices
Variable
Power oriented
Intercept
- 2.076
Beta
- 0.037
-0.019
0.985
Project Success Index
1.741
3.863
0 .0 0 1
Power x Success
- 0.374
- 0.642
0.524
Note: R2 = 0.443, Fpjs)

= 14.610, p = .001
H I6 Organizations that have achievement as their dominant organization culture

type and employ the project management success factors achieve a higher
Hypothesis H16 is not supported. Organization culture types are not moderators of
project management performance, as shown in Table 21. Achievement-oriented
culture type was shown to be an independent variable, and the project success factors
index (average score of organization design, performance measurement, competent
project manager, and management practices) remained to be a significant predictor of
project performance, with F (3 ,5 5 ) 11.08 and p < 0.001.
118
Table 21. Multiple Regression Results for Project Management Performance, by
Culture Type of Achievement and Project Success Index (N = 59). Project
Success Index Was Computed as the Average of the Four Project Success
Factors: Organization Design, Performance Measurement Systems, Competent
Project Manager, and Supporting Management Practices
Beta
- 0.621
- 0.844
0.402
Project Success Index
1.249
3.352
0.001
Achievement x Success
0.263
1.184
0.241
Variable
Achievement oriented
Intercept
- 1.418
Note: R2 = 0.3773, F(3,55) =

11.079, p = .001
H I7 Organizations that have power as their dominant organization culture type and
that employ competent project managers do not achieve a high level of project
This hypothesis was not tested based on the analysis results that found individual
project manager competencies to be insignificant at p < 0.05 as a predictor of project
H I8 Organizations that have achievement as their dominant organization culture

type and that employ competent project managers do achieve a high level of
119
This hypothesis was not tested based on the analysis results that found individual
project manager competencies to be insignificant at p < 0.05 as a predictor of project
H19 Organizations that have achievement as their dominant organization culture

type and that employ project management success factors and competent
project managers achieve a high level of project management performance.
This hypothesis was not tested based on the analytical results that found individual
project manager competencies to be insignificant at p < 0.05 as predictors of project
F inal Standings
In the design of this study, organization culture is a moderating variable that affects
the project management system employed by IT organizations. However, results of
the data analysis of culture type as a moderator indicate that organization culture is an
independent variable that affects project performance at the organization level as
opposed to the project system level. What this means to this research is that
organization culture is an important factor that must be considered in the design of a
project management system, not as a moderating variable but as a social structure that
exists external to the project management system. Because culture has been found to
be a predictor of project performance, additional analysis of how different culture
120
types affect project performance is done based on the culture data collected in this
study.
In conjunction with the four different culture types, Harrison and Stokes (1997)
developed a culture enlivemment index, as an overall indicator of an organizations
environment. Information technology is computed by adding and subtracting the four
culture types as follows:
Culture Enlivenment Index = Achievement + Supporting - Power - Role
The enlivenment index is either negative or positive based on the values given to each
culture type. For instance, organizations with culture types that have high values for
achievement or support and low values for power or role generate a positive culture
index. A positive index identifies the culture as one that empowers organization
members to make decisions relevant to their work. Organizations with a negative
e nliv e n m ent
index, limit employee decision-making and restrict control of resources
to upper-level management.
A culture enlivenment index was generated for each IT organization in the study to
further evaluate culture as a predictor of performance and to measure the level of
organization enlivenment. The results of this analysis, as shown in Table 22, indicate
that the culture enlivenment was significant, with F (1,5 7 ) = 13.90 and p < 0.001.
121
Table 22. Analysis of Variance Summary Table of Culture Eufivenment Index as
a Predictor of Project Management Performance (N = 59)
iff
MS
Source
SS
Culture index
36.299
36.299
Error
148.888
57
2.612
Total
185.186
58
F
13.897
P
0.001
Figure 11 depicts a line chart that highlights the relationship between the culture
enlivenment index and project performance for the five-phase lifecycle of project
management. For example, organizations with a culture enlivenment index of greater
than 10 reached the higher levels (i.e., 3, executive management; 4, growth; and 5,
maturity) of performance. Organizations with negative culture enlivenment indices
reached the lower levels, embryonic and line management.
In summary, this research proposed organization culture to be a moderator of project

performance; culture had an effect on the design of the project management system
and project performance. However, results from the data analysis indicated that
culture was an independent variable that does not affect the structural design of the
system but does affect project performance at least 98% of the time. In light of this
discovery, the researcher conducted further analysis of the effect of different culture
types on performance.
122
To complete this analysis, a culture enlivenment indexan indicator of an
organization's value system, based on the blending of the four different culture
typesprovides some insight into what is important to an organization and how its
people are valued (Harrison & Stokes, 1992). Organizations with a positive
enlivenment indexmore achievement oriented and less power orientedempowered organization members to make decisions that were relevant to their work
and allowed resources to be allocated at the task level (Harrison & Stokes, 1992).
Organizations with a negative enlivenment indexmore power oriented and less
achievement orientedlimited employee decision-making and controlled resources at
the upper management level (Harrison & Stokes, 1992). Figure 11 shows the
relationship between an organizations enlivenment levels and project performance.
123
FrJ
fey O rga
Di
Life C yele P iia se

*ifivinrs8it C ulture Index
M aturity
' Growth
Line Ms.
t
2
-20 o
-60
- C ulfore In d ex I
Figure 11. Line Chart of the Relationship Between Organization Enlivenment

and Projeet Management Performance
Organizations with positive enlivenment levels achieved higher levels of

performance, and organizations with negative enlivenment levels performed at lower
levels. For example, organizations with a positive index that ranged from zero to
twenty reached the third phaseline management, ones that ranged between twenty
and forty reached the fourth phasegrowth, and ones with greater than forty
achieved the highest level of performancematurity. For the successful adoption of
project management, organizations need to recognize that successful projects rely on
both a structured project management system and an achievement-oriented culture;
124
otherwise, project performance will not improve, and the organizations members will
abandon the new practice (Singh & Lumsden, 1990).
On to the Next Race

The project success model that was developed from the literature review conducted in
this study was used to test and confirm postulated relationships that exist between
project management success factors: project managers, performance measurement
systems, project structures and supporting management practices, project manager
competencies, organization culture, and project management performance. The data
was collected from 59 IT professionals who performed project-related work and
employed project management practices. Results from the linear regression statistical
analysis methods confirmed the project success model structural design that included
project managers, performance measurement systems, project team designs, and
supporting management practices as determinants of project performance. The
relationships that exist between the social and technical structures of the project
success model were found to be consistent with sociotechnical systems design
principles (Pasmore, 1998). In addition, the analysis of the four competency level
areaspersonal, interpersonal, management, and businessthat differentiated
project managers within the system structure showed that project managers are not
predictors of project performance.
A third variableorganizational culturewas analyzed as a moderator of project

performance. Results of this analysis showed that organizational culture types do not
125
act as moderators; culture types do not affect the design of the project management
system. However, the analysis showed that culture type is an independent variable
that directly affects project performance, as indicated by power-oriented cultures
achieving only the lower levels of performance compared to achievement-oriented
cultures achieving higher levels in the adoption of project management practices.
In addition, several hypotheses were not tested during the analysis phase of this
research because project manager competencies were found to be insignificant to
performance and only a small number of participating organizations had role or
supporting culture types.
In conclusion, organizations should not rely on project managers alone to achieve

success. To be successful, IT organizations must consider the design of the project
management system and be aware of the culture types that exist in their organizations
to improve the adoption of project management practices and project performance.
Chapter 5: Discussion
This study explored why some IT organizations are successful at adopting project
management practices that lead to improved project performance while others fail.
What sparked this line of inquiry was a recent study that found that as few as 28% of
IT projects are successful (Standish Group International, 2002). Also intriguing was
another studys findings that of the 1124 IT organizations attempting to implement
project management practices, only 45.7% (645 US based and 479 offshore) have
been successful at improving project performance (Software Engineering Institute,
2002). To understand why IT projects fail more often than they succeed and in what
ways organizations are challenged with implementing new project management
practices, this study began with the literature of past management practices,
Organization Development design methods, and project management success stories.
A Winning Combination
Exploration into project management practices in IT organizations began with a look
at past management practices adopted as Organization Development change
interventions to improve organization performance. Highlights of that review were
that past management practices shared a common purpose, to lead an organization
through a change process to improve performance, and that the structural design
people and processes employedcontributed to differing levels of performance
(Burke, 2002; Cummings & Worley, 1993; Emery & Purser, 1996; French & Bell,
1999; French, Bell, & Zawacki, 2000; Pasmore, 1988; Taylor & Felten, 1993; Van
126
127
Eijxtatten, 1993). Therefore, to understand how project managements practices
contribute to organization performance, this study investigated key factors that
contributed to IT projects successfactors that have led to projects being on time,
on budget, and in compliance with the stated business objectivesto develop a
project success model that integrates the social and technical structures of a project
management system with its cultural environment and that represents an integrated
organizational model that will lead to increase project performance.
Discovered through this literature review was the paucity of empirical research
studies in the field of project management. Many articles used a single case study to
conclude that project success factors were key contributors; others presented factors
based on conjecture alone. Because a large number of the success factors identified in
the literature were anecdotal in nature, there was a need to develop a theoretical
framework to represent a common project management system for IT organizations.
Hence, a theoretical model for the adoption of project management practices was
developed from the design methods used on past management practices that were
reviewed in this study. These design methods included sociotechnical systems
(Pasmore, 1988) and open system theory (Emery, 1997), both of which have
contributed to improved performance through continuous improvement, business
process redesign, and an emphasis on humanistic values (Emery, 1997; French et al.,
2000; Pasmore, 1998; Shani & Mitki, 1996).
128
The resulting theoretical model for the adoption of project management practices in
IT organizations incorporated the social structures of individual organization
membersproject managers and project team memberswho perform projectrelated work and the technical structures of performance measurement systems and
supporting management practices employed by an organization throughout a project
lifecycle. An important design structure for improving project performance,
organization culture expands on previous open system theory research that found that
culture influenced how new management practices were accepted by individuals in a
given organization (Cameron & Freeman, 1991; Emery, 1997; Graham & Englund,
1997; Goffee & Jones, 1996; Harrison, 1995).
The quantitative research approach taken in this study was to validate the models
structural design and to test a series of structured hypotheses that defined the
expected outcome of the model (i.e., improved project performance). Structured
Equations Method Confirmatory Factorial Analysis methods defined the postulated
relationships that exist in the success model between the social and technical design
structures. Data gathered from IT professionals that had project management
experience tested the success model structural design. In addition, this research
attempted to differentiate between project managers at the system level as a way to
explore how different project managers contributed to success. A third variable
investigated in this study was organizational culture, which represented the dominant
management ideologies in the organizations under study to evaluate the effect on
129
performance (Harrison & Stokes, 1997). These three areas of inquiryproject
success factors, project manager competencies, and organization culturerepresent
the open system design for the adoption of project management practices in IT
organizations. To measure performance, individual research participants completed a
project excellence questionnaire (Kerzner, 1998) to determine their organizations
project performance levels, based on a project management lifecycle model that
measures level of adaptation and project success at each of the five phases in the
lifecycle model.
A Day at the Test Track
Fifty-nine IT professionals who work in different IT organizations on different
projects participated in this study. Linear regression analysis (ANOVA) measured the
level of significance for each design structure in the project success model as a
determinant of project performance. Design structures that were found to be
significant at p < 0.05 were accepted as predictors of project performance. Additional
analysis of organization culture as a moderator of project performance evaluated the
effect that different culture types had on the design of the project system and
performance.
Results of the linear regression demonstrated that the project success model, social
and technical structures of project managers, organization team structures,
performance measurement systems, and supporting management practices were
significant predictors of project performance. Results of p < 0.05 indicated that these
130
structures are determinants of organizational project performance greater than 95% of
the time. In fact, results from this research indicate that the most critical factors for
project success, from most to least significant, are supporting management practices
(99.9%), performance measurement systems (99.9%), team structures (99.7%), and
project managers (96.6%) for improved project performance. Furthermore, analysis
showed that organization culture was an overriding factor in predicting project
successwhere power-oriented cultures (99.8%) and achievement-oriented cultures
(98.3%) were independent of the system design.
Winning the Next Race

These study findings are important to the fields of Project Management and
Organization Development because of the number of organizations actively working
on adopting project management as a means to improve performance and that are
experiencing mixed results. As a practitioner in these two management fields, it has
become apparent that organizations tend to focus more on the design of the systems
technical structuresprocesses used to manage projectsand pay little regard to the
environment in which the system residesculturewhich leads to varying levels of
performance. Findings from this study emphasize the need for organizations to do
more than define the core technologiespractices and measurement systems
associated with project management. They need to comprehend the adoption of
project management from a open system perspective that integrates the technologies
with the people In the organization that perform the project-related work, both at the
system levelproject managers and teamsand at the environmental levelculture.
131
In essence, to improve project performance, organizations need to design a project
management system that incorporates (a) the different management practices that
exist in the organizations; (b) a project measurement system incorporating metrics,
that aids project managers and team members in meeting the project schedule, budget,
and business requirements; (c) the development of project teams that are crossfunctional; (d) project managers experienced in managing IT projects; and most
importantly, (e) an achievement-oriented culture, which places a priority on projects
to ensure resources are allocated as planned. However, it is not that simple. The
design of the system is only the first step towards improved project performance.
Previous studies have shown that the easiest part of the adoption process is defining
the technologies; the hard part is getting organizational members to adapt to the new
system structures, which require individuals to change how they perform their work
and how they interact with other organization members (i.e., their inherent
behaviors).
For example, individuals that participated in this research varied in their perceptions
of what factors attributed to project success inside their individual organizations, as
indicated by their responses to the project success instrument that asked them to rate
the extent that each factor contributed to success. The differences in opinion are
shown in Figures 12 and 13 that indicate that members in the embryonic and maturity
organizations adapt to the new structuresproject managers, teams, supporting
management practices, and measurementsat varying levels. In Figure 12,
132
individuals rated the factors as little to moderate were performing at the embryonic
stage, the lowest level of project management performance. Individuals that rated
factors as moderate to highly had achieved the maturity phase the highest level of
performance in Figure 13.
LISREL 8.51 SEM CFA (MANOVA) methods (Byrne, 1998) analyzed the causal
relationships that existed between the project success model structures and project
performance at the five-lifecycle phases (Kerzner, 1998). Results from the CFA
(Byrne, 1998) confirmed that the project management systems structural design,
which encompasses project managers, organization team structures, performance
measurements systems, and supporting management practices, was a determinant of
project performance at p < 0.01. Consequently, organizations that take a systemic
approach to the adoption of project management practices, based on the confirmed
model design, will achieve higher levels of project management performance.
Teamwork
Organizations that achieved high levels of performance rated the social structures of
the project success modelproject managers and teamsas moderately to highly
important to success. Surprisingly, project team structures were more important than
project managers to the success of a project, which leads the researcher to believe that
project managers value the contributions of their project teams over themselves.
ruetures Adopted
Preyed lianagemi
Embryofii
Number of O rg a n iz a tio n s
20
1 5
-i
10 -I
/AA \
/
/ / A
/ A
/ A
a;
f
id
\
'
:-
...
AA-
'toil:
0
Very Little
Little
M oderate
Highly
Critical
E x te n t S tru c tu re A ttrib u ted to S u c c e s s

jet SVlgrs
M e a su re m e n ts
H P ro c e s s e s
T eam s
Figure 12. Adoption of Project Management Success Factors at tie Embryonic

Lifecycle Phase (m = 23)
134
Project Management Structures Adopted

at the
Maturity Phase (n=21)
20
15
10
0Very Little
Little
Moderate
Highly
Extent Structure Attributed to Success
Critical
I Prjt Managers Measurements B P ro cesses O Teams
Figure 13. Adoption of Project Management Success Factors at the Maturity

Lifecycle Phase (n = 21)
As opposed to lower performing organizations, which rated the social structures
differently, project managers were highly important, but project teams were little to
moderately important. Differences existed between the extent that technical
structuresmeasurement systems and supporting management practicesattributed
to success within the organizations studied.
These findings provide insight into how different organization members adapt to new
management practices, and why some organizations succeed while others fail.
135
Driver Skills and Performance
The attempt made in this study to differentiate project managers based on their skills
and competencies was unsuccessful. The results showed that manager competency
levels are not predictors of project performance in the model. Thus, project managers
as a social structure are part of the internal system design, not separate from the
model. The project manager and team work together to achieve success, as shown in
Figure 13, where organizations that reached the highest level of maturity rated project
managers and teams as high contributors, with teams rated the most critical to
success. This result was surprising because previous studies had recognized that
project managers required leadership skills and competencies to be effective
(Shenhar, 1994; Zimmerer & Yasin, 1998) and that technical professionals required
interpersonal skill to be successful (Rosenbaum, 1990; Strohmeier, 1992). These
rather incongruous results may be related to the fact that a large majority (59.3%) of
the research participants are project managers. For instance, three quarters of the
research participants rated their business competency at a senior project manager
level, half rated personal competency at the same level, two-thirds rated their
interpersonal skills at the project manager level, and 42% rated their management
skills at the senior project manager level.
Another explanation for the lack of significance may be related to the participants
perception as project managers in that they view themselves as less important to
success because they have learned that their success depends more on the teams,
management practices and measures systems that are employed on their projects.
136
On Race Day
In practice, when a new project begins, the project manager and project team
members work together with the to define the project objectives. They also estimate
the time in which the project is to be completed and the cost for the project. To
measure performance, they define project metrics using the technologies that are part
of the project management system technical structures. As the project progresses, the
project members need to process as an input new requirements that have been
identified as part of the project by and evaluate their impact on the project timing,
cost, and quality. The technologies that formed the technical structure of the project
success model included project management and supporting management practices
that govern how project-related work is performed to meet the business requirements
and objectives. The project manager and team members review the outcomes from
the evaluation process to determine if the change could be incorporated into the
project without impacting the budget, cost, or delivery date that was established for
the project In either event, they must maintain communication with the change
initiator to ensure that the requester and the project team are working towards
completing the same requirements and objectives. Otherwise, the project team may
deliver a software application that would not meet the requesters requirements, and
the project would not succeed. As well, the requester must understand how the project
team evaluated the request so that he or she has an understanding of the technologies
used to assess the impact and the technologies used to control project activities. This
type of communication between the projects and outside organization members (i.e.,
requesters) Is an essential function of an effective project manager. Project managers
137
develop the formal communication network used by projects to ensure that a project
meets the organizations needs while maintaining cost and schedule performance
objectives (Adams & Campbell, 1996; Meredith & Mantel, 2000). The project
manager must communicate with the project team members to determine what must
be done to meet the requirements of the change request and to ensure that the new
change is transformed into a new task to be completed, again utilizing the supporting
management practices that are part of the project management system (Adams,
Bilbro, & Stockert, 1997). Otherwise, the outputs produced by the organization would
be different than what are required to meet the business objectives. For instance, if a
project manager was asked to change a feature in the software application on which
the project team was working, and the project manager failed to tell the team about
the change request, then the project team would not update the project activities, the
software would be of poor quality, and the project would fail (Wateridge, 1998). This
scenario compares to an automotive racing team on race day. An experienced driver
relies on the support crew to keep the race car in top shape, the support crew waits in
the pits for the driver to stop in for fuel and new tires, and the team manager plans
with the driver on how to reenter the race.
Winning Designs
Interestingly, as perceived by the participants, the technical structures of the project
success model are more important to project performance than the social structures.
These findings were supported by MSTS (Van Amelsvoort, 2000) principles, which
state that the type of technologies adopted determines the social structures of a system
138
because different technologies determine how the work is to be performed. In
previous studies, technologies used on projects varied from organization to
organization, suggesting that the types of structures that form a project management
system are contingent on the organization. Therefore, organizations need to consider
how to integrate their existing technologies, the performance measurement system,
and the supporting management practices in the project success model to increase
project success. Three supporting management practices are unique to IT: system
development methodologies, configuration management, and vendor management
processes. These govern how information systems components are designed and
developed, how software applications and documentation are maintained, and how
outside vendors are managed throughout a project lifecycle, respectively. Much like
an automotive design, teams needs to consider the many parts and subsystems of a
racecar to maximize horsepower.
Research participants perceptions of the importance of these technologies to IT

projects was likened to that of a modernist; they rated these technologies as
contributing more to success than the social structures of project managers and teams.
In practice, performance measurement systems monitor and track project activities
through a varied set of metrics that help to ensure that projects keep on schedule and
within budget. As opposed to monitoring individual tasks, the project manager and
project team members use outputs from the measurement system to monitor the
overall progress of the project. This allows for some flexibility in timing of project
' 139
activities. Without a measurement system, project teams would be unable to process
and adapt to new requirements from the environment because they would not have
enough information to determine the impact that a new requirementor input
would have on the project. Experienced racecar drivers rely on the gauges inside the
car to determine how well the racecar is performing on the track. When the gauges
indicate that there are problems with the car, the driver gets assistance from the
support crew. Within minutes, they fix the problems to keep the car in the race.
Digital versus Analog
Modem sociotechnical system (Van Amelsvoort, 2000) approaches emphasize the
design of the technical structures of a management system. In this study, the technical
structures are performance measurement systems and supporting management
practices that can be designed as part of a project management system. They
influence how the social structures that represent the people in the organization
perform project-related work. The importance of a modernist approach to
sociotechnical systems and the adoption of project management practices is that
modem social technical system design takes an integrated approachstructures work
together as one systemto improve organization performance and quality of work
life (French et a l, 2001). However, the technical structures adopted in organizations
are not necessarily the ones identified in the project success model. For instance,
some organizations perceived project managers and teams as being the most critical
to success. Therefore, organizations need to be aware of the types of technologies
employed and to get people involved in the design process to improve performance.
140
This approach is seen in organizations that have taken a Modem Sociotechnical
Systems (MSTS) approach to improving Quality of Work Life (QWL) based on
individual participation in the design of their project work.
In stable environments, the mechanistic form is advantageous because
of the efficiencies information technology can generate by using
standard procedures to perform routine activities. Under these
conditions organizations can learn to optimize their activities with
respect to minimizing costs and maximizing profits. Under rapidly
changing conditions, however, many of the advantages of mechanistic
organizations are lost. The logic and profitability of routinization
breaks down when organization must constantly alter information
technologys activities in order to adapt to rapid changes in the
environment. The flexibility that comes with organic forms of
organization is preferred in a changing environment because this
supports needed innovation and adaptation. The explanation of when
to use mechanistic versus organic forms of organization is ...
contingent upon conditions of complexity and change in the
environment. (Hatch, 2000, p. 77)
Key Contributors
Analysis of culture types was the most revealing in this study, especially the effect
that organization culture has on project performance. For instance, the power culture
type in particular achieved only the lower phases (i.e., embryonic and line) of the
project management lifecycle model. Of the organizations studied that reached the
embryonic phase of the project management lifecycle model, 67% had a power
culture type and 29% had an achievement culture type, as shown in Figure 14. Of the
organizations that reached the highest maturity phase, 29% had a power culture type,
and 57% had an achievement culture type.
141
Culture is a part of everyday life. We encounter it through our interactions with other
people. How people react to what they perceive is based on the cognitive ability, or
logic, of the brain, their past experiences, and the different settings or situations to
which they are exposed (Hall, 1989). Even though the Andersen (2001) study
identified achievement-oriented culture as the ideal culture type for a project system,
he did not evaluate the effect different culture types had on performance. Therefore,
the relevancy of Andersens study is limited to the discovery that different culture
types exist at the project management system level and at the environmental level of
an organization.
IT Project Management Maturity by Culture Types

66 .67 %
57 . 14 %
50 .00 %
50 .00 %
28 .57 %
28 .57 %
9 .52%
) .0 Q %
Embryonic <n=21)
Executive (n=11)
Line Management (n=2)
Growth (n=4)
Maturity (n=21)
ftflaiurity Level
iO Power ORole Q Achievement S Supporting |
Figure 14. Percentage of Organizations by Dominant Culture Types by Project

Management Lifecycle Phases for N = 59
142
This study relates project performance at five different phases of maturity by different
culture types at the environmental level and explains how these culture types affect
performance regardless of the project system. This new insight into the successful
adoption of management practices focuses on Organization Development activities at
the environmental level rather than traditional approaches that begin at the system
level, such as the development of project managers, teams, measurement systems, or
supporting management practices. For example, a key characteristic of poweroriented cultures is that individual organization members are highly dependent and
lack initiative (Harrison, 1995). In this type of culture, compliance is valued over
organization performance, and frequent territorial warfare occurs across
organizational boundaries. This culture impedes resource sharing and requires more
time for negotiating with territory leaders (managers) on resource assignment for key
initiatives (i.e., projects). Without the allocation of required resources, a project
manger will be unsuccessful at developing a highly skilled project team, and project
time will be lost because of a late start.
In contrast, achievement oriented-cultures highly value project performance.

Effectiveness of this type of organization is relative to the achievement of the
organizations goals and objectives, and nothing gets in the way of accomplishing
goals (Harrison, 1995). In this type of culture, individuals with the expertise and
knowledge about the business environments need are recognized as project
specialists and given authority over the project resources, as opposed to in power
143
cultures, where individuals in high positions (elites) govern how projects are
executed. Therefore, achievement-oriented organizations that have adopted project
management systems but have not reached a high level of performance need to focus
on the internal structure of the system to improve performance. For instance, project
structures need to change to meet the demands of the project work performed in the
organization. Emphasis must be on rapid response to changing conditions, on
collaboration within the project team to meet the business objectives, and on the
design of the technologies employed within the system meeting the needs of the
project manager, project team, and project requirements.
Even though Kerzner (1998) recognized that the inefficiency existing at the
embryonic, executive, and line management phases of project management
performance was due to superficial management commitment to the success of
project management, he does not identify ways that an organization can work to
change its culture to be more achievement oriented. In response, this study draws
from Organization Development theories and design methods shown to improve
performance in other arenas. It also expands Kerzners (1998) study by demonstrating
the importance of taking a systems approach to the adoption, in which all factors
project manager skills, team design structures, measurement systems, supporting
management practices, and cultureare managed throughout the organizational
change process.
144
Team Manager Dynamics
In the project success model confirmed In this study, culture was independent of the
other six components, demonstrating that an organization can improve project
performance by developing an environment that is more achievement oriented and
less power oriented. In fact, this study implies that the development of positive
enlivenment culture could be the first step towards a successful adoption process.
These findings strengthen Kerzners (1998) model by identifying additional
technologies, or supporting management practices, that are specific to IT project
types, such as configuration management that limits the amount of rework that may
be required.
ideal Racing Conditions

Learning ones culture is important, that self-awareness and cultural awareness were
inseparable. . . means that transcending unconscious culture can not be accomplished
without some degree of self-awareness (Hall et a!., p. 212). As illustrated in Figure
15, research participants from this study identified their preferred culturesthe ideal
culture types that form a culture profile for high levels of project success. The ideal
culture profile defined by the participants for the successful adoption of project
management practices is Achievement (88%), Role (63%), Supporting (61%), and
Power (85%). The ideal culture profile results reflect individuals beliefs that
predominately achievement-oriented cultures achieve higher levels of performance.
145
Percentage of Preferred Culture Types For Information
Organizations (N=59)
Technology
85%
63%
61 %
32 %
25%
3% 2%
5%
Most Dominant
2%
Next Dominant
3%
2%
2%
Dominant
7%
3%
Least Dominant
Prefered Culture Types
Power ORole
Achievement Supporting
Figure 15. Information Technology Organizations Preferred Culture Types

by Level of Dominance (N = 59)
In summary, the new project success model confirmed in this study provides a
structural framework in which to assess an IT organizations project management
performance relative to the practices adopted. The analytical results confirm that
project performance relies on the employment of project managers, project teams, a
defined measurement system, and supporting management practicesintegrated
processes that are unique to IT projects. In addition, organization culture is the most
significant factor in the project success model relative to predicting project success.
Therefore, to successfully adopt project management practices and improve project
success, IT organizations need to assess both their project management system design
and their culture. Otherwise, the new system will risk death as posited by the
population ecology theory that predicts that organizations with power will abandon
146
systems that fail to achieve their business objectives and replace them with new
systems that best fit their needs (Hatch, 2000; Singh & Lumsden, 1990).
limitations
Racecar designs are specific to a racing circuit based on the design of the track and
the type of race that is planned. For example, stock car designs enable the racecar to
perform over long distancesmany laps at high speedswhile dragster designs are
for short distance. Similarly, the design of the project success model developed in this
study is limited by the data collected, which was based on individuals perceptions of
the project systems adopted by their organizations and the culture types that exist.
Responses from each organization under study were used to measure the extent to
which the project success factors contributed to success in their organization, culture
type, and project performance. A study that includes multiple responses from a single
project would help determine if the individuals involved shared the same subjective
perception about their project management practices, organization culture, and project
performance. Hence, the ability to generalize the studys findings is relevant to IT
professionals with five or more years of project management experience80% of the
participants in this study.
Checkered Flags
This study represents a journey taken to understand how to improve IT project
success. It expanded on the Standish Group International findings (2000) that 71% of
projects fail. Discovered through this journey is that the success of projects in IT
organizations is attributed to the project managers, teams, measurement systems, and
147
supporting management practices that work together as one system in a projectfocused environment Furthermore, the study results show that supporting
management practices are most significant to performance, followed by measurement
systems, teams, and project managers. However, the nature of a sociotecfanical
systems design is that the social and technical structures interrelate and that a change
in one structure causes change in the other. Hence, organizations that adopt project
management practices must evaluate the project management system as a whole, not
just its parts; otherwise, project success will be unpredictable.
This same caution rings true for the different organization culture types studied in this
research. Culture is independent of the project success model and just as important to
project performance as the four factors in the success model. Organizations with a
culture type that was dominantly power-oriented were limited in their performance,
regardless of how the organization adopted project management practices.
Information technology organizations that adopt the confirmed project success

framework as an approach to improve project performance and success need to
employ project managers, project teams, performance measurement systems, and
supporting management practices. At the same time, they need to be aware of the
culture types that exist within their environment because culture affects project
performance independent of the project success model. Without this awareness,
project success will be unpredictable. The Standish Group International study (2000)
148
concluded that organizations must develop collaborative working relationships to be
successful. This study has shown that it is not that simple: a change made in a single
area causes changes in other areas of the organization. Therefore, organizations must
implement integrated management practices to support IT projects. They need to (a)
develop performance measurement systems that track and monitor progress at all
levels in the organization, (b) learn how to allocate members to project teams from
multiple disciplines, and (c) hire and train project managers. At the same time,
organizations need to be aware of their existing culture to ensure that individual
actions support the new project management philosophy. Organizations that adopt the
project success model will be enabled to progress to the maturity phase of project
management and thereby reap the benefits of more projects that are successful and
improved performance.
A racing team challenge is the rapid rate of technological change. Early in the sport's
development racecars changed gradually, often with years intervening between
significant innovations. Over time it became increasingly common for competitors to
actively seek technological superiority (Economaki, 2002). This can be very costly,
because research, technical staff, and implementing change itself (requiring the
physical construction of new cars or components) add a great deal to the cost of
running a racecar (Economaki, 2002). If a team does not keep up with the cuttingedge technology, however, it may be sacrificing a chance for victory. Such challenges
will continue to be part of automobile racing in the years ahead (Economaki, 2002).
149
To win on race day, automotive racing teams rely on a design team, a team manager,
an experienced driver, a support crew, and sponsors. IT organizations need to rely on
project managers, performance measurement systems, teams, supporting management
practices, and an achievement-oriented culture to take home the checkered flag.
The Future of Racing

Information technology organizations that choose to adopt project management
practices to improve organization performance can use the project success model to
evaluate their current projects, to better understand how projects are organized and
managed, and to identify potential areas of improvement. One approach an
organization could take would be to use the success-factor instrument to gather
internal organization data about how individuals in the organization perceive the
factors that contribute to success. Based on those findings, the organization would
know what factors need further development. If the participants indicate that the
supporting management practices are low contributors, then that would indicate to the
organization that they may need to investigate the practices being used on projects
and to verify whether they include the four practices shown in this study to support
project performance. This approach could also be used for the other three factors in
the project success model.
Organizations also need to determine their type of culture to understand the effect that
their existing culture type has on performance. The culture instrument employed in
this study could be used for this purpose. After identifying its culture, the
150
organization could define action plans designed to work toward adopting

achievement-oriented characteristics that balance the level of control over the
resources in the organization. These action plans increase the focus on activities that
promote project-related work. Organizations choosing to use the project success
model to evaluate and redesign their project management practices may choose to
embark on that journey alone or to engage others in the process. Others who could
help with the redesign process include an OD practitioner who has worked with
sociotechnical systems design methods in other organizations; individual project
managers who are responsible for managing projects and who work within the project
management system; and organization members outside of the project who represent
the culture that surrounds the project management system.
Organization Development practitioners could play the role of organizational

architect (Cheyunski & Millard, 1998) and work with organization members in the
design of a project management system. Such a system would include a process to
select and develop internal project managers who are capable of leading IT projects
using the supporting management practices that are adopted in the organization. In
addition, OD practitioners could also work with organization members and project
managers to form cross-functional project teams comprised of individuals with
expertise in specific business areas, IT, and project management practices. By
assisting project managers in developing a project measurement system to monitor
project performance in the achievement of business objectives, project requirements,
151
financial management, time management, team performance, and adherence to the
management practices, they could help to ensure a high rate of project success. More
importantly, practitioners need to ensure that organization members recognize the
need to adopt new management systems from a system perspective. Because of the
interrelatedness of the social and technical design structures, even a small change in
one structure results in a change in the others. For instance, a change in the
supporting management practices produces a change in the team structure and,
ultimately, a project delay because previous team members would not have the skills
needed to complete the new tasks associated with the new practice.
An OD practitioner could also increase an organizations awareness of the effect that

culture has on the adoption of project management practices and on the overall
performance of the base organization. Practitioners could assist organizations in
developing a culture profile listing behaviors that either hindered or supported the
adoption process. For instance, organizations that are highly power oriented need to
learn how to allocate resources to projects to improve project success and to achieve
the stated business objectives rather than fighting over the key resources as a
demonstration of their control and power. Achievement-oriented cultures could also
improve project success by understanding how their actions relate to project success
and how to ensure that decisions are made in a timely manner to keep a project on
track.
152
Implications for the project manager focus more on the design of the project
management system than on the environment. However, project managers need to be
aware of the type of culture that exists in the environment so that they can plan
enough time in the project schedule for obtaining resources, funding approval, and
changes in business requirements that result from changes in the environment. In
practice, project managers are expected to process information within and outside of
the project to ensure that changes at the project or environmental levels are managed
and controlled. Changes at the project level include the introduction of new
management practices, introduction of new team members, or delays in the
completion of project tasks. At the environmental level, changes relate to economic
issues that cause an organization to reevaluate what projects are funded, an
organizations restructuring effort that impacts resource availability, or the
introduction of a new leader with a new vision.
A project manager could use the project success model framework to incorporate
changes to the project by defining new metrics in the project measurement system
that predict future performance. Adoption of the success model developed in this
study could also benefit a project manager by helping him or her to understand the
importance of culture.
In summary, this research has resulted in the development of an organization design

approach for the adoption of project management practices in IT organizations. The
153
soclotechnical systems and open system design methods used in this study to design a
project management system demonstrate that success is a result of adaptive and
interdependent relationships that exist between the social and technical structures of
the system. These findings give light to the fact that project success and improved
performance is not a result of a competent project manager or a project management
methodology. Success occurs when the project manager and project team employ
management practices and measurement systems for IT projects.
An exploration of project manager competency levels was conducted in this study as

an attempt to differentiate between project managers and to gain knowledge about
how individual project managers contribute to project success. This line of inquiry
was initiated based on the Standish Group International study (2000) that found that
95% of successful projects have a project manager assigned. However, the results
from the analysis of competency levels indicate that project manager competencies
were not determinants of success. An explanation for the lack of significance of
project manager competency levels is the lack of variability between levels. In other
words, project managers had similar experiences. The lack of significance may also
relate to previous studies claims that were unfounded and lacked empirical evidence.
Analysis results of the confirmed project management system design from this study
provided evidence that project managers are contributors to success; however, they
were least significant in predicting project performance. These findings question the
results from previous studies that highlighted the value that project managers bring to
154
a project, even though they are an important structure in the project management
system.
A future area of study suggested by this work is a longitudinal study of organizations

that have taken a sociotechnical systems design approach to the adoption of project
management using the project success model to determine how the relationships
between the four factors in the model changed the organization environment,
performance, and effectiveness. Such a study would gather specific information about
the adaptive behaviors that exist among the system, the culture, and the individual
organization members that enable the organization to move along the project
management lifecycle phases. It would also be interesting to expand this study by
gathering data from information technology organizations that have role and
supporting culture types to explore the relationships between these cultures and
project performance.
In closing, the goal of this study was to uncover the factors that contribute to IT
project success and to gather transferable knowledge to improve organization
performance. A practical outcome of this study is a project success model grounded
in OD theories and principles that improve project success. It is the researchers hope
that the project success model will be a useful tool in improving the rate of IT project
success.
Appendix A: Instrument Design

Project Management Success Factors ranked highest to lowest based on the extent that each success
factor has contributed to the implementation of project management practices in an information
technology organization for a sample size of N = 35. Rating Scale: 1Very little extent, 2Little
extent, 3Moderate extent, 4High extent, and 5Critical extent
Mean
StdL
Variance
Median
Competent project manageran individual that is skilled in project

management methodologies.
4.29
0.83
0.68
Training and Educationthe organization invests in training and/ or

continued education in project management methods, techniques,
and tools.
4.14
0.85
0.71
Competent project manageran individual that is skilled in

leadership behaviors.
4.09
1.04
1.08
1.00
1.00
1.15
1.32
1.05
1.10
0.89
0.79
0.95
0.91
1.29
1.65
1.44
2.08
1.22
1.49
Project Management Success Factor
Change management processesa structured method that is used to

4.06
manage organizational change activities (transformation).
System development processa structured methodology that is used
to manage information technology product lifecycle (i.e., conception 3.91
to divestment).
Configuration management processa structured method that is
used to handle version control of information technology
3.89
deliverables (i.e., system documentation, software modules,
operating system libraries, etc).
Organization culturethe beliefs, values, and manifestations of an
3.83
organization.
Project management strategyproject management is documented
3.83
as a key business strategy as an enabler for organization performance
Performance measurement systemsa quantitative method defined
by a set of metrics used to evaluate progress on the achievement of
business objectives, customer satisfaction, schedule variance,
3.77
financial, quality, resource planning, team performance, innovation,
and process compliance
Organization designresources were structured as a collaborative
3.51
team (based on trust) that works together to achieve common goals
and objectives.
Performance measurement systemsa quantitative method to
3.43
evaluate progress on project time, cost, and quality only.
155
Appendix B: R esearch Study Instruments

The survey design included individual instruments for the employment of the four
project management success factors: project managers, performance measurement
systems, project organization design structures, supporting management practices. A
second instrument was used to measure four project manager competencies: personal,
interpersonal, management, and business, to further understand if project managers
with different competencies and skills contributed to project success at different
project lifecycle phases. A third survey was used to evaluate organization culture
types and a fourth survey assessed organization project management performance.
Project Success Factors Instrument

The first questionnaire was developed from a literature review that identified success
factors that contributed to the successful implementation of project management
methodologies in the information technology industry.
156
157
Read question as:
Success fa c to r has attributed to the im plem entation o f a project m anagem ent m ethodology in my organization to t
(5-1 rating extent). M ark only one value (5, 4, 3, 2, or 1) in the box th at represents the level o f extent for each
factor. This ranking is for questions I through 16. Q uestions 17 through 23 are for dem ographics. Please respond
as noted in each question.
R ating Scale:
5 - Very great
extent
(Questions
4 -G reat
extent
3 Moderate
extent
4
2 - Little
extent
3
1- Very little
(sometimes no)
extent
2
1. Organization design resources are structured

functionally (i.e. development,
testing, deployment,
infrastructure, etc.)
2. Organization design resources are structured crossfundjonaiiy where there are
many functions (i.e. testing,
development, infrastructure,
etc.) grouped together by
sectors (i.e. manufacturing
systems, financial systems,
etc.).
3. Organization design resources are structured in a
matrix (i.e. assigned to several
projects based on functional
expertise regardless on sector).
4. Organization design resources are structured as a
oofebcrative team (based on
trust) that works together to
achieve common goats and
r.b ic K s s
Performance M easurem ent
OWSWH*
............................
5. Performance measurement
system s - a quantitative method
to evaluate progress on project
time, cost and quality only.
systems - a quantitative method
to evaluate progress on the
achievement of business
objectives only (i.e. logical
framework method (LFM)).
systems - a quantitative mefood
achievement of financial
objectives only (i.e. Net-present
value (NPV), discounts cash
tow (DCF), cost variance).
158
systems - a quantitative method
defined by a se t of metrics used
achievement of business
objectives, customer
satisfaction, schedule variance,
financial, quality, resource
planning, team performance,
innovation, process compliance
(i.e. balanced scorecard,
dashboard).
system s - a quantitative method
to evaluate information
technology process maturity (i.e.
Software Engineering Institute's
Capability Maturity Model (SEI
CMM)).
.............. ... ............ /
10. Competent project manager

- an individual that is skilled in
project management
methodologies.
11. Competent prcpct manager
- an individual that is a certified
by the Project Management
Institute (PMI) a s a Professional
Project Manager (PMP).
12. Competent project manager
- an individual that is skilled in
leadership behaviors.
13. System development
process - a structured
methodology that is used to
manage information technology
product lifecycle (i.e. conception
to divestment).
14. Change management
processes - a structured
method that is used to manage
organizational change activities
(transformation).
15. Configuration management
process - a structured method
that is used to handle version
control of information technology
deliverables (i.e. system
documentation, software
modules, operating system
libraries, etc).
16. Project Management
strategy - project management
is documented a s a key
business strategy as an enabler
for organization performance
(i.e. business growth,
competitiveness, and
profitability).
159
Survey Demographics
Pkaas m m tr f e
otsii fSssst tifWi
applies.
17. What is your gender ?

(1-2)
1 - Female
2 -Male
18. What is the CMIW Level of
maturity for the organization that
you work? (1-5)
1. Level I
2. Level ll
3. Level III
4. Level IV
5. Level V
19. How many years of
experience do you have working
on IT projects. (1-5)
1.1 and fewer than 5 years
2. 5 and fewer than 10 years
3.10 and fewer than 20 years
4. 20 and fewer than 30 years
5. 30 years and more
20. What type of IT project work
do you perform most frequently?
(1-5)
1. Consulting
2. Application development
3. Enterprise Systems
4. Networking
5.Customer Assistance
21. What is your role on these IT
projects? (1-4)
1. Team Member
2. Project Manager
3. Program Manager
4. Department Manager
22. How much time to you
devote to your major project?
(1-4)
1. Less than 25%
2. 25%- 49%
3. 50% -99%
4. 100%
22b. What is the name of the
project you are currently working
on? Please type in the name of
the project.
Project Name
23. Are you a PMI certified

project manager professional
(PMP)? (1-2) 1-Yes or 2-No
160
Culture Instrument
Harrison, R. and Stokes, H. (1997). Diagnosing organization culture. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass. Reproduced with permission from Wiley Publishing.
In the underlined spaces below the heading EXISTING CULTURE, rank order the phrases following each
sentence beginning. Do this by placing a 4 in front o f the ending phrase that you think comes closest to
describing the way things are in your organization, a 3 in front o f the one that comes next closest, and so on
through 2 and 1 - the one that least describes the way things are in your organization.
Complete all fifteen items in the same way, by ranking the four alternatives. Then go back to the spaces
below PREFFERED CULTURE heading and rank the phrases again, but this time rank them according to the
way you would like things to be in your organization. Questions 24 through 38.
R anking key:
4 = The dominant view, or most preferred alternative.
3 = The next most dominant view or preferred alternative.
2 = The next most dominant view or preferred alternative.
1 = The least dominant view or least preferred alternative.
Organization Culture
24. Members of the organization
are expected to give first priority to
Existing Culture
Ranking (4-1)
Preferred Culture
Ranking (4-1)
P h rase
a. meeting the needs and demands of their supervisors
and other high level people in the organization.
b. Carrying out the duties of their own jobs; staying
within the policies and procedures related to their jobs.
25. People who do well in the

organization tend to be those who
26. The organization treats

individuals
27. People are managed, directed,

or influenced by
c. Meeting the challenges of the task, finding a better

way to do things.
d. Cooperation with the people with whom they work, to
solve work and personal problems.
a. know how to please their supervisors and are able
and willing to use power and politics to get ahead.
b. Play by the rules, work within the system, and strive to
do things correctly.
c. Are technically competent and effective, with strong
commitment to getting the job done.
d. Build close working relationships with others by being
cooperative, responsive, and caring.
a. as hands" whose time and energy are at the disposal
of persons at higher levels in the hierarchy
b. a s employees" whose time and energy are
purchased through a contract, with rights and obligations
for both sides
c. a s associates or peers who are mutually committed
to the achievement of a common purpose.
d. As family or 'friends who like being together and
who care about and support one another.
a. people in positions of authority, who exercise their
power through the use of rewards and punishments.
b. the systems, rules, and procedures that prescribe
what people should do and the right ways of doing it
c. their own commitment to achieving the goals of the
organization.
d. their own desire to be accepted by others and to be
good members of their work group.
161
28. Decision-making processes
are characterized by
29. Assignments of tasks or jobs to
individuals are based on
30. Employees are expected to be
31. Managers and supervisors are

expected to be
32. It is considered legitimate for

one person to tell another what to
do when
33. Work motivation is primarily the

results of
34. Relationships between work

groups or departments are
generally
a. directives, orders, and instructions that come down

from higher levels.
b. The adherence to formal channels and reliance on
policies and procedures for making decisions
c. Decisions being m ade close to the point of action, by
the people on the spot
d. The use of consensus decision-making methods to
gain acceptance and support for decisions.
a. the personal judgements, values, and wishes of those
in position of power.
b. The needs and plans of the organization and the rules
of the system (seniority, qualifications, etc.)
c. Matching the requirements of the job with the
interests and abilities of the individuals.
d. The personal preferences of the individuals and their
needs for growth and development
a. hard-working, compliant obedient, and loyal to the
interests of those to whom they report.
b. responsible and reliable, carrying out the duties and
responsibilities of their jobs and avoiding actions that
could surprise or em barrass their supervisors.
c. self-motivated and competent, willing to take the
initiative to get things done; willing to challenge those to
whom they report if that is necessary to obtain good
results.
d. good team workers, supportive and cooperative, who
get along well with others.
a. strong and decisive; firm but fair
b. impersonal and proper, avoiding the exercise of
authority for their own advantage
c. democratic and willing to accept subordinates ideas
about the task.
d. supportive, responsive, and concerned about the
personal concerns and needs of those whose work they
supervise
a. he or she has more power, authority, or clout in the
organization.
b. it is part of the responsibilities included in his or her
job description.
c. he or she has greater knowledge and expertise and
u ses it to guided the other person or to teach him or her
to do the work.
d. the other person asks for his or her help, guidance, or
advice.
a. hope for rewards, fear of punishment, or personal
loyalty to the supervisor.
b. acceptance of the norm of providing a fair days work
for a fair days pay.
c. strong desires to achieve, to create, and to innovate
and peer pressure to contribute to the success of the
organization.
d. people wanting to help others and to develop and
maintain satisfying working relationships.
a. competitive, with both looking out for their won
interests and helping each other only when they can see
som e advantages for themselves by doing so.
b. characterized by indifference toward each ether,
helping each other only when it is convenient or when
they are directed by higher levels to do so.
c. cooperative when they need to achieve common
goals. People are normally willing to cut red tape and
cross-organizationa! boundaries in order to get the job
done.
d. friendly, with a high level of responsiveness to
requests for help from other groups.
162
35. intergroup and interpersonal
conflicts are usually
36. The large environment outside

the organization is responded to as
though it were
37. If rules, systems, or

procedures get in the way, people
38. New people in the organization

need to team
a. dealt with by the personal intervention of people at

higher Sevsis of authority.
b. avoided by reference to rules, procedures, and formal
definitions of authority and responsibility.
c. resolved through discussions aimed at getting the
best outcomes possible for the work issues involved.
d. dealt with in a manner that maintains good working
relationships and minimizes the chances of people
being hurt.
a. a jungle, where the organization is in competition for
survival with others.
b. an orderly system in which relationships are
determined by structures and procedures and where
everyone is expected to abide by the rules.
c. a competition for excellence in which productivity,
quality, and innovation bring success.
d. a community of interdependent parts in which the
common interests are the most important
a. break them if they have enough dout to get by with it
or if they think they can get a way with it without being
caught.
b. generally abide be them or go through proper
channels to get permission to deviate from them or have
them changes.
c. tend to ignore or by-pass them to accomplish their
tasks or perform their jobs better,
d. support one another in ignoring or bending them if
they are felt to be unfair or to create hardships for
others.
a. who realty runs things: who can help or hurt them;
whom to avoid offending; the norms (unwritten rules)
that have to be observed if they are to stay out of
trouble.
b. the formal rules and procedures and to abide by
them; to stay within the formal boundaries of their jobs.
c. what resources are available to help them do their
jobs; to take the initiative to apply their skills and
knowledge to their jobs.
d. how to cooperate; how to be good team members;
how to develop good working relationships with others.
163
Project Manager Competency Instrument
Wysocki, R., Beck, R. and Crane, D (2000). Effective project management , 2nd
Edition. New York: John-Wiley and Sons, Inc. Reproduced with permission from
Wiley Publishing.
Evaluate yourself on each of the competencies and mark only one value (5, 4, 3, 2, or 1) in the box that represents your
opinion on Questions 39 through 112.
Rating Scale:
5 - Strongly
Agree
Q uestions
4 - Agree
3- Neutral
2- Disagree
1- Strongly
Disagree
B u sin ess C om petencies
.................
39. Ensures that the project is linked
to the organization's business pian
and satisfies a business objective by
solving a business problem
40. Evaluates the impact of industry
and technology developments
41. Balances ideal technical
approaches and project scope
against business deadlines and
priorities to find the best
compromise.
42. Quickly adapts to changing
business conditions.
iw a ifte ss
43. Follows up with business
partners, throughout the cycle of the
project, to ensure full understanding
of the business partners' needs and
concerns.
44. Seeks meaningful business
area participation during the design
process.
45. Conducts business-oriented walk
throuqh
45. Structures the activities of the
project team, so that system s staff
work closely with a business partner
ftartmiiMP
164
47. Pushes for more efficient ways tc
do things
48. Sets and enforces high
standards of quality for self and
others
49. Monitors performance against
quality plan and objectives
P ersons) C orasetenctes
50. Develops innovative and creative
approaches to problems when faced
with obstacles or limitations
51. Takes calculated risks.
52. Tracks persistent action to
overcome obstacles and achieve
solutions.
53. Puts in whatever effort is needed
to get the iob done.
I n f e m i t e t S sB w iM i
54. Actively solicits input from the
groups that may be affected by the
project
55. Seeks information or data from
various sources to clarify a problem.
56. Identified and consults
individuals and groups that can
expedited project activities or
provide assistance
57. Gets enough information to
support design and implementation
decisions.
Awjacttiaa..... ................
58. Develops an overall project plan

Inducting resources, budget, and
time.
59. Translates business goals into
project goals into detailed work
breakdown structures.
60. Uses project management
software to develop plans and track
status
61. Generate and presents logical,
clearly reasoned alternatives.
CoBtsebittti TMrttfok
62. Considers the project within the
context of a broader view of how the
business and technology will be
changing over the next several
years.
63. Uses understanding of business
and technical objectives to prioritize
effectively (for example: project
tasks, test cases, issues to be
resolved).
64. Anticipates and plans for the
impact of the project on other
systems.
65. Develops a clear vision or
conceptual model of the
deliverables.
165
P ersons! Com jsateneies
Self C onfidence
66. Presents a confident and positive
attitude to set the tone for the team.
67. Confronts problems with others
quickly and directiy.
68. Controls own feelings and
behavior in stressful situations.
69. Works effectively under
pressure.
i w i i n s s for CwiffciSfe...............
70. Maintains credibility by
consistently delivering what has
been promised.
71. Stays on top of the details of the
project effort, to b e able to answ er
questions authoritatively and
maintain credibility72. Answers questions honestly,
even if it is awkward to do so.
73. Promptly informs management
and the customer about any
difficulties.
fffestiMllft
...............................
74. Adjusts readily to changes in the
work environment
75. Adjusts own managerial style,
depending on the people and
situation.
76. Uses or shares resources to
best accomplish organizational
goals.
77. Delegates tasks and activities to
others.
taterpeisonsf Competencies
interpersonal A w areness
78. Tries to know team members, to
understand what motivates them.
79. Understands the issues and
concerns of other individuals and
groups.
80. Notices and interprets non-verbal
behavior.
81. Is objective when mediating
conflicting positions of team
members.
82. Identifies and seeks the support
of key stakeholders affected by the
project
83. Proactively engages groups and
individuals with technical and/or
financial overseeing responsibilities.
84. Takes the time to understand
and consider the political dynamics
among groups involved in the
project.
85. Uses relationships with people
from other units within the
organization to resolve issues or
provide assistance.
166
a
f
... .
86. Adapts style or approach to
achieve a particular impact
87. Manages expectations by
ensuring that what is promised can
be delivered.
88. Arranges for a senior manager to
attend the initial project meeting and
explain the project's mission and
objectives.
89. Considers the short and long
term implications of project
decisions.
..............
90. Develops strategies that

address other people's most
important concerns.
91. Enlists the support of his/her
management to influence other
managers.
92. Involves project team members
in the detail planning of the project,
so that they will have ownership of
foe plan.
M anagem ent C om petencies
Motivating O thers
93. Ensures that team members
understand the projects goals and
purpose.
94. Provides rewards and
recognition to people a s milestones
are reached.
95. Initiates informal events to
promote team work.
96. Takes appropriate action to
assist and counsel marginal
performers.
....................................................
97. Organizes and m eets regularly

with management team composed
of representatives from all areas
affected bv the project.
98. Plans and holds regular,
frequent meetings with the project
team to discuss status, resolve
issues, and share information.
99. Ensures that presentation are
well organized.
100. Tailors his/her language to the
level of the audience.
...............................................
101. Gives team members

assignments or training to provide
opportunities for growth and
development.
102. Provides direct, specific,
constructive feedback and guidance
to others regarding their
performance.
103. Empowers team members to
create challenge and stretch their
abilities.
104. Provides closer supervision for
inexperienced people.
167
P655t8
..
..............
105. Develops and maintains a

detailed m aster plan that shows
resource needs, budget, time
schedules, and work to be done.
106. A ssess project design and
implementation approach often to
ensure that the project properly
addresses the business problem to
be solved.
107. Ensures a common
understanding and agreement on the
project scope and objectives and on
anv subsequent changes.
108. Maintains control of accepted
changes tot he project plan and
ensures that any changes are
communicated to all team members.
cWspetessies
5sn!llis.....
------ -
109. Regularly obtains status

information from each project team
member on their assigned tasks,
monitors resource usage, schedules
variance, and keeps the project on
schedule.
110. Identifies the economic and
schedule consequences of
requested and/or mandated scope
changes and communicates these to
management
111. Accepts responsibility for
resolving project issues, especially
scope changes, focusing on
solutions, recommendations, and
actions.
112. Conducts a post-project review
to identify what went well, what
should have been done differently,
and what lessons were learned.
168
Project Management Performance Instrument
Kerzner, H. (1998). In search of excellence in project management: Successful
practices in high performance organizations. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Reproduced with written permission from Wiley Publishing.
Evaluate your organization project management maturity by marking only one value (+3, +2, +1, 0, -1, -2, -3)
in the box that represents your opinion on questions 113 through 132.
R ating Seale:
+3 - Strongly
Agree
Q uestions
+2 - Agree +1- Slightly

Agree
4-3
+2
9 -No
Opinion
4*1
-1- Slightly
Disagree
-2- D isagree
-3- Strongly
Disagree
-1
-2
113.My company
recognizes the need
for project
management. This
need is recognized at
all levels of
management, including
senior management.
114. My company has
a system in place to
manage both cost and
schedule. The system
requires charge
numbers and cost
account codes. The
system reports
variances from
planned targets.
115. My company has
recognized the benefits
that are possible from
implementing project
management. These
benefits have been
recognized at all levels
of management,
including senior
management.
-3
16'
116. My company (or
division) has a welldefined project
management
methodology using life
cycle phases.
117. Our executives
visibly support project
management through
executive
presentations,
correspondence, and
by occasionally
attending project team
meetings/briefings.
118. My company is
committed to quality up
front planning. We try
to do the best we can
at planning.
119. Our lower and
middle-level line
managers totally and
visibly support the
project management
process.
120. My company is
doing everything
possible to minimize
"creeping" scope (I.e.
scope changes) on our
products.
121. Our line
managers are
committed not only to
project management
but also to the
promises made to
project managers for
deliverables.
122. The executives in
my organization have a
good understanding of
the principles of project
management.
123. My company has
selected one or more
project management
software packages to
be used a s toe project
tracking system.
124. Our lower and

middle-level line
managers have been
trained and educated
in project
management.
125. Our executives
both understand
project sponsorship
and serve as project
sponsors on selected
projects.
170
126. Our executives
have recognized or
identified the
applications of project
management to
various parts of our
business.
127. My com pany has
successfully integrated
cost and schedule
control together for
both managing
projects and reporting
status.
128. My company has
developed a project
management
curriculum (I.e. more
than one or two
courses) to enhance
the project
management skills of
our employees.
129. Our executives
have recognized what
must be done in order
to achieve maturity in
project m anaqem ent
130. My company
views and treats
project management
a s a profession rather
than a part-time
assignm ent
131. Our lower- and
middle-level line
m anagers are willing to
release their
employees for project
manaqement training.
132. Our executives
have demonstrated a
willingness to change
our way of doing
business in order to
mature in project
m anagem ent
References
A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide)[On-line].
(2000, June). Available HTTP: Hostname: pmi.org Directory:
pubiictn/download. File: 2000welcome.html, Newton Square, PA: Project
Management Institute (PMI) [Producer and Distributor].
Abba, W. (1997). Earned value management-reconciling government and
commercial practices. Program Manager Magazine [On-Line], Available
HTTP: Hostname: acq.osd.mil Directory: project management/paperpres. File:
abbapmmag.html, Washington D.C., DE: Defense Systems Management
College Press [Producer and Distributor]
Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. The Academy o f Management Review,
21, 254-274.
Adams, J. R., Bilbro, C. R., & Stockert T. C. (1997). Principles o f project
management: Collected handbooks from the project management institute.
Newton Square, PA: PMI Publication Division.
Adams, J., & Campbell, B. (1996). Principles o f project management: Collected
handbooks from the project management institute. Roles and responsibilities
o f the project manager. Sylvia, N.C: PMI Publication Division.
Addeman, F. (1999). Managing the magic. Project Management Network, 13,31-36.
Adler, P., & Shenhar, A. (1990, Fall). Adapting your technological base: The
organizational challenge. Sloan Management Review, 32(1), 25-35.
Al-Mushayt, O., Doherty, N., & King, M. (2001). An investigation into to the relative
success of alternative approaches to the treatment of organization issues in
systems development projects. Organization Development Journal, 19(1), 3148.
Ami, L. (2000). Goals-oriented Project Management. HE Solutions, 32(9), 39-41.
Andersen, E. (2001). Understanding your information technology projects
organizations character: exploring the differences between the cultures o f an
information technology project and its base organization. A paper presented
at the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2001.
171
172
Baba, M., Falenburg, D., & Hill, D. (1996). Technology management and American
culture: implications for business process redesign Research Technology
Management, 39, 44-54.
Bander, D. (1986). Building a better project manager. Computerworld, 20,69-70.
Baccarini, D. (1999). The logical framework method for defining project success.
Project Management Journal, 30,25-32.
Barker, P. (1999). There's a reason why projects fail. Computing Canada, 2 5 ,15-18.
Bates, W. S. (1986, Apr). Project management: Success requires structure. Computing
Canada, 12,2p.
Benjammsen, H. (2000). 10 implementation lessons learned. Facilities Design &
Management, 19, 33.
Blake, R., Mouton, I., & McCanse, S. (1990). Change by design. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Series.
Bloom, N. (1989). Select the right manager for success. Personnel Journal, 68{%), 7781.
Brousseau, J. (1987). Project management: People are the key resource. Computing
Canada, 1 3 ,17-19.
Buchok, J. (2000). Failed initiatives. Computing Canada, 2 8 ,10.
Bunker, B., & Alban, B. (1997). Large group interventions: Engaging the whole
system for rapid change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burke, W. (2002). Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publication.
Cameron, K.S., & Freeman, S.J. (1991). Cultural congruence, strength and type:
Relationships to effectiveness. In R. W. Woodman, & W.A. Pasmore (Eds.),
Research in organizational change and development, Vol. 5 (pp. 23-58).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Chaos: A recipe for success. [On-line]. (1999). Available HTTP: Hostname:
standishgroup.com Directory: sample research. File: index.php#. West
Yarmouth, MA: Standish Group International [Producer and Distributor].
173
Cash, C., & Fox, R. (1992). Elements of successful project management. Journal o f
Systems Management, 43(9), 10-14.
Chaudhuri, T., & Hardy, L. (2001). Successful management of vendors in
information technology projects. Project Management Network, 15, 45-48.
Cheyunski, F., & Millard, J. (1998). Accelerated business transformation and the role
of organizational architect. The Journal o f Applied Behavioral Science, 34(3),
268-285.
Choi, T.
& Behling, O. C. (1997). Top managers and TQM success: One more
look after all these years. Academy o f Management Executive, 11,37-47.
Christian, P. (1993). Project success or project failure: Information technologys up to
you. Industrial Management, 35, 8-12.
Cummings, T., & Worley, C. (1993). Organization development & change (6th ed.).
Cincinnati, OH: West Publishing co.
Deal, T., & Kennedy A. (1982). Corporate culture: Rites and rituals o f
organizational life. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Devaney, M. (1991). Risk, commitment, and project abandonment. Journal o f
Business Ethics, 1 0 ,157-160.
Dinsmore. P. (2000). The key to survival on projects: knowledge or awareness.
Project Management Network, 14, 21-22.
Economaki, C. (2002). Automobile racing, national speed sport news [On-line].
Available HTTP: Hostname:Encarta.msn.com Directory: encnet/refpages.
File: refarcticle.aspx, Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2002
[Producer and Distributer].
Emery, M., & Purser, R. (1996). The search conference: A powerful methodfor
planning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Emery, M. (1997). Open systems is alive and well. Paper presented at the US.
Academy of Management Annual Conference. Boston: MA.
Fabris, P. (1997). The arts of Kraft. CIO, 10(19), 82-90.
Field, T. (1997). When bad things happen to good projects. CIO, 55-62.
174
Fleming, M. (1986). Keys to successful project management, CMA, 60(6), 58 -62.
Fleming, W., & Hoppelman, J. (1996). Earned value project management. Newton
Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Fox, W. (1995). Sociotechnical system principles and guidelines: Past and present.
Journal o f Applied Behavioral Science, 31, 91-105.
Freeman, M., & Beale, P. (1992). Measuring project success. Project Management
Journal, 25(1), 8-18.
French, W., & Bell, C. (1999) Organization Development: Behavioral science
interventions for organization improvement (2nd ed.). New Jersey: PrenticeHall, Inc.
French, W., Bell, C., & Zawacki, R. (2000). Organization development and
transformation: Managing effective change (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill
Co.
Frohman, A. (1998). Building a culture for innovation. Research Technology
Management, 41, 9-12.
Gardiner, P. D., & Stewart, K. (2000). Revisiting the golden triangle of cost, time and
quality: The role ofNPV in project control, success and failure. International
Journal o f Project Management, 18,251-256.
Geisler, E. (1996). Cleaning up after reengineering. Business Horizons, 39, 71-78.
Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (1996). What holds the modem company together. Harvard
Business Review, 74(6), 133-148.
Green, G. (1989). Perceived importance of systems job skills, roles, and non-salary
incentives. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 13(2), 115-133.
Graham, R., & England, R. (1997). Creating an environment for successful projects:
The quest to manage project management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hall, E. (1989). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Books.
Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the Corporation. New York:
HarperCollins.
Hannan, M., & Freedman, J. (1989). Organizational Ecology. Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard Univ. Press.
175
Hatch, M. (2000). Organization theory: modern symbolic and postmodern
perspectives. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Harrison, R. (1995). The collected papers o f Roger Harrison. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Harrison, R., & Stokes, H. (1997). Diagnosing organization culture. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Hauschildt, Keim, & Medcof. (2000). Realistic criteria for project manager selection
and development Project Management Journal, 31, 23-32.
Herzog, V. L. (2001). 2000 international student paper award winner: Trust building
on corporate collaborative project teams. Project Management Journal, 32(1),
28-35.
Introduction to the Project Management Institute. [On-line]. Available HTTP:
Hostname: pmi.org Directory: info. File: AP IntroOverview (2002). Newton
Square, PA: Project Management Institute (PMI) [Producer and Distributor].
Information technology Survey: 2000 Survey Results for information technology
projects [36 slides]. [On-line], Available HTTP: Hostname:
standishgroup.com Directory: visitor/paris. File: sldOOl -sld0036.html (2000).
West Yarmouth, MA: Standish Group International [Producer and
Distributor],
Jiang, J., & Klein, G. (2000). Software development risks to project effectiveness.
The Journal o f Systems and Software, 52(1), 3-10.
Jiang, J., Klein, G., & Margulis, S. (1998). Important behavioral skills for IS project
managers: The judgments of experienced IS professionals. Project
Management Journal, 29(1), 39-43.
Johnson, H. H., & Fredian, A. J. (1986). Simple rules for complex change. Training
and Development Journal, 40{8), 47-50.
Jusela, G. (2000). Meeting the global competitive challenge: Building systems that
learn on a large scale. In W. French, C. Bell, & R. Zawacki. (Eds.),
Organization development and transformation: Managing effective
change(5th ed) (p xxx). Boston: McGraw-Hill Co.
176
Kaya, Y., & lyigun, I. (2001). A paper presented at the PICMET 01 Management of
Engineering and Technology conference, 2001.
Kerzner, H. (1998). In search o f excellence in project management: Successful
practices in high performance organizations. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
King, I. (1996, October). The road to continuous improvement: BPR and project
management. HE Solutions, 28,22-28.
Kloppenborg, T., & Plath, D. (1991). Effective project management practices during
expert systems implementation. Project Management Journal, 2 2 ,15-23.
Koehler, K. G. (1987). The key to successful project management. CMA
Communication, 61(2), 13-14.
Knutson, I. (1998). The development plan: Part of the performance management
system. Project Management Network, 12(1), 16-18.
Lewis, W.M., & Jens, R. M. (1987, Dec). Project management lessons from the past
decade of mega-projects. Project Management Journal, 18(5), 69-75.
Lidow, D. (1999). Duck alignment theory: Going beyond classic project management
to maximize project success. Project Management Journal, 20, 8-14.
Liu, A., & Walker, A. (1998). Evaluation of project outcomes. Construction
Management and Economics, 16,209-219.
Lynn, G., & Reilly, R. (2000). Measuring team performance. Research Technology
Management, 43(2), 48-56.
Meredith, J., & Mantel, S. (2000). Project management: A managerial approach (4th
Ed.). New York: John-Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Melymuka, K. (2000). Bom to lead projects. Computerworld, 34,62-63.
Miletti, J. A. (1999, March). Total quality management and reengineering: What is
the key factor for successful implementation. [On-line], Washington, DC: US
Department of Defense. Available: http: www.amsc.belvoir.army.mil/art_983miletti.htm., p. 6.
Mohsen & Glenn (1999). How to succeed at reengineering. Management Decision,
37, 752-xxx.
177
Naden, J. (2000). Have a successful APS implementation. HE Solutions, 52(10), 4657.
Nader, F. P., & Merten, A. G. (1998, September). The need to integrate and apply
from three disciplinesbusiness process redesign, information technology,
and organization development The Journal o f Applied Behavioral Science,
3 4 ,246-249.
Nicholas, I. M. (1989). Successful project management: A force-field analysis.
Journal o f Systems Management, 40, 24-32.
Orlikowski, W., & Robey, D. (1991). Information technology and the structuring of
organizations. Information Systems Research, 2(2), 120-165.
Parmar, L. (1987). Success factors in managing systems projects. Data Management,
25(3), 27-29.
Pasmore, W. (1988). Designing effective organizations; the sociotechnical systems
perspective. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Pinto, J., & Slevin, D. P. (1987). Critical factors In successful project implementation.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM34,22-28.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). Project success: Definitions and measurement
techniques. Project Management Journal, 19(1), 67-73.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). Critical success factors across the project life
cycle. Project Management Journal, 19(1), 67-75.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). The project champion: key to implementation
success. Project Management Journal, 20(4), 15-21.
Pollalis, Y. (1996). A systemic approach to change management: integrating IS
planning, BPR, and TQM. Information Systems Management, 1 3 ,19-25.
Rosenbaum, B. L. (1990). How successful technical professionals achieve results.
Research Technology Management, 35(1), 24-27.
Satterthwaithe, L. (1993). Project management: Some lessons learned. [On-line].
Available: HTTP: Hostname: www.stsc.hill.af.mil
Directory:crossta!k/1996/apr/File: project asp. Washington, DC: US
Department of Defense. [Producer and Distributor].
.178
Schein, E. (1988). Process consultation (Vol. 1. 2nd Ed.) Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Seddon, P. (1997). A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model
of IS success. Information System Research, 5(3), 240-253.
Shani, A. B., & Mitki, Y. (1996). Reengineering, total quality management and
sociotechnical systems approaches to organizational change: towards an
eclectic approach? Journal o f Quality Management, 1, 131-145.
Shenhar, A., Levy, O., & Dvir, D. (1997). Mapping the dimensions of project
success. Project Management Journal, 28(2), 5-13.
Shenhar, A. (1998). From theory to practice: toward a typology of projectmanagement styles. IEEE transactions on engineering management, 45(1),
33-49.
Shenar, A. (2001). One size does not fit all projects: exploring classical contingency
domains. Management Science, 47(3), 394-415.
Singh, J., & Lumsden, C. (1990). Theory and research in organizational ecology.
Annual Review Sociology, 16, 161-195.
Software Engineering Institute: Capability Maturity Model [On-line]. (2001).
Available HTTP: Hostname: sei.cmu.edu Directory: cmm/cmms. File:
cmms.html, Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University [Producer and
Distributor].
Software Engineering Institute: SEMA maturity profile [On-line]. (2001). Available
HTTP: Hostname: sei.cmu.edu Directory: se ma. File: profile.html, Pittsburgh,
PA: Carnegie Mellon University [Producer and Distributor].
Stewart, W. (2001). 2000 International student paper award winner: Balanced
scorecard for projects. Project Management Journal, 52(1), 38-53.
Strohmeier, S. (1992). Development of interpersonal skills for senior project
managers. International Journal o f Project Management, 10(1), 45-48.
Sweeney, P., & Lee, D. (1999). Support and commitment factors of project teams.
Engineering Management Journal, 11(3), 13-18.
Taylor, I., & Felten, D. (1993). Performance by design: Sociotechnical systems in
North America. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
179
Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Vadapelli, A., & Mone, M. (2000). Information technology project outcomes: user
participation structures and the impact of organization behavior and human
resource management issues. Journal o f Engineering and Technology
Management, 17(2), 127-153.
Van Amelsvoort, P. (2000). The design o f work and organization: The modern
sociotechnical systems approach. Vlijmen, Netherlands: St-Groep.
Van Eijnatten, F. (1993). The paradigm that changed the work place. Assen,
Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
Verma, V. K. (1995). The human aspects o f project management. Sylvia, N.C: PMI
Publication Division.
Wateridge, J. (1998). How can IS/information technology projects be measured for
success? International Journal o f Project Management, 16(1), 59-63.
Wateridge, J. (1999). The role of configuration management in the development and
management of information systems/technology (IS/information technology)
projects. International Journal o f Project Management, 17(4), 237-241.
Wateridge, J. (2000). Successful project management. International Journal o f
Project Management, 19(3), 191-195.
Weisbord, M. (1987). Productive workplaces: Organizing and managingfor dignity,
meaning, and community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Why is international standardization needed? [On-line]. Available HTTP: Hostname:
iso.org Directory: iso/en/aboutiso/introduction. File: whyneeded.htm (2002).
Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
[Producer and Distributor].
Wysocki, R., Beck, R., & Crane, D (2000). Effective Project Management, 2nd
Edition. New York: John-Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Yasar, J., & Aspinwall, E. (1999). Business process re-engineering: Learning from
organizational experience. Total Quality Management, 10(2), 173-186.
Zakaria, N., & Yusof, S.A.M. (2001). The role of human and organizational culture in
the context of technological change. A paper presented at the IEMC 501
Change Management and the New Industrial Revolution conference, 2001.
180
Zimmerer, T., & Yasin, M. (1998). The leadership profile of American project
managers. Project Management Journal, 29(1), 31-38.

Out 3

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

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

Out 3

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

An Organization Design Approach to Project Management

Peter Sorensen, Ph.D.

Thomas Head, Ph.D.

Ramkrishnan V. Tenkasi, Ph.D.

Laura Tapiin, Ph.D.

UMI N um ber: 3092851

All rights reserved.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright 2003 Korin A. Kendra

Thank you to my dissertation committee members who guided me throughout the

Winning Performance (All-Y model)

Table 20.Multiple Regression Results for Project Management Performance, by

Organizations compete against other organizations to be first in delivering products

managerswho employ management practices to develop a high-performance

An understanding of how organizations deliver new products and services begins

Interest in the study of different IT organizations stems from the researchers

To expand on the Standish Group International (2000) study of successful projects

Following the literature review, Chapter 3 documents the quantitative research

conclusions, and implications for professionals in Information Technology,

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Organization Development historically has developed work design methods with a

management practices have evolved from earlier Organization Development studies

Carburetors to Automatic Fuel Injectors

Organization Development encompasses a variety of system design approaches based

Quality of Work Life

Even though relationships improved between these two parties, American-based

Total Quality Management

Business Process Reengineering

The changeover in management practices is seen in the decline of TQM programs.

Organization Development design methods that integrate system design structures

New Racing Circuits

As o f 2002, as many as 1124 IT organizations worldwide (645 US based and 479

The Project Management Institute (PMI) is a professional organization dedicated to

4.1 Project PtaUBseiupisient

7.1 Resoun* Planning

8.1 Quality Planntng

6.1 Activity Definition

11.1 Risk Management Pfenni mg

Figure 1. The Nine Knowledge Areas of the Project Management Body of

A study conducted by the Standish Group International (1999) investigated the

While some studies view changes in management practices as an evolutionary

Engineering and Design

Shani and Mitki (1996) identified a similar shortcoming in their study of

Development of a new theoretical model based on past management practice design

A sociotechnical systems advantages include (a) promoting innovation, (b)

From an open system theorists perspective, organizations are groupings of systems

A Systemic View of Racing

An experienced project manager has developed skills and competencies across

Table 1. Social Structures of a Project Management System Presented by

Project manager skills and competencies:

Bander, 1986; Jiang, Klein,

Subject areas: planning, managing tasks,

Bloom, 1989; Brousseau,

Organizational structures at the project

Cross-functional team participants:

Collaborative (participative) work

Shenhar, 2001; PMI, 2000;

In addition to projects, matrixed organization structures have been found to be

Race Car Components and S u bsystem s

Performance measurement systems

Abba, 1997; Fleming &

Business objectives: goal setting

Ami, 2000; Baccarini,