Final Report v1.0e

8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e

1/89


2/89


3/89

Reliability...........................................................................................................................................11

Validity..............................................................................................................................................

11

CHAPTER3DISCOVERYANDFINDINGS..............................................................................................14

PRELIMINARIES..........................................................................................................................................14

SurveyStatistics................................................................................................................................14

Concept

Maps

...................................................................................................................................

14

ConceptThemes...............................................................................................................................15

MultidimensionalScalingStatistics...................................................................................................15

Reliability...........................................................................................................................................15

Validity..............................................................................................................................................16

PresentationofFindings...................................................................................................................16

InterpretationofIdeaRankings........................................................................................................16

AssumedParticipantKnowledge......................................................................................................16

PrudentComparison.........................................................................................................................17

PRINCE2.................................................................................................................................................17

PRINCE2ConceptMaps....................................................................................................................17

RelativeImportanceofPRINCE2IssuesConcepts............................................................................17

Framework/ManualTheme..............................................................................................................18

Issues.............................................................................................................................................18

ExistingFeatures...........................................................................................................................19

ProposedFeatures........................................................................................................................20


4/89


5/89

ReliabilityandValidity.......................................................................................................................40

ConceptThemes

...............................................................................................................................

40

Framework/ManualTheme..............................................................................................................41

ProblemsandIssuesOrganizationalversusMethodological.........................................................42

ProjectBoards/SponsorsandProjectGovernanceThemes.............................................................42

Organizational

PM

Competency

and

Project

Team

Competency

Themes

.......................................

44

Tailoring/EmbeddingTheme............................................................................................................44

PRINCE2LearningfromtheOtherExperience.............................................................................45

CHAPTER5RECOMMENDATIONSANDFURTHERRESEARCHOPPORTUNITIES.................................46

FURTHERRESEARCHOPPORTUNITIES............................................................................................................47

BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................................48

Appendix1:QUTResearchTeam.........................................................................................................50

Appendix2CrossReferencebetweenConceptThemesandConceptMapConcepts..................52

Appendix3ConceptMaps.................................................................................................................53

Appendix4ConceptStatistics............................................................................................................62

Appendix5ConceptMapMultidimensionalScalingandReliabilityStatistics..................................63

Appendix6ConceptMapData..........................................................................................................66

PRINCE2IssuesConceptMapData......................................................................................................67

PRINCE2FeaturesConceptMapData..................................................................................................70

OtherIssuesConceptMapData.........................................................................................................72

OtherFeaturesConceptMapData.....................................................................................................75


6/89

ForwardbytheSponsors:BestManagementPracticeOGC,APMGroupandTSO

ThisimportantresearchispublishedatacriticaltimeinthehistoryofPRINCE2. Theworldsproject

managersareunderincrediblescrutinyandpressuretoensuretheirprojectsdeliverqualityontime

andonbudgetandevenmoresoduringaworldrecession. TheresearchshowsthatPRINCE2goes

alongwaytohelpingthemachievethesegoals.

AlthoughitsoriginsbeganintheUK,PRINCE2nowhasatrulyinternationalreach.Wearedelighted

thattheQueenslandUniversityofTechnology(QUT)hasundertakenthisglobal,thoroughand

informative

research

project.

While

it

highlights

the

strengths

of

the

methodology

itself,

the

report

alsolooksatthechallengesorganisationsfacewhenusingaprojectmanagementmethodsuchas

PRINCE2.

Weresurethechallengeswillresonatewithprojectmanagersaroundtheworld. Securingexecutive

supporttochampiontheadoptionofPRINCE2,creatingarobustbusinesscaseandprioritising

projectgovernancearekeyissuesthatallprojectmanagerswillgrapplewithduringtheircareer.

Theresearchalsoshowsthattobethoroughlyeffective,organisationsneedtoproperlyembed

PRINCE2and

tailor

it

to

suit

their

particular

circumstances.

Many

successful

organisations

have

soughttheeffectivehelpofaccreditedconsultingorganisationstoassistthemindevelopinga

programmetotailorandinculcatethismethodintotheirorganisationalculture. Thelatestversion

incorporatesawholechapterontailoringPRINCE2.

WebelievethatthepublicationofPRINCE2DirectingSuccessfulProjectsusingPRINCE2andthedevelopmentoffurthersupportintheformofmaterials,mentoringandtrainingforsenior

executiveswillbeofsignificantbenefittocontemporaryprojectbasedorganisations. TheAPM

Grouphas

already

developed

aqualification

for

sponsors

in

conjunction

with

the

UKs

Home

Office

tohelpwiththis.

Ifyouwouldlikefurtheradviceorifyouhavefeedbackregardingthisresearchpleasecontact

APMG:www.apmginternational.comforfurtherdetails.


7/89

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

UnderthesponsorshipoftheAPMGroupUKLtdworkinginconjunctionwiththeUKGovernment

OfficeofGovernmentCommerceandTSO,amultidisciplinaryresearchteamfromtheQueensland

UniversityofTechnology(QUT)hasundertakenoneofthefirstempiricalstudiesintotheimpactof

PRINCE21onprojectperformance. TheresearchstudywasentitledCreatingValueinProject

ManagementusingPRINCE2. Forcomparison,thestudyalsoconductedparallelresearchontheimpactofotherunspecified(nonPRINCE2)contemporaryprojectmanagementframeworkson

projectperformance.

StudyparticipantsinthePRINCE2andOtherresearchgroupswereallexperiencedproject

managerswhohaverecentlyappliedPRINCE2orotherprojectmanagementframeworks

respectively.

Thestudy

participants

were

drawn

from

adiverse

range

of

industries

(including

InformationandCommunicationsTechnology,Construction,andTransport)acrossthreemajor

geographicalregions(UnitedKingdomandEurope,UnitedStates,andAustralia).

ThestudyusedacomprehensivemixedresearchmethodologyknownasConceptMapping.

Conceptmappingcombinesthereceptivenessofqualitativeanalysistotheunstructuredand

nuancedopinions

of

participants

(including

brainstorming,

sorting

and

ranking),

with

the

statistical

rigourofquantitativeanalysis(includingmultidimensionalscalingandclusteranalysis)toextract

andrankthelatentconceptswhichstructureparticipantssubjectiveperceptions. Theresultsare

convenientlyillustratedinaconceptmap.

Morespecifically,thestudyfocusedontwocriticalquestions:

WhatproblemsorissuesadverselyaffecttheutilityofPRINCE2andotherproject

managementframeworksinsuccessfullydeliveringprojects?

Whatexistingorrecommendedfeaturesdoorwouldmitigate(orresolve)theseproblems


8/89

Collectively,theconceptmapssuggestthatparticipantssubjectivelyframetheirperspectivesonthe

tworesearchquestionsaroundsixmajorthemes:

Framework/Manualtheparticularprojectmanagementframeworkincludingitsassociated

documentation

ProjectBoards/SponsorsCompetencyprojectsponsorandprojectboardcompetency ProjectGovernanceCompetencyorganizationalcompetencyinprojectgovernance

OrganizationalPMCompetencyorganizationalcompetencyinsuccessfullyintroducingandimplementingtheparticularprojectmanagementframework

ProjectTeamCompetencyprojectmanagerandprojectteamcompetency Tailoring/Embeddingadaptingtheprojectmanagementframeworktotheprojectcontext

(tailoring)andtothecorporatecontext(embedding).

TheresearchfoundthatPRINCE2isperceivedasaveryrobust,comprehensiveandpragmatic

projectmanagementframework,whichunderwritesprojectsuccess. Indeed,existingfeaturesof

thePRINCE2frameworkandmanual2rankedveryhighinmitigatingperceivedproblemsandissues.

Majorstrengthscitedincluded:

Roleof

the

business

case

in

assuring

continuing

project

viability

Extensiveguidanceofferedonprojectgovernance

Expansionofthetoleranceconcepttoencompasssixareas

Comprehensivedefinitionofrolesandresponsibilities

Productbasedplanningandproductfocusseddelivery

Delegationof

responsibilities

to

the

appropriate

level

Newchaptersontailoringandembedding.

ThiswasinmarkedcontrasttoresponsesfromthenonPRINCE2participantswhosubmitted


9/89

Primafacie,thePRINCE2frameworkandmanualappearstocovermanyofthecorresponding

problems/issuesandfeaturessubmittedbythenonPRINCE2participants. Howeverfurther

researchisrecommendedtoconfirmthissupposition.

Moreover,thebenefitsofanagreedsetofprojectmanagementconceptsandadefinedproject

managementlexiconwereveryevidentintheconsistencyofthePRINCE2responsescomparedto

theOtherresponses.

Notwithstanding,themajorareaofimprovementsuggestedtoPRINCE2frameworkandmanualis

expandedcoverageofstakeholdermanagement.

ThedominantfactorswhichparticipantsbelieveconstrainthesuccessofPRINCE2projectsare

demonstrablynotmethodologicalbutorganizational. CriticismsrelatenottothePRINCE2

framework

or

manual,

but

rather

to

organizational

shortcomings

including

poor

project

governance

andtheinabilityoforganizationstosuccessfullyintroduceandimplementPRINCE2. Ormore

conciselyalackofprojectleadership.

PRINCE2participantswereespeciallytrenchantintheirjudgementofProjectBoardeffectiveness.

ProjectBoardmemberswerecriticisedfor:notunderstandingtheirrolesandresponsibilities,lacking

experience,or

not

possessing

the

necessary

competency.

Project

Boards

membership

was

sometimesdelegatedtostaffwhohadnodecisionmakingauthority. ProjectBoardswerenotusing

theBusinessCasetoperiodicallyverifythecontinuingviabilityoftheproject. Seniormanagement

wasalsochidedforitslackofcommitmentandleadership,andatendencytobypasstheProject

Board. Moregenerally,organizationswerenotgivingsufficientprioritytoprojectgovernance.

However,theproblemswithprojectgovernancedonotliewiththePRINCE2frameworkormanual.

Indeed,thePRINCE2participantsrankedprojectgovernancefeaturesamongthegreateststrengths

ofthePRINCE2frameworkandmanual,citedabove.


10/89

Onamorepositivenote,researchparticipants(andespeciallythePRINCE2participants)emphasis

onorganizationalprojectgovernancemattersreflectsasignificantshiftinmindsetfrom

operationallyfocusedtostrategicallyfocusedprojectmanagement.

PRINCE2participantsreportedthatorganizationseitherdidnotknowordidnotpossessthe

commitmenttoproperlyimplementPRINCE2. Thisappearstobesymptomaticofabroader

quandary. OrganizationsarenotrecognizingandmanagingtheintroductionofPRINCE2asamajor

organizationalchange

initiative,

taking

into

account

both

the

hard

and

soft

issues

including

the

creationofaprojectmanagementculture.

PRINCE2participantswerealsoconcernedthatmanyRegisteredPRINCE2Practitionershavelimited

projectmanagementexperience. TomaintainandindeedextendthevalueofPRINCE2certification,

participantsproposedthatanawardbedevelopedtorecogniseexperienceintheapplicationof

PRINCE2.

Similarlythe

non

PRINCE2

participants

argued

the

primacy

of

experience

(both

diversity

anddepth)inrecruitingprojectstaff. Theyalsostressedthecriticalimportanceofongoing

educationandtrainingindevelopingprojectmanagementcompetencynotjustintheclassroom,

butthroughworkplacementoringandcoaching.

ThebenefitoftherecentguidanceontailoringandembeddinginthePRINCE22009editionwas

acknowledgedbythePRINCE2group. However,PRINCE2participantswantthatguidance

expandedextendingcurrenttopicsandaddingnewtopics(e.g.forusewithnontraditional

developmentanddeliverymethodologiessuchasagile). Inparticular,guidanceonembedding

wouldassistorganizationsintroducingandimplementingPRINCE2. Currently,adviceonembedding

isexcludedbecauseitfocusesonthecorporateorganizationandnottheindividualprojects

(OfficeofGovernmentCommerce,2009a,p.97).

Recognitionamongpractitionersoftheimperativefortailoringandembeddingissalutary. Itreflects

aclearbreakfromthepastonesizefitsallapproach(Shenhar,2001). Italsoindicatesagrowing


11/89

responsibilitiesforeffectiveprojectleadership,andmoregenerallyPRINCE2processesand

products. ThismightalsoincludeacertificationprocessforProjectBoardmembers.

DevelopnewanddetailedguidanceonhoworganizationscanintroducePRINCE2,but

treatingtheimplementationasasignificantorganizationalchangeinitiativeencompassing

bothhardandsoftissues. Thiswouldalsoincludedevelopingguidanceonembedding

whichisnotcurrentlyaddressed,becauseittargetsthecorporatelevelratherthanprojects.

ExtendthecurrentPRINCE2certificationtorecognisepractitionerswhobothunderstandthe

frameworkandcanproficientlyapplyitinmanagingactualprojects.

Wherepossible,implementationoftheserecommendationsshouldbuilduponexistingofferings

suchastheProgrammeandProjectSponsorshipandChangeManagementqualifications.

RichardSargeantMBEOAM

Facultyof

Business

QueenslandUniversityofTechnology

Brisbane,Queensland,AUSTRALIA

Web:www.qut.edu.au

Email:[email protected]

4August2010


12/89

CHAPTER1INTRODUCTION

Inthesecondhalfof2009,theQueenslandUniversityofTechnology(QUT)wasawardedaresearch

contractfromtheAPMGroup(UK)LtdinconjunctionwiththeUKGovernmentOfficeof

GovernmentCommerce(OGC)andTSO(formerlyTheStationeryOffice)toinvestigatetheroleof

thePRINCE2projectmanagementframeworkinsuccessfulprojectdelivery. Theresearchstudywas

entitledCreatingValueinProjectManagementUsingPRINCE2. Thisreportsummarizesthestudys

researchdesign,analysis,findings,conclusions,recommendations,andfutureresearch

opportunities.

ResearchGoal

ThegoaloftheresearchprojectwastoevaluatetheimpactofPRINCE2onprojectperformance.

Toassurethebroadestpossibleapplicabilityoftheprojectoutcomes,researchparticipantswere

drawnfromseveralcontinents/regions:UnitedKingdom,Europe,UnitedStatesandAustralia;and

fromsimilarlydiverseindustrysectorsincluding:InformationandCommunicationsTechnology(ICT),

Construction,andTransport,DefenceandR&D. Furthermore,asabasisforcomparisonparallel

researchwascarriedoutonotherbutunspecifiedprojectmanagementframeworks.

Structure

TheFinalReportcomprisesfivechapters

Introduction

ResearchDesign

Discoveryand

Findings

Conclusions

RecommendationsandFutureResearchOpportunities.


13/89

QUTResearchTeam

TheresearchwasundertakenbyaninterdisciplinaryteamdrawnfromtheQUTFacultyofBusiness

andtheFacultyofBuiltEnvironmentandEngineering(SchoolofUrbanDevelopment).

Theresearchteamconsistedof:

RichardSargeantMBEOAM(ChiefInvestigator),FacultyofBusiness(Staff)andFacultyof

BuiltEnvironmentandEngineering(PhDCandidate)

ProfessorCarolineHatcherPhD,FacultyofBusiness

AssociateProfessorBambangTrigunarsyahPhD,FacultyofBuiltEnvironmentand

Engineering

DrVaughanCoffeyDBA,FacultyofBuiltEnvironmentandEngineering

DrJudyKraatzPhD(ResearchAssociate),FacultyofBusiness

ShortbiographiesoftheresearchmembersaregiveninAppendix1.


14/89

CHAPTER2RESEARCHDESIGN

SelectionofaResearchMethodologyConceptMapping

Criteria

Thestudyssuccessdependedinlargepartupontheselectionofaresearchmethodologywhichis

compatiblewithboththenatureofprojectmanagementandtheopennessoftheresearchgoal.

Projectmanagementoperateswithinacomplexwebofinteractionsbetweenpeople,processesand

technologies. Itspracticeseldomlendsitselftoeitherasimpleormechanisticformulation. Asa

result,itisimpossibletodetermineinadvancewhatfactorsthestudymustexamineinfulfillingthe

researchgoal. Rather,theresearchmustbeginwithanexploratorystagewhichisreceptiveto

multipleandsometimesconflictingparticipantperspectives. Qualitativemethodsarebestusedto

freelyelicit

the

ideas

of

experienced

project

managers

during

this

stage.

However,theseideaswillneitherstandalonenorhaveequalrelevance. Theywillcontain

duplicationandoverlap. Theywillbeinterrelatedaroundlargerunderlyingorlatentconcepts

whichstructureparticipantssubjectiveperceptionsconceptswhichtheresearchmustdiscover.

Moreover,therelativeimportanceofindividualideastotheresearchgoalwilldiffer.

Therefore,theresearchmethodologymustincorporatemechanismswhichsummarizetheseideas,

rankthemaccordingtotheirrelativeimportancetotheresearchgoal,discerntheinterconnecting

structures,andidentifythecorrespondinglatentconcepts. Herequantitativemethodscanadd

statisticalrigourtothelatterthreeactivitiesandgeneralizetheresults. Atthesametime,

qualitative

methods

will

remain

important

in

appraising

the

authenticity

and

credibility

of

the

outcomessuggestedbyquantitativemethods.

ConceptMapping

Tosatisfytheserequirements,ConceptMapping(Kane&Trochim,2007)waschosenasthe


15/89

perceptions. Importantly,conceptmappingdoesnotmeasureobservablebehaviours,butrather

participantsperceptionsoftheeffectivenessofprojectmanagementframeworkswithintheir

projectandorganizationalexperience.

Morespecifically,conceptmappingentailssixmajorphaseswhicharesummarizedinTable1(Kane

&Trochim,2007,pp.723)below.

Phase Description

Purpose

Developthe

focus

questions

to

be

investigated

using

Concept

Mapping

ParticipantsSelection Selectanappropriate participant sample

Brainstorming Generateandcollectparticipantsideas

IdeasAnalysis Summarizetheideasintoamanageablenumber

Structuring Participantssortideasintopiles accordingtotheirperceivedsimilarity,

andthenranktheideasbytheirimportancetosuccessfulprojectdelivery

Interpretation Similarities andrankingsidentifiedbyparticipantsareanalysed,using

multidimensionalscalingandclusteranalysis,toextractandprioritisethe

key

concepts

Table1:ConceptMappingPhases

Thesephasesareconsideredingreaterdetaillaterinthischapter.

ResearchGroups

Forcomparison,tworesearchgroupswerecreated:

PRINCE2groupconsistingofRegisteredPRINCE2Practitionerswithtwoormoreyearsrecent

projectmanagementexperienceusingPRINCE2,and

OtherFrameworksgroupcomprisingprojectmanagerswithtwoormoreyearsrecent

projectmanagementexperienceusinganyotherprojectmanagementframework.

MajorFocus

Questions

TodeterminetheextenttowhichPRINCE2andOtherprojectmanagementframeworkscontribute

toprojectperformance,theteamaskedbothresearchgroupstwomajorquestions:


16/89

ResearchSample

SamplingFrame

ThesamplingframeforthePRINCE2groupcomprisedexperiencedPRINCE2projectmanagers

locatedintheUnitedKingdom,EuropeandAustralia,andworkingacrossadiverserangeofindustry

sectorsincludingICT,Construction,andTransport. ThesamplingframefortheOthergroup

consistedofexperiencedprojectmanagersusingaprojectmanagementframeworkotherthan

PRINCE2,but

in

similar

locations

(plus

the

United

States)

and

similar

industry

sectors.

The

major

imperativeindefiningthesamplingframewastoensuregeographicandindustrydiversity. However

tolimittheimpactofculturaldifferences,thegeographicspreadwaslimitedtothreeregions.

SamplingStrategy

Apurposivesamplingstrategywaspursuedwithinthesamplingframesdescribedabove. Morethan

500project

managers

were

approached

by

the

research

team

through:

personalcontacts,

PRINCE2accreditedconsultantsandtrainers,

professionalorganizations,

snowballing, and

broadcaststhroughglobalwebsites.

SampleSize

Thetargetsamplesizeforeachsurveywas20(R.Rosas,ConceptSystemsIncorporated,personal

communication,13January2010). ThesamplesizewasrecommendedbyConceptSystems

Incorporatedwhose

principals

include

William

Trochim

and

Mary

Kanepioneers

in

the

application

ofConceptMapping(e.g.(Kane&Trochim,2007;Trochim,1985,1989a,1989b,1993;Trochim&

Cabrera,2005;Trochim&Linton,1986). Thesamplesize,however,isnotsufficienttodraw

conclusionsaboutindividualregionsorindustrysectorsthisisoutsidetheresearchscope.


17/89

Table2:

Research

Demographics

Surveys

DatawascollectedinsevenparticipantsurveysadministeredinthreesequentialSurveyRounds

describedinTable3.

Invited TotalAust

raliaUK US Europe Global ICT Construction Transport

Other

(R&D,

Defence)

SurveyRound1:ParticipantSelection(Over500initialrequestsmade)

PRINCE2

119

38 19 8 0 8 3 13 3 22 1

Other

53

18

10

17

7

1

7

29

8

9

SurveyRound2ParticipantBrainstorming

PRINCE2 38 24 11 6 0 5 2 7 2 16 0

Other 54 44 14 8 14 8 1 8 22 7 8

SurveyRound3ParticipantStructuring

PRINCE2Problems/Issues

24

19

9

3

0

4

1

4

1

11

1

PRINCE2

Features20 19 10 3 0 4 2 4 1 12 2

Other

Problems/Issues22 21 7 3 5 2 4 4 9 4 4

OtherFeatures 22 19 5 4 7 1 2 4 7 3 5


18/89

Round Survey GroupSurveyed Type Purpose

1

Survey1 AllParticipant

Selection

Selectappropriatelyqualifiedparticipants,allocate themto

thePRINCE2orOtherGroups,andcollectrelated

demographicsandexperienceinformation.

2

Survey2A PRINCE2

Brainstorming

Identifyproblemsorissuesexperiencedbyparticipantswith

PRINCE2thatadverselyaffectprojectdelivery.

Survey2B Other Identifyproblemsorissuesexperiencedbyparticipantswith

Otherframeworksthatadverselyaffectprojectdelivery.

3

Survey3A PRINCE2

Structuring

RankPRINCE2problemsorissuesbytheirperceivedimpacton

projectdelivery. SortPRINCE2problemsorissues(derived

fromallparticipants)accordingtotheirperceivedsimilarity.Survey

3B

PRINCE2

Rank

features

by

their

perceived

impact

on

project

delivery.

SortPRINCE2existingorproposedfeatures(derivedfromall

participants)accordingtotheirperceivedsimilarity.

Survey3C Other RankPRINCE2problemsorissuesbytheirperceivedimpacton

projectdelivery. SortOtherproblemsorissues(derivedfrom

allparticipants)accordingtotheirperceivedsimilarity.Survey3D Other Rankfeaturesbytheirperceivedimpactonprojectdelivery.

SortOtherexistingorproposedfeatures(derivedfromall

participants)

according

to

their

perceived

similarity.

Table3:SurveyConducted

BrainstormingandIdeasAnalysis

TheBrainstormingphaseelicitedalargenumberanddiverserangeofideasonthetwofocus

questionsfrombothresearchgroups. DuringtheIdeasAnalysisphase,theseideaswererationalized

intoasmaller

number

which

research

participants

could

comfortably

rank

and

sort

in

less

than

one

hour. ThenumberofideassubmittedduringtheBrainstormingphaseandthenumberof

summarizedideascreatedduringtheIdeasAnalysisphasearelistedinTable4below.

ResearchGroup

PRINCE2 Other

FocusQuestions:Problems&Issues

IdeasBrainstormed

96 194

IdeasSummarized 85 68

FocusQuestion:Features

IdeasBrainstormed 75 126

IdeasSummarized 65 85

Table4:NoofProblems&IssuesandFeaturesSubmittedbyPRINCE2andOtherGroups


19/89

participantsrankingsforthatidea. Finally,therawrankingsforallideaswithinaparticularconcept

maparenormalizedonascaleof1(low)to5(high). Unlessotherwisespecified,thetermranking

willmeannormalizedrankingthroughoutthisreport.

SortingParticipantsthensortideas(e.g.problems/issuesorfeatures)intopilesaccordingtotheirperceived

similarity. Ideascontainedwithinthesamepileareassumedtoberelatedorsimilar;ideasin

different

piles

are

assumed

to

be

unrelated

or

dissimilar.

Participants

are

free

to

sort

the

ideas

in

anywaytheychoose. Thesimilaritiesidentifiedbyaparticipantaresummarisedinaparticipant

similaritymatrix. Forexample,theexposedparticipantsimilaritymatrixontheleftofFigure1,

indicatesthattheparticularparticipantsortedideas1,4and6intothesamepilea1isrecorded

inthecorrespondingcellsoftheparticipantsimilaritymatrix.

Theparticipant

similarity

matrices

are

summed

to

form

the

group

similarity

matrix.

The

group

similaritymatrixrecordsthenumberofparticipantswhoassessedeachsimilarity,whichisthenused

tomeasuretherelativestrengthofasimilarity. Forexampleinthe groupsimilaritymatrixof

Figure1,nineparticipantsassessedideas9and10assimilar;whereas,onlyoneparticipant

consideredideas3and7assimilar,andallparticipantsregardedideas3and6asdissimilar.


20/89

ClusteringandConceptInterpretation

Thegroupsimilaritymatrixisconvertedintoatwodimensionalmapusingthestatisticaltechnique

multidimensionalscaling. Thedistancebetweenpointsreflectstheirperceivedsimilarity. The

multidimensionalscalingmapfortheFigure1groupsimilaritymatrixisdrawninFigure2. Usingthe

sameexamples,ideas9and10whichhaveahighgroupsimilarityof9areverycloseindistance;

whereasideas3and7whichhavealowgroupsimilarityof1aresomedistanceapart.

Finally,

the

concepts

which

underpin

the

participants

perceptions

are

crystallized

as

clusters

of

proximatepointsonthemap. Clustersareidentifiedusingacombinationofscienceandart(Guyon,

vonLuxburg,&Williamson,2009),ormorespecificallystatisticsandexpertjudgement. Aninitial

clusterconfigurationisdeterminedusingastatisticaltechniqueclusteranalysis. Thecluster

boundariesarethenrefinedandtranslatedintoconcepts,usingexpertjudgementsay,intheform

ofanexpertpanel. Figure2illustratesthefourclustersidentifiedfromthegroupsimilaritymatrix.

Clusters1,2and3wouldbetranslatedintotheircorrespondingconcepts. However,the

interpretationofCluster4wouldlikelybedeferredbecauseofitssingularcontent,untilmore

informationwascollected. Therelativerankingofeachideaisindicatedbythesizeofthe

correspondingpoint. Therelativeimportanceofaconceptismeasuredbytheconceptsranking,

whichiscalculatedasthemeanofitsideasrankings.


21/89

Figure2: MultidimensionalScalingMap&ClusterAnalysisDataCollectionandAnalysisToolsDataCollectionAll

data

was

collected

online

using:

Zoomerangonlinesurvey(http://www.zoomerang.com/)forSurvey1 ConceptSystemsIncorporatedGlobalSoftware(http://www.conceptsystems.com/)for

S 2A 2B 3A 3B 3C d 3D ( T bl 3)

Cluster1

Cluster2 Cluster3

Cluster4(?)


22/89

IBMSPSSStatistics18(http://www.spss.com/)formultidimensionalscaling(PROXSCAL),

andclusteranalysisKmeansandhierarchicalclusteranalysis

Rlanguage(http://www.rproject.org/)scriptsfordatamanipulationandTrochims(1993)

conceptmappingreliabilitystatistics

TibcoSpotfireProfessional(http://spotfire.tibco.com/)fordatavisualisation.

MultidimensionalScalingMapAssessment

Inmultidimensional

scaling,

stress

statistics

measure

the

fit

between

the

multidimensional

scaling

mapandthecorrespondingsimilaritymatrix. Ormorespecifically,howcloselythedistances

betweenpointsinthemultidimensionalscalingmapreflecttheperceivedsimilaritybetweenthe

correspondingideas(Borg&Groenen,2005,pp.3842). Inthisresearch,theparticularstress

statisticStressIisusedandassessedintwoways. First,itmustfallwithinthenormativerange

established

by

Trochim

(1993)

and

Rosas

and

Camphausen

(2007).

Second,

it

must

not

exceed

the

1%cutoffthresholddefinedbySturrockandRocha(2000). MultidimensionalmapswithaStressI

statisticfallingbelowthisthreshold,havelessthan1%probabilityofhavingnostructure(thatis

beingmerelyarandomconfiguration).

Reliability

Formally,reliability

is

defined

as

the

portion

of

measurement

that

is

due

to

permanent

effects

that

persistfromsampletosample(Netemeyer&Sharma,2003). Orinotherwords,reliabilityasks

whetherthesameresultwouldbereachediftheresearchwasrepeatedwithotherparticipant

samples. However,reliabilitymeasuresusedinthetraditionalsurveyapproach(whichrequires

respondentstoansweraseriesofclosedtestitems)arenotsufficientfortheconceptmapping

methodology(Trochim,

1993).

Instead,

Trochim

(1993)

has

developed

asuite

of

reliability

statistics

specificallyforconceptmapping. Normativerangesforthesereliabilitystatisticshavebeenderived

fromalmosttwodecadesofconceptmappingexperience(Rosas&Camphausen,2007).


23/89

collectionandanalysismethodsstrengtheningthecredibilityoftheresearchfindings (Creswell,

2009,pp.443453;Flick,2008).

Ontheotherhand,inquantitativeresearchvaliditychecksthecorrespondencebetweenwhatis

actuallybeingmeasuredandwhatispurportedtobemeasured(Bryman,2008,p.151). Validityis

generallydividedintothreetypes:content,constructandcriterion(Abell,Springer,&Kamata,2009,

pp.98101;Neuman,2006,pp.192194).

Inassessing

the

validity

of

the

research,

both

qualitative

and

quantitative

definitions

were

put

to

use.

Fromthequalitativestandpoint,thestudymadesubstantialuseoftriangulation. Asignificant

numberofindependentparticipantswithdiverseexperiencewereconsulted,elicitingboth

convergentanddivergentperspectives. Moreoverdatawascollectedusingavarietyofmodes

includingbrainstorming,sortingandranking.

Fromaquantitativestandpoint,theresearchmustshowthatwhatisbeingmeasuredthe

problems/issuesandmitigatingfeaturesisbothrelevantandcomprehensivetotheresearch

questions. Severalstepsareneeded.

First,theresearchmustensurethatthemeasuresencompasstherelevantaspectsoftheresearch

questions. Thisisreferredtoascontentvalidity(Neuman,2006,p.193) Althoughtherecanbeno

guaranteethatallproblems/issuesandfeatureshavebeendiscovered,thebrainstormingactivity

coupledwiththediversityofparticipants(e.g.geographicallyandbyindustrysector)ensuredthata

substantialsetofcontrastingideaswasunearthed. Therelativeimportanceoftheseideas,with

respectto

the

research

questions,

was

established

by

the

participants

in

the

ranking

activity.

Second,theresearchmustdetermineifthemeasuresoperateinaconsistentmannertermed

constructvalidity(Neuman,2006,p.194). Althoughthisismoreeasilyverifiedinpurely


24/89

Contentandconstructvaliditywerealsostrengthenedbytheperiodicinvolvementofresearchteam

memberswhoareexperiencedprojectmanagers,inroundtablesduringtheIdeasAnalysisand

Interpretationphases.

Finally,criterionvaliditydependsonagreementwithotherindependentexternalmeasures,bothin

thepresent(concurrentvalidity)andthefuture(predictivevalidity)(Neuman,2006,pp.193194).

Concurrentreliabilityarisestoalargeextentfromthecommonperspectiveselicitedfromdiverse

but

independent

participants

who

have

substantial

experience

in

looking

at

current

problems/issues

orexistingmitigatingfeatures. Predictivevalidityisalittlehardertodemonstrategiventhelimited

durationoftheresearch. However,againitisexpectedthatparticipantsextensiveexperience

containssubstantialpredictivevalueinidentifyingandassessingtheefficacyofrecommended

features.


25/89

CHAPTER3DISCOVERYANDFINDINGS

PRELIMINARIES

SurveyStatistics

Thenumberofparticipantswhotookpartintherankingandsortingactivitiesofeachsurveyare

listedin

Appendix

5,

Table

30.

In

both

the

PRINCE2

Issues

and

the

Other

Issues

concept

maps,

the

numberofparticipantsintherankingandsortingactivitieswasdifferent. Ineachcase,oneofthe

sortswasnotcompletedandwasthereforeexcluded.

ConceptMaps

Fourconceptmaps,listedinTable5,weredevelopedcoveringresponsestothetwofocusquestions

ineach

of

the

PRINCE2

and

Other

groups.

ConceptMap Description Reference

PRINCE2Issues Problemsorissueswhichadverselyaffectedtheutilityof

PRINCE2insuccessfullydeliveringprojectoutcomes.

Appendix3,Figure5

PRINCE2Features Existingorrecommendedfeatureswhichdoorwouldat

leastmitigate,ifnotresolve,thePRINCE2problemsor

issues.

Appendix3,Figure7

OtherIssues Problemsorissueswhichadverselyaffectedtheutilityof

otherprojectmanagementframeworksinsuccessfully

deliveringprojectoutcomes.

Appendix3,Figure10

OtherFeatures Existingorrecommendedfeatureswhichdoorwould

mitigate,ifnotresolve,theseotherprojectmanagement

frameworksproblemsorissues.

Appendix3,Figure12

Table5ConceptMapsDeveloped

ThefourconceptmapsshowingallideasaredepictedinAppendix3,Figure5,Figure7,Figure10,

andFigure12. Thesignificantproblems/issues(withrankingsequaltoorgreaterthan3)forthe

PRINCE2IssuesandOtherIssuesconceptmapsareseparatelybrokenoutinAppendix3,Figure6

d i 11 i l h I C 2 I i d d i b di


26/89

Conceptstatisticsforeachconceptmapincludingnumberofideasencompassedbytheconceptand

theconceptrankingaredescribedinAppendix4,Table29.

ConceptThemes

Collectively,theseconceptmapssuggestthatparticipantssubjectivelyframetheirperspectiveson

thetworesearchquestionsaroundsixmajorthemes:

Framework/Manualtheprojectmanagementframeworkincludingitsassociated

documentation

ProjectBoards/SponsorsCompetencyprojectsponsorandprojectboardcompetency ProjectGovernanceCompetencyorganizationalcompetencyinprojectgovernance OrganizationalPMCompetencyorganizationalcompetencyinimplementingtheparticular

projectmanagementframework

ProjectTeamCompetencyprojectmanagerandprojectteamcompetency. Tailoring/EmbeddingusingthedefinitionsinDirectingSuccessfulProjectsusingPRINCE2

(OfficeofGovernmentCommerce,2009a,pp.97103),tailoringisadaptingtheproject

managementframeworktotheprojectcontext; whereasembeddingisadaptingthe

projectmanagementframeworktothecorporatecontext.

TherelationshipsbetweentheseconceptsandtheconceptsthemesaremappedinAppendix2,

Table28. Occasionallyaconceptrelatestomorethanonetheme.

Althoughtheidentificationoftheseconceptthemesisonlyapreliminaryresult,itprovidesan

intuitive,convenientandpervasivestructuretoanalysethespecificfindings.

MultidimensionalScalingStatistics

Thestressstatisticsforthemultidimensionalscalingmapsforeachoftheconceptmapsareshown

inAppendix5,Table30. Inallcases,thestressstatisticStressIusedinthisstudysatisfiesthetwo


27/89

(1993)andRosasandCamphausen(2007). Inotherwords,iftheresearchwererepeatedunder

similarcircumstances,thereisahighprobabilitythattheresultswouldbesimilar.

Validity

Becauseconceptmappingisamixedmethodology,theresearchsvaliditywasexaminedfrom

qualitativeandquantitativeperspectives. Theapproachesadoptedinthisstudytopreserve

qualitativeandquantitativevalidityaredescribedindetailundertheheadingResearchDesign

above.

OnesourcewhichweakenstheresearchvalidityistheapparentlackofawarenessofsomePRINCE2

participantsofthesignificantchangesmadetoPRINCE2inthe2009release. However,theresultis

mostlikelytobeamoreconservativeevaluationintheareasaffected. Theresearchteam

recommendsthattheproblems/issuesandfeaturessuggestedbythePRINCE2participantsbe

reviewedby

an

expert

panel

to

identify

those

that

have

been

resolved

in

the

latest

release.

Notwithstanding,theresearchdesignisdeemedtoexhibitanacceptabledegreeofvalidity.

PresentationofFindings

Thefindingspresentedbelowaregroupedhierarchicallyinthreelevels:

Firstlevel:ProjectmanagementframeworkPRINCE2orOther

Secondlevel:ConceptTheme

Thirdlevel:ResearchquestionsProblems/IssuesorFeatures

InterpretationofIdeaRankings

Informulating

findings,

only

problems/issues

or

features

which

are

ranked

equal

to

or

greater

than

3

areconsideredsignificant. ThePRINCE2IssuesandOtherIssuesconceptsmapsarealsoredrawn

inAppendix3,Figure6andFigure11respectivelytoshowonlysignificantideas.


28/89

PrudentComparison

TheresearchdoesnotattempttocomparetheperformanceofPRINCE2againstthatofanyother

specificprojectmanagementframework. Moreover,suchcomparisonswouldbeinvalidbecausethe

Othergroupdoesnotrepresentusersofaparticularframework,butratherabroadclassof

unspecifiedframeworks.

RathertheOtherdataoffersanexcellentcomparativesampleoftheproblems/issuesbeing

experienced,and

the

features

sought,

by

practitioners

in

general

project

management

practice

using

nonPRINCE2frameworks.

PRINCE2

PRINCE2

Concept

Maps

ThePRINCE2IssuesandPRINCE2FeaturesconceptmapsareillustratedinAppendix3,Figure5and

Figure7.

RelativeImportanceofPRINCE2-IssuesConcepts

TherelativerankingoftheconceptswithinthePRINCE2IssuesconceptmapisillustratedinFigure

3below. Thehighertheranking,themoreseriousistheperceivedconcernofthePRINCE2

participants. AttheextremesofthisscaleofperceivedconcernsaretheProjectBoard/Sponsor

issuesatthehighendandthePRINCE2FrameworkandManualissuesatthelowend.

NotethatinthePRINCE2Issuesconceptmap,theProjectTeamCompetencythemeisencapsulated

intheOrganizationalPMCompetencyconcept,andtheFramework/Manualthemeiscollectively

coveredbytheFrameworkandManualconcepts.


29/89

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

ProjectBoard/Sponsor ProjectGovernanceCompetency

OrganizationalPMCompetency

Tailoring Framework Manual

Concdept

Ranking

Concept

Figure3:PRINCE2IssuesConceptRankings

Framework/ManualTheme

Issues

AlthoughthePRINCE2participantsraisedmanyanddistinctissuesaboutthePRINCE2Framework

andManual,therelativeimportanceofthesewasverylowwithaveragerankingsof1.9and1.1

respectively(onascaleof1to5). UnlikeotherconceptswithinthePRINCE2Issuesconceptmap,

theFrameworkandManualconceptscontainnoissuesrankedabove3and2respectively. Thisisa

verysignificantfinding,whichpersuasivelyexemplifiesthegeneralsatisfactionofparticipantswith

thePRINCE2

framework

and

manual.

TheperceivedintegrityofthePRINCE2frameworkissimilarlydemonstratedpictoriallyinthe

contrastbetweenthetwovariantsofthePRINCE2IssuesconceptmapinAppendix3,Figure5and

Figure6. ThefirstmapwhichincludesallissuesdepictswellpopulatedFrameworkandManual

concepts(combinedforconvenience). Yetinthesecondmap,whichonlyincludessignificantissues

(withrankingsequaltoorgreaterthan3),thecombinedFrameworkandManualconceptsare

almostemptyexceptfortwoissues,insharpcomparisontoallotherconcepts. Theonlytwoissues

inthecombinedFrameworkandManualconceptwiththemaximumrankingof3arelistedinTable


30/89

EquallyimportantarethePRINCE2Framework/ManualissuesraisedbyindividualPRINCE2

participantsbuttheneffectivelyrejectedbythePRINCE2groupasawholebyassigningarankingof

1. ThesearedescribedinTable7below.

RejectedIssues Ranking

PRINCE2is'builtinmidair' lacksfoundationdisciplinese.g.constructingschedulesandmotivating

people 1

PRINCE2examfocusesonruleoverprinciple 1

PRINCE2methodology

too

theoretical

1

PRINCE2manualoffersnaiveandshallowguidanceespeciallyinriskandchangemanagement 1

VolumeofPRINCE2manualcandistractprojectteamfromdeliveringpractical/realoutcomes 1

PRINCE2manualdifficulttoread 1

PRINCE2doesn'tprovidetemplatesformanagementproducts(withguidelines),soorganizations

mustcreatetheirown 1

Toomanydetailedacronymstomemorise,makingitdifficulttoengagetheorganization 1

PRINCE2manualmutatesratherthanevolvesevery3to4yearscreatingdisruptiontoprojectteams

requiringexpensiveupdatestointernaldocumentation 1

PRINCE2manualrepetitiousandfragmented 1

ExamplesprovidedarelargelylimitedtoInformationandCommunicationsTechnology 1

PRINCE2manualhasmanygapse.g.nodirectiononfinancialaccountingforprojects 1

PRINCE2manualcontainstoomany'seeotherOGCdocument'references 1

PRINCE2

2005

and

2009

guidance

creates

two

sets

of

advice

1

PRINCE22009madesomedumbchangeslikeremovalofsubprocessid'stobepopulist 1

PRINCE2manualtoodetailed 1

Table7:RejectedCriticismsofthePRINCE2FrameworkandManual

ExistingFeatures

Table8showstheexistingPRINCE2featureswhichparticipantsrankedhighly(witharankingof3,4

or5asdiscussedearlier). ThePRINCE2participantsweregenerallyoftheopinionthattheexisting

featuresofthePRINCE2frameworkandmanualnotonlyresolvemanyoflowlevelFrameworkand

Manualissues,butalsocontributetowardresolvingothermorehighlyrankedPRINCE2Issues

themes


31/89


32/89

ProblemsandIssuesOrganizationalNotMethodological

ThemajorproblemsandissuesconstrainingsuccessinprojectsusingPRINCE2arelargelyunrelated

tothePRINCE2frameworkormanual. Thecriticalproblemsandissuesarenotmethodological,but

ratherpredominantlyorganizationalinnature. DespitetheperceivedbenefitsofthePRINCE2

frameworkandmanual,poorprojectleadershipandlackadaisicalimplementationofPRINCE2in

organizationsreceivedtrenchantcriticismfromthePRINCE2group.

ProjectBoards/Sponsors

Theme

Issues

Inparticular,thePRINCE2groupwasexceptionallycriticalofthecompetenceandeffectivenessof

ProjectBoardsandProjectSponsors. InthePRINCE2Issuesconceptmap,theProject

Boards/Sponsorsthemewasthehighestrankedwithascoreof4.6. Moreover,morethanhalfof

thetop

30

PRINCE2

issues

(with

rankings

of

4and

5)

target

the

competence

or

behaviour

of

Project

BoardsandSponsors. TheProjectBoards/SponsorsissuessubmittedbythePRINCE2groupare

listedinTable10andareselfexplanatory.

PRINCE2ProjectSponsor/Board Issues Ranking

ProjectBoardsdonotunderstandtheirrolesandresponsibilities 5

ProjectBoard

members

not

always

competent

to

fulfil

their

role

5

BusinessCaseisnotusedtoperiodicallytestandconfirmprojectviability 5

Lackofcommitmentandleadershipfromseniormanagement 5

ProjectBoardsarenotusedeffectively 5

CorporatemanagementbypassestheProjectBoard 5

ProjectBoardsconstitutedbydelegateswholackauthoritytomakedecisions 5

Project

Boards

do

not

understand

or

apply

management

by

exception

5

Project'startingup'and'initiation'arerushedormissedbecauseofpressure'togetgoing' 5

ProjectBoardsareinexperienced 5

Escalatedissues(ExceptionReports)arenotresolved 5

ProjectBoardsdonotdefinethetoleranceswithinwhichthePMmustwork 4


33/89


34/89


35/89

IssuesProjectTeamCompetencyTheme

Asalreadymentioned,themajorProjectTeamCompetencyissuesubmittedbythePRINCE2groupis

theperceived

inexperience

of

many

Registered

PRINCE2

Practitioners.

The

term

practitioner

is

obviouslyinterpretedinthemarketplaceasaprojectmanagerwhocanproficientlyapplyPRINCE2

inactualprojects.

OrganizationalPMCompetencyIssues Ranking

OrganizationdoesnotknowhowtoapplyPRINCE2processes 4

Organizationdoesnotknowhowtomanagequalityusingproductdescriptionsandcustomer

qualityexpectations 4

ManysocalledPRINCE2Practitionershaveneverrunaproject,andsotimeandeffortiswasted 4

PRINCE2exceptionprocessesnotfollowedinmanagingescalatedissues 4

PRINCE2usedinnameonly theProjectBoardandProjectManager thinktheyareusing

PRINCE2,butnotreally. 4

Some

team

members

struggle

to

apply

product

based

planning

and

to

understand

its

relationshiptoscopeandquality 3

ProjectmanagersdonotreceiveadequatesupportintheirinitialuseofPRINCE2 3

Projectmanagersaretreatedasprojectcoordinators 3

LackofcriticalmassofthoseunderstandingPRINCE2methodologyintheorganisation 3

NotenoughpeoplehavebeentrainedinPRINCE2 3

Issuemanagementpileup lackofclarity,worry,fearetccanbeenteredasanissue.Filtering

thesequite

atask.

3

Stageprocessesarenotstrictlyfollowed 3

Runningtheproject'byPRINCE2'canbecomemoreimportantthanachievingprojectobjectives 3

Table13:OrganizationalPMCompetencyIssues

FeaturesOrganizationalPMCompetencyTheme

Earliersectionshavealreadycanvassedfurtherfeaturesincluding:

educationinitiativesforseniormanagement,

certificationforProjectBoardmembers.


36/89


37/89


38/89


39/89

Issues Concept Ranking

Educatingprojectboardmembersontheircollectiveand

individualresponsibilities

ProjectGovernance 5

Increasingsenior

management

awareness

of

P2

processesandmanagementproductsProject

Governance 5

Explainhowtoachievetheseniorleadership

commitmentneededtoembedP2inmanual(R)

ProjectGovernance 5

UpdatesupplementaryguidePeopleIssues&PRINCE2 Framework 4Placegreateremphasison'peopleissues' ProjectGovernance 3

Table18:ExampleFeaturesSupportingEmbedding

OTHERPROJECTMANAGEMENTFRAMEWORKS

OtherConceptMaps

TheOtherIssuesandOtherFeaturesconceptmapsareillustratedinAppendix3,Figure10and

Figure12. AvariationoftheOtherIssuesconceptmapshowingonlysignificantissues(ranked3or

more)isshowninAppendix3,Figure11.

RelativeImportanceofOtherIssuesConcepts

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

RelationshipManagement RequirementsMa na gement Governance Financi al/CostManagement Framework Tailoring

ConceptRanking


40/89

TherelationshipsbetweenconceptsandthemesfortheOthergrouparenotassimpleasthe

PRINCE2group. AsAppendix2,Table28demonstrates,severalconceptsintheOtherIssuesand

OtherFeatures

concept

maps

relate

to

two

or

even

three

themes.

This

is

not

surprising.

Unlike

the

PRINCE2group,theOthergroupembracesmultipleprojectmanagementframeworksanda

correspondinglygreaterdivergenceofissuesandfeatures. Forconvenience,theissuesorfeatures

containedwithintheseconceptsarereviewedunderasinglethemedesignatedinAppendix2,Table

28. Forexample,theRequirementsManagementconceptoverlapstheFramework/Manual,

OrganizationalPM

Competency

and

Project

Team

Competency

themes.

An

issue

which

forms

of

the

RequirementsManagementconceptcouldresultfromeitherashortcomingintheproject

managementframeworkortheabsenceofthecorrespondingcompetencyattheorganizationalor

projectlevel. Itisdifficultinmanycasestodeterminetheparticularcause;consequentlythe

RequirementsManagementconceptiscoveredundertheFramework/Manualtheme.

Althoughtheanalysisismorecomplex,theOtherfindingsofferanextraordinarilyrichcomparative

sampleofsignificantissuesandfeaturesexperiencedingeneralprojectmanagementpractice

outsidePRINCE2.

ExistingversusRecommendedFeatures

The

distinction

between

existing

and

recommended

features

is

not

investigated

in

the

discussion

of

OtherfindingsbelowbecausethedistinctionisnotrelevanttotheassessmentofPRINCE2.

Whetherexistingorrecommended,anyfeaturerankedassignificantbytheOthergroup,is

germanetotheevaluationofPRINCE2. Moreover,thedistinctionbetweenexistingand

recommendedfeaturesblursintheOtherfindingsbecauseofthemultipleframeworks. Anexisting

featureinoneframeworkmightbearecommendedfeatureinanother.


Issues


41/89


42/89

Ineffectiveinitiationandtransition(orcommissioning)

Preeminentfocusonprocessratherthanstrategicengagement.

Features

ThefeaturessuggestedbytheOthergrouptomitigatetheseissuesarecapturedbythe

RequirementsManagementandProjectSystemsandControlsconcepts. Thesefeaturesareoutlined

inTable20below.


43/89

OtherFrameworkFeatures Concept Ranking

Formalchangemanagementsystemintroduced ProjectSystemsandControls 5

Implementingbettercommunication&projectreportsforchangecontrol ProjectSystemsandControls 5

Ensuringstakeholderagreementtoprojectobjectivesandresultingallocationof

responsibilities RequirementsManagement 5

Establishedformalprocessforprojectdefinitionincorporatingsitespecificrequirement

inscopingtheproject RequirementsManagement 5

Definedprocessforownersinvolvementindecisionmakingandchangemanagement RequirementsManagement 5

Betterunderstanding,clarificationanddocumentationofownerrequirementsand

specificgoalsandobjectivespriortostartofprojects RequirementsManagement 5

Providesufficient

contingency

for

unexpected

events

Project

Systems

and

Controls 4

Intensifyestimatingprocess;introducebasiccostreportsforestimating;unifycost

controlsystemandincorporatevaluemetrics ProjectSystemsandControls 4

Processfortrackingintroduced ProjectSystemsandControls 4

Establishedformalprocessforimplementingperformanceacceptancecriteria ProjectSystemsandControls 4

Definedprocesswithownerforcommissioningandhandover ProjectSystemsandControls 4

Betterlogicalstructurerequiredforcontrolmechanismsforstartupanddocumented

changecontrols

Project

Systems

and

Controls 4

Provisionofsufficienttime/budgettoassesschanges;cleardecisionfromclienton

acceptance/rejection;andassociatedtimeproblemsalleviatedbyuseofheuristic

estimatesandaccuratereporting RequirementsManagement 4

Usinglaunchworkshopsandvalueengineeringwithdesign/contractor stakeholdersto

understandrequirementsandunderstandthatPMvalueaddmetricsaredifferentto

engineeringmetrics RequirementsManagement 4

Greateremphasis

placed

on

outcomes

(effectiveness)

rather

than

just

efficiency

(time,

cost,performance) RequirementsManagement 4

Betteroutcomedefinitionrequiredtoimprovedecisionmaking RequirementsManagement 4

Acceptanceoflifecycleapproachforallprojectinvestmentdecisions RequirementsManagement 4

BetterdeterminationofWorkBreakdownStructuredecomposition;and

standardisationofWBSsoftwaretoolsrequiredacrossprojects ProjectSystemsandControls 3

Considerationofcommercialaswellasfinancialmanagementandtailoredguidelines

required

Project

Systems

and

Controls 3

Usingdetailedstagemodellinginprogrammetopreventresourceconflicts ProjectSystemsandControls 3

Betterreviewsbaseduponkeydocuments ProjectSystemsandControls 3

UsingcentralisedwebbasedElectronicDocumentControlsystemforgreater

traceability,efficiencyandeaseofuse ProjectSystemsandControls 3


44/89

Inbroadterms,thekeyfeaturesproposedare:

Developingformalprocessesfor

o scopedefinitionandmanagement

o changemanagementandchangecontrol

o customer/stakeholder/ownerinvolvementespeciallyinscopedefinition

o costestimation

o productacceptance

o initiation,commissioningandhandover

Includingadequatecontingencyforunknownunknowns

Allocatingsufficienttimeandbudgettoassessandapprovechanges

Launchandvalueengineeringworkshops

Improvingcostestimationandvaluemetrics

Greateremphasisonoutcomes(effectiveness)ratherthanjustefficiency(time,costand

performance)

Adoptingalifecycleapproachtoprojectinvestmentdecisions.

ProjectGovernanceTheme

Issues

BecauseofthecloserelationshipbetweentheProjectGovernanceandRelationshipManagement

concepts(reflectedintheproximityofthecorrespondingclusters)intheOtherIssuesconcept

map,theyaretreatedcollectivelyundertheProjectGovernancetheme. Theissuesidentifiedbythe

OthergrouparecataloguedinTable21.


45/89

OtherProjectGovernanceIssues Concept Ranking

Unclearlinesofauthorityandnorealteamcommitment ProjectGovernance 5

Lackofgovernance,poorstagegates,lackofaccountability; ProjectGovernance 5

Nodefinedchainofcommandandcomplacency. ProjectGovernance 5

Cultureclashesbetweendifferentstakeholdersandpoordisputeresolution RelationshipManagement 5

Inadequatecommunication RelationshipManagement 5

Lackofleadershipandtopmanagementsupportandbuyintostandardised

PMprocessesandmethodology inconsistent projectpractices ProjectGovernance 4

PMnotresponsibleforschedule ProjectGovernance 4

Excessivetimeconsumingeffortrequiredtomonitor/control

suppliers/contractors nopowertoenforce3rdpartiestodeliver ProjectGovernance 4

Poorprojectexecution ProjectGovernance 4

LackofPMtrainingtostaff,clientsandworkpackageownersandpoor

understandingofprojectmanagementframework RelationshipManagement 4

Lackofownershipandsystemintegrationamongstalllevelsofproject ProjectGovernance 4

Poorstakeholdermanagementandconflictingobjectives RelationshipManagement 4

ToomuchfaithinIT,notenoughsupportfor'managementskills'(people

sideunderplayed)

Project

Governance

3

LackofcommitmenttoproviderelevantexpertiseandHRresourcesto

projectrecruitmentbasedonavailability ProjectGovernance 3

ClientandprojectteammembersunfamiliarwithPM

framework/methodology RelationshipManagement 3

Meddlingbysponsorswithtime/costcausing'churn' ProjectGovernance 3

LackofPMprocessmaturity nonconstructionskilledconsultantsdriving

PMfor

high

fees

low

service

quality

Project

Governance

3

Killingprojectsi.e.'no/go'solutionsnotanoption ProjectGovernance 3

Managementfocusontime/cost,hencelowquality/highcostdelivery ProjectGovernance 3

UntimelyPMappointment ProjectGovernance 3

LowPMresources ProjectGovernance 3

Projectmanagementframeworkproblemsunresolveddespitereviews ProjectGovernance 3

Table21:OtherProjectGovernanceIssues

Inanutshell,thedominantprojectgovernanceissuesare:

Absenceofdefinedprojectgovernancestructures,processesand

roles/responsibilities/accountabilities


46/89

Inadequateintegrationbetweentheprojectandotherorganizationallevels.

So,theresponsesnotonlycriticisethelackofstructureandprocess,butalsoequallyassailthe

neglectofsoftissuescreatedbypoorprojectleadership,andunresolvedfractiousrelationships

betweenstakeholdergroups.

Features

FeatureswhichtheOthergroupidentifiedasmitigatingProjectGovernanceissuesarerecordedin

Table22.

OtherProjectGovernanceFeatures Concept Ranking

Educatingclientoftherisksofproceedingwithunresolvedissues ProjectGovernance 5

Properformalised,comprehensiveandmandatoryriskidentificationand

managementprocessinplace ProjectGovernance 5

Weeklyprogressreportingonmilestonesatteammeetings ProjectGovernance 5

Keepingexecutives

fully

informed

of

goals,

process

and

issues

to

receive

direction ProjectGovernance 5

LeadershiprecognizesPMvalue ProjectGovernance 5

Moretimelydecisionmakingobserved ProjectGovernance 4

Agreedandexecutednew governanceincludingeffectivegatewayprocess ProjectGovernance 4

LeadershipprioritisingPMinvestment ProjectGovernance 4

Periodicreviewofbusinesscasetoensureongoingviabilityrelativeto

alternate

investments

Project

Governance

3

Safetycultureprograminstigated ProjectGovernance 3

Leadershipbehaviourchangingforbetter ProjectGovernance 3

Involvingsoftdisciplines(e.g.Systemsthinkers,psychologists)toimprove

PMculture ProjectGovernance 3

Table22:OtherProjectGovernanceFeatures

Inbrief,crucialfeaturessuggestedbyOtherparticipantstomitigateProjectGovernanceissues

include:

Activeleadershipwhichrecognisestheorganizationalvalueofprojectmanagement

P tf li t hi h i iti j t t i t t


47/89


48/89


49/89


50/89

OtherTailoringIssues Concept Ranking

Projectmanagementframeworkusedasnonflexibleprescriptive

process toomuchfocusontemplatesasan'end'notasa'means'Tailoring 3

Newproject

management

framework

has discarded

proven

existing

toolsandtechniqueswithoutconsideringworthi.e. repackageof

oldversionslackingadaptationandflexibilitytochangeculture

Tailoring 3

PMtoolsnotintegratedintostandardprocesses Tailoring 3

Standardratherthantailoredsolutionsapplied Tailoring 3

Table26:OtherTailoringIssues

Organizationsare

still

adopting

the

one

size

fits

all

approach

to

project

management

(Shenhar,

2001),withoutallowingsufficientflexibilitytoaccommodatetheprojectsrealcharacter. Moreover,

projectmanagementframeworksareoperatinginisolationfromotherorganizationalorenterprise

processes. Presumablyasaresultofprojectmanagementfailures,newprojectmanagement

frameworksarebeingintroducedwithlittleattentionbeinggiventodecisiveorganizationalchange

issues

such

as

culture.

Features

FeatureswhichOtherparticipantsproposedtoengagetheseissuesareoutlinedinTable27.

OtherTailoringFeatures Concept Ranking

Tailoringguidelines/methodology

to

suit

individual

projects

rather

than'onesizefitsall' Tailoring 4

ProjectownershipnowpartofPMframework Tailoring 4

ApplysimpleandconcisePMmethodology Tailoring 4

Ensureadequateflexibilityinprojectmanagementframework Tailoring 3

Workerinputintoprocesseswhicharebeingmorestandardized/

refined/definedi.e.projectstartups Tailoring 3

Table

27:

Other

Tailoring

Features

Participantsrejecttheprescriptiveordoctrinaireapproachtoprojectmanagement. Rather,theyare

seekingmethodologies(orguidelinestoexistingmethodologies)whichenablethemtotailorthe


51/89

CHAPTER4CONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSIONS

Asdiscussedearlierundertheheading PrudentComparison,thecomparisonbetweenthePRINCE2

andOtherfindingsshouldbeinterpretedasanevaluationoftheperformanceofPRINCE2against

generalprojectmanagementpracticerepresentedby Otherfindings. Itshouldnotbeseenasa

comparativeevaluation

of

PRINCE2

against

any

other

particular

project

management

framework.

ConceptMapping

Theconceptmappingapproachprovedhighlysuccessfulinelicitingandanalysingalargenumber

andadiverserangeofissuescovering:

theproblems

and

issues

affecting

the

utility

of

PRINCE2

and

the

other

project

management

frameworks,

existingandrecommendedfeaturestoresolveoratleastmitigatetheseproblemsand

issues.

ReliabilityandValidity

Theresearchresultsaredeemedtoexhibitanacceptablelevelofreliabilityandvalidity.

ConceptThemes

Collectively,theconceptswhichemergedfromtheanalysissuggestthatparticipantsframe

problems/issuesandfeaturesaroundsixbroadbutinevitablyoverlappingthemes:

Framework/Manualtheproject

management

framework

including

its

associated

documentation(e.g.thePRINCE2manual),

ProjectSponsors/BoardsCompetencyprojectsponsorandprojectboardcompetency,

k/ l h


52/89


InremarkablecontrasttotheOtherprojectmanagementframeworks,thePRINCE2frameworkand

manualsare

perceived

to

have

almost

no

significant

problems

or

issues.

This

is

acrucial

finding.

PRINCE2(frameworkandmanual)isperceivedasaveryrobust,comprehensiveandpragmatic

projectmanagementframeworkwhichunderwritesprojectsuccess. Althoughnumerousproblems

andissuesweresuggested,overallPRINCE2participantsrankedtheseverylow. Conversely,

participantsrankedmanyexistingPRINCE2featuresasveryeffectiveinmitigatingseriousproblems

inotherthemes.

Someofthehighestrankedexistingfeaturesincluded:

Roleofthebusinesscaseinassuringcontinuingprojectviability

Theextensiveguidanceofferedonprojectgovernance

Expansionofthetoleranceconcepttoencompasssixareas

Thecomprehensivedefinitionofrolesandresponsibilities

Productbasedplanningandproductfocusseddelivery

Delegationofresponsibilitiestotheappropriatelevel

Newchaptersontailoringandembedding.

Thefewareaswherechangewasproposedwere:expandedcoverageofstakeholdermanagement,

greaterfocusonbenefitsmanagement,broaderdefinitionoftheroleplayedbyprojectassurance

andupdatingthesupplementaryguidePeopleIssuesandPRINCE2.TheOtherfindings,ontheotherhand,demonstratedsignificantdissatisfactioninthebroader

projectmanagement

community

stemming

from

an

extensive

range

of

shortcomings,

especially

in

theareassuchas:

Poorscopeandchangemanagement


53/89

Very importantly the source of project governance problems in organizations using PRINCE2 is


54/89

Veryimportantly,thesourceofprojectgovernanceproblemsinorganizationsusingPRINCE2is

organizationalandnottheframework. Infact,manyofthehighestrankedstrengthsofthePRINCE2

framework(cited

above)

directly

address

project

governance,

including:

EmphasisingthecriticalroleplayedbytheBusinessinassuringcontinuingprojectviability

ExtensiveguidanceonprojectgovernanceinthePRINCE22009editions

Comprehensivedefinitionofroleandresponsibilitiesatalllevels.

Thenon

PRINCE2

participants

echoed

similar

sentiments

about:

the

poor

quality

of

project

governanceincludinglackoforunclearaccountabilities,poorleadershipandcommitmentfromthe

seniorexecutive,cultureclashesbetweenstakeholdergroupscoupledwithnomeansofresolving

disputes,andinadequateintegrationbetweentheprojectandotherorganizationallevels.

Overall,thesentimentsexpressedbyboththePRINCE2andOtherparticipantsarenotjustabout

lackof

governance

and

structure

and

process

within

organizations,

but

perhaps

more

significantly

aboutlackofprojectleadership. ThebusinessenvironmentsdescribedbybothPRINCE2andOther

participantswhereseniorexecutivesupportissometimestepidandprojectgovernanceisweak,

confirmotherresearch(Shenhar,2007;Stefanovic&Shenhar,2007)thatprojectsarenotbeing

managedstrategically.

Althoughtheliteratureonstrategicalignmentorfitbetweenstrategy andprojectshasbeen

characterisedasvague(Shenhar,Milosevic,Dvir,&Thamhain,2007,p.6),scant(Milosevic&

Srivannaboon,2006)andlimited(Srivannaboon,2005,p.37),thelimitedresearchsuggeststhat

strategicalignmentisanecessaryifnotsufficientconditionforbusinesssuccess(Stefanovic&

Shenhar,2007). Persistentandsubstantialstrategicmisalignment,particularlyinvolatile

environments,willdiminishanorganizationsabilitytobothinfluenceandadaptto,itschanging

environment.

Notwithstanding research participantsand especially PRINCE2 participantsemphasis on

Organizational PM Competency and Project Team Competency Themes


55/89

OrganizationalPMCompetencyandProjectTeamCompetencyThemes

OrganizationalPMCompetencyandProjectTeamCompetencyproblemsandissueswereranked

onlyslightly

behind

those

of

Project

Governance.

The

PRINCE2

participants

critique

highlighted

two

areas.

First,organizationseitherdonotknowhow,ordonotpossessthecommitment,toproperly

implementPRINCE2. Thisissymptomaticofapervasivestrategicissuewhichpermeatesnotjustthis

themebutotherthemesincludingProjectGovernanceandTailoringandEmbedding.

TheintroductionandimplementationofPRINCE2inanorganizationdemandsmuchmorethan

managementmerelydesignatingPRINCE2asthestandardprojectmanagementframework,and

runningtrainingcourses. TheintroductionandimplementationofPRINCE2inanorganizationmust

berecognisedandmanagedasasignificantorganizationalchangewhichaddressesbothhardand

soft

issues

including

the

development

of

a

supporting

project

management

culture.

Second,thePRINCE2groupwasconcernedthatmanyRegisteredPRINCE2Practitionershavelimited

projectmanagementexperience. ThevalueofthecurrentPRINCE2certificationindevelopinga

soundunderstandingofthePRINCE2frameworkincludingacommonprojectmanagementlanguage

wasuncontested. ButtomaintainandextendthevalueofPRINCE2certification,thePRINCE2

participantswant

the

certification

process

extended

to

recognise

proficiency

in

applying

PRINCE2

to

actualprojects. Thiscouldbeofferedasanadditionalaccreditation,preservingthevalueofcurrent

certification.

LiketheirPRINCE2counterparts,theOtherGrouparguedtheprimacyofexperience(bothdiversity

anddepth)inrecruitingprojectstaff. Theyalsoemphasisedthecriticalroleofeducationand

trainingindevelopingOrganizationalandProjectTeamCompetency. Bothgroupssawcoachingand

mentoringintheworkplaceplayinganimportantroleintheeducationofprojectmanagers. The

PRINCE2groupfurtherproposedthataccreditationbeintroducedforPRINCE2coaches.


56/89


57/89

ThewholesubjectoforganizationalimplementationofPRINCE2,includingembedding,could


58/89

becomeanothersignificantofferingwithintheOGCproductportfolio.

TofurtherincreasethevalueofPRINCE2certificationinthemarketplace,additionalaccreditation

shouldbeintroducedwhichindicatesthatthepractitionerbothunderstandsthemethodology,and

canapplyitproficientlyinmanagingprojects. Furtherguidanceshouldalsobeofferedonhowto

implementPRINCE2mentoringandcoachingintheworkplace.

Although

the

quality

and

serviceability

of

the

PRINCE2

framework

and

manual

has

been

demonstrated,otherpotentialareasofimprovementsuggestedare:expandedcoverageof

stakeholdermanagement,greaterfocusonbenefitsmanagement,broaderdefinitionoftherole

playedbyprojectassuranceandupdatingthesupplementaryguidePeopleIssuesandPRINCE2.Anexpertpanelconsistingofapproximately10PRINCE2consultants/trainersshouldbeconvenedto

determinethe

extent

to

which

the

PRINCE2

2009

release:

accommodatestheissuesandfeaturesidentifiedbytheOthergroup,and

satisfiestheproblems/issuesandfeaturesraisedbythePRINCE2group.

Tosupportthisactivity,theresearchteamhasalreadypreparedadraftsurveyinstrument.

FURTHERRESEARCHOPPORTUNITIES

Insummary,theconclusionsandrecommendationsabovesuggestseveralavenuesofprofitable

researchtargetingareassuchas:

Determiningthe

major

factors

affecting

the

introduction

of

PRINCE2

into

organizations

and

thendevelopingflexibleandinclusiveguidanceontheorganizationalimplementationof

PRINCE2

Identifying the competencies which project board members and sponsors must possess to


59/89

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abell,N.,

Springer,

D.

W.,

&

Kamata,

A.

(2009).

DevelopingandAssessingRapidAssessment

Instruments.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.

Borg,I.,&Groenen,P.J.F.(2005).ModernMultidimensionalScaling:TheoryandApplications(Seconded.).NewYork,NewYork:Springer.

Bryman,A.(2008).SocialResearchMethods.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversity.Creswell,J.W.(2009).ResearchDesign:Qualitative,andMixedMethodsApproaches(3rded.).Los

Angeles,California:Sage.

Flick,U.(2008).AnIntroductiontoQualitativeResearch(4thed.).London:Sage.Gloafshani,

N.

(2003).

Understanding

reliability

and

validity

in

qualitative

research.

TheQualitative

Report,8(4),597607.Guyon,I.,vonLuxburg,U.,&Williamson,R.C.(2009).Clustering:ScienceorArt?Paperpresentedat

theClustering:ScienceorArt?TowardsPrincipledApproachesANeuralInformation

ProcessingSystemsConferenceWorkshop.

Kane,M.,&Trochim,W.M.K.(2007).Conceptmappingforplanningandevaluation.ThousandOaks,California:Sage.

Milosevic,D.Z.,&Srivannaboon,S.(2006).Atheoreticalframeworkforaligningproject

managementwithbusinessstrategy.ProjectManagementJournal,37(3),98.Netemeyer,R.G.B.W.O.,&Sharma,S.(2003).Scalingprocedures:issuesandapplications:Sage

Publications.

Neuman,W.L.(2006).SocialResearchMethods:QualitativeandQuantitativeApproaches(6thed.).Boston,Massachusetts:Pearson.

OfficeofGovernmentCommerce.(2009a).DirectingSuccessfulProjectswithPrince2.London:TheStationeryOffice.

Officeof

Government

Commerce.

(2009b).

ManagingSuccessfulProjectswithPrince2.London:TheStationeryOffice.

Rosas,S.R.,&Camphausen,L.C.(2007).Theuseofconceptmappingforscaledevelopmentand

validationinevaluation.Evaluationandprogramplanning,30(2),125135.Shenhar,A.J.(2001).Onesizedoesnotfitallprojects:Exploringclassicalcontingencydomains.

ManagementScience,47(3),394.Shenhar,A.J.(2007).StrategicProjectLeadership:TowardaStrategicApproachtoProject

Management.InA.J.Shenhar,D.Milosevic,D.Dvir&H.Thamhaim(Eds.),Linkingprojectmanagementtobusinessstrategy(pp.3555).NewtownSquare,Pennsylvannia:ProjectManagementInstitute.

Shenhar,A.J.,Milosevic,D.Z.,Dvir,D.,&Thamhain,H.(2007).Linkingprojectmanagementtobusinessstrategy.NewtownSquare,Pennsylvania:ProjectManagementInstitute.

Srivannaboon,S.(2005).Linkingprojectmanagementwithbusinessstrategy.UnpublishedPh.D.,

Trochim,W.M.K.(1989a).Conceptmapping:Softscienceorhardart?EvaluationandProgram


60/89

Planning,12(1),87110.Trochim,W.M.K.(1989b).Outcomepatternmatchingandprogramtheory.EvaluationandProgram

Planning,12,355366.Trochim,W.M.K.(1993,Nov61993).Thereliabilityofconceptmapping.Paperpresentedatthe

AnnualConferenceoftheAmericanEvaluationAssociation,Dallas,Texas.

Trochim,W.M.K.,&Cabrera,D.(2005).Thecomplexityofconceptmappingforpolicyanalysis.

Emergence:ComplexityandOrganization,7(1),1122.Trochim,W.M.K.,&Linton,R.(1986).Conceptualizationforplanningandevaluation.Evaluation

andProgramPlanning,9,289308.


61/89

Appendix1:QUTResearchTeam

MrRichard

Sargeant

(Chief

Investigator):

Richard

helped

develop

and

now

teaches

in

QUTs

ExecutiveMastersinComplexProjectManagement. RichardisalsopursuingPhDresearchstudying

thecriticalfactorsaffectingstrategicalignmentbetweenorganizationalstrategyandprojects.

RichardhasalmostthirtyyearsexperienceinDefenceacquisition,portfolio/programme/project

management,ICT,andaerospaceengineering. HehasreceivedanMBEandanOAMforservicesto

Defence.

Richardis

also

aChartered

Professional

Engineer,

aCertified

Practising

Accountant,

a

FellowoftheRoyalStatisticalSocietyandaFellowoftheAustralianInstituteofProject

Management.

ProfessorCarolineHatcher: ProfessorHatcherisaProfessorintheFacultyofBusinessandCourse

CoordinatoroftheQUTExecutiveMastersinComplexProjectManagement. ProfessorHatcheris

anactive

researcher

in

the

area

of

organizational

and

leadership

communication

with

aspecial

focus

oncommunicationinprojectandcomplexenvironments. Inparticular,ProfessorHatcherisamajor

contributortooneofAustraliaslargestfundedresearchprojectsinvestigatingthecontributionof

projectleaderbehaviourstoprocessesandoutcomesinlargescaleprojects. ProfessorHatcheris

alsoPresidentoftheWorldCommunicationAssociation. ProfessorHatcherhaspublishedvery

widelyincluding

several

books

and

20

refereed

journal

articles

in

the

last

decade.

AssociateProfessor(A/Prof)BambangTrigunarsyah: A/ProfTrigunarsyahisAssociateProfessorof

ProjectManagementintheFacultyofBuiltEnvironmentandEngineering. BeforejoiningQUT,

A/ProfTrigunarsyahwasHeadoftheDepartmentofCivilEngineeringandAssociateProfessorin

ConstructionProjectManagementattheUniversityofIndonesia. A/ProfTrigunarsyahhadmany

yearsexperience

in

the

construction

and

oil

development

industries.

A/Prof

Trigunarsyah

has

publishedwidelyinconstructionmanagementandroadconstruction,coauthoringtwobooksand

oversixtytechnicalpapers.


62/89

A di 2 C R f b t C t Th d C t M C t


63/89

Page52

Appendix2Cross-ReferencebetweenConceptThemesandConceptMapConcepts

Table28:RelationshipsbetweenConceptsandConceptThemesineachConceptMap

*indicatestheparticularthemeunderwhichtheconceptissuesorfeaturesarediscussed

ConceptTheme

Concept

Map

PRINCE2IssuesConcepts PRINCE2FeaturesConcepts OtherIssuesConcepts OtherFeaturesConcepts

Framework/Manual FrameworkandManual FrameworkPRINCE2FrameworkGovernance

Manual

Framework

RequirementsManagement*

RequirementsManagement*

ProjectSystemsandControls*

ProjectGovernanceCompetency

ProjectGovernance Certification&TrainingProject

Governance

ProjectGovernance

RelationshipManagement

ProjectGovernance*

ProjectBoards/SponsorsCompetency Sponsor/Board Certification&TrainingProjectGovernance* ProjectGovernance ProjectGovernanceOrganizationalPMCompetency OrganizationalPMCompetency* Certification&TrainingProjectGovernance Financial/CostManagement*

RequirementsManagement

OrganizationalPMCompetency


Project

Systems

and

Controls

ProjectTeamCompetency OrganizationalPMCompetency Certification&TrainingPRINCE2Framework


Financial/CostManagement

ProjectTeamCompetency

Tailoring/Embedding Tailoring Tailoring Tailoring Tailoring


64/89


65/89

OrgPMCompetence


66/89

Page55

Figure6:PRINCE2IssuesConceptMapSignificantIdeas(Ranking>=3)

Sponsor/Board

ProjectGovernance

Framework&

Manual

Tailoring

FrameworkPRINCE2 FrameworkGovernance


67/89

Page56

Figure7:PRINCE2FeaturesConceptMapAllIdeas

Certification&TrainingPRINCE2

Tailoring

Manual

Certification&Training

ProjectGovernance


68/89

FrameworkPRINCE2 FrameworkGovernance


69/89

Page58

Figure9:PRINCE2FeaturesConceptMapRecommendedFeatures

Certification&TrainingPRINCE2

Tailoring

Manual

Certification&Training

ProjectGovernance


70/89

Financial/CostManagement

Project Governance


71/89

Page60

Figure11:OtherIssuesConceptMapSignificantIdeas(Ranking>=3)


Framework

Tailoring

ProjectGovernance

Relationship

Management


72/89

Appendix4ConceptStatistics


73/89

ConceptMap

Concept

Name

No

of

Ideas

Concept

Ranking

PRINCE2Isses

Sponsor/Board 16 4.67

ProjectGovernance 18 3.17

Organizational PMCompetency 16 3.06

Tailoring 9 2.78

Framework 11 1.91

Manual 15 1.13

PRINCE2Features

Certification&TrainingProjectGovernance 7 4.29

FrameworkGovernance 7 4.14

Certification&TrainingPRINCE2Framework 8 3.50

FrameworkPRINCE2 11 3.36

Tailoring 19 3.16

Manual 13 2.46

Other

Issues

RelationshipManagement 6 3.83

RequirementsManagement 15 3.53

Governance 20 3.40

Financial/CostManagement 4 3.25

Framework 11 3.09

Tailoring 11 2.36

OtherFeatures

RequirementsManagement 14 3.79

ProjectTeamCompetency 12 3.75

ProjectGovernance

15 3.40

ProjectSystemsandControls 20 3.38

Organizational PMCompetency 15 3.33


74/89


75/89


76/89


77/89


78/89


79/89

IdeaNo

Normalized

Ranking Issue Concept

PRINCE2IssuesConceptMap

j l d l d l


80/89

67 2 Projectsclosedprematurelyandpoorly ProjectGovernance

68 1 VolumeofPRINCE2manualcandistractprojectteamfromdeliveringpractical/realoutcomes Manual

69 3 NotenoughpeoplehavebeentrainedinPRINCE2 OrganizationalPMCompetency

70 3 Stageprocessesarenotstrictlyfollowed OrganizationalPMCompetency

71 4 ManysocalledPRINCE2Practitionershaveneverrunaproject,andsotimeandeffortiswasted OrganizationalPMCompetency

72 5 ProjectBoardsdonotunderstandorapplymanagementbyexception Sponsor/Board

73 4 Organizationdoesnotknowhowtomanagequalityusingproductdescriptionsandcustomerqualityexpectations OrganizationalPMCompetency

74 3 Budgetis'lockedin'whenlittleisknownabouttheproject ProjectGovernance

75 1 Seniormanagementdemandsdocumentationbesuppliedintheirformatsandtemplates OrganizationalPMCompetency

76 5 ProjectBoardsareinexperienced Sponsor/Board

77 3 PMsaretreatedasprojectcoordinators OrganizationalPMCompetency

78 1 PRINCE2manualhasmanygapse.g.nodirectiononfinancialaccountingforprojects Manual

79 1 PRINCE22005and2009guidancecreatestwosetsofadvice Manual

80 2 PRINCE2methodologyhastoorigidastructure canstifleinnovationandcreativity Manual

81 1 PRINCE2is'builtinmidair' lacksfoundationdisciplinese.g.constructingschedulesandmotivatingpeople Framework

82 1 PRINCE2examfocusesonruleoverprinciple Framework

83 1 PRINCE2manualdifficulttoread Manual

84 4 Budgetorresourcesnotsufficienttosatisfyprojectneeds ProjectGovernance

85 3 Doesnotincludeaqualitymeasurementframeworke.g.KPIs Framework

Page69


81/89

IdeaNo

Normalized

Ranking Feature

Existingor

Recommended Concept

PRINCE2FeaturesConceptMap

45 3 Includemoreandbroaderrangeofcasestudies R Tailoring

46 2 Makegreateruseofprojectmanagementmaturitymodels(e.g.P3M3) R Tailoring


82/89

47 2 Explainhow

to

introduce

P2

into

an

organization

in

the

manual

R Manual

48 3 DemonstratehowtointegrateP2andenterpriselevelprocesses R Tailoring

49 2 Incorporatesuppliermanagementprocessesinmanual R Manual

50 2 RemoveextensiveactivitydetailfromtheP209 R Manual

51 4 Developcourseforprojectsponsorsandprojectboardmembers R Certification&TrainingProjectGovernance

52 2 P209ismorereadable E Manual

53 3 UpdateP2trainingtoreflect'realities' R Certification&TrainingP2Framework

54 5 Educatingprojectboardmembersontheircollectiveandindividualresponsibilities R Certification&TrainingProjectGovernance

55 3 Isstructuredandcontrolled E FrameworkPRINCE2

56 4 Demonstrate(withexamples)howP2canbeusedwithnontraditionaldevelopmentanddeliverymethodologies(e.g.agile) R Tailoring

57 1 Splitfoundationandpractitionerknowledgeintoseparatepublications R Tailoring

58 3 Implementaccreditation

scheme

for

P2

coaching

R Certification

&

Training

P2

Framework

59 4 Preparepublicationtargetingtheroles&responsibilitiesofprojectboardsandexecutives R Certification&TrainingProjectGovernance

60 5 EmphasizescriticalroleoftheBusinessCaseinassuringthecontinuingprojectviability E FrameworkGovernance

61 4 Avoids'topheavy'managementbydelegatingresponsibilitiestotheappropriatelevel E FrameworkGovernance

62 3 Placegreateremphasison'peopleissues' R Certification&TrainingProjectGovernance

63 5 ExtensiveguidanceonprojectgovernanceinP209 E FrameworkGovernance

64 1 Removequalityreviewandchangecontroltopic

Documents

Final Report v1.0e