Project Management Institute Contextualization of Project Management Practice and Best Practice Claude Besner, PhD, MBA, PMP, Professor in Project Management Department of Management and Technology University of Quebec at Montreal Brian Hobbs, PhD, MBA PMP, Project Management Chair Department of Management and Technology University of Quebec at Montreal
Table of Contents Executive Summary xi Acknowledgements ; xiii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Research Objectives and Questions 2 1.2 General Strategy to Accomplish the Goals 3 1.3 Organization of the Monograph 4 2 Project Management Practice 5 2.1 Introduction 5 2.2 Researching the Value of Project Management Practice 7 2.3 The Literature on Project Management Practices, Tools and Techniques 9 2.3.1 Research with a narrow perspective on project management practice 9 2.3.2 Research with a wide perspective on project management practice 11 2.4 Project Management Software -. 12 2.5 Concluding Remarks 13 3 Methodology 15 3.1 Design of the Web-based Questionnaire 16 3.2 Soliciting Practitioners in Three Phases 18 3.3 Presentation of the Questionnaire and Differences Between Phases 19 3.4 Statistical Analysis and Presentation of Results 21 3.5 The Sample Sizes for Different Analyses 22 3.6 Methodological Note 24 3.7 Presentation of the Results; Methodological Aspects 24 3.7.1 Chapter 4: Description of Contextual Variables and the Performance Measure: methodological aspects 24 3.7.2 Chapter 5: Generic Project Management Practice: methodological aspects 25 3.7.3 Chapter 6: Contextual Variation in Project Management Practice: methodological aspects 30 3.7.4 Chapter 7: Best Practices: methodological aspects 32 3.7.5 The Index of Toolsets and Tools; methodological aspects 34
4 Description of the Contextual Variables and the Performance Measure 35 4.1 Respondent Demographics 36 4.2 Contextual Variables 36 4.3 Organizational Context 37 4.3.1 Maturity 37 4.3.2 Organizational support for use of tools or techniques 37 4.3.3 Availability of competent personnel :.. 38 4.3.4 Rate of project success 38 4.3.5 Public or private sector 38 4.3.6 Number of employees 39 4.3.7 Number of project managers 39 4.4 Project Management Context 39 4.4.1 Organizational structure 39 4.4.2 Participation in different phases 40 4.4.3 Project is part of a program or independent 41 4.5 Project Characteristics 41 4.5.1 Project types 41 4.5.2 Project budget 41 4.5.3 Prpject duration 42 4.5.4 Internal or external project customers 42 4.5.5 Local, regional, national or international 42 4.5.6 Well-defined or ill-defined 43 4.5.7 Level of product or technical innovation 43 4.5.8 Project Similarity ; 43 4.5.9 Number of interfaces with other systems/services/products/projects 43 4.5.10 Diverse or narrow range of disciplines 43 4.6 Principle Component Analysis on Contextual Variables 44 4.6.1 Performing maturity 44 4.6.2 Other constructs identified 45 5 Generic Project Management Practice 47 5.1 The Extent of Use of Project Management Tools and Techniques 48 5.2 Extent of Use of PMSF 48 5.3 The Most Extensively Used Tools: The Basic Toolbox 49 5.4 The Least-Used Tools r. 50 5.5 The Tools' Potential 52 5.6 Tools With the Least Potential 54 5.7 Examining the Information on Use and Potential Simultaneously 54 5.7.1 The "super tools": high use and high potential 54 5.7.2 Adequately utilized tools: high use, low potential 55 5.7.3 Discredited tools: low use and low potential 56 5.7.4 Underutilized Tools; low use and high potential 57
5.8 Toolset Identification 58 5.9 Description of the Toolsets 60 5.10 Comparing Toolsets with the Content of the PMBOK Guide 69 5.11 In Summary 71 6 Contextual Variation in Project Management Practice 73 6.1 Is Project Management Practice Generic or Specific to Different Contexts and Different Project Types? 74 6.2 What Is Similar? 74 6.3 What Are the Differences? : 75 6.4 Variation Across Geographic Regions 78 6.5 Differences Across Project Types 81 6.5.1 Comparisons between E&C and IT & telecom projects 84 6.5.2 Comparisons of business and financial services projects with other types of projects 85 6.5.3 Comparisons of IT & telecom and software project types 85 6.5.4 Comparisons at the tool level 86 6.5.5 In summary 86 6.6 Identification of Significant Differences in Practice Among Contextual Archetypes 87 6.7 Presentation.of Contextual Archetypes ; 90 6.7.1 C4: More performing maturity, better defined projects and greater use of tools 92 6.7.2 C2: Less performing maturity, ill-defined projects and less use of tools...93 6.7.3 Cl vs. C3: Smaller internal projects in large organizations vs. larger external projects in smaller organizations 94 6.7.4 C5: Public sector, functional structure, mostly internal projects 95 6.8 In summary 97 7 Best Practices ; 99 7.1 Identification of the General Context and Practices Leading to Performing Maturity 101 7.2 Identification of Best Practices Looking at Project Types 104 7.2.1 Business and financial services 106 7.2.2 Engineering and construction 107 7.2.3 IT and telecom 107 7.2.4 Software development. 107 7.3 Identification of Best Practices in Each Contextual Archetype 107 7.3.1 Cl: Smaller internal projects in larger organizations 110 7.3.2 C2: Less performing maturity, ill-defined projects and less use of tools 110 7.3.3 C3: Larger external projects in smaller organizations Ill
7.3.4 C4: More performing maturity, better defined projects and greater use of tools Ill 7.3.5 C5: Less performing maturity, ill-defined projects and less use of tools 112 7.4 In Summary 112 8 Discussion 115 8.1 The Identification of Generic Practice ; 116 8.2 Practices, Tools and Techniques with the Most Potential 118 8.3 Explanations of Variation in Practice 118 8.3.1 Complexity of use and organizational support 118 8.3.2 Variation with organizational, project management and project contexts 119 8.3.3 Contextual archetypes and practice archetypes 120 8.4 Best Project Management Practices 122 8.4.1 Identifying Best Practices 122 8.4.2 Comparing project paradise with the theoretical model of performing maturity 122 8.4.3 Generic and context specific best practices 123 8.4.4 Best Practices vs. Perceptions of Unrealized Potential 124 8.5 The Structuring Effect of Well-defined Projects : 124 8.5.1 Importance of participation in the front-end 124 8.5.2 The structuring effect of project definition 125 8.5.3 Reducing uncertainty vs. managing uncertainty 127 8.6 Implications for the Project Management Community 128 8.7 Limits of the Research 130 8.8 Future Research.'. 131 9 Conclusion 133 10 References 139 11 Appendices.-; 149 11.1 Appendix 1: Survey questionnaire 151 11.2 Appendix 2: Index of Toolsets and Tools 156