What s New in Project Management Research, and WIIFM? Kathy Schwalbe, Ph.D., PMP September, 2010

Transcription

1 What s New in Project Management Research, and WIIFM? Kathy Schwalbe, Ph.D., PMP September, 2010 schwalbe@augsburg.edu 1

2 Presentation Background Most of the information in this presentation is based on presentations given at the July 2010 PMI Research conference and from reviewing the literature for examples for my books IT Project Management, Sixth Edition (2010) Introduction to Project Management, Third Edition (2010) 2

3 My Background, Glad to Be Here?! 3

4 Outline Progress in project management research Most interesting sessions/articles from 2010 PMI Research Conference Other interesting research and researchers Questions/Comments 4

5 Progress in Project Management (PM) Research Project management is still a new discipline in academia; there are still few Ph.D.s or Ph.D. programs specifically in project management A lot of research is done by students and faculty in academia, so until you have academic programs, it s difficult to find good research Note: Go to for info on PM programs 5

6 Evolution of PM Research* In the 1970s and 1980s research in PM was dominated by practitioners and professional associations with an emphasis on developing knowledge and certification programs. However, it often lacked rigor, citations, and depth Over the past 20 years, there has been a substantial improvement in the quality of research. It is more theory-based, draws from a wider range of disciplines, and covers more topics *Turner, J. R. Evolution of project management research as evidenced by papers published in the International Journal of Project Management, International Journal of Project Management, Volume 28, Issue 1, January

7 Evolution of PM Research (cont d) The average number of citations of journal articles in 1987 was 1.5. By 1997 that had increased to 7.0, and by 2007, almost 19. In 1987 there was just one paper (out of 31, or 3%) with a section describing the research methodology. In 1997 there were 13 papers (29%), and in (72%), showing an increase in rigor In 1987 there were just 25 topics covered, with 25% on Engineering and Construction. In 1997 there were 33 topics covered and 54 in

8 Most Interesting Sessions/Articles from 2010 PMI Research Conference Erling S. Andersen, Are We Getting Any Better? Comparing Project Management in the Years 2000 and 2008 Lynn Crawford and Terry Cooke-Davies, Managing Projects in Context: Responding to Strategic Drivers Hans J. Thamhain, Influences of Environment and Leadership on Team Performance in Complex Projects 8

9 Andersen s Paper Published in Sep 2010 PM Journal, available online from PMI s Knowledge Center for PMI members Concludes that the field of PM is moving ahead, but there is lots of room for improvement Positives: Project team members are more knowledgeable and motivated about project work, project objectives are more clear, and project organization and most work processes have improved Negatives: Stakeholders satisfaction could be improved by better decision processes, better management and leadership, and closer cooperation

10 X-Model Personal Inputs Personal: Soft, like attitudes, needs, knowledge, skills, and experiences Personal Outputs Work Processes Factual Inputs Factual Outputs Factual: Formal or structural, like tasks, plans, accomplishments 10

11 Methodology and Results Students write theses using the X-Model for a project in their organization observed over 9 months (74 models in 2000 and 43 in 2008) Personal inputs/outputs have improved, but the factual outputs need work For example, there was no significant progress in achieving the project mission and goals or keeping to the project schedule and budget (Show tables in pdf) 11

12 WIIFM? The author suggests that factual outputs can be improved by improving the factual inputs To gain more satisfied users, we have to improve project management and leadership, make decisions at the right time, and secure good cooperation with the base organization and the users We have also seen that better feedback to team members, better cooperation among team members, and better work processes significantly improve several of the output factors (p. 15) 12

13 Crawford and Cooke-Davies Paper Need to reduce the isolation of projects and raise the strategic positioning of project management Did qualitative research to understand how the strategic drivers of corporations in different industry sectors may have implications for variations in configurations of organizational project management 13

14 Methodology Identified strategic drivers in each of six industry sectors (engineering and construction, pharmaceutical, finance, energy, IT and telecommunications, and petrochemical) by interviewing a minimum of two interviewees in each sector along with three market analysts Also identified specific characteristics of projects in each sector, key competencies, challenges, and key criteria that need to be met in order to satisfy corporate strategy 14

15 Key Strategic Drivers Most Mentioned Eng.,Fin. Pharm. Petro. Energy (stakeholder engagement) IT But the order varied a lot by industry! 15

16 Quotes by Industry: Which Ones? Choices: Eng. and construction, pharmaceutical, finance, energy, IT and telecom, petrochemical The bottom line is we have to execute our projects flawlessly...without incident. We have the people and the ingenuity to structure a contract that is both beneficial to us and to our customers. It appears that good PR is a key issue; communications. I think what s unique about our projects is that they deal with the intangible. We have every style of projects that we can get; We have to serve our customer base. Projects tend to be hypothesis testing projects. 16

17 WIIFM? Know the strategy of your own organization/industry Make sure projects and project management style fits that strategy 17

18 Thamhain s Paper Teamwork is essential for the success of most projects One of the consistent and most striking findings is the need for increasing involvement of all project stakeholders - inside the organization and with external partners 18

19 Factors Affecting Team Performance 1. Team leadership 2. Organizational environment 3. Project type and its complexity 4. Team composition These variables influence both the team characteristics and the team environment, which in turn influences team performance and ultimately project performance They are also influenced by the external socio-economic environment surrounding the enterprise 19

20 Methodology Examined 74 project teams from 23 companies between 2005 and 2008 Analyzed interviews and questionnaires from 877 professionals as well as project documentation Project budgets averaged $1.6M and were done in a high-technology environment 20

21 Most Significant Associations With Positive Team Performance 1. Professionally stimulating and challenging work environments [τ=.45] 2. Opportunity for accomplishments and recognition [τ=.38] 3. Ability to resolve conflict and problems [τ=.37] 4. Clearly defined organizational objectives relevant to the project[τ=.36] 5. Skills and expertise of the team members appropriate for the project work [τ=.36] 21

22 No Clear Associations With Positive Team Performance 1. Salary 2. Time-off 3. Project visibility and popularity 4. Maturity of the project team (in terms of time worked together as a team) 5. Project duration 22

23 WIIFM? Influences that support intrinsic professional needs show a strong favorable performance correlation There is only weak support to the benefit of extrinsic motivators Look into work by Dan Pink (youtube video, book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us) 23

24 Other Interesting Research and Researchers Janice Thomas and Mark Mullaly (PM value, maturity models Aaron Shenhar (Different types of projects and success criteria) William Ibbs (Value of PM, maturity models) Dragan Milosevic (What best PM organizations do) 24

25 2008 Research Study on the Value of PM* Over 400-page document, free to PMI members Most organizations (65 total in study) did see value in PM, but did not quantify it: measuring ROI proved extremely elusive (p. 246) Value focused on measuring PM and satisfaction alignment process outcomes business outcomes *Janice Thomas and Mark Mullaly, Researching the Value of Project Management, PMI, (2008). 25

26 Conclusions of Study We are extremely comfortable stating unequivocally that project management delivers value to organizations (p. 349) PM value appears to increase in proportion to the maturity of the PM implementation that is encountered... greater levels of intangible value were reported in organizations that have a higher level of maturity (p. 352) 26

27 Inputs From the Audience Research you d like to share/discuss? Topics of research you think are needed? What you ll remember/apply from what you learned 27

28 Questions/Comments? 28