JEDT 10,1. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

Transcription

1 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at JEDT 72 Major challenges in managing multiple project environments (MPE) in Australia s construction industry Noor Ismah Hashim and Nicholas Chileshe School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia Abstract Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the major challenges to managing multiple project environments (MPE) in Australia. Design/methodology/approach The views from Australian project management practitioners drawn from various industrial sectors were collected via an ed questionnaire survey. The respondents were asked to rate a total of 22 challenges that affect the management of multiple project environments as identified from the literature review. The results of the questionnaire were analysed using ranking analysis. Findings The findings show that commitment and responsibility, leading projects, planning, and conflict and communication are perceived as the four challenges of most importance. Furthermore, the 22 challenges could be classified into 11 sub groupings: project management processes; competencies of project managers; project assignments; human resource allocation; resource availability; organisational culture; problem solving; competition among projects; information sharing; management of a single project; and project location. Research limitations/implications The study forms the basis for further research. Replication of this study to other parts of the industries and world about how identification of major challenges in managing multiple projects could be used as a basis for developing appropriate strategies aimed at improving the competencies of project managers. Practical implications Based on the findings, the project management practitioners could develop a better understanding of the challenges needed to be overcome in order to perform effectively. Furthermore, the identification of these challenges could form the basis for the development of guidelines and provision of useful information for development of strategies aimed at improving the effectiveness and efficiency of project managers operating within the multiple projects environments in Australia. Originality/value In this paper, major challenges to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of project managers in managing MPEs in Australia are identified and analysed. Keywords Australia, Construction industry, Project management, Multiple project environments, Descriptive analysis Paper type Research paper Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology Vol. 10 No. 1, 2012 pp q Emerald Group Publishing Limited DOI / Introduction By far, the most interesting area in managing multiple project environments (MPE) is the challenges involved. Payne (1995) listed five categories to provide greater insight into the problems and recommend solution to overcome it. The first category is capacity that relates to the ability of the organisation in providing the resources. From his experience, the resources availability rarely satisfies the requirements. This can be

2 prevented by balancing the number of the workload with the number of resources. The second category is conflict which he divides it into people issues, systems issues and organisational issues. People issues could be resolved by providing enjoyable and attractive work environment, systems issues come from the priority structure and work scheduling process which can be prevented by reward system, while organisational issues could be resolved by understanding the approach of matrix organisation. The third category is commitment that relates to the importance of projects. Next, is the context of the project that takes into consideration its culture, procedure and behaviour. Lastly, is the complexity that relates to the aspects concerning with multiple interfaces between the projects and the organisation. A study by Elonen and Artto (2003) which sought to highlight the relevant areas in managing portfolios in internal developments and clarify the important areas for respective managerial activities, identified the following six problem areas: inadequate project level activities; lacking resources, competencies and methods; lacking commitment, unclear roles and responsibilities; inadequate portfolio level activities; inadequate information management; and inadequate management of project-oriented business. Despite the importance of that study, it was however limited in that, no specific solution areas were ever proposed. As explained by Olford (2002), a single project is an independent entity. It will have a dedicated project team, headed by a project manager with the responsibility and authority to get the job done. In contrast, managing multiple projects is linked by logic, the use of common resources or both. Moreover, multi-project management is neither an extension nor a scaled up version of single project management (Aritua et al., 2009). Therefore, MPE faced with a lot more challenges to be compared with managing a single project for a project manager. The linkages that usually aimed at the strategic management of multiple projects is complicated and often a critical issue for an organisation s performance (Pennypacker and Dye, 2002). The complication is due to the involvement of constant change, and critically defined project selection and prioritisation process that structured as challenges for a project manager to manage MPE. While there is a proliferation of project management studies within the Australian context, these by far and large have focussed on the risk management related research, public-private partnerships (Wilson et al., 2010), public-private partnerships and project success factors. Given the growing importance and changing project management landscape such as a shift towards multiple projects, there is a need to investigate the challenges associated with the management of these process. The present work aims to identify, investigate and evaluate the challenges faced by project management professionals in managing MPE in selected industries within Australia. Specifically, the objectives of the study are: (1) to identify and rank these challenges affecting the project managers with managing MPE; and (2) to investigate whether the length of experience of project managers influences their perception of the challenges associated with managing MPE. Challenges in managing MPEs Literature review Although literature review indicates that a lot has been written about MPE, the majority of these studies have been in the new product development (NPD) areas, and the majority are within the manufacturing and high technology industries.

3 JEDT 74 According to Patanakul and Milosevic (2009), the research into management of a group of multiple projects (MGMP) can broadly be classified into the following three major domains inputs, process and outputs of MGMP. Using the suggested domains, the literature review identified and categorised the 22 challenges accordingly. 2.1 Organisation inputs Under this theme, the following challenges emerged: project assignments, human resource allocation, resource availability and project location Project assignments. Meredith and Mantel (2006), observes that project assignments in this environment are considered as a critical management challenge. It is because the complexity of the multiple projects situation is increased when projects are of different degrees of requirements and limitation to be compared with the availability of resources. Therefore, Patanakul and Milosevic (2006) recommended some steps to be undertaken in understanding project priority such as project requirements, and the recognizing of the organisational/personal limitations. Successful assignment equally should be compatible different project requirements which is the type of project, its size, complexity, duration, etc. (Patanakul et al., 2004). However, to lead these complex and multiple projects, studies shows that multiple project managers need to posses certain competencies (Payne, 1995; Tullett, 1996; Patanakul and Milosevic, 2009, 2008; Patanakul et al., 2004; Lycett et al., 2004; Fricke and Shenhar, 2000; Eskerod, 1996). Some of competencies are highlighted by Tullett (1996) such as thinking style, thinking ability, knowledge, experience and learned skills Human resource allocation, resource availability. The importance of resource allocation is acknowledged by various authors (Payne, 1995; Fricke and Shenhar, 2000; Elonen and Artto, 2003; Patanakul and Milosevic, 2009). For example, the ability to prioritize projects and assign resources by the project manager was identified as a stronger key factor influencing total success within the multiple projects environments (Fricke and Shenhar, 2000). The consequences of lack of adequate resources allocation range from slippage of program and difficulty in sustaining resources. 2.2 Organisation processes and outputs Under this theme, the following challenges were identified: project location, project management processes, inter-project interactions, organisation culture, problem solving, and competition among projects, information sharing, and management of single projects Project location. The importance of project location is highlighted by several authors (Harding and Popplewell, 1996; Evaristo and Van Fenema, 1999). These could relate to the proximity of the physical location or professionals involved in the project (Evaristo and Van Fenema, 1999). The challenge of project s location of multiple projects is related to the focus on the co-ordination mechanisms, with the option of either focusing on inter-site or boundary spanning across sites, or concentrate on intra-site or boundary spanning across projects. Project manager needs to coordinate in single unit without segregating the projects into multiple units. It is because the projects still share common goal and objectives even though they are widely distributed or the projects are different from each other. Earlier research has suggested that some challenges are related to and possibly contribute to management of multiple projects environment.

4 2.2.2 Project management processes. The major concerns about managing multiple projects environment is that of project management processes. This encompasses a system in planning, scheduling and controlling the project. In multiple projects management, it is held in a way that the processes in the project are inter-dependent and the inter-project processes dependent among each other (Aritua et al., 2009; Elonen and Artto, 2003; Engwall and Jerbrant, 2003; Eskerod, 1996; Fricke and Shenhar, 2000; Lycett et al., 2004; Patanakul et al., 2004; Patanakul and Milosevic, 2008, 2009; Payne, 1995) Inter-project interactions. This potential for inter-project interaction issues (Patanakul and Milosevic, 2009), may lead to delay (Fricke and Shenhar, 2000). When one project is under this circumstance, it affects the other project in return as MPE comprises of projects that are interrelated. According to Murmann (1994 cited in Fricke and Shenhar, 2000), it was noted that delays in small projects were generally higher than in the larger ones, attributed mainly to higher priorities of the large projects. However, in MPE, the smaller projects are as significant as the larger ones as the smaller projects are integrated through objectives that formed one large project. In additional, Patanakul and Milosevic (2009) states that with the lack of management attention to project interdependence, local suboptimum reigns. Elonen and Artto (2003) suggest that this issue of inter-project interaction is as a result of objectives of different projects not been systematically integrated to the strategy or to holistic end results of the portfolio management. Therefore, the individual solutions may be inconsistent and less than optimal for the firm (department) as a whole (Fricke and Shenhar, 2000) Organisation culture. Relative to organisation culture, a common complaint expressed by at least two-thirds of the managers was that staff resources are continually distracted with side projects which are not necessarily critical to departmental or organisational success (Fricke and Shenhar, 2000). Strong functional or other project cultures create conflict between the team mates, and impede the establishment of specific project goals and cultures (Payne, 1995). The linkage between conflict and organisation culture is highlighted by Olford (2002). The premise of the observation Olford (2002) is that within MPE, quite often conflict is built into the organisational culture of multiple projects environment particularly between different levels of management or between other projects, especially when competing after the same resources Problem solving. It is also acknowledged that project managers of multiple projects face the same challenges such as engagement in short-term problem solving (Murmann, 1994; Engwall and Jerbrant, 2003). Even though long-term knowledge development or process improvements might have been an advantage to a project manager, according to the study conducted by Engwall and Jerbrant (2003), it was established that as a result of subordinating these developments or process improvement to short-term problem solving, this resulted in inefficiency in both organisations that were examined as part of the study Competition among projects. Relative to competition among projects the challenges range from getting specific employees for projects while struggling to get attention from top management (Eskerod, 1996). This is supported by Lycett et al. (2004) who discusses the two consequences of project rivalries. First, it has negative impact on the inter-project competition and second it fails to harness organisational learning. As observed by Engwall and Jerbrant (2003), competition usually creates a level of anxiety that impede with performance. They note that this might be due to ambiguous Challenges in managing MPEs 75

5 JEDT 76 cause-effects relationships, unclear project priorities and conflicting interests between different projects and departments. Although a strong manager might be successful in his or project(s), the organisation may suffer from delays produced in other projects (Fricke and Shenhar, 2000; Murmann, 1994) Information sharing. It has been noted that lack of information sharing can lead to mistakes (Eskerod, 1996). The other information related challenge is associated with the behaviour of the stakeholders as information flows in and out of the projects. This arises when information is modified by others, then comes back to influence the behaviour of the originator either positively (amplified) or negatively (dampened). This principle will influence organisational structures, information management frameworks and communication channels in a multiple projects environment (Elonen and Artto, 2003; Aritua et al., 2009). Furthermore, information on all projects is not always available and centralised. Information on projects does not flow adequately within one unit and between units (Elonen and Artto, 2003) Management of single projects. The challenge of management of single project is usually related to classical concepts (critical path method), plan-do-check-action cycles, organisation breakdown structure and product breakdown structures. Application of classical project management concepts to the multi project situation may result in a bureaucratic and inflexible organisation (Platje and Seidel, 1993). In multiple projects environment, the negative consequences of an overly bureaucratic approach and inflexibility are a deterioration of the relationship between project managers and program managers encouraging a culture of blame and diversion of energy from value adding activities (Lycett et al., 2004). A study conducted by Elonen and Artto (2003) which sought to identify problems in managing multiple internal development projects found inadequate definition, planning and management of single projects as one of the highly ranked problem area. The basic content of this problem area was that the importance of the pre-phase of projects was neglected. Furthermore, it found that the project scope is not defined detailed enough before the project start-up. If it is in contrast, reliable estimates on benefits, resource requirements and costs of the single project are difficult to make (Elonen and Artto, 2003) thus affecting other projects. Furthermore, project managers have difficulties in monitoring the progress and quality of subcontractor s work (Elonen and Artto, 2003) as the focus is not directed solely to one project. The challenge then lies in having to spend more time monitoring the situation, as there are more possibilities for error and damage to the organisation (Payne, 1995). Table I summarises some examples of these empirical studies as explored in this study. The 22 challenges as listed are further classified into 11 sub categories. 3. Research methods To investigate the influence of experience on the challenges associated with managing practices under MPE the following specific research methodology was employed in the study. 3.1 Research conceptual framework In achieving the aims and objectives of this research, a robust methodology is being developed as part of an on-going process. This was encapsulated in conceptual framework shown in Figure 1 for the study comprising the control variables

6 No. Challenge and subcategory Reference Challenges in managing MPEs 1. Project management processes Interdependency Inter-project process 2. Competencies of project managers Leading projects Co-ordination 3. Project assignments Requirements Limitations 4. Human resource allocation Resource sufficiency Resource sustainability 5. Resource availability Availability Suitability 6. Organisation culture Commitment/ responsibility Conflict/ communication Payne (1995), Eskerod (1996), Fricke and Shenhar (2000), Engwall and Jerbrant (2003), Elonen and Artto (2003), Lycett et al. (2004), Patanakul et al. (2004), Danilovic and Sandkull (2005), Aritua et al. (2009), Patanakul and Milosevic (2008, 2009) Payne (1995), Eskerod (1996), Fricke and Shenhar (2000), Lycett et al. (2004), Patanakul et al. (2004), Patanakul and Milosevic (2008, 2009) Patanakul et al. (2004), Meredith and Mantel (2006), Patanakul and Milosevic (2006) Payne (1995), Fricke and Shenhar (2000), Elonen and Artto (2003), Patanakul and Milosevic (2009) Payne (1995), Elonen and Artto (2003), Fricke and Shenhar (2000), Patanakul and Milosevic (2009) Payne (1995), Fricke and Shenhar (2000), Olford (2002), Ireland (2002), Rizzo (2002), Elonen and Artto (2003) 7. Problem solving Murmann (1994), Engwall and Jerbrant (2003) Short-term solution Implication 8. Competition among projects Murmann (1994), Eskerod (1996), Fricke and Shenhar (2000), Engwall and Jerbrant (2003), Lycett et al. (2004) Prioritisation To keep focussed and motivated 9. Information sharing Eskerod (1996), Elonen and Artto (2003), Aritua et al. (2009) Information circulation Feedback 10. Management of single project Platje and Seidel (1993), Payne (1995), Elonen and Artto (2003), Lycett et al. (2004) Planning Control 11. Project location Harding and Popplewell (1996), Evaristo and van Fenema (1999) Inter-site co-ordination Intra-site co-ordination 77 Table I. Some examples of challenges in MPE (i.e. length of service in project management); process factors were the 22 items comprising the 22 challenges in managing multiple projects environments. Forza (2002) purports that before starting theory testing survey; the researcher has to establish the conceptual model through the provision of the construct names and nominal definitions, propositions, explanation and boundary conditions.

7 JEDT 78 In additional to depicting the theoretical conceptual framework through a schematic diagram, this research also includes the definition of the theoretical concepts, namely that of MPE. Bertrand and Fransoo (2002) highlights the importance of conceptualisation as it enables the researcher to make decisions about the variables that need to be included in the model, and the scope of the problem and model to be addressed. Mitchell et al. (2011) adopted a similar approach in using a conceptual framework to help in the formulation of their investigation which was focussed on understanding the interfaces between the design and construction processes. Similarly, Svensson and Wood (2011) study described a conceptual framework of corporate and business ethics for the evaluation of ethical business practices across organisations. Drawing on the earlier works of Patanakul and Milosevic (2009), the proposed conceptual framework is designed to be used by Australian organisations in capturing the challenges faced in managing MPE. We suggest in our proposed framework in order for effective management of MPE, there is a need to identify the challenges associated with that process. The framework also suggests taking into consideration the following control variables which might influence the ranking and perception of the challenges. These relate to the experience of the project manager; the six types of multiple projects which are further discussed in the subsequent sub sections; and finally the competencies of a project manager Definition of MPE. Fricke and Shenhar (2000) defines multiple projects as a setting in which more than one project is carried out at the same time. Figure 2 shows the various typologies of MPE. The projects vary in size, importance, required skills, and urgency, are in various stages of completion, and are using the same pool of resources MPE is the simultaneous management of multiple projects that endured in everyday situation (Payne, 1995). It comprises the management of projects that are managed as programs, and others as groups of multiple projects (Platje and Seidel, 1993; Fricke and Shenhar, 2000; Patanakul and Milosevic, 2009; Pennypacker and Dye, 2002; Pellegrinelli, 1997). Examination of Figure 2 shows that there is a scope of differences among the typology of projects. These are distinguished from single project to multiple projects; and the sites that these projects encompass (Evaristo and Van Fenema, 1999). From these distinctions, the following five emerge: Figure 1. A framework underlying the challenges in the management of multiple projects Experience of the Project Manager Type of MPE Competencies of a Project Manager 22 Challenges in Multiple Project Environments (see Table 1 for full listing) Source: Adapted from Patanakul and Milosevic (2009) Effectiveness of the Management of Multiple Group of Projects

8 (1) traditional projects; (2) multiple traditional projects; (3) co-located program; (4) multiple co-located programs; and (5) distributed projects. These are briefly discussed Traditional project. The traditional project is the most common project type. It represents a single project in a single location with a relatively homogeneous team, at least to the extent that project team members are all affiliated with the same organisation and often in closely related departments (Katzy et al., 2000). However, the focus of this study is in MPE. The following sub sections now presents a discussion on the different four classifications of the multiple projects as shown in Figure Multiple traditional projects. It is the multiple traditional projects that each of the projects is located in multiple locations. The characteristics of the projects related similarly with the traditional projects and most of the traditional project management considerations apply. However, due to the distant location between projects to another, the key importance in managing all of the projects is scheduling. There is a potential need for sharing resources in order to achieve true global optimisation and then the requirement discussed above come into play. Challenges in managing MPEs 79 Single project Multiple projects Single Location Traditional Project Co-Located Program Multiple Locations Distributed Project Multiple Traditional Projects Multiple Co-Located Programs Multiple Distributed Projects: Discrete Locations Multiple Distributed Projects: Shared Locations Legend: = Project Source: Adapted from Evaristo and Van Fenema (1999) = Location Figure 2. Typology of MPE

9 JEDT Co-located program. For multiple projects that operated in a single location, this type of project management is called the co-located program. As defined by Turner and Speiser (1992), program management is the process of co-ordinating the management, support and setting of priorities on individual projects, to deliver additional benefits and to meet changing business needs. Due to the run of concurrent projects, projects can be inter-dependent because they deliver related objectives. Therefore, they will be sharing common deliverables, information, resources and technology. Thus, there is a need to negotiate priorities on resource allocation across projects very frequently. Scheduling and allocation do not require large geographical movement of resource thus minimising the problems and costs related to it Multiple co-located programs. Multiple co-located programs are the sets of multiple projects or programs that are located at the multiple sites. The distance of each site may create communication problems among the project managers and also among program managers. More careful scheduling of sharing resources is needed because in case of emergency, a resource cannot be requested and moved seamlessly from one project to another due to their distant sites. The easiest path to quasi-global optimisation in this case may be the result of local site optimisation Distributed projects. A distributed project is encompassing managing a single project that located in multiple places. This type of project is to overcome the problems that arise due to the scarcity of complementary resources, convenience, cost, monitoring capacities and quality. At the same time, the ability of a company to take advantage of differences in consumer need structures, independently of geographical and national boundaries, will become an important factor for success (Schneider, 1995). To bring the project together, there is a heightened need for communication or co-ordination due to the separated pieces of the same project being developed in different areas. It is necessary to schedule the different activities over several sites concurrently trying to allocate resources in every location. Therefore, the development of the project will balanced between each other thus drives the project to achieve one similar goal. Adding more, interdependence across sites is significant due to their shared needs for the same resources. The critical difference between distributed projects and the prior programs or traditional projects is the intra-site co-ordination mechanism. Even though project members are distributed across multiple sites, they are still part of the same organisation and hence somewhat homogeneous (Katzy et al., 2000). However, organising cooperation within these groups efficiently is therefore one of the challenges for transnational companies. They have to deal with managers cultural differences in such a way that comprehension barriers do not lead to conflicts or resignation, and a lack of results. To do this, it is useful to describe the differences in terms of some basic cultural aspects (Schneider, 1995). The boundary spanning across projects enable the potential for considerable synergy between the different sites in charge of different parts of the same project thus making each of their responsibility clear. The disadvantage of this type of project is the transaction costs associated with this need for co-ordination and communication. There are two additional types to this project. First, the multiple distributed projects that operated in discrete locations. It is formed by sets of distributed projects and each set is located at different location. The management of this type of project nearly similar to management of individual distributed projects however, the boundary

10 spanning becomes more inter-site in nature. Second, the multiple distributed projects that shared some of its locations. Some locations are shared to simplify the boundary spanning efforts of individuals who may be participating in more than one project concurrently, helping them to recognise similarities and synergies across projects. The reason is applicable to its resource allocation to simplify the resource sharing. Thus, this sharing will avoid the effort of resource duplication and lesser its cost. However, in this project, negotiation is more difficult to manage as well as to schedule resource allocation, the problem that shared with all the program forms. Organisations have created these structures for their advantages, but hidden within them are challenges and limitations that may prevent the development of multiple projects environments up to the maximum benefits. Therefore, it is important to have an insight into the challenges of MPE in order to find the best way for a project manager to simultaneously manage the projects. Challenges in managing MPEs Instrument The instrument of this study is based on the theoretical work of Patanakul et al. (2004) and the survey used by Patanakul and Milosevic (2008, 2009). The instrument includes a total of 22 items. The questionnaire was divided into three sections as follows: (1) general demographics of the respondents; (2) challenges in managing MPE; and (3) competencies of a project manager. The questionnaire used in this part was designed to rate the levels of agreement of the challenges associated with MPE and comprised the 11 categories of challenges further classified into 22 items (Table I). Each item (challenge) was measured on a five-point Likert scale where 1 strongly disagree and 5 strongly agree. Thus (3) represented indifference, i.e. neither agreed nor disagreed. The results presented here and discussed relate only to the first and second sections of the questionnaire as it is beyond the scope of this paper to report on all the issues that were covered within the research project. 3.3 Pilot study The data collection instrument was a self-administered by embedded structured questionnaire. To fit into the Australian construction conditions, a pilot survey using an embedded survey because of its notable benefits (Dommeyer and Moriarty, 2000) were administered to 20 professionals in the construction industry in Australia around July The professionals were asked to examine the questions, try answering them and make inputs. Less than half of the professionals responded but the few made very constructive suggestions and corrections. The necessary corrections were made to the questionnaires before they were finally administered in Australia. Piloting is necessary as it is very difficult to predict how respondents will interpret and react to questions (Gill and Johnson, 1991). 3.4 Data collection This study used the questionnaire which was distributed to the members of Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM). Questionnaires were administered electronically through Surveymonkey.com web site which specialises in administering

11 JEDT 82 questionnaire survey. The benefits for adopting the electronic mail are well articulated in various studies. For example, Wright (2005) points out the following: access to unique populations, time and cost. The authors also acknowledge the mixed findings concerning response rates and non-response bias that have resulted in disagreement concerning the effectiveness of electronic modalities (Derby et al., 2011, p. 199). The link of the web site was posted on the AIPM s monthly newsletter. At the end of the survey period, 22 responses were received. Of the 22 responses, four (12.2 percent were from client and developer representatives, seven (31.8 percent) from project management consultants, one (4.5 percent) from design consultants, two (9.1 percent) from the main contractor and eight (36 percent) from others. 3.5 Data analysis methods The primary focus of the study presented in this paper was aimed at exploring the major challenges to managing MPE in Australia. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS Release ) computer program was used to analyse the data generated by the research questions. Statistical tests should be conducted to assess the importance of ensuring and assessing measurement quality. According to Bagozzi et al. (1991) citied in Forza (2002), this is to ensure that the distorting influences of measurement errors on the theoretical relationships that are being measured are disentangled. Pallant (2005) further adds that, this process is to ensure that the reliability of the scale is free from error. The Cronbach s coefficient a was used to assess the overall reliability and internal consistency of the five-point scale which has been used process in this survey for the scale of the challenges of the multiple environment projects. The result of the reliability analysis was 0.875, with the F-statistic ¼ 1.915, Sig. ¼ 0.084, which was larger than 0.5 thus indicating a high reliability of scales (Nunnally, 1978), and that the measurement instrument was reliable at 5 percent significance level (Norusis, 2005). The relative importance of all the identified challenges was examined by ranking them based on their mean values and standard deviation. According to Rea and Parker (1997) citied in Ahmed and Hassan (2003), usage of the Likert scale, which generally associates numerical values with ordinal data permits the researcher to calculate the arithmetic mean that provides more and proper information within a category than the median. Drawing from Chileshe (2004) and Ahadzie et al. (2008), where two or more challenges have the same mean, the one with the lowest standard deviation was assigned the highest importance ranking. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to investigate the impact of experience on the challenges. Respondents were asked to specify their length of experience in project management and the subsequent analysis grouped them into five categories or groups as follows: (1) project manager with less than five years of experience; (2) five to ten years; (3) 11 to 15 years; (4) 16 to 20 years; and (5) more than 20 years.

12 The respondents (subjects) were further divided according to their experience as follows: less experienced (group 1: less than five year) and more experienced (group 2: more than five years). The significance level of the analysis was set at a p-value of 0.05, as utilised by Cohen (1992 cited in Dulaimi et al., 2002), this is the conventional risk level. According to Dulaimi et al. (2002), the inference to be drawn from the significance level of the. 0.05, is that the null hypothesis of equality of the population means can be accepted, and that it could be concluded that populations has rated in a similar manner (Dulaimi et al., 2002, p. 241). Challenges in managing MPEs Data analyses and findings 4.1 Sample characteristics Table II shows the frequency of the respondents according to their experience as project managers. The importance of ascertaining the length of service in project management, length of experience as a project manager (LEPM) and functional background of the respondents is to ensure that the varying perceptions of challenges facing the managing of MPE is not obscured. The importance of ascertaining the length of service in project management, LEPM and functional background of the respondents is to ensure that the varying perceptions of challenges facing the managing of MPE is not obscured. For example, the study by Wang and Yuan (2011) established that factors such as early experience and education background (among others) led decision makers to percieve risk differently. Therefore, the same approach could be applied in the perception of challenges. Table III shows the frequency of the respondents according to their current positions (designation). It can be seen from Table III, that from a functional background viewpoint, nearly the majority of the respondents were ten (45.5 percent) project managers, followed by an equal number four (18.2 percent) of directors and line managers. The functional background of the respondents supports the notion that they were involved with running of projects at both operational and strategic levels, therefore had some knowledge of the challenges related to managing multiple projects environments. This also enhances the internal data validity (Bing et al., 2005). In order to ascertain the classification of respondents into experienced and less experienced, respondents were asked to indicate their LEPM as well as length of service or experience in project management (LSPM). Characterization of the respondents Frequency % Cumulative LEPM Less than five years More than Subtotal Table II. Description of respondents

13 JEDT Industrial classification of projects. The profile of the respondents according to the industrial sector project classification is shown in Table IV. It can be seen from Table IV that the majority 12 (54.5 percent) of the projects were located within the construction and engineering sector. As the majority of projects are undertaken within the construction sector, this finding gives credibility to the indicative trends within that sector Number of projects. The respondents were asked to state the number of projects that they were handling at present. The results are shown in Table V. As can be seen from Table V that the majority 11 (50.0 percent) of the respondents were handling up to three projects. As stated by Ireland (2002) multiple project managers have to manage multiple simultaneous projects and each of the project can be totally different and each of them has its own goals, multiple project managers responsibility is to lead each individual project and to manage interdependencies among projects so that each project can achieve its goal Type of projects. The respondents were asked to specify the type of projects that they were handling at present. The results are shown in Table VI. As can be seen from Table VI that the majority seven (31.8 percent) of the respondents were handling multiple projects with 22.7 percent (five) handling co-located programs. Position of the respondents Frequency % Cumulative Table III. Description of respondents Director Program manager Project manager Line manager Other Subtotal Sector Frequency % Cumulative Table IV. Industrial sector classification of projects Information technology Construction and engineering Defence Environmental Others Total Number of projects Frequency % Cumulative Table V. Number of projects handled by respondents More than Total

14 As established in the literature review, different challenges are associated with the different types of projects. This might range from intra-site co-ordination to resource allocation. Van de Merwe (1997) points out that the key difficulties are on allocation of resources over the large number of projects in an efficient way. Global optimisation is the factor that drives company into managing program as to be compared with traditional project management focusing on the local optimisation. 4.2 Results of ranking analysis The ranking results of the challenges are shown in Table VII. Examination of Table VII shows that all the challenges received a mean score of greater than 3.000, which implies that these challenges are all critical in affecting the effective management of multiple Challenges in managing MPEs 85 Type of projects Frequency % Cumulative Co-located program Distributed project Multiple traditional projects Multiple co-located programs Multiple distributed projects: discrete locations Multiple distributed projects: shared locations Total Table VI. Type of projects Challenges Mean a SD Ranking Commitment/responsibility Leading projects Planning Conflict/communication Availability Feedback Limitations Control Co-ordinating projects Prioritisation Information circulation Requirements Interdependency Inter-project process Implication Resources sufficiency Inter-site co-ordination Suitability Resource sustainability Short-term solution Intra-site co-ordination To keep focussed and motivated Notes: a Mean score of the challenge where 5 strongly agree; 4 agree; 3 neutral; 2 disagree; 1 strong disagree; SD standard deviation Table VII. Ranking of challenges to managing of MPE in Australia

15 JEDT 86 projects in Australia. Based on the different groups of challenges, the respondents generally agreed that the top four challenges are: (1) Organisational culture: commitment and responsibility (mean score ¼ 4.19). (2) Resources allocation: planning (mean ¼ 4.19). (3) Competencies of project manager: leading projects (mean ¼ 4.19). (4) Organisational culture: conflict/communication (mean ¼ 4.10). These themes were also identified within literature survey as very important Organisational culture: commitment and responsibility. The challenge, commitment and responsibility under the sub-category of organisational culture, was ranked the first place according to the survey results (mean ¼ 4.19, SD ¼ 0.602). This finding is consistent with literature as evidenced by various studies (Payne, 1995; Elonen and Artto, 2003; Frickle and Shenhar, 2000). Commitment is challenging in terms of perceiving importance to individual in managing projects of the parties working on, or providing resources to, the projects whereas responsibility is a challenge for the accountability of team member in an organisation towards project development Competencies of project manager: leading projects. The second most important challenge identified from the survey was that of leading projects (mean ¼ 4.19, SD ¼ 0.750). This sub challenge falls within the category of competencies of project managers. As early as initiation of multiple projects, project manager plays an important role in determining the need and the benefits that are expected to result from the projects. Part of the steps is the selection of a project manager with the requisite skills and competencies (Pellegrinelli, 1997). Thus, it is important for a project manager to develop the competencies in managing multiple projects Resources allocation: planning. Planning under the sub-category of resources allocation is the third ranked challenge in managing multiple projects environment (mean ¼ 4.14, SD ¼ 0.573) and is associated with the management of a single project. Multiple projects environment is normally associated with the management of shared resources, tasks, time and cost. The planning involved with the resource allocation normally presents a challenge to most organisations. As observed by Patanakul and Milosevic (2009), it is important that organisations carrying out multiple projects have the ability to provide sufficient and appropriate resources. Although through effective planning and controlling would entail simplification of the management of multiple projects by the project management (Patanakul and Milosevic, 2009), the challenge lies in having the experience that balances between resources requirements and resources availability, which is rarely achieved (Payne, 1995) Organisation culture: conflict and communication. Conflict and communication under the sub-category of organisation culture is the fourth ranked challenge in managing multiple projects environment (mean ¼ 4.10, SD ¼ 0.625). The linkages between conflict and communication are highlighted in literature. Rizzo (2002) argues that impacts on effective communication in the organisation. Broad ranging communications are thus required in order to leverage the full benefit in organisational culture. A common complaint expressed by at least two-thirds of the managers was that staff resources are continually distracted with side projects which are not necessarily critical to departmental or organisational success (Fricke and Shenhar, 2000).

16 Therefore, conflicts arise in this unstable relationships that occur in a multi-project environment (Payne, 1995) Competition among projects: to keep focussed and motivated. Table VII reveals that the challenge of to keep focussed and motivated is ranked lower than the others (mean ¼ 3.62, SD ¼ 0.805). This finding is consistent with literature. Eskerod (1996) study suggests that multiple project manager competes and battles for getting the highest priority as well as that of obtaining specific employees in the projects. This is further exacerbated through vying for attention from top management. Lycett et al. (2004) further highlights the consequences of project rivalries. First, it has negative impact on the inter-project competition and second it fails to harness organisational learning. Competition usually creates a level of anxiety that impede with performance. Due to ambiguous cause-effects relationships, unclear project priorities, and conflicting interests between different projects and departments (Engwall and Jerbrant, 2003). Therefore, individual project managers instinctively tend to choose courses of action that are beneficial to their assigned projects due to narrow focus and accountability for a singular project. A very strong project manager may thus be successful in his or her project(s), but the organisation may suffer from delays produced in other projects (Fricke and Shenhar, 2000; Murmann, 1994). Challenges in managing MPEs Results of ANOVA In order to investigate the impact of the experience of the project managers in identifying the challenges associated with managing MPE, one-way ANOVA was conducted. The results of this test indicated a significant different in the challenges of resource sustainability (F (1, 19) ¼ , p ¼ 0.003, 0.05) and prioritisation (F (1, 19) ¼ 7.072, p ¼ 0.015, 0.05). The less experienced project managers ranked the challenge of resource sustainability lower than the more experienced project manager managers. On the other hand, the more experienced project managers viewed prioritisation as more of a challenge than the less experienced project managers. 4.4 Ranking of challenges according to level of experience The ranking results of the challenges according to the level of experience are shown in Table VIII. Considering that resource sustainability and prioritisation are the only variables (challenges) where the less experienced and more experienced failed to agree out of 22 variables, it cannot be concluded to reject the null hypothesis. Odeyinka et al. (2008) used the same approach in accepting the null hypothesis where only one variables out of 26 was significant. The mean for resource sustainability was 2.75 among the less experienced project managers while it was 3.94 among the experienced project managers. The mean for resource prioritisation was 3.25 among the less experienced project managers while it was 4.06 among the experienced project managers. The results reveal some interesting findings. The more experienced project manager rated the challenge of conflict/communication in an organisational culture as the most important challenge in managing multiple projects environment (mean score ¼ 4.24), whereas the less experienced viewed communication and conflict as the most important challenges. However, despite the differences in the ranking of these challenges, there were no statistically significant differences. However, the results do indicate that the communication and conflict difficulties as established by less experienced project managers might be attributed to the lack

17 JEDT 88 Table VIII. Mean score comparison of challenges by level of experience Less experienced (n ¼ 4) More experienced (n ¼ 17) Challenges Mean SD Ranking Mean SD Ranking Commitment/responsibility ¼ Leading projects Planning ¼ Conflict/communication Availability ¼ Feedback ¼ Limitations Control Co-ordinating projects ¼ Prioritisation ¼ Information circulation Requirements ¼ ¼ 17 Interdependency Inter-project process Implication ¼ ¼ 13 Resources sufficiency ¼ 13 Inter-site co-ordination ¼ ¼ 17 Suitability ¼ Resource sustainability Short-term solution ¼ Intra-site co-ordination To keep focussed and motivated of prioritisation of projects. As opined by Rizzo (2002), conflicts can arise when accountability of preceding projects is not taken into account. However, the above differences should be treated with caution given the differences in the number of respondents for each group. As illustrated in Table II, the majority (77.3 percent) of the respondents were experienced project managers. 5. Conclusions The paper has presented the findings from the questionnaire survey conducted in Australia looking at the challenges to managing MPE. Ranking analysis was used to identify the relative importance of the 22 challenges identified and ANOVA was adopted to explore the impact of the experience of the project managers in identifying these challenges. The most important challenges identified from the survey were mostly related to three major aspects of organisational culture, resource allocation and competencies of project manager. These were: commitment and responsibility, leading projects, planning, conflict and communication, availability of resources and feedback. The main contribution of this paper is the transferability and applicability of the challenges associated with managing MPE from organisations that pursue NPD projects to construction projects settings. It is unique in the sense that a non-construction and engineering challenges have been identified and validated therefore confirming the external validity. The results of this study are of benefit to both researchers and practitioners. In particular, the paper bridges the gap between theory and practice, in that the research can be used in practice as recommended reading for and should be of particular interest