Mutual Monitoring of Resources in An Enterprise Systems Program

5/20/2017 MutualMonitoringofResourcesinanEnterpriseSystemsProgram
Mutual Monitoring of Resources in an Enterprise Systems

Program
ARTICLE Scope Management 1 February 2017
Project Management Journal
By Chang, Jamie Y. T.
How to cite this article:

Chang, J. Y. T. (2017). Mutual Monitoring of Resources in an Enterprise Systems Program. Project Management Journal, 48(1), 100114.
Jamie Y. T. Chang, Department of Information Management, Tunghai University, Taichung, Taiwan,

ROC
During the implementation of IT programs, competition among project managers for the scarce resources required for the completion of
individual projects is a common phenomenon. To avoid such selfinterested resource competition among individual project managers, according
to agency theory, resource monitoring among project managers can serve as an effective management mechanism for effective resource conict
resolution within a program. Furthermore, team cognition theory suggests that an understanding of goals for each project among project
managers can also serve as a solid foundation for effective resource monitoring. Social interdependence theory also suggests that positive goal
interdependence among projects within a program can motivate project managers to engage in cooperative interactions, allowing them to
accomplish individual project goals as well as the overall program's goals. Based on a survey of 146 enterprise system implementation programs,
the results of this study conrm that mutual resource monitoring among project managers is positively associated with nal program
implementation efciency. Goal understanding among project managers, as well as goal interdependence, is positively associated with the
effectiveness of resource monitoring among project managers within the implementation program.
KEYWORDS: goal understanding; goal interdependence; mutual resource monitoring; IT program implementation efciency
Project Management Journal, Vol. 48, No. 1, 100115

2017 by the Project Management Institute
Published online at www.pmi.org/PMJ
INTRODUCTION
A programbased approach to largescale information technology (IT) implementations, such as enterprise systems (ES) is an effective vehicle to
achieve business objectives (Prieto, 2008; Parolia, Jiang, Klein, & Sheu, 2011; Pellegrinelli & MurrayWebster, 2011; Chang, Jiang, Klein, & Wang,
2014; Jiang, Chang, Chen, Wang, & Klein, 2014). The essential responsibilities of program management include the identication, rationalization,
monitoring, and control of interdependencies among projects, and tracking of the contribution of each project to consolidated program benets
(Project Management Institute, 2006). Despite the widespread adoption of program management, organizations still experience high failure
rates in largescale IT implementations, including enterprise systems applications (Ribbers & Schoo, 2002; Denyer, Kutsch, LeeKelley, & Hall,
2011; Koh, 2011). These failures may be due to an inability to deliver within a reasonable schedule, the use of far more resources than originally
anticipated, or a simple inability to deliver product and service functionality that meets business requirements (Milosevic, Martinelli, & Waddell,
2007). Interestingly, some program management researchers have observed that having sufcient resources is rare for most multiple project
managers (Patanakul & Milosevic, 2009; Parolia et al., 2011). Prior studies have argued that resource allocation is the most challenging issue of
multiproject management (Engwall & Jerbrant, 2003; Patanakul & Milosevic, 2009; Elonen & Artto, 2003; Grg, 2011; Parolia, Jiang, & Klein,
2013; Parolia, Chen, Jiang, & Klein, 2015; Jiang et al., 2014). Given that having the requisite and timely resources is a critical factor in effective
project delivery, it is not surprising that project managers tend toward selfinterested and opportunistic behaviors when competing to secure
specic resources within a multiproject environment (Eskerod, 1996). Program management must consider what resources individual projects
require, and how these resources will be acquired, used, and shared effectively (Ribbers & Schoo, 2002).
http://www.pmi.org/learning/library/mutualmonitoringofresourcesinanenterprisesystemsprogram10609 1/26
Agency theory provides a concise way to address the topic of organizational control (Eisenhardt, 1989). In a program structure, a program
manager is a principal and the individual project manager is an agent. An agency problem arises when the agent does not work entirely on the
principal's behalf. Monitoring, therefore, plays a central role in the application of agency theory (Watts & Zimmerman, 1986), in which agents are
assumed to have more information regarding their talents and efforts than their principals. This information asymmetry enables agents to shirk
responsibility, substitute leisure for work, or otherwise act opportunistically. Principals can prevent such actions by monitoring (e.g., watching,
observing, or checking closely or continuously) agent behaviors. It is, therefore, believed that the resource monitoring of individual projects
within the program implementation environment could enhance the individual project and program management performance. In the
information systems project management literature, empirical studies have mainly focused on project monitoring (i.e., progress of a project
against a baseline and the anticipated outcome of the project) and have demonstrated a positive relationship between project monitoring and
performance (Mahaney & Lederer, 2003, 2010; Crawford & Bryce, 2003; Hazir, 2015). Unfortunately, extant literature overlooks the issue of
resource monitoring and its impacts on multipleproject performance. Furthermore, some researchers and practitioners have recognized that
treating program management as a variation of project management courts disaster, and have asked for future studies to examine the new
phenomenon in program management (Lycett, Rassau, & Danson, 2004; Molloy & Stewart, 2013; Jiang et al., 2014; Gregory, Keil, Muntermann,
& Mhring, 2015). One objective of this study is, therefore, to ll this signicant gap by providing empirical evidence to answer our rst research
question: Does the monitoring of individual project resource utilization within programs positively inuence the nal performance of program
management?
A program is a group of related projects, which together achieve a common purpose in support of the strategic aims of the business (Gray,
1997, p. 5; Engwall & Jerbrant, 2003; Lycett et al., 2004; Project Management Institute, 2006). Social interdependence exists when outcomes of
individuals are affected by the actions of themselves and others (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Interdependence is a critical factor in assessment of
the effectiveness of the team interaction process (Guzzo & Shea, 1992; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008). In practice, individual projects
included within programs often share a certain degree of different types of interdependence. For example, based on resource interdependence,
Parolia et al. (2011) have observed that IT service outsourcing vendors group their interrelated client projects into a program to enhance the
levels of joint effort among the IT personnel who are working on the same program. Goal interdependence refers to the extent to which
individual members believe that their individual goals can be achieved only when the goals of other members and the overall goal are also met
(Weldon & Weingart, 1993). The objectives for each subproject (module) are often interdependent with each other, allowing the achievement of
the overall objectives of ERP implementation (Ribbers & Schoo, 2002; Hong & Kim, 2002)integration among submodules is necessary to
achieve the business objectives.
Furthermore, the specic goals of a program and the specic objectives of each project that make up the program should be clearly established
and shared by all key program members to provide a direction and common cognitive foundation (Parolia et al., 2011). Goal understanding of
each project within a program provides a foundation for each project team to be able to anticipate better the goalspecic actions, efforts, and
resources needed for other teams to accomplish their individual project objectives, as well as the overall program goals. In other words, in
addition to goal interdependence within the program, goal understanding of each project among project managers may also help project
managers to monitor resources effectively to ensure that they are allocated with maximum benet to the program and the completion of each
project. Goal interdependence and goal understanding affect the joint effort of project managers; the extant literature, unfortunately, has not
paid this fact its deserved attention.
The second objective of this study is, therefore, to address the failing of the extant literature by examining the second research question of this
study: Would goal understanding and goal interdependence facilitate the effective mutual resource monitoring among multiple projects within a
program? More specically, we argue that the understanding of each project's goals and goal interdependence leads to effective resource
monitoring among project managers, which, in turn, leads to enhanced IT program implementation efciency.
Theoretical Background
Resource sufciency can lead to project success. The operational challenges of managing resource conicts can improve the managerial
capability of project managers (Payne, 1995; Laslo & Goldberg, 2008). In a multiple project setting, resources are owned by functional managers
and program managers. Individual project managers within a program have to negotiate for resources, which are typically shared (Laslo &
Goldberg, 2008). As a result, resource conicts often develop among project managers and program managers because of possibly incompatible
objectives. Program managers must ensure that resources are efciently utilized among projects to accomplish the program goals; however,
project managers (e.g., agents) may not act in the best interest of program managers (e.g., principals). Resource conicts can also be found
between project managers when they compete against each other for scarce resources (Platje, Seidel, & Wadman, 1994; Payne, 1995). Resource
conicts can also be found among competing projects within the program on their priorities (Patanakul & Milosevic, 2009). These resource
conicts typically lead to intense negotiation and lobbying for available resources (Laslo & Goldberg, 2008; Payne, 1995). Based upon agency
theory, resource monitoring can be an effective management intervention for resource conict resolution.
IT Programs and Mutual Resource Monitoring

Monitoring refers to keeping track of something systematically to collect information about it. In fact, in the extant literature, monitoring has
been studied with different focuses, including behavior monitoring, performance monitoring, goal monitoring, teammate monitoring, system
monitoring, and project monitoring (Table 1).
Sources Construct Denition Research Results

Context
Tosi, Katz, & Monitoring: Observation of an agent's efforts or Top Firms substituting monitoring for incentive alignment
GomezMejia outcomes accomplished through supervision, management could lead to being less benecial to principals.
(1997) accounting controls, and other activities. team
Salas, Sims, & Mutual performance monitoring: Keeping track of Task The mutual performance monitoring positively affects
Burke (2005) fellow team members' work to ensure everything oriented team effectiveness through effective backup behavior.
is running as expected. team
Marks, Monitoring progress toward goals: Keeping track of Task Teams working in fastpaced environments will monitor
Mathieu, & task and progress toward mission oriented their progress toward goals frequently during the action
Zaccaro(2001) accomplishment. team phase to achieve the nal missions.
Marks et al. Systems monitoring: Keeping track of (1) the Task Effective teams manage their environments both
(2001) internal systems monitoring (team resources), and oriented internal and external by observing changes that occur
(2) the environmental monitoring (tracking the team as they perform their tasks.
environmental conditions relevant to the team).
Marks et al. Team monitoring: Assisting team members by Task Team members observing the actions of their
(2001) providing a teammate verbal feedback or oriented teammates and watching for errors or performance
coaching. team discrepancies to assist their teammates with getting
their performance back on track are positively
correlated.
Wong, Project monitoring: Keep tracking of project Construction When anticipating their performance would exceed the
Cheung, & performance and progress. project predetermined standards set by the clients,
Wu (2010) construction contractors would adopt a waitandsee
attitude toward project monitoring feedbacks to
minimize their costs.
Mahaney & Project monitoring: Keeping track of the Information Project monitoring reduced the failure rate of
Lederer information about the progress of a project system information system development projects.
(2003) against a baseline and the anticipated outcome. development
project
Mahaney & Project monitoring: Systematically collecting Information The greater project monitoring (planning and meetings)
Lederer information about the progress of a project system predicted less shirking behaviors of information system
(2010) against a baseline and the anticipated outcome. development developers, while greater monitoring (responsibilities
project and comparison) did not.
Jenkin & Chan Project progress monitoring: keep track of project Information Project progress monitoring can prevent project
(2010) progress by frequent reviews and QA testing. system managers from displaying shirking behavior.
projects
Table 1: Monitoring literature.
Furthermore, the documented studies have, in general, demonstrated a positive relationship between monitoring activities within a team and
nal team performance. It is believed that monitoring can reduce deviations from performance goals and inuence them to get back on track.
Nevertheless, most of these studies, with few exceptions, were conducted within the context of taskoriented teams in the information system
development context (Mahaney & Lederer, 2010). Monitoring is often conducted through observation, watching, or checking closely or
continuously. In information system development projects, the activities of project monitoring include: periodic comparison of project progress
to schedule and cost; project team meetings; project review sessions; internal posting of project progress for all developers' review; project status
reports periodically produced by developers; and testing of modules by project manager for completeness (Mahaney & Lederer, 2003). These
project monitoring activities have been shown to keep information system projects on the right track. Information system programs are even
more capital intensive than single information system project developments, and often constitute a nancial challenge to an organization;
therefore, effective resource utilization to achieve business objectives becomes critical (Shehu & Akintoye, 2010). Unfortunately, resource
monitoring has been underexamined in the context of singleproject development, and, needless to say, in the context of multiple projects (i.e.,
program) environments. The results of this study, therefore, provide new insight into resource monitoring in the literature of information system
program management.
In this study, mutual resource monitoring is dened as the extent to which projects within a program keep track of other projects' resource
utilization as they relate to overall program accomplishment and individual project completion. A program involves the management of multiple
deliverables rather than a single deliverable (Pellegrinelli, 1997). The advantage of a program is that resources can be better reallocated to more
critical projects even after funds have been assigned to individual projects (Pellegrinelli, 1997). Compared with project management, however,
program management requires a more efcient and appropriate use of resources, and can only create benets through better organization of
projects' shared resources (Pinto & Pinto, 1990). Management of resource conict is, therefore, one of the most critical issues facing a program
manager, as many projects compete for available resources at the same time while a program is running (Ward & Kennedy, 1999). As projects
become established, the program manager (and key program team members, such as individual project managers) should continue assessing
whether individual projects continue to meet objectives and use resources efciently (Ferns, 1991). The process of resource monitoring largely
focuses on monitoring and tracking shared resource use, which is analogous to a constant assessment of resource availability. Through resource
monitoring, the status of resource use among potentially conicting projects can be detailed, which in turn alleviates resource conict among
multiple projects. Mutual resource monitoring allows the program manager to implement sensing mechanisms to monitor variations in
quantities of limited resources and more efciently redistribute available resources to each project. The rst objective of this study is, therefore,
to empirically examine the relationship between mutual resource monitoring among project managers and nal program management
efciency. The next challenge in program management is to determine how to enhance resources monitoring effectiveness among project
managers within a program. This challenge, to ultimately implement the program efciently, will be discussed in the following sections.
Team Cognition
Team cognition refers to the mental models collectively held by a group of individuals that enable them to accomplish tasks by acting as a
coordinated unit (Hsu, Chang, Klein, & Jiang, 2010). Team cognition helps members to formulate accurate teamwork and taskwork predictions
(He, Butler, & King, 2007; CannonBowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993; Katz & Tushman, 1979), to adapt activities and behaviors in a coordinated
way, and thereby to increase overall team effectiveness (Salas & Cannon2001; Lewis, 2004). Team cognition was studied in a variety of
disciplines with different approaches and perspectives (Mohammed & Dumville, 2001) and has been described regarding shared cognition, meta
cognition, team mental models, and team knowledge. Without wellformed team cognition, team members are not able to share knowledge and
information efciently, to coordinate each other's activities, resolve conict, or to negotiate agreedupon solutions (CannonBowers & Salas,
2001; He et al., 2007).
Goal understanding is derived from the theory of shared mental models (CannonBowers & Salas, 2001). Goal understanding, in this study, is
dened as the extent to which the project team's goals are specically stated and fully understood by project managers within an enterprise
systems program. We argue that when project teams within a program have an understanding of each other project's goals, they can anticipate
goalspecic actions of other teams, understand the needed resources for completing each project's goals, and coordinate the activities with
other project teams within the program. Without goal understanding, project teams may not have an effective foundation to resolve conicts
over resource usage and other task conicts (CannonBowers et al., 1993; Hollingshead, 2001). In other words, goal understanding helps teams
within a program effectively coordinate their actions, monitor resources, and adapt behaviors to the demands of projects and the expectations of
other members (CannonBowers & Salas, 2001; Levesque, Wilson, & Wholey, 2001). That is, understanding project goals within a program
provides a foundation for the resolution of conicts arising between project managers over resource coordination. This understanding also helps
avoid situations in which project managers compete without understanding the goals of other projects because they are only able to focus on
their individual interests. Mutual resource monitoring in this study is dened as the extent to which project managers within a program keep
track of other projects' resource utilization as they relate to overall program accomplishment and individual project completion. Team cognition
theory argues that effective team processes are due to teams adapting their activities and behaviors in a collaborative way (CannonBowers &
Salas, 2001; Lewis, 2004).
Social Interdependence
Social interdependence exists when outcomes of individuals are affected by the actions of themselves and others (Johnson & Johnson, 1989):
resources, project, and goal interdependence (Engwall & Jerbrant, 2003; Lycett et al., 2004). Resource interdependence exists when members
have only a portion of the information, resources, or materials necessary for the task to be completed, and members' resources have to be
combined with the group to achieve its goals. Project interdependence exists when one's project assignments require working with other groups
in the organization (Katz, 1982). Goal interdependence refers to the extent to which individual members believe that their individual goals can be
achieved only when the goals of other members and the overall goals are also met (Weldon & Weingart, 1993). The implicit assumption of social
interdependence theory is that members of the same team are made interdependent through common goals. Social interdependence theory
postulates that a structure of interdependence inuences how individuals interact with each other and that this interaction pattern determines
the collective outcome (Deutsch, 1949; Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 1989). Social interdependence theory denes situations of promotive
interaction, oppositional interaction, and no interaction. In promotive interaction (e.g., goal interdependence), team members encourage and
facilitate each other's efforts to complete tasks to reach the group and individual goals (Johnson et al., 1989; Johnson & Johnson, 2005). These
promotive interactions may involve mutual assistance, communication, information, and resource monitoring and sharing. On the other hand, in
oppositional interaction, team members discourage and obstruct each other's efforts to complete tasks to reach their goals (Johnson et al., 1989;
Johnson & Johnson, 2005). These interactions often involve misleading communication and inadequate information sharing and resource
competition. In a no interaction pattern, team members act separately without any direct interaction with each other. Team members only focus
on increasing personal productivity and achievement and ignore relationships with others. Therefore, according to social interdependence theory,
goal interdependence leads to promotive interaction processes among team members; interactive decision making, information sharing, and
mutual monitoring would be expected during the implementation process (Guzzo & Shea, 1992; Mathieu et al., 2008). That is, to resolve
potential resource conicts among projects within a program and avoid potential shirking behaviors on the part of individual project managers,
mutual resource monitoring among project managers is desirable. This monitoring allows project managers to keep track of each project's
resource utilization as it relates to individual project completion and overall program accomplishment, which is encouraged by the extent of goal
interdependence among the projects involved. Based upon the above discussion, we, therefore, propose the following research model for this
study (Figure 1). The detailed hypotheses examined in this study are developed in the following sections.
Figure 1: Proposed research model.
Research Model and Hypotheses

The Impact of Mutual Resource Monitoring
Resource monitoring refers to team members tracking team resources conditions as they relate to task accomplishment. It includes monitoring
the levels and performance of each project's resources, including personnel and equipment. When project managers within the program monitor
each project resource status mutually, based on agency theory, the individual project managers are more likely to apply appropriate strategies
and respond in the most efcient and effective fashion to ongoing issues of resource utilization (CannonBowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe,
1995). In information systems project management literature, some studies have observed that:
Projects have to compete with one another other for resources. Resource monitoring and dynamic resource allocation are therefore required to
ensure that projects have adequate technical and managerial resources and that they are implemented on time and within budget . . . A middle
level IT manager mentioned, we often shufe resources around projects and monitor on a weekly or biweekly basis. One of our important
customers suddenly wanted an interface to be developed and we had to take away programmers from another project (Tarafdar & Qruneh,
2009, p. 343).
Program managers, therefore, must ensure all projects have sufcient resources to complete their projects. At the program level, resource
monitoring and control involves redirecting or modifying program resources as needed, based on feedback on the resources from individual
projects (Project Management Institute, 2006). Therefore, the ability of project managers to effectively identify shared resources and
successfully resolve the conict over resources of competing projects is critical in meeting established program deadlines and budgets (AlJibouri,
2003; Aliverdi, Naeni, & Salchipour, 2013; Wong & Wong, 2014, Wong et al., 2010). Based on the above discussion and empirical evidence we
propose the following hypothesis:
H1: The level of resource monitoring among projects within an IT program is positively associated with enterprise systems program
implementation efciency.
The Impact of Project Goal Understanding

Based upon team cognition theory, goal understanding among project managers establishes a common set of expectations and directions for an
entire program. Without an understanding of the goals of each project and the overall program goals, individual project teams are likely to
disagree about how the individual project teams should perform their tasks and how the shared resources of a program should be allocated
among projects. Prior IT program management studies have observed that the specic goals of a program and each project must be clearly
established and understood by all project managers and key stakeholders so that expectations for each project are set out (Prieto, 2008; Shao,
Mller, & Turner, 2012). The understanding of project goals can serve as a foundation for planning and can form a foundation for the
communication of related actions, knowledge, and objectives of interdependent members, and monitoring resources (Chang et al., 2014).
Prior studies within a singleproject context also indicate that shared goals encourage members within a single team to support joint actions and
actively participate in coordinated teamwork, including performance and resource monitoring (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). For example, DeShon,
Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner, and Wiechmann (2004) observed that when team members work as a team, individuals make decisions concerning
the allocation of resources that assist in the achievement of individual as well as the entire team's goals. In short, based upon the agency theory,
resource monitoring is a required action during program implementation for effective resource utilization and resource conict resolution;
however, the team cognition theory suggests that goal understanding provides the needed foundation for an effective mutual resource
monitoring taken by the project managers. Therefore, an understanding of the goals of each project provides the foundation for project
managers to monitor mutually shared resources more effectively and work with each other toward an overall program goal as well as each
project's objectives. Based on team cognition theory and the above discussions, this study proposes:
H2: The level of goal understanding among project managers within an IT program is positively associated with mutual resource monitoring.
The Impact of Goal Interdependence

Competition between projects teams results, however, in negative consequences to the program itself, because individual project teams only
focus on selfinterest and fail to effectively consider the needs of other projects (Lycett et al., 2004). Competition to secure specic resources is
a natural feature of many multiproject environments (Eskerod, 1996). Inadequate balancing of these resources often leads to an increase in the
time required to complete individual projects (Elonen & Artto, 2003). Projects within a single program, however, are expected to be managed
together to obtain benets that are not available when managing projects individually (Project Management Institute, 2006). Project teams
under the same program are considered as an overall unit in the sharing of resources assigned to the program by the organization (Brown, 2008).
Project goal interdependence refers to the extent to which the structure of each project's goals encourages and facilitates collective efforts to
complete the tasks and/or goals of all individual projects, thereby reaching the overall program goals (Johnson et al., 1989; Johnson & Johnson,
2005). Goal interdependence increases as individual project teams become mutually reliant on each other's goal accomplishments in pursuit of
the individual project goals as well as the overall program goal accomplishment. That is, when goal interdependence exists within a program,
teams will be motivated to act in ways that relate to the actions of others to achieve effective coordination and cooperation (Johnson &
Johnson, 1989) and complete project goals as well as the overall program goals. In an IT program, shared resources within the program would
allow project managers to monitor resources and resolve the taskrelated conicts caused by interdependence. In the literature, studies have
shown a positive relationship between interdependence and effective cooperation behaviors such as sharing information, acknowledging each
other's perspectives, and communicating effectively (Chen, Tjosvold, & Su, 2005; Parolia et al., 2011). In short, based upon the agency theory,
resource monitoring is needed for program implementation; however, the social interdependence theory requires some actions from project
managers to effectively complete their project goals and, among others, the mutual resources monitoring is a desirable action, Based upon social
interdependence theory and the above discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:
H3: The level of goal interdependence among projects within an IT program is positively associated with mutual resource monitoring.
Methodology
Sampling
The target sample was IT programs that had implemented enterprise systems (ES). We chose to limit the sample to enterprise systems, because,
in addition to their multiple project implementation practices and widespread use, they present frequent instances of resource overutilization
and frequently lack implementation functionality within their systems (Koh, 2011). Furthermore, the common traits of IT programs considered in
the model (interdependent projects having unique functional level goals) are commonly exhibited in enterprise systems implementations. Two
informants within an enterprise systems program implementation were asked to assess items of different constructs. The informants included IT
managers and functional managers involved in enterprise systems implementation. IT managers were asked to assess goal interdependence,
mutual resources monitoring, and enterprise systems program implementation efciency. An IT manager is in charge of the technical perspective
of the entire enterprise systems program. Functional managers often act as individual project managers, supervising individual projects, and thus
have the opportunity to observe goal understanding among project managers. The use of matchpaired questionnaires for the two key
informants helped prevent single respondents and common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012).
An English version of a questionnaire was compiled and modied to t the context of program implementation and then translated into Chinese.
The Chinese version of the questionnaire was veried and modied for translation accuracy by two management information systems professors
and one senior doctoral student who have extensive research experience in project management. In addition, the Chinese versions were validated
by two senior project managers with industry experience. In the introductory page of each questionnaire, we notied all informants that their
responses would be condential and that only the research team had access to respondent details; 292 valid responses were received from 146
companies. Characteristics of the 292 respondents are presented in Table 2.
Measure Categories n %
Industry categories Food 2 1.4
Plastics 3 2.1
Commerce business 5 3.4
Information service/telecommunications 12 8.2
IC design/semiconductor 5 3.4
Finance/management service 10 6.8
Electronic/electrical 51 34.9
Others 58 39.7
Program size Less than 5 16 11.0
610 33 22.6
11~15 27 18.5
16~20 25 17.1
Over 21 45 30.8
Time after ERP golive Less than 1 year 14 9.6
1 year3 years 53 36.3
4 years7 years 58 39.7
Over 8 years 21 14.4
Table 2: Demographics (N = 146).
Constructs
All constructs in this study were adapted from prior studies and adjusted to t our research context (see Appendix). In this study, Project goal
understanding of each project refers to the extent to which each project's goals are specically stated and fully understood by project managers
within the enterprise systems program, assessed by four items adapted from Fang et al. (2004) to t our research context. Project goal
interdependence refers to the extent to which the structure of each project's goals encourages and facilitates collective efforts to complete all
individual projects' goals as well as the overall enterprise systems program goals. Three items were developed by Chen et al. (2005). The mutual
resource monitoring construct, on the other hand, focuses on resource conict resolution among projects. Mutual resource monitoring refers to
the extent to which project teams keep track of other project teams' resources and environmental conditions as they relate to enterprise
systems program accomplishment. Three items were developed from Marks et al. (2001). Enterprise systems program implementation efciency
refers to the extent to which the program team accomplished enterprise systems program implementation according to resource usage,
schedule, and scope, assessed by four items adapted from Hoegl and Gemuenden (2001). One control variable, task coordination, was included
in the proposed research model. Task coordination refers to the extent to which project teams' subtasks within the enterprise systems program
are closely harmonized. Four items were originally from Hoegl and Gemuenden (2001) and adjusted to our research context to focus on task
coordination among teams. The construct denitions and respondents are summarized in Table 3. Research constructs were operationalized on
the basis of their original studies and pilot testing. First, we invited two experts to diagnose the measurement items and response formats for
content validity. Based on their feedback, we modied problematic items as necessary. Second, six IT managers with IT project/program
management experience participated in the pilot test. This procedure resulted in some modications and deletions to the questionnaires and
improvements to the clarity of each item. Each construct was measured using sevenpoint Likert scales ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree. The measurement items of each construct are shown in Table 4.
Construct Denition Sources Respondent
Project Goal The extent to which the project team's goals are specically stated and Fang, Palmatier, & Evans Functional
Understanding fully understood by project managers within the enterprise systems (2004); Kellermanns, Walter, manager
program. Lechner, & Floyd (2005)
Project Goal The extent that the structure of each project's goals encourages and Deutsch (1973); Van Der IT manager
Interdependence facilitates collective efforts to complete all individual project goals as Vegt, Van de Vliert, &
well as the overall enterprise systems program goals Oosterhof (2003)
Task Coordination The extent to which project teams' subtasks within the enterprise Hoegl & Gemuenden (2001) Functional
systems program are closely harmonized. manager
Mutual Resource The extent to which project managers keep track of each individual Marks et al. (2001); Salas et IT manager
Monitoring project's resources status as they relate to the individual projects as well al. (2005)
as the enterprise systems program goal accomplishment.
Enterprise Systems The degree to which the program adheres to schedules regarding dates, Hoegl & Gemuenden (2001); IT manager
Program budgets, and costs Parolia et al. (2010)
Implementation
Efciency
Table 3: Construct denitions and respondents.
Data Analysis and Result
Assessment of Measurement Model

Assessment of Measurement Model

We employed Partial Least Squares (PLS) path modeling to perform estimates for the study. PLS path modeling shares with Least Squares
Regression the ability to obtain parameter estimates with relatively lower sample sizes (Gefen et al., 2011), and uses bootstrapping to estimate
empirically standard errors for its parameter estimates, which can avoid restrictive distributional assumptions (Gefen, Straub, & Rigdon, 2011).
Following the twostage analytical procedure recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), a measurement model was used rst to assess the
convergent validity and discriminant validity. Next, structural relationships were examined. The measurement model was assessed regarding
reliability and discriminant validity. The results indicate that all item loadings were above the recommended 0.5 mark, and are therefore
statistically signicant (Table 4). Convergent validity was demonstrated by calculating composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted
(AVE). Composite reliability and Cronbach's alpha should be greater than the 0.7 threshold, which indicates the adequate internal consistency of
the constructs (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995). AVE is the ratio of the sum of the variance captured by the construct and measurement
variance and is applied as a measure of convergent validity (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). In this study, composite reliability and Cronbach's alpha for each
construct was above the recommended 0.7, and the AVE for each construct exceeded the recommended 0.5 level, establishing convergent
validity.
The estimated correlation between all construct pairs and the square root of AVE for each construct serves to demonstrate discriminant validity.
The square root of AVE for each construct should be greater than its correlation with all other constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Based on the
results in Table 5, discriminant validity is evident.
Tests of signicance for the structural model involved a bootstrap procedure with 1,000 resamples. First, enterprise systems program
implementation efciency was regressed on task coordination and resource monitoring. Second, resource monitoring was regressed on project
goal understanding and project goal interdependence. The results of the structural model are presented in Table 6. The model exhibited the
positive effects of project goal understanding and project goal interdependence on enterprise systems program implementation efciency.
Accordingly, the results in Figure 2 conrm Hypotheses 1 and 2; mutual resource monitoring has a positive inuence on enterprise systems
program implementation efciency ( = 0.190, t = 3.077) and the goal understanding among project managers also has a positive inuence on
mutual resource monitoring ( = 0.194, t = 3.420). Hypothesis 3 is also supported. That is, goal interdependence has a positive inuence on
resource monitoring ( = 0.176, t = 1.718). We controlled for the effects of project goal understanding and project goal interdependence on
mutual resource monitoring and explored the interaction effect of the goal understanding and goal interdependence. The joint effect of both
project goal interdependence and project goal understanding on mutual resource monitoring was signicant with 20.224 (t = 3.537). Finally,
task coordination was positively associated with the enterprise systems program implementation efciency ( = 0.390, t = 4.787), as expected.
Construct Items Loadings AVE CR
Project Goal Gs1 Specic goals for each project were explained to the project managers in 0.912** 0.8573 0.963
Understanding the organization.
Gs2 A set of specically assigned goals for each project was fully understood by 0.931**
project managers in the organization.
Gs3 Project managers understand the exact level of the assigned performance 0.909**
goals for each project.
Gs4 Assigned goals are clear to the project managers. 0.951**
Project Goal GI1 The goals of each project are structured as winwin situations. 0.897** 0.6016 0.814
Interdependence
GI2 Accomplishing the enterprise systems program goal affected whether or 0.558*
not the other project managers achieved their own goals.
GI3 All the projects within the enterprise systems program are collectively held 0.830**
accountable for program performance.
Mutual Resource RM1 Project managers successfully tracked other projects' resources (such as 0.871** 0.8113 0.928
Monitoring personnel, equipment, and others) that are allocated within the enterprise
systems program
RM2 Project managers successfully tracked the resources status relevant to the 0.934**
enterprise systems program.
RM3 Project managers successfully tracked the resources used for the tasks 0.896**
taken by other project teams.
Task Coordination CO1 There were clear and fully comprehended subtasks within our enterprise 0.893** 0.717 0.883
systems program.
CO2 The subtasks within our enterprise systems program were well accepted by 0.915**
all team members.
CO3 There were no conicting interests within our enterprise systems program 0.721**
regarding subtasks.
Enterprise Systems PE1 The enterprise systems program effectively utilized available resources to 0.892** 0.7908 0.938
Program Implementation deliver the specied program scope.
Efciency
PE2 The specied scope of the enterprise systems program was delivered on 0.939**
time and within budget.
PE3 It is easy to say that this enterprise systems program was efciently 0.917**
implemented.
PE4 General speaking, we are satised with the operation efciency of this 0.803**
enterprise systems program implementation.
*P < 0.05 **P < 0.01
Table 4: Measurement items, loadings, and construct reliability.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
1. Project Goal Interdependence 0.776
2. Project Goal Understanding 0.048 0.926
3. Enterprise Systems Program 0.132 0.492** 0.889

Implementation Efciency
4. Task Coordination 0.133 0.648** 0.430* 0.847
5. Mutual Resource Monitoring 0.194 0.195* 0.274** 0.221* 0.901
Square root of AVE is in bold on the diagonal *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01
Table 5: Discriminant validity.
Discussion and Implications

Resource competition among projects results in negative program consequences as individual projects inevitably focus on selfinterest and fail to
effectively coordinate scarce resources (Lycett et al., 2004). Based on agency theory, mutual resource monitoring among project managers by
tracking shared resource use and each project's resource status can alleviate the resource conicts common in multiproject programs and
improve overall program implementation performance. The management question suggested by these ndings is the following: How can
managers enhance the effectiveness of resource monitoring among projects within a program? Prior theories have suggested that goal
understanding (i.e., team cognition theory) and goal interdependence (i.e., social interdependence theory) can facilitate mutual resource
monitoring behaviors among project managers. When individual project managers fully understand program goals as well as the goals of each
project, this understanding provides a foundation for project managers to understand the decisions concerning the allocation of resources that
assist in the achievement of individual as well as the entire program goals. This understanding, furthermore, leads to more effective mutual
resource monitoring and resource conict resolution. Furthermore, as indicated in social interdependence theory, when team members perceive
the goals of individual projects to be highly interdependent (i.e., winwin), this perceived interdependence will motivate them to cooperate on
resource utilization to achieve the goals for each project.
Enterprise Systems Mutual Resource

Program Implementation Monitoring
Efciency
Project Goal Understanding 0.194*

(0.060)
Project Goal Interdependence 0.176*

(0.090)
Task Coordination 0.390*

(0.086)
Mutual Resource Monitoring 0.190*

(0.063)
R2 0.221 0.071
Values are standardized regression coefcients; standard error estimates are in parentheses.
*p < 0.05
Table 6: Results of structural model.
Figure 2: Structural model.
Based on a survey of 146 enterprise systems programs, this study conrms the expectations of the extant literature, demonstrating that mutual
resource monitoring has a positive relationship with program implementation efciency (i.e., H1 was supported). Furthermore, the study also
conrms the suggestion of prior theories that (1) an understanding of individual project goals among project managers has a positive inuence
on mutual resource monitoring (i.e., H2 was supported); and that (2), project goal interdependence is positively associated with mutual resource
monitoring (i.e., H3 was supported).
These results have several important implications for the eld of project and program management. First, this study provides, to the best of our
knowledge, the rst empirical examination of resource monitoring and its impacts on nal project performance in the information system
project management literature. Prior studies have focused on monitoring at the project level; the results of this study encourage future studies to
examine different kinds of monitoring and their impacts on project performance. The positive relationship between mutual resource monitoring
and implementation program performance is also one of the few empirical pieces of evidence in the extant program management literature. The
effectiveness of mutual resource monitoring in program management also implies that project managers are not only agents in a program but
can also serve as principals. In the traditional management practice, program managers are principals and individual project managers are
agents; however, in this study, we proposed the novel concept of mutualmonitoring among project managers, which is actually an extension
and contribution to the eldthat monitoring can be delegated to agents who have no direct conict of interest with the other agents. Second,
goal understanding among project managers is positively associated with the effectiveness of resource monitoring. This nding provides new
insight into the role of goals in an enterprise systems context beyond a traditional singleproject implementation perspective (Yan & Dooley,
2013). That is, goal understanding can help programs effectively tailor resources to the demands of individual projects and avoid situations in
which project managers compete for resources with each other and only focus on the interests of their own individual projects. The results of this
study also encourage further studies about the impacts of other types of team cognition (e.g., taskwork and teamwork mental models) on the
coordination and/or cooperation among project managers within a multiproject context. Such studies would extend our current understanding
of team cognition theories developed within the single team context. Third, the results of this study indicate that project goal interdependence is
positively associated with the effectiveness of mutual resource monitoring (H3). The results indicate that a positive interdependence among
projects (i.e., goal interdependence) within a program has a positive inuence on the behavior of project managers. Based upon social
interdependence theory, in the case of positive interdependence (either goal or resource), team members encourage and facilitate each other's
efforts to complete tasks to reach individual as well as the overall goals (Johnson et al., 1989; Johnson & Johnson, 2005). Although Parolia et al.
(2011) showed the rst empirical evidence on the positive impact of resource interdependence on joint effort among key IT personnel within an
information system service outsourcing vendor, our results provide the rst empirical evidence of the impacts of goal interdependence in a
program management context. Jiang et al. (2014) also indicates the importance of goal interdependence on integrated conict resolution. This
empirical evidence suggests that future studies on conict resolution (or joint effort) among multiple projects within an IT program should
incorporate the interdependence factor. Finally, our study explores the joint effect of project goal understanding and project goal
interdependence on mutual resource monitoring. The result suggests that goal understanding and project goal interdependence can substitute
for each other, and that the social interdependence theory and team cognition theory were developed independently. To the best of our
knowledge, this is the rst study that incorporates constructs from these two independent theories to explore their joint effect on the same
dependent variable (i.e., mutual resource monitoring) in the information system project management literature. Although there is no formal
theory to explain the combination of social interdependent theory and team cognition theory, in this study, no formal hypothesis is proposed.
This result suggests that some management mechanisms may not have the additive effect. This substitute effect could be explained by the fact
that project goal interdependence enhances levels of trust among project teams, encouraging information sharing and mutual resource
monitoring, as suggested by the social interdependence theory. Within an IT program, however, the goals and/or tasks of each project are
assigned such that cooperation is necessary to accomplish the overall goals set by the program; therefore, there should not be a signicant
conict between overall goal accomplishment and the completion of each project's assigned goals and/or tasks. That is, without these enhanced
levels of commitment to accomplishing the overall goals, the impact of shared goal understanding on resources monitoring won't be further
strengthened by the level of interdependence. Similarly, the team cognition shared among project managers within the program about the
overall goals and means of each project is likely to overlap somehow with the goal interdependence, because the goals and/or tasks of each
project are often assigned, such that interdependence is necessary to accomplish the overall goals set by the program.
The results of this study also have several implications for management. First, IT program implementation requires effective resource monitoring.
Mutual resource monitoring discloses the resource status of competing projects in detail and alleviates resource conict. Effective resource
monitoring activities include redirecting or modifying the program as needed based on feedback from individual projects (Project Management
Institute, 2006), and tracking resource use among projects (Marks et al., 2001). At the program level, monitoring should not only be based on a
comparison of work progress against the baseline individual project plan but should also take into account and approve any changes to the plan
(Thiry, 2010). More importantly, our ndings suggest that resource monitoring should not only be carried out by the program managers but also
by all the key project managers within the program. Second, program managers, to motivate cooperative behaviors among project managers, can
structure goals of individual projects to be somehow interdependent upon each other so that individual team success is always predicated upon
the larger success of the program. As a caveat to this conclusion, however, program managers must be aware of two types of social
interdependence: cooperative and competitive. In other words, interdependence can also lead to complexity and conict. Unlike traditional
singleproject management, program management requires that managers ensure that the goals of each project are not competing and/or
conicting with those of others within the program. Thiry (2010) suggests using a benets map as a program planning tool to show benet/goal
interdependence among projects involved within a program. In other words, from a program management perspective, program managers need
to focus on the goals of each project, rather than focusing on the details of tasks and subtasks, as is the case in traditional project management.
Finally, goal understanding among project managers is another critical factor for successful program management. Without this foundation,
program managers may not be able to resolve conicts effectively or negotiate agreedupon solutions with regard to the shared program
resources during the implementation process. Therefore, the program formulation stage should focus on dening program objectives and
aligning the organization's strategic objectives; communicating strategic values and benets of implementation of individual projects to key
stakeholders and project managers; and promoting the overall program goal as a unifying theme. Furthermore, the involvement of individual
project managers during the planning of program implementation and during the implementation process can secure the desired level of
understanding of individual projects' goals and objectives among project managers.
Conclusions
A program is a structure for grouping multiple projects to achieve a set of common objectives not achievable by managing projects individually.
Programs by their nature are highly complex due to the requirement of managing related projects within an environment of limited resources.
The existing singleproject based studies fail to address issues that arise when multiple, related projects are undertaken as part of a program.
Within an enterprise systems implementation, goal understanding among project managers and goal interdependence within the program can
provide a foundation for project managers to understand the decisions concerning the allocation of resources that assist in the achievement of
individual as well as the program goals. This understanding is the key to more effective mutual resource monitoring and resource conict
resolution.
Acknowledgment
The author gratefully acknowledges the sponsorship of the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, ROC, under the project MOST 105
2410H029028.
References
Aliverdi, R., Naeni, L. M., & Salehipour, A. (2013). Monitoring project duration and cost in a construction project by applying statistical quality
control charts. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 1223.
AlJibouri, S. H. (2003). Monitoring systems and their effectiveness for project cost control in construction. International Journal of Project
Management, 21(2), 145154.
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (1998). Interdependence and controversy in group decision making: Antecedents to effective selfmanaging
teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74(1), 3352.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended twostep approach. Psychological
Bulletin, 103(3), 411423.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 7494.
Brown, J. T. (2008). The handbook of program management: How to facilitate project success with optimal program management. New York,
NY: McGrawHill.
CannonBowers, J. A, Salas, E., & Converse, S. A. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Eds.),
Individual and group decision making: Current issues(pp. 221246). Hillsdale, NJ; England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
CannonBowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2001). Reections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 195202.
CannonBowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Dening team competencies and establishing team training
requirements. In R. Guzzo, and E. Salas, (Eds.) Team effectiveness and decisionmaking in organizations. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass, 333380.
Chang, J. Y. T., Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., & Wang, E. T. G. (2014). Do too many goals impede a program? A case study of enterprise system
implementation with multiple interdependent projects. Information & Management, 51(4), 465478.
Chen, Y. F. Tjosvold, D., & Su, S. F. (2005). Goal interdependence for working across cultural boundaries: Chinese employees with foreign
managers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(4), 429447.
Crawford, P., & Bryce, P. (2003). Project monitoring and evaluation: A method for enhancing the efciency and effectiveness of aid project
implementation. International Journal of Project Management, 21(5), 363373.
Denyer, D., Kutsch, E., LeeKelley, E., & Hall, M. (2011). Exploring reliability in information systems programmes. International Journal of Project
Management, 29(4), 442454.
DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Schmidt, A. M., Milner, K. R., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). A multigoal, multilevel model of feedback effects on
the regulation of individual and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 10351056.
Deutsch M. (1973). The resolution of conict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2(3), 199231.
Eisenhardt, M. K. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57.
Elonen, S., & Artto, K. A. (2003). Problems in managing internal development projects in multiproject environments. International Journal of
Project Management, 21(6), 395402.
Engwall, M., & Jerbrant, A. (2003). The resource allocation syndrome: The prime challenge of multiproject management? International Journal
of Project Management, 21(6), 403409.
Eskerod, P. (1996). Meaning and action in a multiproject environment: Understanding a multiproject environment by means of metaphors and
basic assumptions. International Journal of Project Management, 14(2), 6165.
Fang, E., Palmatier, R. W., & Evans, K. R. (2004). Goalsetting paradoxes? Tradeoffs between working hard and working smart: The United States
versus China. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(2), 188202.
Ferns, D. C. (1991). Developments in programme management. International Journal of Project Management, 9(3), 148156.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of
Marketing Research, 18(1), 3950.
Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Rigdon, E. E. (2011). An update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and social science research. MIS
Quarterly, 35(2), pp. iiixiv
Grg, M. (2011). Translating single project management knowledge to project programs. Project Management Journal, 42(2), 1731.
Gray, R. J. (1997). Alternative approaches to programme management. International Journal of Project Management, 15(1), 59.
Gregory, R. W., Keil, M., Muntermann, J., & Mhring, M. (2015). Paradoxes and the nature of ambidexterity in IT transformation programs.
Information Systems Research, 26(1), 5780.
Guzzo, R. A. & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 199267.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: PrenticeHall.
Hazir, O. (2015). A review of analytical models, approaches and decision support tools in project monitoring and control. International Journal of
He, J., Butler, B. S., & King, W. R. (2007). Team cognition: Development and evolution in software project teams. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 24(2), 261292.
Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence.
Organizational Science, 12(4), 435449.
Hollingshead, A. B. (2001). Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in transactive memory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 8(6), 10801089.
Hong, K.W., & Kim, Y.G. (2002). The critical success factors for ERP implementation: An organizational t perspective. Information &
Management, 40, 2540.
Hsu, J. S. C., Chang, J. Y. T., Klein, G., & Jiang, J. J. (2010). Exploring the impact of team. International Journal of Project Management, 29(1), 112.
Jenkin, T. A., & Chan, Y. E. (2010). IS project alignment: A process perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 25(1), 3555.
Jiang, J. J., Chang, J. Y. T., Chen, H. G., Wang, E. T. G., & Klein, G. (2014). Achieving IT program goals with integrative conict management. Journal
of Management Information Systems, 31(1), 79106.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology
Monographs, 131(4), 285358.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (1989). Impact of goal and resource interdependence on problemsolving success. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 129(5), 621629.
Katz, R., & Tushman, M. (1979). Communication patterns, project performance, and task characteristics: An empirical evaluation and integration
in an R&D setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23(2), 139162.
Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81104.
Kellermanns, F. W., Walter, J., Lechner, C., & Floyd, S. W. (2005). The lack of consensus about strategic consensus: Advancing theory and research.
Journal of Management, 31(5), 719737.
Knight, D., Pearce, C. L., Smith, K. G., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., Smith, K. A., & Flood, P. (1999). Top management team diversity, group process, and
strategic consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 445465.
Koh, S. C. L. (2011). Drivers, barriers and critical success factors for ERP II implementation in supply chains: A critical analysis. The Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 20(4), 385402.
Laslo, Z., & Goldberg, A. I. (2008). Resource allocation under uncertainty in a multiproject matrix environment: Is organizational conict
inevitable? International Journal of Project Management, 26(8), 773788.
Lee, J. S., Keil, M., & Kasi, V. (2012). The effect of an initial budget and schedule goal on software project escalation. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 29(1), 5377.
Levesque, L. L., Wilson, J. M., & Wholey, D. R. (2001). Cognitive divergence and shared mental models in software development project teams.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 135144.
Lewis, K. (2004). Knowledge and performance in knowledgeworker teams: A longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management
Science, 50(11), 15191533.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Lycett, M., Rassau, A., & Danson, J. (2004). Programme management: A critical review. International Journal of Project Management, 22(4), 289
299.
Mahaney, R. C., & Lederer, A. L. (2003). Information systems project management: An agency theory interpretation. The Journal of Systems and
Software, 68(1), 19.
Mahaney, R. C., & Lederer, A. L. (2010). The role of monitoring and shirking in information systems project management. International Journal of
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management
Review, 26(3), 356376.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 19972007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the
future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410476.
Milosevic, D. Z., Martinelli, R. J., & Waddell, J. M. (2007). Program management for improved business results. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. C. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measurement across
disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 89106.
Molloy, E., & Stewart, A. (2013). Succeeding programmes, failed projects: A lexicographical analysis of a disputed semantic terrain. International
Journal of Project Management, 31(1), 8089.
Parolia, N., Chen, J. V., Jiang, J. J., & Klein, G. (2015). Conict resolution effectiveness on the implementation efciency and achievement of
business objectives in IT programs: A study of IT vendors. Information and Software Technology, 66(c), 3039.
Parolia, N., Jiang, J. J., & Klein, G. (2013). The presence and development of competency in IT programs. Journal of Systems and Software, 86(12),
31403150.
Parolia, N., Jiang, J. J., Klein, G. & Sheu, S. (2011). The contribution of resource interdependence to IT program performance: A social
interdependence perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 29(3), 313324.
Patanakul, P., & Milosevic, D. (2009). The effectiveness in managing a group of multiple projects: Factors of inuence and measurement criteria.
International Journal of Project Management, 27(3), 216233.
Payne, J. H. (1995). Management of multiple simultaneous projects: A stateoftheart review. International Journal of Project Management, 13,
163168.
Pellegrinelli, S., & MurrayWebster, R. (2011). Multiparadigmatic perspectives on a business transformation programme. Project Management
Journal, 42(6), 419.
Pellegrinelli, S. (1997). Programme management: Organising projectbased change. International Journal of Project Management, 15(3), 141149.
Pinto, M.B., & Pinto, J.K. (1990). Project team communication and crossfunctional cooperation in new program development. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 7(3), 200212.
Platje, A., Seidel, H., & Wadman, S. (1994). Project and portfolio planning cycle: Projectbased management for the multiproject challenge.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to
control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539569.
Prieto, R. (2008). Foundations, frameworks & lessons learned in program management. PM World Today, X(V), 131.
Project Management Institute. (2006). The standard for program management. Newtown Square, PA: Author.
Ribbers, P., & Schoo, K. (2002). Program management and complexity of ERP implementations. Engineering Management Journal, 14(2), 4549.
Salas, E., & CannonBowers, J. A. (2001). Special issue preface. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 8887.
Salas, E., Sims, D.E., & Burke, C.S. (2005). Is there a big ve in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555599.
Shao, J., Mller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2012). Measuring program success. Project Management Journal, 43(1), 3749.
Shehu, Z., & Akintoye, A. (2010). Major challenges to the successful implementation and practice of programme management in the
construction environment: A critical analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 28 (1), 2639.
Tarafdar, M., & Qruneh, S. (2009). ITbusiness alignment: A twolevel analysis. Information Systems Management, 26(4), 338349.
Thiry, M. (2010). Program management. Farnham, Surrey, UK: Gower Publishing Company.
Tosi, H.L., Katz, J.P., & GomezMejia, L.R. (1997). Disaggregating the agency contract: The effects of monitoring, incentive alignment, and term in
ofce on agent decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 584602.
Van der Vegt, G.S., Van de Vliert, E., & Oosterhof, A. (2003). Informational dissimilarity and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of
intrateam interdependence and team identication. Academy of Management, 46(6), 715727.
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1999). The measurement of sociocultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(4), 659677.
Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1986). Positive accounting theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Weldon, E., & Weingart, L.R. (1993). Group goals and group performance. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32(4), 307334.
Wong, P. S. P. & Wong, S. K. S. (2014). To learn or not to learn from project monitoring feedback: In search of explanations for the contractor's
dichromatic responses. International Journal of Project Management, 32(4), 676686.
Wong, P. S. P., Cheung, S. O. & Wu, R.T.H. (2010). Learning from project monitoring feedback: A case of optimizing behavior of contractors.
Yan, T. & Dooley, K. J. (2013). Communication intensity, goal congruence, and uncertainty in buyersupplier new product development. Journal
of Operations Management, 31(78), 523542.
Jamie Y.T. Chang, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Information Management at Tunghai University, Taiwan. She received her PhD in Information
Management from the National Central University, Taiwan. Her research interests include information system project management, information
system program management, and enterprise systems implementation. Her current research projects involve innovation projects such as game
development projects. She has been published in Journal of Management Information Systems, Information & Management, International
Journal of Project Management, Journal of Systems and Software, and International Journal of Commerce and Strategy. She can be contacted at
jamie@thu.edu.tw
This material has been reproduced with the permission of the copyright owner. Unauthorized reproduction of this material is strictly prohibited.
For permission to reproduce this material, please contact PMI.
Related Content
ARTICLE Team Building , Governance , Project Estimating , Scope Management 1 May 2017
PM Network
The Freelance Effect
By Rockwood, Kate The gig economy keeps growing. Researchers estimate that half of the U.S. workforce will be part of the gig
economy by 2020 (compared to more than 33 percent in 2015), according to entrepreneur
ARTICLE Scope Management , Skill Development 1 April 2017
PM Network
Elevating Everyone
By Madjari, Andreas When it comes to training programs, one size doesn't t all. A program that helps elevate an organization or
individual just starting to develop project management skills won't work for those with
ARTICLE PMO , Program Management , Team Building , Scope Management 1 April 2017
PM Network
Leveraging Locals
PM Network interviews Veronica Lum Kok Yin, PMP, Director of Project Management, Global Delivery of Technology Solutions,
QuintilesIMS, Singapore
ARTICLE Risk Management , Scope Management 1 April 2017
PM Network
Cold Rush
By Alderton, Matt Massive oil, gas and mineral deposits lie under the Arctic's tundra. Until recently, these resources have proved
too expensive to extract. But climate change is shifting the region's landscape,
ARTICLE Team Building , Scope Management 1 March 2017
PM Network
Banishing Burnout
We asked the project management community: What steps do you take to ensure team members aren't overwhelmed by the
project workload? In addition to project management practitioners responses, global
2017Project Management Institute, Inc.

Mutual Monitoring of Resources in An Enterprise Systems Program

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

Mutual Monitoring of Resources in An Enterprise Systems Program

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

5/20/2017 MutualMonitoringofResourcesinanEnterpriseSystemsProgram

Mutual Monitoring of Resources in an Enterprise Systems

How to cite this article:

Jamie Y. T. Chang, Department of Information Management, Tunghai University, Taichung, Taiwan,

Project Management Journal, Vol. 48, No. 1, 100115

IT Programs and Mutual Resource Monitoring

Sources Construct Denition Research Results

Table 1: Monitoring literature.

Figure 1: Proposed research model.

Research Model and Hypotheses

The Impact of Project Goal Understanding

The Impact of Goal Interdependence

Industry categories Food 2 1.4

Commerce business 5 3.4

Information service/telecommunications 12 8.2

Finance/management service 10 6.8

Program size Less than 5 16 11.0

Time after ERP golive Less than 1 year 14 9.6

1 year3 years 53 36.3

4 years7 years 58 39.7

Over 8 years 21 14.4

Table 2: Demographics (N = 146).

Construct Denition Sources Respondent

Table 3: Construct denitions and respondents.

Data Analysis and Result

Assessment of Measurement Model

Assessment of Measurement Model

Construct Items Loadings AVE CR

Gs4 Assigned goals are clear to the project managers. 0.951**

*P < 0.05 **P < 0.01

Table 4: Measurement items, loadings, and construct reliability.

1. Project Goal Interdependence 0.776

2. Project Goal Understanding 0.048 0.926

3. Enterprise Systems Program 0.132 0.492** 0.889

4. Task Coordination 0.133 0.648** 0.430* 0.847

5. Mutual Resource Monitoring 0.194 0.195* 0.274** 0.221* 0.901

Table 5: Discriminant validity.

Discussion and Implications

Enterprise Systems Mutual Resource

Project Goal Understanding 0.194*

Project Goal Interdependence 0.176*

Task Coordination 0.390*

Mutual Resource Monitoring 0.190*

Table 6: Results of structural model.

Figure 2: Structural model.

ARTICLE Scope Management , Skill Development 1 April 2017

ARTICLE Risk Management , Scope Management 1 April 2017

ARTICLE Team Building , Scope Management 1 March 2017

2017Project Management Institute, Inc.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi