Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43995930
CITATIONS
READS
35
634
2 authors:
Lynn Heather Crawford
Julien Pollack
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
ABSTRACT
Project management knowledge and
practice are often considered to be
generic and suitable for standardization.
However, projects are also viewed as fundamentally unique pieces of work. This
paradox of project uniqueness lies at the
heart of project management. This paper
discusses this tension between uniqueness and similarity, before reporting on
the results of a series of assessments of
practitioners project management
knowledge and use of project management practices. Results are analyzed
across countries, industry sectors, and
application areas, and interpreted in
relation to the ongoing development of
standards for project management.
Keywords: standards; body of knowledge; project management practice;
competence
2007 by the Project Management Institute
Vol. 38, No. 1, 87-96, ISSN 8756-9728/03
You could not step into the same river twice, for other waters are ever flowing on to you.
Heraclitus, On the Universe (540 BC 480 BC)
Introduction
s more organizations adopt project management approaches and the
demand for project managers grows, there is increasing interest in the
competence of project managers and in standards for development and
assessment of project management competence. Project management standards
are being used extensively throughout the world in training and development,
professional certification programs and corporate project management
methodologies, based on the assumption that there is a positive relationship
between standards and effective workplace performance.
The assumption that standards are of value can be linked to a societal preference for uniform rules and firm expectations (Krislov, 1997). Standards
appear to be accepted as desirable, and in instances such as the standardization
of currency, basic weights, and measures, the process of exchange would be considerably more difficult, if not impossible without them. They clearly play a significant part in our lives.
However, there is surprisingly little critical review of the concept and application of standards in project management. This paper starts by examining the
role that standards play in the profession of project management. It is arguable
that creating standards for project management is significantly more complicated than setting a standard for measurement, due to the significant scope for
interpretation for many of the central concepts of project management.
This paper also reports on assessments of project management knowledge
and use of project management practices by project managers. These assessments have been used to identify significant differences between project management knowledge and use of project management practices between
countries, industry sectors, and application areas. Results from these assessments are interpreted in relation to the ongoing development of standards for
project management.
87
88
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
89
90
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Country
Australia
U.S.
U.K.
Total
59
39
19
117
104
50
154
Business services
46
28
81
Total
209
67
76
352
Country
Australia
U.S.
U.K.
Total
25
33
63
59
62
Business services
67
19
92
Industrial processes
30
56
91
Total
181
57
70
308
Industry Sector
Application Area of Project
IS/IT &
Telecom
Eng. &
Con.
Business
Services
Total
44
15
63
19
40
62
Business services
16
25
51
92
Industrial processes
15
67
91
Total
94
136
78
308
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
91
Knowledge
by Country
Knowledge
by Application Area
Integration
Scope
Unit
Time
Industrial processes
higher than others
Practice
by Industry Sector
Cost
Quality
HR
Communication
Risk
Procurement
Industrial processes
higher than E & C
92
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
93
Knowledge
Assessment
(PMBOK Guide)
Scope
Time
Cost
Quality
HR
Comm.
Risk.
Proc.
Integration
Pearsons r
Sig.(2-tailed)
* .122
.022
.104
.052
.105
.050
.031
.567
.018
.734
.015
.774
.071
.183
.091
.089
-.020
.712
Scope
Pearsons r
Sig.(2-tailed)
** .141
.008
* .127
.017
* .113
.035
* .121
.024
* .120
.024
* .113
.034
.097
.069
** .147
.006
.075
.160
Time
Pearsons r
Sig.(2-tailed)
* .111
.037
.089
.096
.063
.236
* .107
.045
.094
.079
.061
.251
.054
.308
.098
.067
** .159
.003
Cost
Pearsons r
Sig.(2-tailed)
.023
.674
.082
.124
* .107
.045
* .129
.015
.090
.092
.092
.085
.067
.213
.100
.062
** .141
.008
Quality
Pearsons r
Sig.(2-tailed)
** .145
.006
.081
.128
.085
.110
* .121
.023
.060
.260
.081
.131
.071
.184
.072
.177
* .111
.038
HR
Pearsons r
Sig.(2-tailed)
.073
.172
.086
.107
.033
.542
.084
.115
.028
.598
* .119
.025
.081
.128
.067
.212
.014
.788
Communication
Pearsons r
Sig.(2-tailed)
.088
.099
* .133
.035
.058
.276
.014
.791
.010
.851
.017
.755
.070
.193
.027
.618
-.050
.354
Risk
Pearsons r
Sig.(2-tailed)
.093
.081
.105
.050
.029
.583
.085
.111
* .108
.042
.057
.290
.052
.328
* .108
.044
.104
.051
Procurement
Pearsons r
Sig.(2-tailed)
* .126
.018
.099
.064
.101
.059
** .162
.002
.058
.281
* .114
.033
* .122
.022
.100
.060
** .181
.001
** - Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * - Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Table 5: Correlations between scores for against knowledge and practice assessments
94
The correlation between competence measures against a performancebased competency standard (ANCSPM)
and the knowledge tests (PMBOK
Guide) is not surprising, as a direct link
between competent performance and
knowledge of relevant concepts seems
intuitive. The weakness of the correlation between scores for assessments
against these standards is also to be
expected, as these assessments cannot
be thought of as simply taking different
approaches to directly measuring the
capability for project managers to deliver successful projects. Instead, these
assessments were measuring different
attributes, both of which may be linked
to the capabilities of project managers.
Discussion
This tension between project uniqueness and the assumption of fundamental similarity underpinning standards
development can be explained
through three avenues: what it means
to be unique; changes to the field; and
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
95
96
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L