Survey of project management officers Analysis of project performance information received, impact on decision making and project completion success or failure

SURVEY OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT OFFICERS: ANALYSIS OF PROJECT
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION RECEIVED, IMPACT ON DECISION MAKING
AND PROJECT COMPLETION SUCCESS OR FAILURE
by
Edithe E. Drewery-Brown

JOSE NIEVES, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair
JELENA VUCETIC, Ph.D., Committee Member
TIMOTHY COTTRELL, Ph.D., Committee Member

Raja K. Iyer, Ph.D. Dean, School of Business and Technology


A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy


Capella University
February 2010




UMI Number:
3396964

All rights reserved

INFORMATIO
N TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.






UMI
3396964
Copyright 2
010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Bo
x 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346











© Edithe E. Drewery-Brown

Abstract
Project management generates project performance information required by executives to
make business decisions necessary to manage the portfolio of projects chartered to
progress companies toward their strategic goals. When the performance information is
not available or inaccurate, executive decision-making may be impacted and the results
of these solution implementations may be sub-optimal. Even though methods of
standardization designed to improve the type of project performance information that can
be made available for managing projects have been available for almost 40 years,
implemented by organizations such as the Project Management Institute (PMI), projects
continue to fail to meet their desired objectives. If projects are not performing effectively
or completing successfully, the impact may be felt throughout the organization as the
strategic plan designed via the use of projects to progress companies toward their

business objectives are unable to do so. Though the information may be available (as
there are many sources of project performance information available from various
processes that have as their foundational delivery element, project management),
managers with decision-making authority may be reluctant to use the information if it
was derived from an environment impacted by project failures. The purpose of this study
is to determine the degree to which project management officers receive the necessary
project performance information and what impact this information has on decision
making and project completion success or failure.


iii


Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my grandmother, Betty Louise Watson of Martinsville,
Virginia who taught me about the value of education long before Malcolm X uttered the
words “Education is the passport to the future for tomorrow belongs to those who prepare
for it today”. Betty shares this dedication with my father Albert Russell Drewery, who
believed we could achieve and sent my sister and me to private school on his janitor’s
salary to prepare us for the tomorrow Malcolm spoke of. Betty and Albert share this
dedication with my sister, Isabel Carter Furtick who has always said, “I know you can do
this sister-girl” and always believed in me as I believe in her. Betty, Albert and Isabel
share this dedication as well with my husband, Robert, who thirty years ago made a vow
with me to share and support my dream of earning a PhD. Betty, Albert, Isabel and
Robert share this dedication with my children, Xayquiniviere, Shanimba, Ba’Shan,
Frances Alexandra and Nathena Quinnelle. You have all stood by me and believed in my
lifelong dream to earn a Doctorate. When I cross that stage to accept my degree, I shall
be crossing it with each and every one of you as the first person in my family to earn
Doctoral degree. Hopefully my journey will continue the legacy of educational pursuit in
this family for generations to come. I hope that my journey will establish the same future

steps for those in my family who come behind me to establish their goal of becoming a
PhD.




iv
Acknowledgments
The purpose of this acknowledgment is to recognize those individuals and
resources who have worked with me and provided assistance to me both technically and
professionally as I have endeavored to complete the doctoral dissertation process. I
would first like to acknowledge Capella University for creating and managing a robust,
procedure-based Doctoral Dissertation Program. The milestones greatly facilitated my
comprehension and successful completion of the Dissertation process. I am also
acknowledging Dr. Jose Nieves, Dr. Jelena Vucetic and Dr. Timothy Cottrell who are
members of my Dissertation Committee. Their thoughtful comments and feedback
assisted me in understanding how to bring together the research, analysis and
commentary required to complete the Dissertation writing process. I am also
acknowledging Dr. Stone Shiflett, who assisted me during the Doctoral Dissertation
Writer’s Retreat. Attending the retreat was the re-starting point for me and helped me to
move forcefully on my way towards completion of the Dissertation writing process.
Finally, I am acknowledging Dr. Laura Hutt whose support as my doctoral student
mentor helped guide me through the new processes which kept me on track towards
completion of my dissertation process.


v

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments iii

List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction to the Problem 1
Background of the Study 9
Statement of the Problem 18
Purpose of the Study 19
Rationale 19
Research Questions and Hypotheses 21
Significance of the Study 24
Definition of Terms 27
Assumptions and Limitations 28
Nature of the Study 29
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework 31
Organization of the Remainder of the Study 34
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 35
Introduction 35
Sources of Project Management Related Information 36
Role of Project Management and Information Delivery 38
Types of Project Performance Information 43

vi
Project Performance Methods and Information Generation 47
Communications Management: Role in Project Management 66
Project Performance Information and Decision Making 67
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 70
Introduction 70
Research Design and Methodology 70
Population/Sample 71
Instrumentation 73

Data Collection Procedures 77
Data Analysis Procedures 79
Expected Findings 82
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 84
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 107
REFERENCES 126
APPENDIX. PROJECT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SURVEY 130



vii
List of Tables
Table 1. The CLEAR Index- ranking of project success factors and metrics 48
Table 2. Age and Tenure Demographics 85
Table 3. Gender, Educational, Age Demographics 86
Table 4. Industry Type 87
Table 5. Timeliness of Information Receipt 91
Table 6. Degree of Information Accuracy 88
Table 7. Relationship to Project Management Success 93
Table 8. Frequency of Information Rating Differences 97
Table 9. Post-hoc Frequency of Information Rating Differences 98
Table 10. Types of Information and Accuracy Rating Differences 99
Table 11. Post-hoc Types of Information Rating Differences and Accuracy 100
Table 12. Types of Information and Success Rating Differences 101
Table 13. Post-hoc Types of Information Rating Differences for Success 102
Table 14. Gender, Ethnicity, and Success Rating Differences 102
Table 15. Frequency of Information Receipt and Rating Differences 103
Table 16. Age, Education Level, Tenure, and Rating Differences 104
Table 17. Impact of Timeliness of Project Management Information 105

viii

List of Figures
Figure 1. Strategic and Operations Decision-making Conceptual Framework 33
Figure 2. Work Departments of Participants 88
Figure 3. Frequency of Information Received 89
Figure 4. Type of Information Received 90
Figure 5. Timeliness Cumulative Averages 92
Figure 6. Accuracy Cumulative Averages 94
Figure 7. Relationship to Success Cumulative Averages 96







1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem
Project failure continues to be a concern even though standards and
procedures have been in place for years to counteract the issue. Norrie and Walker
(2004) stated “there are numerous reports that document cases of projects,
particularly information technology (IT) projects, delivered substantially beyond the
due date and well above the outlined budget” (p. 47). According to

PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2004), only 2.5% of projects in global businesses fully
succeed and more than 50% fail completely. According to Palmer (2002) the cost of
project failures exceeded $450 billion in 2001.
Many reasons for the high rate of project management failure have been
purported in the research literature (Bauer, 2006; Hammoud, 2008; Kerzner, 2002;
Norrie & Walker, 2004; Pomfret, 2008; Tabernik, 2008). The Project Management
Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) (PMI Standards Committee, 2004) has identified five
process groups (e.g., initiating, planning, executing, controlling, and closing) and nine
knowledge areas (e.g., project integration management, project scope management,
project time management, project cost management, project quality management,
project human resource management, project communications management, project
risk management, and project procurement management) related to successful project
practices.

2
Based on the PMBOK processes and knowledge areas involved in project
management, according to the Business Improvement Architects (2006), project
management success is multi factorial and depends largely on the degree to which
time, cost, scope, customer requirements, and deliverable related information is
received by project managers on a timely basis and in regard to the degree of
information accuracy. This definition of project management success expands the
previous triple constraint model (e.g., time, cost, and scope) and triad of critical
components (e.g., people, processes, and technology) posited by Kissler (1991).
Consequently, given the various factors involved in project management success, or
lack thereof, the complexity of this organizational process has resulted in
contemporary research examining relationships and differences in ancillary variables
associated with project management.
Contemporary Project Management Research
A quantitative survey study by Bauer (2006) posited a success paradigm for
project managers in the aerospace industry. Traditionally, project managers were

selected in the aerospace industry based on their technical competency (e.g.,
engineering and scientific skills). However, this selection process resulted in major
cost over-runs and numerous failed projects. Consequently, Bauer compared technical
competency with management competency (e.g., leading, communication,
negotiating, problem-solving, and influencing) related to project management success
among a cohort of 149 Fortune 100 aerospace corporation project managers.
The results indicated that management competency was more important to
project management success than technical competence (Bauer, 2006). In addition,

3
management competencies of leading (r = .21, P <.01) and negotiating (r = .18, P =
.01) were statistically significant and related to project management success.
Demographic data (e.g., gender, tenure, education level) was collected by the
researcher, but not analyzed inferentially. In the recommendations for future research,
Bauer strongly advocated for the research that examined factors impacting
management competencies. Specifically, the quality, timeliness, and accuracy of
project management information received was noted by Bauer.
Hammoud (2008) completed doctoral level research designated to assess
project success related to change management factors. Hammoud posited that one of
the causal factors related to the 97.5% rate of global business project failures was
related to project managers not implementing projects that align with current business
strategy (i.e., mission, vision, strategic management goals). More specifically,
Hammoud hypothesized that project management failure was directly related to
organizational change and change management strategies.
Traditional change management processes were defined by Hammoud (2008)
as a stand alone process used to manage changes; while integrated change
management processes are institutionalized by the organization throughout its’
processes and policies. Consequently, the organizational culture of change was
purported to be as influential on project management success, or lack thereof, as the
people and technology involved.

Hammoud (2008) surveyed a total of 70 project managers divided equally
among organizations with traditional or integrated change management processes
regarding the degree of project success (e.g., costs, time, scope, stakeholder

4
satisfaction). The results of this seminal research by Hammoud (2008) concluded
there were two positive correlations between project management success, change
management processes, and integrated change management processes. Integrated
change management processes were shown to have higher project success rates
measured by adherence to project scope, project time, project cost, and project
manager satisfaction compared with traditional change management processes.
A dissertation study by Pomfret (2008) investigated the relationships between
leadership characteristics and practices, and project performance among 96 North
American automotive project managers. Pomfret expanded research by Kloppenborg
and Opfer (2002) that indicated transformational leadership styles by project
managers resulted in increased project management success as compared to
transactional leadership characteristics. The Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)
survey instrument by Kouzes and Posner (2002) was used in the Pomfret study. The
results of the study found no statistically significant relationships between project
managers’ leadership practices and project performance measured by project
managers’ performance scores (i.e., performance evaluations).
Based on the conflicting results and numerous limitations in participants
involved and the project management evaluative criteria between Pomfret (2008),
Kloppenborg and Opfer’s (2002) studies, leadership characteristics may have an
influence on project management success or lack thereof. Both sets of researchers
advocated for future research to examine additional metrics of leadership between
project managers. One consistent recommendation was based on the indirect

5
measurement of leadership characteristics related to decision making in various

projects.
In a mixed-method doctoral research study by Tabernik (2008), project
management skills were evaluated among a cohort of 336 healthcare Information
Technology (IT) project managers. The study investigated the relationship between
project management skills and perceived importance to healthcare project success
based on the research by Shenhar and Dvir (2007) that indicated only 28% of all
healthcare IT projects were successful. A list of 21 behavioral and technical skills
(e.g., diplomacy, interviewing, directing, patience, assertiveness, leadership,
programming, speaking, writing, listening, empathy, sales, politics, management,
training, cooperation, functional application knowledge, organizational
communications, analysis and design, non-verbal communications, and sensitivity)
was included in the study in relationship to perceived importance to project success
based on the work posited by Green (1989).
The results indicated that listening, speaking, and management skills were the
most significant in terms of relationship to the perceived importance to healthcare
project success. No statistically significant differences in perceived importance to
healthcare project success delineated between behavioral and technical skills among
project managers was noted. One consistent qualitative interview responses revealed
that there was a universal agreement among participants that knowledge of the project
management process was far more important than understanding the application (i.e.,
knowledge of functionality) of the product or service involved (Tabernik, 2008).

6
Based on the above contemporary project management research studies and
recommendations for future research, it was concluded that the type of organizational
change (Hammoud, 2008), leadership characteristics (Pomfret, 2008), and
management competencies (Bauer, 2006; Tabernik, 2008) all impact project
management success. One causal factor that may be linked between these and other
project management success factors identified, but not currently posited in the
published literature related to this topic may be related to the quality, timeliness, and

accuracy of project management information received.
For example, a senior executive from a software development firm, expressed
concern that he could not get access to the type of information he needed to make
business decisions at the time he required the information to support his decision-
making process. As a result his project related decision-making suffered from a lack
of facilitating information which kept his region from meeting its financial targets.
This example was supported by the researcher’s personal experience.
Researcher’s Personal Experience
Based on the author’s personal and professional experiences as a project
manager within a finance department for a Fortune 500 organization, a gross
misconception was pervasive in the organization regarding the information provided
to project managers. Despite the belief that the organization was information and
data-rich, project management executives were largely unable to receive information
when they needed it to support their decision making processes. Moreover, the
information received was hypothesized to be frequently incorrect, or not applicable to

7
the active projects thereby wasting time and contributing to the high rate of project
failure in the organization.
As a result of this observation, the company’s finance department’s monthly
financial analysis and reporting schedule was believed to be the culprit. The
information the executive required was related to projects whose performance
supported the financial targets for his region. The investigation revealed that the
finance department had many complex reporting standards, processes and tools
designed to derive information from a multitude of sources. As such, the finance
department was ultimately responsible for the typical month long delays in
information delivery which would occur after an information retrieval request was
made.
Upon additional investigation, a more complex problem related to the
departmental business processes was revealed. The result of the information gathering

effort pinpointed underlying process failures due to dependencies and
interrelationships with other business processes which caused lengthy delays in
information delivery. In some cases there was so much information coming from so
many sources that executives may not have known what to use or even how to use it.
Though the cause of the problem was not immediately identifiable, the impact of the
problem directly and negatively affected project management. Executives
responsible for making project related business decisions were not being given the
information they needed to support their process. The decisions were important to the
maintenance of the regions profitability. Profitable regions were able to retain their

8
employees, add new projects, and hire additional talent to achieve revenue targets and
keep costs under control.
Further investigation identified project failure and its relationship to
information delivery as the issue. Additional study revealed lax connectivity between
projects and several other information producing business processes such as Balanced
Score Card and Six Sigma. Organizational business process evaluations highlighted
project management as the foundational implementation method for Balanced Score
Card, Six Sigma and indeed, project management itself.
Project management not only provides the process that identifies and defines
the information for reporting, but also serves as the process that derives information
from the other related business processes, makes the content available, and schedules
the information delivery. The findings based on this author’s experience provided
clues that exposed the source of the problem associated with project management
inefficiencies and project failures among project managers. Consequently, this author
identified variables of interest related to project management success, or lack thereof,
not otherwise posited in the published research literature at the time of this writing.
Specifically, the frequency/timeliness, accuracy, and relationship to project
management success of project performance information received by project
managers delineated by schedule status, budget status, and resource management

definitely impacts decision making by project managers. However, it is unknown the
degree to which this impacts project management success; the degree of
pervasiveness in the project management industry as a whole; or whether moderating

9
variables (i.e., demographic variables of project managers) impact the decision
making processes involved.

Background of the Study
Researchers have shown that the use of project management as a standardized
approach to complete a successful project, 100% of the attempted time, is not
guaranteed. According to Phillips, Bothell, and Snead (2002), “failed and poorly
managed projects cost United States companies and government agencies an
estimated $145 billion per year” (p. 3). However, even with the development of the
Project Management Body of Knowledge, which was designed to improve and
facilitate project performance, projects continue to perform sub-optimally or fail.
Standish Group (2003) reported results of research which indicated that,
31.1% of projects would be cancelled before they ever got completed; 52.7%
of projects would cost 189% of their original estimates; only 16.2% of
projects were completed on-time and on-budget; in larger companies only 9%
of projects came in on-time and on-budget; at the largest American companies
only 42% of the originally-proposed features and functions were completed;
and only 48% of the executives surveyed felt that there were more failures
than in the previous five years. (p. 2)
The statistics cited relative to studies completed by Standish Group and
Gartner Group identified a serious and continuing issue related to project’s ability to
successfully complete relative to their defined goals and objectives. Phillips et al.
(2002) reported “there are numerous examples of failed projects” and “some

10

disciplines suffer from more failures than other disciplines. For instance, within the
information technology field, an estimated 40 percent of IT application development
projects are cancelled before completion” (p. 3).
The problem is that project management is the mechanism responsible for
delivering the information necessary to make strategic business decisions. It is
generally acknowledged that project management plays a major role in the successful
implementation of strategy for businesses. As companies compete they use project
management to implement their strategies. One problem with this approach according
to Phillips, Bothell & Snead (2002) is that “competition and a global marketplace
have created a demand for better, faster, and more cost-effective projects. Yet in
many organizations, there are no formal processes or methodologies for the effective
selection and management of projects” (p. 3). Phillips et al. (2002) went on to say “in
the past project management was about “figuring it out as we go” or about relying on
just a few within the organization who were inherently good at managing projects.
Today, this is not acceptable. With the high cost of project failure, it is not smart
business to let individuals and teams “figure it out as they go, with the hope that they
will be good at it” (p. 3). However, businesses eager to accomplish their corporate
strategies and compete successfully in the global market use whatever resources they
have at their disposal to manage projects, even if the project is part of a complex
approach aimed at implementing a strategy responsible for maintaining the
company’s competitive position within their marketplace.
Phillips, et al. (2002) commented on rationale behind the trend to use
whatever resource is available to manage projects within organizations stating “the

11
demand to do more with less places pressure on a wide variety of individuals to be
part owners in managing projects” and “while an employee’s job title may not be that
of project manager, each individual in an organization is, in essence, a project
manager, even if what that person is managing is simply a piece of a larger project”
as a result, “more employees than ever need better project management skills” (p. 4)

in order to keep projects on track and reduce the failure rate. Reducing the failure rate
becomes even more important as companies use a mix of interrelated and
interdependent projects designed to implement their corporate strategies. Researchers
identified the connection between corporate strategy performance and project
performance. Crawford and Pennypacker (2002) stated, “projects turn corporate
strategy into reality and in a sense everything an IT manager does takes the form of a
project” (p. 73).
With project management being the major foundational implementation and
management element common to many corporate methodologies and business
processes, project failure can potentially affect the well being of the entire
corporation if executives cannot or will not use the information generated from
projects to manage their strategic plans. If projects are failing then the information
required by executives to facilitate their decision-making efforts may not be data
specifically required for that purpose. As a result, executives cannot consistently
execute the business decisions required to manage and control the strategic projects
responsible for the performance of their business units. The failure of projects to
produce appropriate performance information may subject business units to failure.
As executives attempt to decipher the large amounts of information coming from the

12
myriad business processes that use projects and are designed to both improve
corporate performance while progressing corporate strategy.
Executives, as part of their normal role in the business process must make
business decisions. According to Hoch, Kunreuther, and Gunther (2001), “managers
decisions have particular significance because they affect all the people who report to
them and the businesses they manage. For this reason, making better decisions is a
key concern of managers and their organizations” (p. 2). Some of these decisions may
be strategic in nature and some tactical or related to the normal day-to-day operations
of the business. In order to make and carry out these decisions, executives, managers,
and others in positions performing the task of decision-making require information.

The type of information provided is situational in nature meaning, its content
depends upon the problem or issue being addressed, the question being raised, the
context of the decision being made, or other factors framing the decision. The
information necessary to resolve the problem can either be periodically generated or
generated upon request. The problem arises when the information necessary for
processing business decisions related to project performance is not readily available
when it is required in order to be used to support, inform, or influence the decision-
making process. In this case, project management should be capable of supporting or
facilitating the decision-making process.
When situations such as those exemplared above occur, executives attempt to
purchase or develop systems or applications capable of delivering the information
they need to facilitate their decision-making process. These tools are capable of not
only developing the information but also prioritizing the data as well. For example,

13
Phillips, Bothell & Snead (2002) discussed the Strategic Planning Pyramid
TM
, which
is a construct that allows companies to develop and communicate their organization’s
highest priorities and links these priorities to the projects responsible for the
execution of the company’s strategic plan. The Strategic Plan Pyramid
TM
developed
by Franklin Covey allows companies to clarify “long range goals and/or strategic
initiatives, specifies projects required to accomplish those goals and initiatives, and
focuses activities to complete the resulting projects” (p. 9). However, the dependence
remains on projects to accomplish the work required to implement the strategy and
project performance must be sound and capable of delivering as expected. But project
management, though standardized for almost 40 years, continues to experience
project failure.

Kerzner (2002) posited some potential reasons why projects continue to fail,
even with all of the methodology, tools, processes and almost 40 years of maturing
standardization and advancements in project management training, certification and
technology. According to Kerzner, projects may continue to experience failures
because it is “possible to alienate a customer so that no more business will be
forthcoming” (2002, p. 4). Kerzner also commented on the triple or quadruple
constraints facing projects which may also play a role in the project failure issue.
These constraints of time, cost, and performance/technology and depending on
whether the project is being performed for an outside customer, customer satisfaction,
show that project management “is designed to manage and control company
resources on a given activity within a given time, cost, and within performance
parameters” (p. 4).

14
The performance parameters within an environment that while tightly
controlled are also delicately balanced in connection with each other and outside
influences. As such, the failure of any one of these parameters while a project is
underway may cause the project to fail if not managed properly to successfully regain
an on-track status. Additionally, if executives have access to information that shows
the relationship between project implementations and project failure, and they lose
confidence in a project’s ability to successfully complete, they may be reluctant to use
project management or the information generated by project management to execute
or support delivery of the strategies designed to accomplish their corporate strategic
goals and objectives. If executives do not use appropriate information to support
business decision-making, projects may fail and place the company in jeopardy. If a
company is jeopardized it may be denied the ability to successfully compete in its
marketplace which could reduce its capability to produce the profitability results it
needs to continue to be viable and support jobs and contribute to the economy. In
other words, lack of a successfully accomplished corporate strategy means loss of
jobs and may force a company out of business.

According to Sutherland and Canwell (2004), “a strategic plan is an
overarching series of activities which aim to implement and develop a new concept,
deal with a problem, or establish the foundation of the business’s objectives in the
coming period” (p. 261). As such “strategic planning should be thought of as a
continual process, with monitoring and control procedures providing the information
for the development of this and future strategic plans” (Sutherland & Canwell, p.

15
261). Part of the strategic planning process that is related to information use for
decision-making purposes includes strategic thinking by executives.
According to Sutherland and Canwell (2004)
Strategic thinking is essentially a process in which senior management
confronts significant issues and undertakes a decision-making process in order
to deal with them. Strategic thinking may involve the identification of and
decision-making surrounding important issues. The issues would include the
selection of key information, the identification of linkages, patterns, or
interactions or the generation of alternatives and the objective evaluation of
them. (p. 263)
Another key element of the strategic planning process for which information
generation and use is vitally important is the strategic turnaround process. According
the Sutherland and Canwell (2004),
Strategic turnaround is essentially concerned with issues arising out of the
recovery process of a business. It involves dealing with issues associated with
“decreasing revenue, depletion of cash reserves, negative earnings, or periods
of sustained loss that can adversely affect the fortunes of the business.
Strategic turnaround involves dealing with these issues and taking measures in
order to address what could swiftly become a crisis. (p. 263).
Clearly information generation, analysis, and receipt has an impact on and
plays an important role in the decision-making process for businesses as many
components of strategic planning rely on information for designing the issue or

problem resolution plan. Unfortunately, for many businesses, effective use of