Download - Project Management
1er Congrès International en Management et Gestion des projets, Gatineau, (Québec), Canada, 2011
Value or Vise? – Project Management Implementation at a Canadian Research Institute
Thomas Mengel, PhD, PMP; Renaissance College, University of New Brunswick1
Résumé
Malgré le nombre grandissant de publications sur l’implémentation de la gestion de projet et sa
valeur pour les organisations, il y a peu d’études de cas explorant la valeur de l’implémentation
de la gestion de projet dans le contexte particulier des instituts de recherche. Cette étude de cas
explore la façon dont la mise en place d’une gestion de projet a évoluée dans un institut de
recherche fédéral Canadien en comparant les premières étapes de l’implémentation formelle
(2007) à l’état actuel (2010). Plus particulièrement, cet article présente l’approche sélectionnée
par l’institut pour faire face aux défis spécifiques et aux avantages qu’un institut de recherche
peut rencontrer lors de l’implémentation de la gestion de projet. En conclusion, cet article
contribuera à mieux comprendre la valeur de la gestion de projet pour les instituts de recherche.
Mots clés : Gestion de projet; recherche; implémentation; valeur; étude de cas; Canada
Abstract
While the number of publications about project management implementation and its value for
organizations in general has increased, there is a lack of case studies exploring the value of
project management implementation within the particular context of research institutions. This
case study investigates how the implementation of project management has evolved at a
Canadian Federal research institute by comparing the early stages of its first formal
implementation (2007) with the more recent status (2010). Particularly, the paper will discuss the 1 The author wishes to acknowledge the support of the case study organization to this project. Without the help of the
management and employees of this organization this study would not have been possible.
Institute’s approach to coping with the specific challenges and opportunities an organization
focusing on research might face when implementing project management. As a result, this paper
will contribute to better understanding the value of project management for research institutions.
Keywords: project management; research; implementation; value; case study; Canada
Introduction
Various publications have discussed researching and quantifying the value of project
management (Thomas & Mullaly, 2008; Ibbs & Reginato, 2002). Many case studies have been
published substantiating the claim that implementing project management does create value for
the organization (Aubry, Müller, Hobbs, & Blomquist, 2010; Cicmil, Ðorđević, & Zivanovic,
2009; Crawford & Helm, 2009; Eskerod & Riis, 2009; Mengel, Cowan-Sahadath, & Follert,
2009; Turner, Ledwith, & Kelly, 2010; Zhai, Xin, & Cheng, 2009). However, there is a lack of
studies in the specific context of research institutions exploring in depth and over time what
particular challenges this kind of organization may have faced and how the organization might
have responded to these challenges when implementing project management. This case study
investigates how a Canadian Federal research institution has adapted project management to
meet their specific needs and how the implementation of project management has evolved over
time by comparing the early stages of its first formal implementation (2007) with the current
status (2010). It will discuss the means and results of increasing the value of project management
for this research organization. Thus it will contribute to better understanding the evolving value
of project management for research organizations as well as the key determinants of this process.
Methodology
This case study – a Canadian Federal research institution – is a result of a research project that
the researcher has conducted at the Institute as guest researcher to assess the value of project
management to the organization (organizational benchmarking) and to also contribute the
collected data to the larger Researching the Value of Project Management project (Thomas &
Mullaly, 2008). To be consistent with the approach of this larger research project, this case study
has applied the same tools and approaches of quantitative and qualitative data collection that
have been developed for and used within the context of the Researching the Value of Project
Management project. In particular, all employees of the case study organization have been
invited to participate in surveys and interviews; furthermore, the researcher has engaged in
organizational data collection and observation of project management practices. This approach
has been applied twice to allow for a longitudinal study of the evolving project management
implementation and its value at this research institute. The first set data was collected between
April and August 2008; a follow-up study using the same approach was conducted between
September and November 2010.
The overall research approach was based on the understanding that details around the
implementation of project management in any given organization (rationale, timeline,
methodology, results) were paramount. Furthermore, in trying to explore what has actually
changed in that organization and why, the research methodology needs to include asking
individuals within the organization as well as observing what is and relating this to theories of
organization and organizational change. In particular, project management implementation
within an individual organization needs to be understood within the context of the organization’s
strategy and environment (Construct of Project Management Implementation). Furthermore, the
impact of project management implementation on the delivery of projects needs to be qualified
further (Construct of Organizational Context). Finally, the real benefit of project management
implementation to the overall organization needs to be identified and better understood (Value
Constructs) (Thomas & Mullaly, 2008).
Figure 1 from (Thomas & Mullaly, 2008, p. 25)
The results of the rich data collection approach in regard to the value of project management
(implementation) are being discussed within the framework of the following five levels (Thomas
& Mullaly, 2008, p. 37f.):
• perceived satisfaction of various stakeholders with the organization’s project management
implementation,
• aligned use of practices: the fit between what is being talked about, what is documented and
what is actually being done,
• process outcomes and improvements gained through project management implementation,
• depending on the nature of the organization various business outcomes can be identified and
qualified, and
• return on investment.
Furthermore this study investigates the connection and correlation between project and
organizational performance on one side, and the level of support for the discovery of meaning in
the various dimensions of working environments, as well as the level of meaning actually
discovered and actualized, on the other. Based on Frankl’s categories of meaning and the
actualization of values―creational, experiential, and attitudinal values (Frankl, 1988)―data
have been collected and interpreted in pursuit of the following questions:
• Which areas and elements of the project management context (e.g., infrastructure and tools,
practices, people, training) support the discovery and actualization of meaning, and in which
of the following manners do they do so?
• In the creative aspects of work in and around projects (e.g., creating products, services, and
processes that are perceived as being meaningful)?
• In the experiential aspects of project work (e.g., experiencing relationships with others that
are perceived as fulfilling)?
• In the attitudinal aspects within project environments (e.g., mastering challenges by
reframing one’s perspectives)?
• In which aspects of project work (creative, experiential, and attitudinal), and how and to what
extent do project stakeholders discover and actualize meaning in project environments?
• To what extent and how does a meaningful project management context (meaningful work,
experiences, and attitudes) contribute to increased project or organizational performance?
Finally, content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004; Weber, 1990) will be used to identify potential
additional themes and to triangulate the results within the context of value of project
management and meaningful work.
Description of the Case and Data Collection
Description of the Case
This Canadian research organization is mandated by the Federal government and has several
sites in various Canadian cities in different provinces. The institute employs several hundred
people (mostly highly educated researchers, technology relations officers, and other support
staff, administrational staff, and management). As a research institute, it is competing with other
research organizations across the globe as well as on a national level; federal funding is
distributed among the various research areas and organizations based on how well each institute
can demonstrate effective management in generating high economic and social impact on
Canadian society. Highly educated and well-experienced researchers consider their work to be
very meaningful (in terms of research work and results), and the majority of the people surveyed
and interviewed enjoy working for this organization; (research) projects are the bread and butter
of this organization. However, the increasingly competitive environment also requires a change
of culture from a more or less “free” research environment for “independent” researchers to an
organization that strategically focuses its efforts on areas of greatest impact.
A major trigger for the implementation of formal project management in 2007―the introduction
of a project proposal template as a first step of a more comprehensive project management and
portfolio process, as well as the hiring of a well-trained project manager―was the need to be
better able to align research projects with the institute’s business plan and to account for and
control research projects; this was particularly triggered by the Auditor General’s report in 2004.
One of the objectives was to successfully implement a system that would help the organization to
secure further funding successfully beyond 2010.
Between 2008 and 2010 various adjustments of and additions to the existing project management
system have been implemented. These include various changes to the project management
processes and structures as well as additional documentation describing these changes in the
context of the existing project management system. Basic project management training tailored
to the needs of the Institute has been delivered to 32 researchers and group leaders across the
Institute in November 2008 and March 2009. More and more projects are being managed based
on the new processes and procedures; 2010 appears to have been the first year that all projects
were following the Institute’s project management guidelines.
Early data collection: 2008
At the first data collection point, 10 semi-structured interviews have been conducted between
April and August 2008 with internal project sponsors, executive managers, and with project and
team leaders (including research officers and business development officers); furthermore, nine
comprehensive surveys have been completed. The interviews and surveys covered the various
locations of the Institute; they were conducted with employees who volunteered to participate in
response to the invitation sent to all employees. At the same time, the researcher has inspected
process and project documentation on-site, reviewed project management templates and
frameworks, and captured the results of project- and project management-related observations.
Finally, the researcher was able to attend the first project review meeting of the organization in
January 2008 that led to the prioritization of new project initiatives in regard to their scientific
and technical excellence, to their alignment with the organization’s business plan, and to their
external and internal impact. In addition, the Institute’s internal project management and project
initiation guidelines have been reviewed.
Recent data collection: 2010
Two years after the initial data collection point, the same data collection approach has again been
applied. As a result, 12 semi-structured interviews have been conducted between September and
November 2010 with representatives of various functions and hierarchical levels of the
organization; furthermore, 12 comprehensive surveys have been completed. Again, the
interviews and surveys covered all locations of the Institute. Project documentation, project
management templates and frameworks have been reviewed on-site, and the results of project
and project management-related observations have been captured. In particular, this review
included a new version of the Institute’s internal project management guideline, new project
change request and closing forms, as well as the latest project management office work plans.
Discussion
Results of early data collection: 2008
Review of existing project management documentation
The internal project management guideline consists of two parts - Part 1 Principles and Part 2
Operations - and introduces an institute wide project management approach. In part 1 it describes
the main rationale, objectives and guiding principles for this approach and describes the project
life cycle, the project review and evaluation criteria and the process of project portfolio analysis.
Finally, it identifies and describes in more detail elements of the project portfolio management
model (including in particular roles and responsibilities). In part 2 it presents a project
classification - large and small scale projects -, a timeline for implementation, and particular
templates (including the project proposal, project plan, and progress report).
An additional document provided the project review committee consisting of the research
directors, research and business development regional representatives, and the project manager
with the terms of reference in providing the Senior Management Committee with an overall
assessment of each project reviewed, with scores for the relevant criteria (Scientific and technical
excellence, alignment with the Institute’s business plan, and external and internal impact), and
with recommendations on strengthening the projects. It was initially applied at the first
respective project review meeting in Ottawa at the end of January 2008.
Finally, a project initiation document outlined steps for researchers to follow when initiating new
research projects depending on the type and size of projects as well as on the research area; it
suggested introducing principles of project management early on in the process of initiating
research projects while providing the researchers with substantial flexibility in the process.
Early stages of project management implementation
The primary objectives of implementing elements of formal project management were to
increase organizational credibility, to improve business case realization, and to gain a
competitive advantage (“internally” within the cluster of various federal research institutions, as
well as on a global level). On the other hand, accelerating project delivery and reducing project
costs were of very minor importance. Because the early steps were very fundamental and not yet
well understood nor consistently applied, the level of maturity was still rather low.
A common project (management) language was not yet spoken within the organization and the
role of projects was not yet clearly and consistently understood. There appeared to be a (cultural)
difference between various sites and their interpretation and application of the newly introduced
project management processes. In general, project management work was very much disliked
(particularly by researchers), while they took pride in their work as researchers. Researchers felt
that they spent an excessive amount of time clarifying project objectives with management staff
and obtaining their signatures. Yet, researchers also felt that all important aspects of projects
were monitored and controlled.
Due to the stepwise introduction of major project management elements, particularly around
project initiation, there was not yet a well-developed integration of various processes.
Particularly, the mismatch of annual budgeting as applied within the Institute and the needs of
major projects that require a multiple-year timeframe and financial commitment had been
mentioned as a shortcoming by project leaders repeatedly.
Management had already identified the need to revise the current level of project management
implementation and to adjust the level of required documentation based on a better balance
between the needs of external accountability and internal value. Furthermore, the need to explain
further and better the new approach of project management in general and of project initiation in
particular to researchers and group leaders had also been identified.
Levels of value
Satisfaction of stakeholders with management of projects and with project management
implementation was rated different depending on the site location and hierarchical level of the
people interviewed and surveyed; in general, managers in all locations and employees in the
‘younger’ locations demonstrated higher satisfaction (not high though!) than the researchers
overall and in the ‘older’ location in particular (high dissatisfaction). The project planning
template was perceived to have had the biggest impact on the organization within the overall
project management implementation. Managers indicated the increased linkage between business
strategy and projects as the major bonus of the first steps of project management implementation;
researchers could see the need for increased documentation based on the increased need for
external accountability, but they appeared to question the level of documentation required as
being meaningful in the organization’s context (research) and to perceive the increased planning
requirements to be distractive from their core work (research). Professional pride was clearly
linked to the research work rather than to the project management aspects of their work. Both,
management and researchers agreed on the need to balance the amount of planning and
documentation required with the expected and perceived value of this; however, the way to best
find and implement that balance has yet to be discovered:
There is a mismatch between that kind of reporting and … project management [and the
kind] of projects … we should be doing. We are supposed to come up with new ideas,
and I think that means the majority of our projects should be about innovation and should
have these characters: … poorly defined final product, very risky sub steps in project, and
that doesn't fit well with the reporting up to the Auditor General…. Some management
has to be done, but it's a different kind of management… we don't want to over
document, because there is a cost to the researchers if we over document. … So we have
these template forms that we are supposed to fill in. Many of the questions of the
templates aren't used for making any decisions, but we're still supposed to fill [them] in
…. An apparent assumption that this was an improvement and that by doing this we will
be a better research organization, … [however,] there is never any appeal to data or
evidence that doing this kind of project management is going to lead to a better research
performance. And there was the constant implication, sometimes explicitly mentioned,
that what we have been doing was wrong, even though we had good results (Interview
transcripts).
Aligned use of practices were reported and demonstrated on a very basic and inconsistent level;
however, alignment was reported to be gradually increasing. Again, the difference between
locations was significant. However, the early date of the first data collection may account for the
lack of alignment in regard to project management practices.
Significant Process and business outcomes could not yet be substantiated by conclusive evidence
based on the early stage or project management implementation; however, management
(including group leaders) and to some extend researchers reported higher alignment of projects
with the business strategy, better focus on strategically important projects and better access to
resources:
People are really starting to see the value in being able to say: this is what I want to do,
now we've seen the funnel of projects, it's much more concentrated, it's better aligned, we
have people from different groups working together now…. Just going through the
project review committee ..., it was a great exercise for different people to get to know
what's happening in other parts of the institute. And see opportunities and say: you know
maybe this component that this group is working on would be a great fit with us and now
we have tools to do ...cross location research projects…
Because we are earlier involved, we can better plan, we can better anticipate, as opposed
to being reactive. Reactive sometimes is not very conducive to success …. When you
react you tend to make the wrong decision because you don't have all the information.
But if we are doing it right from the start and we work with the researcher we can
anticipate what their needs are as they work… The project proposal template is just a
document, there is a process attached to it, there are steps and so on but it is certainly a
vehicle that helped to transit people … more toward a project management attitude
(Interview transcripts).
Return on investment was difficult to account for within this federal research organization.
Financial accounting for project management implementation has not been considered a high
priority. Hence, accurate and reliable financial numbers for both expenses and returns were
lacking. Furthermore, cost efficiency of projects was not a major concern at this point. However,
managers and project staff alike expected competitive advantages (internally and externally)
based on the better strategic alignment of projects as well as on the more effective and efficient
project reporting as integral part of organizational management.
Meaningful work
Creative Aspects―Producing Meaningful “Results”: As a research organization of high caliber
and recognition, the institute provides researchers and managers with ample opportunities to
engage in exciting and meaningful research projects that have a significant impact on the
Canadian people and society and beyond. The various awards that the organization has won on
different levels over the years clearly contributed to the pride of researchers and managers to be
part of this organization. However, this pride and excitement, particularly that of researchers,
was clearly attributed to the research (and business/customer) aspects of the institute rather than
to the (project) management side of the operation; to a large extent, researchers perceived the
level of project management requirements that they needed to follow to be fairly discouraging
and frustrating. Although managers appeared to thrive on the challenges of increased
competitiveness and market orientation, some researchers felt limited and restricted in pursuing
their research interests, and others were frustrated by the business strategy–based discontinuation
of their projects.
Experiential Aspects―Experiencing Meaningful Relationships and Sense-Making: Engaging in
exciting research projects with others as expressed by some researchers and all managers clearly
provides ample opportunities for meaningfully relating to others and experiencing the thrill of
research; however, based on the individualistic nature of some researchers and their research
projects, that satisfaction was sometimes based more on the fascination with the topic and related
challenges (and the thrill of respective problem solving) than on the collaboration with others.
Attitudinal Aspects―Sense-Making, Framing, and Reframing: At this point, the change of
culture from a free-floating research organization to a strategically oriented and publically
accountable research institute that has to face significantly increased internal and external
competition, was to many a challenge that had yet to be mastered and experienced in a
meaningful way. Some further explaining of what was happening and why and how it might
positively impact the work of all involved had yet to happen. Although the project management
implementation was reported particularly by management to potentially contribute to
successfully mastering the needed organizational change, the value of this management approach
in its implementation at the time was not (yet) obvious to many within the organization. While
management and more business-oriented employees could already detect the positive impact of
project management on making better sense of what the Institute was doing as well as on
creating a bigger and better impact in a more effective and efficient way (which is the reason
why management has driven the project management implementation in the first place), many
researchers had yet to be convinced of this value.
Comparison with results of recent data collection: 2010
Analysis of key documents
The version 2 of the PM Guideline has further emphasized the role of the Business Development
Office (BDO) particularly in the early phase of project management. Furthermore, this version
has increased the threshold of Large Scale (LS) projects from $ 250,000 to $ 750,000 (or $
250,000 annually) and the reporting requirements of LS projects from quarterly and annual to
quarterly, semi-annual and annual; at the same time reporting requirements for Small Scale (SS)
projects have been reduced from semi-annual to annual and from having to create both a project
proposal and a master project plan to requiring a project proposal only. Project review meetings
are required for LS projects only, but now twice a year (as opposed to once only in the previous
version). In addition, some project management processes have been expanded by updated forms
for promotional communication, change management and project closure. Finally, a Federal
agency external to the Institute has conducted an Organizational Project Management Capacity
Assessment (OPMCA) and produced a report for the Institute which has rated the Institute’s
project management capacity at a very high at level (3 out of 4 or 75%).
Analysis of interview data
The content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004; Weber, 1990) of the 12 interviews has resulted in the
identification of 4 overall themes based on 28 key words: 1) Project management
implementation (with the key words project management, project management office, LS/SS
projects, project management training, project management working group, documentation,
maturity level, pre-proposal, proposal, approval, accelerated projects, change request, closure,
project directory, and future), 2) business development and commercialization (with the key
words commercialization, business development office, competitive technological intelligence,
funding, human resources, and foundational research), 3) acceptance and benefits (with the key
words acceptance, benefits, improvement, progress, and feedback), and 4) culture (with the key
words culture and communication).
Analysis of survey data
Based on the data of the surveys conducted in 2008 (number of respondents: nine) and 2010
(number of respondents: twelve) the analysis compares the average (including standard
deviation) result for each survey question between the two surveys. While many responses to the
2010 survey have confirmed the results produced by the 2008 survey, there also clearly is a
significant change in several areas. Table 1 compares the respective data in regard to the
questions that resulted in a change of the average score of at least one point. The most significant
changes (increase of at least 1.5 average points) occurred within the following areas:
• We regularly look at how we can add more value to our customers.
• Projects have at least one face to face meeting.
• Projects are formally managed and delivered.
• A common project language is shared by all.
• PM knowledge can be easily acquired from experts and co- workers in my organization.
• The project management documentation in my organization is clearly documented.
• The project management documentation in my organization is easy to understand.
• Existing formal PM processes and procedures are used to manage projects.
• In case of project difficulties, project team members know exactly who to ask for support.
• Individuals/groups contributing to projects always receive feedback on the acceptance or
rejection of their inputs.
These results clearly indicated a significant improvement in regard to project management
practices and culture within the Institute.
Theme Average 2008
Standard Deviation 2008
Average 2010
Organizational Capabilities 15 bThere is complete satisfaction in the relationship between management and employees. 1.6 0.68 2.
eThere is complete trust between management and employees. 1.1 0.35 2.
17 c
Management are effective at developing a unified sense of direction and common purpose to which all members of the organization can relate. 2.0 0.67 3.
Organizational Culture 19 cIt is consistently important for the results of projects to be used as soon as possible 3.2 0.92 4.
21 a We regularly look at how we offer customers superior value. 2.7 0.67 3.
bWe regularly look at how we can add more value to our customers. 2.7 0.67 4.
cWe are encouraged to think in terms of what adds value to our customers. 3.2 0.79 4.
22 aWe assess business opportunities without being constrained by where we are right now. 2.0 0.82 3.
25 aThe organization provides channels to share best practices and knowledge between departments, teams and individuals. 1.9 0.74 3.
dWe find out how our projects deliver on our customers needs. 2.7 0.45 3.
Team/Project Culture 27 aThe organization plans, manages and develops its people resources. 2.6 0.50 3.
bPeople's knowledge and competencies are identified, developed and sustained. 2.7 0.94 3.
g Projects have at least one face to face meeting. 3.0 1.05 4.
h Regular project meetings are held with all team members. 3.1 1.20 4.28 a Partnerships among different projects are managed. 2.3 0.82 3.
29 aProject processes are systematically designed and managed. 2.4 0.68 3.
dProject processes are improved, as needed, to fully satisfy and generate increasing value for project stakeholders. 2.2 0.63 3.
f Projects are formally managed and delivered. 2.4 0.50 4.
Human Resources 32 aThere is a formal process linking training to career development. 1.7 0.67 2.
34 a I find ways to improve project management procedures. 3.2 0.79 4.h I consider myself an expert project manager. 2.1 0.57 3.
Project ManagementAttitudes 35 a
The role of projects is clearly understood within the organization. 1.9 0.57 3.
b The role of projects is clearly valued within the organization. 2.9 0.74 4.
c Project management is a valued skill within the organization. 2.6 0.68 3.d A common project language is shared by all. 1.7 0.47 3.
36
Please identify the degree to which each of the following attributes are viewed as key drivers of projects within the organization:
a Realization of the business case. 3.2 1.03 4.c Smoothness of handover. 2.1 0.60 3.m Minimizing operational impacts. 2.4 0.70 3.r Contribution to continuous improvement. 2.5 0.87 3.
37
Please identify the degree to which the following statements describe your perceptions of project management as a discipline:
d I am proud to be a project manager. 2.5 0.50 3.
fI feel fairly well satisfied with project management as a career. 1.7 0.94 2.
g I definitely dislike project management work. 3.5 1.00 2
hI will voluntarily leave project management within the next three years. 3.5 0.76 2
Project ManagementPractices 38 a
Project management practices, and policies are clearly documented. 2.1 0.87 3.
bProject management policies and procedures are followed diligently. 2.0 0.67 3.
dThis organization has superior project management practices. 1.4 0.50 2.
39 a The project managers are extremely competent. 2.1 0.78 3.
40 c Project managers are highly valued within the organization. 1.8 0.66 2.
dClients are consistently satisfied by the process by which projects are managed. 1.9 0.64 3.
eClients are consistently satisfied with project results of projects managed by the organization 2.6 0.90 3.
43 bPM Knowledge can be acquired easily through formal documents and manuals in my organization. 1.7 0.47 2.
dPM knowledge can be easily acquired from experts and co- workers in my organization. 1.8 0.43 3.
44 aThe project management documentation in my organization is clearly documented. 1.4 0.68 3.
bThe project management documentation in my organization is easy to understand. 2.0 1.00 3.
cThe project management documentation in my organization is easily applied to actual project situations. 1.8 0.66 2.
45 aFormal PM process and procedures are rigorously followed in this organization. 1.9 0.60 3.
bFollowing formal PM processes help us to better manage our projects. 1.8 0.66 3.
dExisting formal PM processes and procedures are not used to manage projects. 3.9 0.60 2
46 f Project roles and responsibilities are clear and unambiguous. 2.0 0.71 3.
47 dThe business case for projects is clearly defined and understood. 2.2 0.79 3.
49 bProject participants always know how to make the project manager aware of problems. 2.6 0.70 3.
cIn case of project difficulties, project team members know exactly who to ask for support. 1.8 0.43 3.
eAll project team members are sufficiently informed about their role in project teams. 2.8 0.97 3.
gIndividuals/groups contributing to projects always receive feedback on the acceptance or rejection of their inputs. 2.3 0.83 4.
50 b
Project team members know which activities have slack time or slack resources that can be utilized in other areas of projects. 2.0 0.53 3.
c Detailed budget plans are prepared for projects. 3.1 1.12 4.
f Project plans are monitored and changed when necessary. 3.1 0.93 4.
gActually progress on projects is regularly compared with the original schedule. 2.9 0.83 4.
Project Manager Role 54 cProject managers are fully responsible for the projects they manage. 2.1 0.33 3.
55 bProject control/steering committees are consistently comprised only of upper management representatives. 2.6 1.22 3.
QuestionStandard Deviation 2010
Delta Avg. 2008 - 2010
8 1.34 1.3
4 1.32 1.3
3 0.96 1.3
3 0.96 1.1
7 0.75 1.1
3 0.62 1.6
3 0.62 1.1
1 1.16 1.1
3 1.09 1.4
7 0.86 1.0
5 0.99 1.0
6 1.15 1.05 1.02 1.5
1 1.08 1.04 0.77 1.0
7 1.18 1.2
7 1.03 1.41 0.64 1.6
6 1.07 1.0
4 0.49 1.21 0.94 1.0
2 0.72 1.3
0 0.60 1.1
7 1.05 1.23 0.86 1.6
2 0.72 1.01 0.83 1.04 0.88 1.05 1.16 1.0
5 1.08 1.0
6 1.37 1.0.4 1.23 -1.1
.5 1.30 -1.0
2 0.99 1.1
1 0.95 1.1
7 1.18 1.25 0.99 1.3
8 1.21 1.1
0 1.13 1.1
6 0.64 1.1
8 0.99 1.2
4 0.92 1.7
4 1.11 2.0
5 0.99 1.5
8 1.30 1.0
3 1.14 1.4
2 0.99 1.4
.3 1.05 -1.6
2 1.14 1.2
5 0.87 1.3
8 0.83 1.2
7 0.86 2.0
8 1.14 1.1
0 0.95 1.8
4 1.23 1.42 1.03 1.0
4 0.64 1.2
1 0.90 1.2
3 1.62 1.2
7 1.18 1.0
Table 1: Comparing survey results (2008-2010) that changed more than 1 average point
Levels of value
Satisfaction of stakeholders with management of projects and with project management
implementation has increased significantly based on the value the Institute and its employees
place on projects, many of the project management processes and structures, and on the
increasingly shared project management language. However, satisfaction is still rated differently
depending on the site location and hierarchical level of the people interviewed and surveyed; in
general, managers in all locations and employees in the ‘younger’ locations demonstrate higher
satisfaction than the researchers overall and in the ‘older’ location in particular. Project
management has now become common practice and provides researchers and the Institute
overall with the necessary focus and resources. Managers, group leaders, and some researchers
indicate the increased linkage between business strategy and projects as the major bonus of
project management and its implementation. Researchers increasingly see the need for
documentation based on the need for external accountability, they appreciate the adjustments the
Institute has put in place regarding the different levels of required documentation for LS and SS
projects, but to some extent they still question the level of documentation required as being
meaningful in the organization’s context (research institution) and to perceive the increased
planning requirements to be distractive from what they perceive to be their core assignment
(engage in research activities).
I think there is a general acceptance of project management. There is a sense that things
are clearer now … We have gone from a phase of disruption to acceptance ... most people
now get a value back. [Those were the] key steps of pm implementation - training,
communication...holding the reviews...being flexible in terms of how to
implement...adjustments...[and]…to avoid redundant work … So there was some
adjustment on the numbers to make it more realistic as to what is a large scale project and
what is a small scale project. That has gone a long way to alleviate some of that pressure
that people were feeling because quarterly reports and the amount of information that is
required is onerous and you don’t want to do that for every single project…. But we
accomplished what we need to do as an institute in recording the data, managing the
process but not restrict or constrict the researchers (Interview transcripts).
Aligned use of practices are reported and demonstrated on an increased and more consistent
level, particularly in the newer locations that are mainly funded through renewable funding
around strategic clusters.
[The adjustment and alignment of processes] puts our budget in cycle with projects, it
puts our reporting in cycle with the governance side as well (Interview transcripts).
Process and business outcomes are starting to materialize in terms of an increased capacity to
commercialize and the associated confidence in being able to grow the external revenue stream.
Having a more formal process has increased our ability to commercialize (Interview
transcripts).
Return on investment is still not of great importance to this research institution of the Federal
government. However, accountability for the public money spent and for the impact of the
Institute’s activities in terms of strategic value for the Canadian government and people is of a
major concern. Clearly, the implementation and continuous improvement of project management
implementation has helped the Institute to be able to account for the use of its resources as well
as the respective impact.
[Non-renewable funding independent of strategic clusters] has been decreased by 40% in
the last 36 months; so the importance of project management to show your worth is very
important…and has probably enabled [the Institute] to ensure the sustainability
(Interview transcripts).
Meaningful work
Creative aspects – producing meaningful “results”: As already demonstrated in the earlier study
and as confirmed by the data collected recently, researchers first and foremost value exploring
new ideas and discovering new ways of doing things. However, they increasingly understand
that project management processes help them achieve that by providing them with the necessary
resources and a methodology to ensure satisfaction of internal or external customers. Project
management training and support has also increasingly been available to more stakeholders
within the Institute and thus created a common language and a set of shared practices. As a
consequence, the project management methodology increasingly contributes to the feeling of
professional pride and satisfaction on all levels. Furthermore, the focus on adding value to
customers within the context of research has significantly increased across the Institute.
However, for many the workload associated particularly with documentation and review
processes is considered a ‘necessary evil’, distracting from the main research mandate, or even
unnecessary.
Although as researchers we would like to have the freedom to work on what we want, we
realize that is not a sustainable model. The idea that we should be working on projects
that have a clear path to the outside, this management process, the criteria give us a focus
this way (Interview transcripts).
Experiential aspects – experiencing meaningful relationships and sense making: Project
management processes, structures, roles and responsibilities as well as the respective support
structures have clearly been further clarified and improved. Furthermore, a shared common
project management language and significantly improved project team culture within and across
particular projects have – in spite of the remaining frustrations around documentation and review
practices – made an important contribution to increased opportunities for experiencing the
cooperative project based research work as meaningful. Finally, the increased trust in and
satisfaction about the relationship between management and employees allow for more sense
making of researchers and managers of the Institute alike.
We have become more collaborative. A great deal of it does come from the project
management process but probably more so from the pressures we are facing... the
encouragement we have been given to collaborate and to work with particular clients ...
[The culture of collaboration] has improved a lot over the last 1.5 years especially
between Ottawa and [other locations] (Interview transcripts).
Attitudinal aspects – sense making, framing and reframing: Within the previous two years
(2008-2010) progress in changing the culture from a free floating research organization to a
strategically oriented and publically accountable research institute has been significant and is
acknowledged by various stakeholders at all levels; however, some researchers still resent and
resist the change. Increased information flow and feedback in conjunction with simply more and
improved project management practice have clearly contributed to that progress, while
particularly the top-down communication appears to have further potential for improvement.
Researchers have come along; there is still a gap… [With the information flow top down]
there is still a major problem, the amount of information and many reports flowing
upwards is not balanced by the information and feedback coming back ... Providing some
answers...that is what project management has brought to us (Interview transcripts).
Summary and conclusion
The evolving value of project management implementation in this Canadian Federal research
institute was investigated in a longitudinal study comparing the data collected in the fall of 2010
with the data collected early in 2008. The value of project management was captured on 5
different levels - satisfaction, alignment of practices, process outcomes, business outcomes, and
return on investment; a significant value increase could be demonstrated for the levels of
satisfaction and alignment, less so for the levels of outcomes and return on investment.
Furthermore, the significance of personal and organizational values as well as of a meaningful
work environment in regard to the value of project management was investigated. A strong
linkage between the value of project management and the perception of work in a project
environment to be meaningful could be demonstrated.
Summary of the early results (2008)
Major triggers for the implementation of formal project management in 2007 were the increased
requirements for accountability (in particular, the respective Auditor General’s reports in 2004
and 2006) and for strategic alignment of business objectives and research initiatives. First and
foremost, research initiatives had to be systematically identified and documented as projects and
prioritized and supported accordingly.
While the management and business development office of the Institute could already point to
more strategic alignment as well as better overview over and control of research projects,
researchers and group leaders to a large extend at this point perceived the increased documentary
requirements as inflexible and inappropriate limitation of innovative creativity within the
research environment. First successes in terms of more strategic control and alignment in
response to the requirements of greater accountability towards senior management and the
Canadian public seemed to not have yet been well balanced with the frustration of researchers
about the chosen project management approach and its implementation. At this point, the level of
maturity in regard to the project management system and the organizational fit of the project
management implementation at the Institute were rather low. As a consequence, the value of
project management implementation to the organization also still was at a low level and rather
intangible. However, the need for adaptation of the implemented approach, for more flexibility
depending on the type and size of research project, and for extensive communication and feed-
back processes between management and researchers of the Institute had been identified as
potential next steps.
Overall, the first snapshot of project management implementation was obviously influenced -
and to some extend limited - by the point in time of the investigation. First positive results in
terms of harvesting the value of project management given its objectives within the Institute
were overshadowed by the early stage of its implementation; resistance to change and the need to
focus on the control perspective given the major objectives for the project management
implementation may have accounted for a rough start. The very well educated workforce within
the Institute which demonstrated excellent motivation and pride in the institute’s research work
and achievements was a tremendous asset. Management and researchers alike saw the potential
value of project management in achieving a better focus, more strategic alignment, and
systematic progress control of research initiatives. Complementing the emphasis at the time on
top-down control and bottom-up reporting by more comprehensive and holistic feedback and
communication processes aimed at the joint development of a more broadly supported and
flexible project management approach was identified as a potential approach that could move the
implementation of project management at the Institute to the next level. In particular, the
following recommendations were presented as means to further increase the benefits of project
management implementation in the future:
• the communication and feedback between management and researchers around objectives
and means to achieve them and that are appropriate within the given research environment
can be intensified (e.g., through sharing successes as well as negative results with all levels
within the organization and developing better understanding for follow-up measures in
adapting the project management implementation; furthermore, the differential approach
towards foundational research initiatives, small scale and large scale projects needs to be
further and jointly developed and discussed),
• common language around project management elements and their implementation within
the research context can be developed and shared (e.g., through extensive training and
continued systematic support that will help develop ownership of various levels within the
Institute for the project management system as integral part of the institute’s
methodologies),
• a more flexible approach accommodating various types of research projects can be
integrated in the project and portfolio management processes (e.g., including agile project
management methods particularly for highly uncertain foundational research projects), and
• a more integrated approach between strategic, business development, financial, and project
management processes can be achieved (e.g., implementing one integrated approach for
status reporting rather than utilizing various tools and techniques depending on the
organizational unit and functional purpose).
Summary of the recent results (2010)
Major objectives for the changes and additions to the existing project management system from
August 2008 to August 2010 were to implement adjustments and improvements based on the
experiences made during the first year of project management implementation and on the
feedback received from various stakeholders during that phase. Clearly, these adjustments and
improvements have led to an increase in acceptance of the project management system across the
Institute and continue to produce the expected benefits.
Management and researchers alike now see the potential value of project management in
continuing to focus on strategic clusters and potential commercialization. While the initial
frustration of many researchers about the chosen project management approach and its
implementation has been significantly reduced, some still perceive the increased documentary
requirements as inflexible and inappropriate limitation of innovative creativity within the
research environment. The level of maturity of the project management system has clearly been
increased as also demonstrated by the assessment of the Institute’s project management capacity
at a high level (3 out of 4 or 75%). As a consequence, the value of project management
implementation to the organization has also substantially increased and could be tracked in terms
of continuous commercialization and revenue stream. Further adjustments of the existing project
management system, particularly in regard to ‘leaning’ the early phases and to increasing the
potential of harvesting the potential of commercialization, have been identified as potential next
steps.
While the progress achieved so far may suggest to keep doing what has been done to date –
completing the stepwise approach to project management implementation and adjusting the
system as needed –, even more benefits of project management implementation may be
harvested in the future, if the following recommendations that surfaced during the data collection
are considered and implemented:
• Broaden the basis for common language, understanding, and practice of project
management by
o offering more communication and feedback opportunities across projects and
between researchers and project related functions (particularly communications,
business development, project management office, and senior management), and
by
o providing more and customized training project management training
opportunities to all project related functions and individuals.
• Evaluate, prioritize, and implement suggestions presented by the project management office
and project management working group.
• Consider introducing stronger quality and risk management components compatible with
the project classification system and research mandate of the Institute.
• Strengthen the project closure process and practice particularly to ensure the
o capturing and utilization of lessons learned, and the
o implementation of a version management system that does allow the management
particularly of software and other product versions after completion of the project.
Conclusion
Implementing project management in this Canadian Federal research institute has added value to
the organization on various levels. The implementation was triggered by external pressure for
more transparency and accountability and motivated by the need for more strategic orientation.
Project management was implemented intentionally and persistently using a stepwise approach
led by senior management and supported by internal project management experts. The rough
start – some resistance by the researchers to the implementation of formal project management –
was compensated by increased strategic focus and operational transparency. As a result, project
management in this organization is increasingly becoming a “strategic asset” (Jugdev, 2010).
Furthermore, early frustrations and shortcomings were quickly responded to by adjustments that
further customized the project management structures and processes to the specific needs of this
research institution, including a more appropriate differentiation between project categories and
the adjustment of the respective project documentation and management requirements.
Persistently and consistently applying the new processes to all projects, offering customized
project management training to all stakeholders, and being able to support more key projects by a
growing project management office substantially increased acceptance of project management
particularly by researchers. It also significantly added to the existing value of project
management for the organization on most levels. Continuously communicating the rationale for
the chosen path of project management implementation on a project and organizational level
while continuing to adjust and to advance existing elements of project management has had a
major impact on the organization in terms of growing satisfaction and increasingly aligned
practices. At the same time, the work of researchers and other key stakeholders of the Institute
was increasingly perceived as meaningful in the context of this project oriented research
organization.
Yet, it also became clear that considering the specifics of the culture of the research Institute –
including personal and organizational values – and the respective expectations in regard to
meaningful work have been and continue to be a major challenge for this organization. This
longitudinal case indicates that growing and harvesting the value of project management depends
on the degree of recognition and consideration of – personal and organizational – values and
elements of a meaningful work environment when implementing formal project management.
Furthermore, this study suggests that similar research projects need to capture the particular
features of research organizations and their respective cultural and organizational requirements.
References
Aubry, M., Müller, R., Hobbs, B., & Blomquist, T. (2010). Project management offices in
transition. International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 766-778.
Cicmil, S., Ðorđević, Z., & Zivanovic, S. (2009). Understanding the adoption of project
management in Serbian organizations: Insights from an exploratory study. Project
Management Journal, 40(1), 88-98.
Crawford, L. H., & Helm, J. (2009). Government and governance: The value of project
management in the public sector. Project Management Journal, 40(1), 73-87.
Eskerod, P., & Riis, E. (2009). Project management models as value creators. Project
Management Journal, 40(1), 4-18.
Ibbs, C. W., & Reginato, J. (2002). Quantifying the value of project management: best practices
for improving project management processes, systems, and competencies. Newtown Square,
PA: Project Management Institute.
Jugdev, K. (2010). Project management: A strategic asset? In P. C. Dinsmore & J. Cabanis-
Brewin (Eds.), The AMA Handbook of Project Management (3rd ed. pp. 544). New York,
NY: AMACOM American Management Association.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis : an introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Mengel, T., Cowan-Sahadath, K., & Follert, F. (2009). The Value of Project Management to
Organizations in Canada and Germany, or Do Values Add Value? Five Case Studies. Journal
of PM, 40(1), 28-41.
Project Management Institute (2008a). A guide to the project management body of knowledge
(PMBOK guide) (Fourth ed.). Newtown Square, Penn.: Project Management Institute.
Thomas, J., & Mullaly, M. (2008). Researching the Value of Project Management. Newtown
Square, PA: Project Management Institute, Inc.
Turner, R., Ledwith, A., & Kelly, J. (2010). Project management in small to medium-sized
enterprises: Matching processes to the nature of the firm. International Journal of Project
Management, 28(8), 744-755.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Zhai, L., Xin, Y., & Cheng, C. (2009). Understanding the value of project management from a
stakeholder's perspective: Case study of mega-project management. Project Management
Journal, 40(1), 99-109.