Project management assets and project management performance outcomes

Project management assetsand project managementperformance outcomesExploratory factor analysis

Gita MathurDepartment of Organization and Management, San Jose State University,

San Jose, California, USA

Kam JugdevAthabasca University, Athabasca, Canada, and

Tak Shing FungDepartment of Information Technologies, University of Calgary,

Calgary, Canada

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine characteristics of project management assetsand project management performance outcomes as a step towards exploring the link between assetsbeing valuable, rare, inimitable, and having organizational support and the achievement ofcompetitive advantage.

Design/methodology/approach – This paper analyzes data from responses to an onlinesurvey by 198 North American Project Management Institutew members. Exploratory factoranalysis is used to identify characteristics of project management assets and project managementperformance outcomes.

Findings – In total, six factors that comprised the characteristics of project management assets, threefactors that comprised organizational support for project management assets, and two factors thatcomprised the project management performance outcomes were extracted.

Research limitations/implications – Limitations of this study include sample size, response rate,and self-report bias, calling for a larger sample in ongoing research. This study is a step towardsmaking the link between project management assets and performance outcomes.

Practical implications – This study draws managerial attention to project management assets assources of competitive advantage, applying the resource based view of the firm that assets aresources of competitive advantage if they add economic value, are rare, are difficult to imitate, and haveorganizational support.

Originality/value – Few papers have applied the resource based view of the firm to examine projectmanagement capabilities as a source of competitive advantage. This paper contributes to the literatureon the resource based view of the firm and contributes to an improved understanding of projectmanagement as a source of competitive advantage.

Keywords Competitive advantage, Project management, Resource management, Assets,Performance outcomes, Project management assets, Project management resources, Resource based view,Strategic assets, Strategic resources

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm

MRR36,2

112

Management Research ReviewVol. 36 No. 2, 2013pp. 112-135q Emerald Group Publishing Limited2040-8269DOI 10.1108/01409171311292234

IntroductionUsing the resource based view (RBV) of the firm, we take the perspective that firms area collection of resources, that the project management process is a subset of resourcesof a firm, and that some of these project management resources are strategic and,therefore, a source of competitive advantage for the firm. Resources are consideredstrategic if they have the following competitive characteristics, they provide economicvalue (valuable), they are unique (rare), they are difficult to copy (inimitable), and theyhave organizational support. The presence of these competitive characteristics, referredto as VRIO (Barney, 1991, 1998, 2002), lead to competitive advantage. A resourcecontributes to competitive parity by being valuable and having organizational support.If a resource is both valuable and rare, and has organizational support, it contributesto temporary competitive advantage. A resource needs to be valuable, rare, inimitable,and have organizational support to provide a sustained competitive advantage.

The project management process has been getting an increasing amount of attentionas a means to improve a firm’s competitive position. The academic literature has, however,focused primarily on operational aspects of project management, and the role of thisprocess as a strategic capability, while it has been recognized, is still understudied.The objective of our research is to make a contribution to the growing body of empiricalwork that provides an improved understanding of project management as a source ofcompetitive advantage for scholars and practitioners interested in project management.Prior research has attempted to highlight the competitive advantage that can be gainedfrom project management assets, empirically linking project management assets to theachievement of the characteristics, valuable, rare, inimitable, and organizationallysupported (Jugdev and Mathur, 2006; Jugdev et al., 2007; Mathur et al., 2007). This pastwork has not empirically addressed the link between the characteristics of the projectmanagement assets and project or firm performance. We extend this past work, usinga new survey instrument that also draws on the VRIO framework to examine the factorsthat comprise these competitive characteristics of project management assets, and inaddition, examines factors that comprise project management performance outcomes,in an attempt to explore the link between assets being valuable, rare, inimitable, andhaving organizational support and the achievement of competitive advantage. In thispaper we present our findings from an exploratory factor analysis of the data collectedfrom responses to an online survey by 198 North American Project ManagementInstitutew members using our survey instrument. We report on the extracted factors thatare characteristics of project management assets and project management performanceoutcomes. This is a step towards exploring the link between project management andthe achievement of competitive advantage. The development of a path model based onthe data and extracted factors reported in this paper will be addressed in future research.

The sections that follow include the literature review, the study methodology,a discussion of findings, conclusions, limitations, and the next steps in this researchprogram.

Literature reviewThe RBV examines competitive advantage in terms of a company’s many resources orassets (e.g. financial, human, organizational, physical, social, technological). The firm’sresources can be tangible (concrete; physical; codified or based on explicit knowledge)or intangible (tacit; unspoken but understood). Only a subset of these resources,

Projectmanagement

assets

113

classified as strategic assets, contributes to its competitive advantage (Amit andSchoemaker, 1993). The RBV and the perspective that strategic assets contribute to afirm’s competitive advantage are widely accepted in the literature. Strategic assets(e.g. intellectual property rights, reputation, brand, and culture) are resources thatinvolve explicit and tacit knowledge (Eisenhardt and Santos, 2000; Kaplan et al., 2001;Kogut, 2000; Nonaka, 1994) that is embedded in a company’s unique skills, knowledge,resources, and ways of working (Foss, 1997; Rumelt et al., 1994). As a recent reviewindicates, the RBV continues to hold merit (Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010).

The VRIO framework has emerged from this perspective as a useful way ofcharacterizing strategic assets (Barney, 1991, 2002). The RBV and Barney’s VRIOframework have been widely used in empirical studies on strategic assets such as: thecognitive abilities of entrepreneurs (Alvarez and Busenitz, 2001), human resource skills(Barney, 1998), managerial skills and abilities (Castanias and Helfat, 2001), electroniccommerce strategy capabilities (Montealegre, 2002), the effectiveness of the customerservice process in the insurance industry (Ray et al., 2004), governance decisions forsourcing technological know-how (Schilling and Steensma, 2002), and technologycommercialization (Zahra and Nielsen, 2002). Newbert provides a broad assessment ofthe empirical research on RBV (Newbert, 2007). Others have assessed empirical researchwithin specific fields, for example, the international business literature (Peng, 2001) andthe strategic human resources management field (Wright et al., 2001). Some researchershave examined specific sectors, for example, the banking industry (Liu et al., 2010), thehome video game industry (Shankar and Bayus, 2003), and management support andthe performance of entrepreneurial start-ups in Germany (Stubner et al., 2007).

Our literature review indicates that the stream of research on operations managementusing the RBV lens is evolving. Scholars have examined several operational processesand reported that information sharing meets the VRIO criteria (Barratt and Oke, 2007);scheduling estimating and management capabilities positively affect projectrevenue (Ethiraj et al., 2005); functional areas integrated through organizationalknowledge contribute to valuable and rare product features (Paiva et al., 2008); andimprovement and innovation routines are distinct bundles that significantly relateto operational performance (Peng et al., 2007).

The project management arena is also seeing an emerging interest in the applicationof the RBV perspective. Project management is a set of processes that encompassesthe tools, techniques, and knowledge-based practices applied to projects, to achieveorganizational goals and deliver products or services (DeFillippi and Arthur, 1998;Fernie et al., 2003; Project Management Institute, 2008). Project management involvesboth tangible and intangible assets. Tangible resources involve codified or explicitknowledge while intangible resources are based on tacit knowledge. Codified and tacitknowledge have also been labeled as “know-what” and “know-how” (Nonaka, 1994).To date, considerable project management literature has focused on the tangibleresources and codified knowledge through research on project management offices(Aubry et al., 2007, 2008; Hobbs and Aubry, 2007) and studies on the use of tools andtechniques (Besner and Hobbs, 2006, 2008; Kloppenborg and Opfer, 2002; Ulri and Ulri,2000). Several studies extend this stream of research to explore the tools and techniquesin relation to project success (Fortune et al., 2011; Patanakul et al., 2010; White andFortune, 2002). However, none of these aforementioned studies were anchored withinthe RBV framework.

MRR36,2

114

Following the RBV logic, it is the lesser-studied intangible project managementresources that are more likely to be rare and inimitable, and therefore more likely to besources of competitive advantage. Intangible project management resources includetacit knowledge, the application and sharing of tacit knowledge, and processes andrelationships for facilitating this sharing. While explicit knowledge is more formal,codified, and transmitted systematically (Polanyi, 1966), tacit knowledge is sharedinformally through social exchanges (Granovetter, 1985) and some examples in projectmanagement include brainstorming, mentoring, learning through shadowing, andstorytelling (Egbu, 2004; Leonard-Barton, 1992). Project teams often share knowledgethrough informal exchange of ideas and practice in communities of practice, groupswhere members regularly engage in sharing and learning based on their commoninterests (Lesser, 2000).

A few studies have applied the RBV and the VRIO framework to explore how projectmanagement contributes to a company’s competitive advantage. In a qualitativefield study based on an American-UK feature film industry project, DeFillipi and Arthurfound that although projects involve mobile and rented personnel (human capital),they could accumulate core competencies and create a competitive advantage throughpossessing inimitable resources (DeFillippi and Arthur, 1998). The VRIO frameworkhas also been applied to a case study of a project in the German music industry to analyzecompetitive advantage levers (Enders et al., 2009). In their research program, Jugdev,Mathur, and Fung drew on the RBV literature and developed an instrument based on theVRIO framework to survey project management practitioners to explore the relationshipbetween tangible and intangible project management assets and the achievementof the competitive characteristics of the project management process ( Jugdev andMathur, 2006; Jugdev et al., 2007; Mathur et al., 2007). They found that while tangibleproject management assets are valuable, it is the intangible project management assetsthat result in the process being rare, contributing to competitive advantage.

With firms increasingly focusing on project management as a source of competitiveadvantage to help leverage their resources (Cleland and Ireland, 2002; Pinto, 2001),we believe that an improved understanding of project management as a source ofcompetitive advantage motivates further investigation.

Conceptual modelWe propose a high-level conceptual model (Figure 1) based on the literature to link thecharacteristics of project management assets, as independent variables, to projectmanagement performance outcomes, the dependent variables. Project managementassets can have one or more of the following characteristics – valuable (V), rare (R), andinimitable (I). It is expected that these characteristics of the project management process(V, R, and I) will affect project management performance outcomes, thereby contributingto competitive advantage. If an asset is valuable and has organizational support itcontributes to competitive parity. If it is both valuable and rare, and has organizationalsupport, it contributes to temporary competitive advantage. Assets need to be valuable,rare, inimitable, and have organizational support to provide a sustained competitiveadvantage (Barney, 2007). Since organizational support is required for these assets to leadto competitive advantage, in our model, we consider organizational support (O) asa moderating variable for valuable, rare, and inimitable project management assetsto lead to competitive advantage from the project management process. We expect

Projectmanagement

assets

115

that the presence of the characteristics valuable (V), rare (R), and inimitable (I) will predictproject management performance outcomes in the presence of organizational support (O).

Our research draws on and builds upon previous empirical research that reports onfactors that constitute project management strategic assets and links them to theachievement of the VRIO characteristics of the project management process( Jugdev and Mathur, 2006; Jugdev et al., 2007; Mathur et al., 2007). The conceptualmodel we propose in this paper (Figure 1) goes beyond these prior models to proposerelationships between the VRIO characteristics of project management assets andproject management performance outcomes and, it deviates from the prior models inproposing that organizational support (O) is a moderating variable between theindependent variables valuable (V), rare (R), and inimitable (I) and the dependentvariables, project management performance outcomes. We consider both project-leveland firm-level performance as dependent variables that constitute project managementperformance outcomes.

This paper reports on the findings from a factor analysis of data collected using asurvey tool to explore the factors that constitute the independent, moderating, anddependent variables in this conceptual model. The relationships between the variablesare beyond the scope of this paper. The development of a path model to link thevariables in the conceptual model will be addressed in future research to test hypothesesthat the valuable, rare, and inimitable characteristics of project management assets willpredict project management performance outcomes in the presence of organizationsupport for project management practices.

MethodologyWe developed a survey questionnaire to gather data on project management processesfocusing on the constructs in our conceptual model. We anchored our instrument onBarney’s (2007) VRIO framework wherein he posed specific questions that guideditem creation. The strategic management literature guided item generation to capturethe concepts of valuable, rare, inimitable, organizational support, and sustainablecompetitive advantage (Barney, 1998; Chakraborty, 1997; Mata et al., 1995). The projectmanagement success literature supported item generation on project performance basedon time, cost, and scope – including quality (Belassi and Tukel, 1996; Pinto and Slevin,1988a, b; Shenhar et al., 2002; Wateridge, 1998). The extant literature on projectmanagement practices (Barczak et al., 2007; Besner and Hobbs, 2002, 2004; Jugdev and

Figure 1.Conceptual model linkingcharacteristics of projectmanagement assets toproject managementperformance outcomes

Valuable

Rare

Inimitable

OrganizationalSupport

Characteristics ofProject Management Assets

Project ManagementPerformance Outcomes

Competitive Advantage fromProject Management Process

MRR36,2

116

Thomas, 2002; White and Fortune, 2002) guided the identification of the most widelyused tools and techniques along with the development of survey questions on projectmanagement resources. We used multiple items for each construct in our instrument.Our instrument was an extension and elaboration of a prior instrument used in projectmanagement research based on the VRIO framework (Jugdev and Mathur, 2006;Jugdev et al., 2007; Mathur et al., 2007).

To further develop the items, we used a focus group process with seven experiencedproject managers. Their feedback enabled us to include examples in our questionwording as well as ensure that our items were more clearly worded. The final revisedand expanded instrument was pretested with five colleagues representing industryand academia to address any concerns related to item wording and clarity. Thereafter,minor refinements were undertaken to develop the instrument.

We followed survey design practices using the guidelines recommended by experts(Couper et al., 2001; Dillman et al., 1993; Fowler, 1992; Groves et al., 2009).

The final survey consisted of 17 structured questions and an 18th open-endedquestion soliciting feedback on additional comments on the survey topic. The surveywas based on a seven-point ordinal Likert Scale, appropriate for perception-orientedquestions, with the anchors being “strongly agree” and “strongly disagree.” Weminimized retrospective bias by asking participants to respond in the context ofprojects they had worked on within the past year. Since our survey was intended togather data to analyze the project management process, and since project durationsvary considerable across project contexts, we chose the past year rather than the lastproject as the context for the survey.

The survey questions were designed to focus on the constructs of interest in ourtheoretical model as outlined below:

. Question 1 addressed valuable project management resources with 12 items.

. Question 2 addressed rare project management resources with 12 items.

. Question 3 addressed inimitable project management resources with 12 items.

. Question 4 addressed the overall maturity of the project management processwith one item.

. Question 5 addressed the organizational alignment of project managementpractices with the company’s mission, services, and products and the constructorganizational support with three items.

. Question 6 addressed project communication and the construct organizationalsupport with three items.

. Question 7 addressed organizational integration and the construct organizationalsupport with five items.

. Question 8 addressed impact of project management resources on project-levelperformance with five items.

. Question 9 addressed impact of project management resources on firm-levelperformance with six items.

. Questions 10-17 addressed demographics.

. Question 18 was open-ended.

Projectmanagement

assets

117

The survey questionnaire is provided as an Appendix. This instrument was designed tocollect data for analysis that extends beyond the scope of this paper. The exploratoryfactor analysis that we report on in this paper is a step towards our development of apath model beyond the scope of this paper. For the purposes of this paper, we do notreport on Question 4 or 18.

We purchased a randomly generated mailing list for 4,000 members from the ProjectManagement Institutew. The list represented a subset of the institute’s members fromNorth America – 3,200 members from the USA and 800 members from Canada. Wemailed letters to solicit interest in participation in the survey. Out of the 4,000 lettersmailed, 315 letters (7.9 percent) were returned as undeliverable. A total of 240 individualsindicated by e-mail to us that they were interested in completing the survey. Weacknowledge that our survey involved non-response bias because we were only able tofollow up with those who indicated interest in completing the survey. We e-mailed theseinterested participants the survey link to complete the survey online and followed upwith two e-mail reminders, each approximately a week apart. This approach enabled usto secure 212 responses, which is a response rate of 5.75 percent, a “fair” rate for internetbased surveys since different survey approaches involve different variables andresponse rates (Groves et al., 2009; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2006). The data were collectedin 2008. After data cleaning, we found we had a sample size of 198 respondents, which isconsidered “fair” for exploratory factor analyzes (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2006). Wehosted our survey at Zoomerangw as online surveys are faster and more cost-effectivethan mail-out surveys and can help reduce non-response errors (Couper, 2000). Whiledata was reported by individual participants, the unit of analysis was the projectmanagement process.

The 198 study participants represented a group of experienced project managementprofessionals. A large majority of the participants (80 percent) had their projectmanagement professional designation. Nearly 60 percent of the participants worked asproject managers and nearly 30 percent worked in senior level capacities. Over half(55 percent) had advanced degrees. About four-fifths of the participants were from foureconomic sectors – information technology, financials, government, health care, andindustrial. Close to three-quarters of the study participants came from companies withannual sales revenues greater than $50 million. About half of the respondents worked atcompanies with over 5,000 employees. Roughly half the participants representedcompanies that were 0-50 years old and the rest were from companies that were older andmore established. The gender ratio was 74.7 percent male to 25.3 percent female. We couldnot account for multiple respondents from the same company; however, given that wesecured a random list of 4,000 members from approximately half a million members fromthe Project Management Institutew, we do not expect company-bias to be significant.

We used IBMSPSSwv. 19 to conduct descriptive statistics and factor analysis to extractfactors representing project management resource characteristics (independent variables),organizational support (moderating variable), and project management performanceoutcomes (dependent variable). We used the principal components extraction method withVarimax (variance maximizing) rotation. This extraction method is widely used,understood, and conforms to the factor analytic model in which common variance isanalyzed with the unique and error variances removed (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2006). Weused 0.40 as a cut-off to identify items with the highest loadings for inclusion with a factor(Conway and Huffcutt, 2003). Eigenvalues over one were used to extract reliable factors.

MRR36,2

118

Cronbach’s a measures how well a set of items measures a single unidimensional latentconstruct. A reliability coefficient of 0.70 or higher is acceptable in the social sciences(Nunnally, 1978). We used this test to assess the internal consistency of the items withineach construct and all extracted factors had Cronbach’s a greater than 0.7.

None of our item loadings were lower than 0.5 in the results of the first factor analysisrun. We dropped items that cross-loaded on two or more factors with a difference of lessthan 0.1; two of the 12 items were dropped from each of the independent variables. Afterconducting the factor analysis again, we dropped two items for interpretability reasonsand re-ran the factor analysis; both items had factor loadings between 0.5 and 0.6. All ofour remaining items had loading of greater than 0.6.

We extracted six factors for the independent variables (valuable, rare, andinimitable characteristics of project management resources). We extracted three factorsfor the moderating variable, organizational support. We extracted two factors for thedependent variable, project management performance. The results of the factoranalysis are discussed in the section that follows.

Discussion of findingsThe six factors that comprised the competitive characteristics of project managementassets – valuable, rare, inimitable (the independent variables), three factors thatcomprised organizational support for project management assets (the moderatingvariable), and two factors that comprised the project management performance outcomes(the dependent variable) that were extracted from the data analysis are numbered from1 through 11 and are labeled to reflect the items that define them. The items in each of these11 factors are presented in the discussion that follows and the variance explained by thesefactors and Cronbach’sa are provided for each factor. We have labeled these factors basedon the items that we consider most significant and discuss these delineations below.

Table I shows the rotated component matrix of independent variable factorsthat define valuable characteristics of project management resources. Factors 1 and 2

Factor 1 Factor 2Items constituting valuable project managementresources Project management knowledge IT tools

q1.6 Project job shadowing is a valuable resource 0.815q1.5 Project management methodologies are valuableresources 0.799q1.10 Project management offices are valuable resources 0.785q1.7 Project management templates are valuableresources 0.742q1.2 Databases are valuable resources 0.703q1.1 Printed project management material is a valuableresource 0.609q1.3 Computer hardware is a valuable resource 0.855q1.4 Software is a valuable resource 0.847Percentage of variance explained 42.6 22.7Cronbach’s a 0.863 0.703

Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: Varimax with Kaisernormalization; rotation converged in three iterations; italic entries in a column indicate items that loadon the particular factor

Table I.Rotated component

matrix of independentvariable, valuable project

management resources

Projectmanagement

assets

119

represent valuable project management resources and were extracted from datacollected from Question 1. The total variance explained by these was 65.3 percent.

Factor 1Valuable project management resources (project management knowledge) consisted ofsix items with factor loadings from 0.609 to 0.815 and a Cronbach’s a of 0.863. Thevariance explained was 42.6 percent. The items included project job shadowing, projectmanagement methodologies, project management offices, project managementtemplates, databases, and printed project management material.

Factor 2Valuable project management resources (IT tools) consisted of two items with factorloadings from 0.847 to 0.855 and a Cronbach’s a of 0.703. The variance explained was22.7 percent. The items included computer hardware and software.

We distinguish between Factors 1 and 2, both of which consist of valuable projectmanagement assets by labeling the first as comprised of assets that capture anddisseminate project management knowledge (project management knowledge) andthe second as comprised of assets which enable application and sharing of this knowledge(IT tools). The items in the Factor 1 allow the sharing of project management knowledge bymaking it explicit, structuring it for sharing, and by establishing processes that facilitatethe sharing of this knowledge. The items in the Factor 2 assist in this knowledge captureand dissemination through technology. The two items that were dropped out of the pooldue to cross-loading also had loadings below 0.6. These were project managementcommunities of practice and mentoring (q1.9 and q1.12). Two other items were droppedbecause of low interpretability and were the lowest two items to load on Factor 2 withloadings below 0.6. These were project social capital and tacit project managementknowledge. We note that all four dropped items are intangible assets (q1.8 and q1.11).

Table II shows the rotated component matrix of independent variable factors thatdefine rare characteristics of project management resources. Factors 3 and 4 representrare project management resources and were extracted from data collected fromQuestion 2. The total variance explained by these was 66.5 percent.

Factor 3Rare project management resources (knowledge sharing processes) consisted of sixitems with factor loadings from 0.628 to 0.791 and a Cronbach’s a of 0.849. Thevariance explained was 35.0 percent. The items included project job shadowing, projectmentoring, project databases, project management communities of practice, projectmanagement offices, and printed project management material.

Factor 4Rare project management resources (knowledge sharing tools and techniques) consisted offour items with factor loadings from 0.732 to 0.917 and a Cronbach’s a of 0.895. Thevariance explained was 31.5 percent. The items included project software, project computerhardware, project management methodologies, and project management templates.

We distinguish between Factors 3 and 4, both of which consist of rare projectmanagement assets by labeling the first as comprised of processes that documentand share project management knowledge that is unique to a company (knowledge

MRR36,2

120

sharing processes) and the second as comprised of assets which enable sharing ofsuch project management knowledge (knowledge sharing tools and techniques). Theitems in Factor 3 also include knowledge sharing at the interpersonal level andknowledge sharing through fluid and informal processes in addition to structuredones. The items in Factor 4 are likely to be rare assets if customized for a company’sunique processes. The two items that were dropped out of the pool due to cross-loadingalso had loadings below 0.6. These were project social capital and tacit projectmanagement knowledge (q2.8 and q2.11). We note that these two items are intangibleassets which are embedded in the routines and relationships of a company.

Table III shows the rotated component matrix of independent variable factors thatdefine inimitable characteristics of a project management process. Factors 5 and 6represent inimitable project management resources and were extracted from datacollected from Question 3. The total variance explained by these was 66.6 percent.

Factor 5Inimitable project management resources (proprietary tangible assets) consisted of sixitems with factor loadings from 0.678 to 0.846 and a Cronbach’s a of 0.877. The varianceexplained was 36.2 percent. The items included difficult to imitate project managementrelated software, computer hardware, databases, project management methodologies,printed project management material, and project management templates.

Factor 6Inimitable project management resources (embedded intangible assets) consistedof four items with factor loadings from 0.768 to 0.846 and a Cronbach’s a of 0.866.

Factor 3 Factor 4Items constituting rare project managementresources

Knowledge sharingprocesses

Knowledge sharingtools and techniques

q2.6 Project job shadowing is a rare resource 0.791q2.12 Project mentoring is a rare resource 0.756q2.2 Project databases are rare resources 0.734q2.9 Project management communities ofpractices are rare resources 0.709 0.427q2.10 Project management offices are rareresources 0.645q2.1 Printed project management material is arare resource 0.628q2.4 Project software is a rare resource 0.917q2.3 Project computer hardware is a rare resource 0.873q2.5 Project management methodologies are rareresources 0.443 0.738q2.7 Project management templates are rareresources 0.464 0.732Percentage of variance explained 35.0 31.5Cronbach’s a 0.849 0.895


Table II.Rotated component

matrix of independentvariable, rare project

management resources

Projectmanagement

assets

121

The variance explained was 30.4 percent. The items included difficult to imitate projectsocial capital, tacit project management knowledge, project management communitiesof practice, and mentoring.

We distinguish between Factors 5 and 6, both of which consist of inimitable projectmanagement resources by labeling the first as comprised of tangible assets whichembody codified knowledge that is company-specific or proprietary and therefore hardto copy (proprietary tangible assets) and the second as comprised of intangible assetswhich are embedded in a company’s routines and relationships and are therefore hardfor competitors to imitate (embedded intangible assets). The two items that weredropped out of the pool due to cross-loading also loading below 0.6. These were jobshadowing and project management offices (q3.6 and q3.10). We note that these twopractices are commonly use by competing firms.

The factor analysis yielded three factors that represent the moderating variable,organizational support for project management assets. Factors 7-9 were extracted fromdata collected from Questions 5-7, respectively. Single factors were extracted from the

Factor 5 Factor 6Items constituting inimitable project managementresources

Proprietary tangibleassets

Embedded intangibleassets

q3.4 My company’s software is a resource that is verydifficult for competitors to copy 0.846q3.3 My company’s computer hardware is a resourcethat is very difficult for competitors to copy 0.820q3.2 My company’s databases are resources that arevery difficult for competitors to copy 0.747q3.5 My company’s project managementmethodologies are resources that are very difficult forcompetitors to copy 0.733q3.1 My company’s printed project managementmaterial is a resource that is very difficult forcompetitors to copy 0.709q3.7 My company’s project management templates areresources that are very difficult for competitors to copy 0.678q3.8 At my company, project social capital is aresource that is very difficult for competitors to copy 0.846q3.11 My company’s tacit project managementknowledge is a resource that is very difficult forcompetitors to copy 0.840q3.9 At my company, project managementcommunities of practices are resources that are verydifficult for competitors to copy 0.814q3.12 At my company, mentoring is a resource that isvery difficult for competitors to copy 0.768Percentage of variance explained 36.2 30.4Cronbach’s a 0.877 0.866


Table III.Rotated componentmatrix of independentvariable, inimitableproject managementresources

MRR36,2

122

data for each of these questions. The component matrices of these factors are shown inTables IV-VI.

Factor 7Project management alignment consisted of three items with factor loadings from 0.896to 0.928 and a Cronbach’s a of 0.904. The variance explained was 84.0 percent. Theitems included the importance of the quality of project management practices to thecompany’s mission, services, and products.

Factor 8Project management communication consisted of three items with factor loadings from0.881 to 0.925 and a Cronbach’sa of 0.893. The variance explained was 82.6 percent. Theitems included ability to communicate upward in the project hierarchy, upward in thecompany hierarchy, and openly on the project.

Items constituting project management communication Factor 8

q6.1 At my company, I can communicate upwards in the project hierarchy 0.925q6.2 At my company, I can communicate upwards in the company hierarchy 0.919q6.3 At my company, I can communicate openly on the project 0.881Percentage of variance explained 82.6Cronbach’s a 0.893

Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; italic entries in a column indicate items thatload on the particular factor

Table V.Component matrix ofmoderating variable,project management

communication

Items constituting project management alignment Factor 7

q5.1 Quality of project management practices is important to the company’s mission 0.928q5.2 Quality of project management practices is important to the company’s services 0.925q5.3 Quality of project management practices is important to the company’s products 0.896Percentage of variance explained 84.0Cronbach’s a 0.904


Table IV.Component matrix ofmoderating variable,project management

alignment

Items constituting project management integration Factor 9

q7.5 At my company, the environment promotes sharing knowledge/information 0.884q7.4 At my company, the environment encourages learning 0.872q7.2 At my company, people trust each other 0.863q7.3 At my company, people work well together 0.844q7.1 At my company, upper management supports me, even in critical project phases 0.774Percentage of variance explained 71.9Cronbach’s a 0.900


Table VI.Component matrix ofmoderating variable,project management

integration

Projectmanagement

assets

123

Factor 9Project Management Integration consisted of five items with factor loadings from0.774 to 0.884 and a Cronbach’s a of 0.900. The variance explained was 71.9 percent.The items included a company environment that promotes sharing of knowledge/information, a company environment that encourages learning, people trusting eachother, people working well together, and upper management support, even in criticalproject phases.

The factor analysis yielded two factors that represent the dependent variable, projectmanagement performance outcomes. Factors 10 and 11 were extracted from the datacollected from Questions 8 and 9, respectively. Single factors were extracted from thedata for each of these questions. The component matrices of these factors are shown inTables VII and VIII.

Factor 10Project-level performance consisted of five items with factor loadings from 0.846to 0.913 and a Cronbach’s a of 0.932. The variance explained was 78.9 percent. Theitems included achievement of project scope requirements, project schedules,customer expectations, quality of deliverables, and project costs through projectmanagement processes.

Items constituting project-level performance Factor 10

q8.3 Project management processes allow us to meet project scoperequirements 0.913q8.4 Project management processes allow us to meet project schedules 0.908q8.2 Project management processes allow us to meet customer expectations 0.892q8.1 Project management processes allow us to meet deliverables quality 0.880q8.5 Project management processes allow us to meet project costs 0.846Percentage of variance explained 78.9Cronbach’s a 0.932


Table VII.Component matrix ofdependent variable,project-level performance

Items constituting firm-level performance Factor 11

q9.4 Project management resources and capability allow us to achieve sales targets 0.856q9.6 Project management resources and capability allow us to achieve customer loyalty 0.856q9.1 Project management resources and capability allow us to achieve profitability levels 0.847q9.2 Project management resources and capability allow us to achieve market share 0.838q9.5 Project management resources and capability allow us to achieve continuousinnovation 0.808q9.3 Project management resources and capability allow us to achieve customersatisfaction 0.806Percentage of variance explained 69.8Cronbach’s a 0.912


Table VIII.Component matrix ofdependent variable,firm-level performance

MRR36,2

124

Factor 11Firm-level performance consisted of six items with factor loadings from 0.806 to 0.856 anda Cronbach’s a of 0.912. The variance explained was 69.8 percent. The items includedachievement of sales targets, customer loyalty, profitability levels, market share,continuous innovation, and customer satisfaction through project management resourcesand capability.

All of the factors consisted of three or more items except the second factor for Q1, whichhad two items. We retained this two item factor because the items relate to computerhardware and software, both of which strongly pertain to IT management.

Work on path analysis and building of models that show therelationship between the extracted factors is in progress and will be reported inupcoming papers.

Summary and conclusionsIn this paper we propose a conceptual model (Figure 1) based on the literature to linkthe characteristics of project management assets, as independent variables, to projectmanagement performance outcomes, as dependent variables. Drawing on the RBV of thefirm, we expect that the valuable, rare, and inimitable characteristics of projectmanagement assets will predict project management performance outcomes in thepresence of organizational support for these assets, as a moderating variable, therebycontributing to competitive advantage. In our study, we conducted an online surveywith 198 North American Project Management Institutew members and usedexploratory factor analysis to identify the factors that comprise the valuable, rare,and inimitable characteristics of project management assets, organizational support forthese assets, and project management performance outcomes.

The two factors extracted as characterizing valuable project management resourceswere comprised of assets that capture and disseminate project management knowledgeand IT tools which enable application and sharing of this knowledge. The two factorsextracted as characterizing rare project management resources were comprised ofknowledge sharing processes that document and share project management knowledgethat is unique to the company and knowledge sharing tools and techniques that enablethe sharing of such knowledge. The two factors extracted as characterizing inimitableproject management assets were comprised of proprietary tangible assets andintangible assets which are embedded in the routine and relationships of a company,these being assets which are hard for a competitor to copy. These findings highlight thevaluable, rare, and inimitable assets of the project management process that can bea source of competitive advantage.

The three factors extracted for characterizing organizational support includedproject management alignment, project management communication, and projectmanagement integration, all of which contribute to embedding project managementpractices into the fabric of a company’s culture.

Two factors were extracted for project management performance outcomes. Thefactor comprising project-level performance pertains to the traditional measures ofproject success, such as time, cost, quality, scope, and customer expectations. The factorcomprising firm-level performance pertains to the traditional measures of firmcompetitive advantage, such as sales targets, customer loyalty and satisfaction,profitability, market share, and innovation.

Projectmanagement

assets

125

While we acknowledge the limited scope of the study and limitations of sample size,response rate, and self-report bias, we believe that we have a valid and reliable instrumentwith which to develop a path model to test relationships between the extracted factors andexamine hypotheses that the valuable, rare, and inimitable characteristics of projectmanagement assets will predict project management performance outcomes in thepresence of organization support for these assets.

Few empirical studies have applied the RBV of the firm to examine projectmanagement capabilities as a source of competitive advantage. Our research is anattempt to contribute to the understanding of the characteristics of project managementassets that lead to a firm’s competitive advantage. This understanding has significantvalue for scholars interested in project management. It is differentiated from priorresearch that has explored the link between assets and the achievement of the VRIOcharacteristics from the process by extending the conceptual model to link VRIOcharacteristic to project and firm performance. It deviates from prior models in proposingthat organizational support is a moderating variable that is required for assets that arevaluable, rare, and inimitable to contribute to project management project outcomes.

This paper contributes to practice by drawing managerial attention to projectmanagement assets as sources of competitive advantage. It highlights thatproject management assets are not merely a set of tools and techniques to achieve aproject objectives, but also include intangible elements that are embedded in theroutines and relationships of an organization, such as tacit knowledge, mechanisms tomake such knowledge explicit so that it can be shared, as well as processes andrelationships for facilitating this sharing (e.g. job shadowing, mentoring, projectmanagement communities of practice, social capital). We believe that further researchlinking project management assets to project management performance outcomes willhelp guide managers towards more strategic investments in project managementresources that are not only sources of operational efficiency, but also sources ofsustainable competitive advantage.

AcknowledgementsThis study was supported by San Jose State University, Athabasca University, and agrant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada. The authors wouldlike to acknowledge the study participants for completing the survey. An earlierversion of this paper was presented at Portland International Center for Managementof Engineering and Technology (PICMET) on August 2011, and published in theConference Proceedings.

References

Alvarez, S.A. and Busenitz, L.W. (2001), “The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory”,Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 755-75.

Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1993), “Strategic assets and organizational rent”, StrategicManagement Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 33-46.

Aubry, M., Hobbs, B. and Thuillier, D. (2007), “A new framework for understandingorganisational project management through the PMO”, International Journal of ProjectManagement, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 328-36.

MRR36,2

126

Aubry, M., Hobbs, B. and Thuillier, D. (2008), “Organisational project management: a historicalapproach to the study of PMOs”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26No. 1, pp. 38-43.

Barczak, G., Sultan, F. and Hultink, E.J. (2007), “Determinants of IT usage and new productperformance”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 600-13.

Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.

Barney, J.B. (1998), “On becoming a strategic partner: the role of human resources in gainingcompetitive advantage”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 31-46.

Barney, J.B. (2002), Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, Prentice-Hall, Upper SaddleRiver, NJ.

Barney, J.B. (2007), Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, 3rd ed., Upper Saddle River,NJ, Prentince-Hall.

Barratt, M. and Oke, A. (2007), “Antecedents of supply chain visibility in retail supply chains:a resource-based theory perspective”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6,pp. 1217-33.

Belassi, W. and Tukel, O.I. (1996), “A new framework for determining critical success/failurefactors in projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 141-52.

Besner, C. and Hobbs, J.B. (2002), “The use, usefulness and support for project management toolsand techniques”, paper presented at the Project Management Institute Annual Seminarsand Symposium, San Antonio, TX, October 3-10.

Besner, C. and Hobbs, J.B. (2004), “An empirical investigation of project management practice: inreality, which tools do practitioners use?”, in Slevin, D., Cleland, D. and Pinto, J. (Eds),Innovations: Project Management Research 2004, 1st ed., Project Management Institute,Newtown Square, PA, pp. 337-51.

Besner, C. and Hobbs, J.B. (2006), “The perceived value and potential contribution of projectmanagement practices to project success”,ProjectManagement Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 37-48.

Besner, C. and Hobbs, J.B. (2008), “Project management practice, generic or contextual: a realitycheck”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 16-33.

Castanias, R.P. and Helfat, C.E. (2001), “The managerial rents model: theory and empiricalanalysis”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 661-78.

Chakraborty, K. (1997), “Sustained competitive advantage: a resource-based framework”,Advances in Competitiveness Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 32-63.

Cleland, D.I. and Ireland, L. (2002), Project Management: Strategic Design and Implementation,McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Conway, J.M. and Huffcutt, A.I. (2003), “A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysispractices in organizational research”,OrganizationalResearchMethods, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 147-68.

Couper, M.P. (2000), “Web surveys: a review of issues and approaches”, Public Opinion Quarterly,Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 464-94.

Couper, M.P., Traugott, M.W. and Lamias, M.J. (2001), “Web survey design and administration”,Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 230-53.

DeFillippi, R.J. and Arthur, M.B. (1998), “Paradox in project-based enterprise: the case of filmmaking”, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 125-39.

Dillman, D.A., Sinclair, M.D. and Clark, J.R. (1993), “Effects of questionnaire length,respondent-friendly design, and a difficult question on response rates foroccupant-addressed census mail surveys”,PublicOpinionQuarterly, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 289-304.

Projectmanagement

assets

127

Egbu, C.O. (2004), “Managing knowledge and intellectual capital for improved organizationalinnovations in the construction industry: an examination of critical success factors”,Engineering Construction & Architectural Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 301-15.

Eisenhardt, K. and Santos, F. (2000), “Knowledge-based view: a new theory of strategy?”, inPettigrew, A., Thomas, H. and Whittington, R. (Eds), Handbook of Strategy andManagement, 1st ed., Sage, London, p. 544.

Enders, A., Konig, A., Hungenberg, H. and Engelbertz, T. (2009), “Towards an integratedperspective of strategy: the value-process framework”, Journal of Strategy andManagement, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 76-96.

Ethiraj, S.K., Kale, P., Krishnan, M.S. and Singh, J.V. (2005), “Where do capabilities come fromand how do they matter? A study in the software services industry”, StrategicManagement Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 25-45.

Fernie, S., Green, S.D., Weller, S.J. and Newcombe, R. (2003), “Knowledge sharing: context, confusion,and controversy”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 177-87.

Fortune, J., White, D., Jugdev, K. and Walker, D. (2011), “Looking again at current practice inproject management”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 4 No. 4,pp. 553-72.

Foss, N.J. (Ed.) (1997), Resources, Firms, and Strategies: A Reader in the Resource-basedPerspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Fowler, F.J. (1992), “How unclear terms affect survey data”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 56No. 2, pp. 218-31.

Granovetter, M. (1985), “Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness”,American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 481-510.

Groves, R.M., Fowler, F.J., Couper, M.P., Lepkowski, J.M., Singer, E. and Tourangeau, R. (2009),Survey Methodology, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

Hobbs, B. and Aubry, M. (2007), “A multi-phase research program investigating projectmanagement offices (PMOs): the results of phase 1”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 38No. 1, pp. 74-86.

Jugdev, K. and Mathur, G. (2006), “Project management elements as strategic assets: preliminaryfindings”, Management Research News, Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 604-17.

Jugdev, K. and Thomas, J. (2002), “Project management maturity models: the silver bullets ofcompetitive advantage”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 4-14.

Jugdev, K., Mathur, G. and Fung, T. (2007), “Project management assets and their relationshipwith the project management capability of the firm”, International Journal of ProjectManagement, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 560-8.

Kaplan, S., Schenkel, A., von Krogh, G. and Weber, C. (2001), “Knowledge-based theories of the firm instrategic management: a review and extension”, MIT Sloan Working Paper 4216-01.

Kloppenborg, T. and Opfer, W. (2002), “The current state of project management research: trends,interpretations, and predictions”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 5-18.

Kogut, B. (2000), “The network as knowledge: generative rules and the emergence of structure”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 405-25.

Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, J.-C. and Groen, A.J. (2010), “The resource-based view: a review andassessment of its critiques”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 349-72.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1992), “Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managingnew product development”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 111-25.

MRR36,2

128

Lesser, E.L. (Ed.) (2000), Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications,Butterworth & Heinemann, Boston, MA.

Liu, L., Timothy, V. and Gao, Y. (2010), “A review of approaches of resource-based empiricalresearch in banking”, International Journal of Applied Economics & Finance, Vol. 4 No. 4,pp. 230-41.

Mata, F.J., Fuerst, W.L. and Barney, J.B. (1995), “Information technology and sustainedcompetitive advantage: a resource-based analysis”,MISQuarterly, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 487-507.

Mathur, G., Jugdev, K. and Fung, T. (2007), “Intangible project management assets as determinantsof competitive advantage”, Management Research News, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 460-75.

Montealegre, R. (2002), “A process model of capability development: lessons from the electroniccommerce strategy at Bolsa de Valores de Guayaquil”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 5,pp. 514-31.

Newbert, S.L. (2007), “Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: an assessment andsuggestions for future research”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 121-46.

Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, OrganizationScience, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Paiva, E.L., Roth, A.V. and Fensterseifer, J.E. (2008), “Organizational knowledge and themanufacturing strategy process: a resource-based view analysis”, Journal of OperationsManagement, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 115-32.

Patanakul, P., Iewwongcharoen, B. and Milosevic, D. (2010), “An empirical study on the use ofproject management tools and techniques across project life-cycle and their impacton project success”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 41-65.

Peng, D.X., Schroeder, R.G. and Shah, R. (2007), “Linking routines to operations capabilities:a new perspective”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 730-48.

Peng, M.W. (2001), “The resource-based view and international business”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 803-29.

Pinto, J.K. (2001), “Project management: the future”, in Knutson, J. (Ed.), Project Management forBusiness Professionals: A Comprehensive Guide, 1st ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 575-86.

Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1988a), “Critical success factors across the project life cycle”, ProjectManagement Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 67-75.

Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1988b), “Project success: definitions and measurement techniques”,Project Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 67-73.

Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, Doubleday & Company, Garden City, NY.

Project Management Institute (2008), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge(PMBOKw Guide), Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.

Ray, G., Barney, J.B. and Muhanna, W.A. (2004), “Capabilities, business processes,and competitive advantage: choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests ofthe resource-based view”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 23-37.

Rumelt, R.P., Schendel, D.E. and Teece, D.J. (1994), “Fundamental issues in strategy”,in Rumelt, R.P., Schendel, D.E. and Teece, D.J. (Eds), Fundamental Issues in Strategy,Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 9-47.

Schilling, M.A. and Steensma, H.K. (2002), “Disentangling the theories of firm boundaries: a pathmodel and empirical test”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 387-401.

Shankar, V. and Bayus, B.L. (2003), “Network effects and competition: an empirical analysis ofthe home video game industry”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 375-84.

Projectmanagement

assets

129

Shenhar, A.J., Tishler, A., Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S. and Lechler, T. (2002), “Refining the search forproject success factors: a multivariate, typological approach”, R&D Management, Vol. 32No. 2, p. 111.

Stubner, S., Wulf, T. and Hungenberg, H. (2007), “Management support and the performance ofentrepreneurial start-ups – an empirical analysis of newly founded companies inGermany”, Schmalenbach Business Review, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 138-59.

Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2006), Using Multivariate Statistics, Harper Collins CollegePublishers, Northridge, CA.

Ulri, B. and Ulri, D. (2000), “Project management in North America: stability of the concepts”,Project Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 33-43.

Wateridge, J. (1998), “How can IS/IT projects be measured for success?”, International Journal ofProject Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 59-63.

White, D. and Fortune, J. (2002), “Current practices in project management: an empirical study”,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-11.

Wright, P.M., Dunford, B.B. and Snell, S.A. (2001), “Human resources and the resource basedview of the firm”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 701-21.

Zahra, S.A. and Nielsen, A.P. (2002), “Sources of capabilities, integration, and technologycommercialization”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 377-98.

About the authorsDr Gita Mathur is an Associate Professor in the Department of Organization and Management inthe College of Business at San Jose State University. Her research interests are in themanagement of technological innovation and product and service development processes. Shehas held engineering and management positions in the semiconductor industry and has servedas a management consultant to several technology-based companies. She holds a PhD inElectrical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA and a DBA in Technologyand Operations Management from Harvard Business School, USA. Gita Mathur is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Dr Kam Jugdev is an Associate Professor of Project Management and Strategy in the Faculty ofBusiness at Athabasca University in Alberta. Her specific areas of interest and research includeproject management as a source of competitive advantage, project lessons learned, projectmanagement maturity models, communities of practice, project success/failure, and projectmanagement education. She actively contributes to the advancement of academic and professionalcommunities of management practice.

Dr Tak Shing Fung is a Senior Statistical Consultant in Information Technologies, SessionalInstructor in Mathematics and Statistics, and an Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Faculty ofNursing, University of Calgary. His specific areas of interest and research are Brownian motionand statistical analysis. He has over 25 years of statistical consulting experience in differentdisciplines including medicine, nursing, kinesiology, education, social sciences, environmentaldesign, social work, biology, chemistry, management, and engineering. He has co-authored morethan 50 peer reviewed articles in different disciplines.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

MRR36,2

130

Appendix

Figure A1.Survey questionnaire

Please answer the questions in the context of projects you have worked on within the past year.

Question 1 VALUABLE resources improve a firm's financial position and are sources of strength. Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 4 Agree 6 Strongly

Agreeq1.1 Printed project management material is a valuable resource (source of strength) at my company (e.g., manuals, books).

1

q1.2 Databases are valuable resources (sources of strength) at my company (e.g., project databases, knowledge management databases, risk management simulations, such as Monte Carlo analyses).

q1.3 Computer hardware is a valuable resource (source of strength) at my company.q1.4 Software is a valuable resource (source of strength) at my company (e.g., Primavera, Microsoft Office.q1.5 Project management methodologies are valuable resources (sources of strength) at my company.q1.6 Project job shadowing is a valuable resource (source of strength) at my company.q1.7 Project management templates are valuable resources (sources of strength) at my company (e.g., checklists or forms for project business cases, charters, lessons learned, issues logs, status reports, change requests).q1.8 Project social capital-thenetwork of strong or weak relationships a person has with others within or outside the company, is a valuable resource (source of strength) at my company.q1.9 Project management communities of practices (whereby people regularly share and learn based on common interests) are valuable resources (sources of strength) at my company.q1.10 Project management offices are valuable resources (sources of strength) at my company.q1.11 Tacit project management knowledge is a valuable resource (source of strength) at my company (e.g., personal and experiential knowledge shared by showing others how things are done).q1.12 Mentoring is a valuable resource (source of strength) at my company.

2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question 2RARE resources are unique and few companies have them. Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.


Agreeq2.1 Printed project management material is a rare resource that my company has (e.g., manuals, books).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(continued)

Projectmanagement

assets

131

Figure A1.

q2.2 Project databases are rare resources that my company has (e.g., project databases, knowledge management databases, risk management simulations, such as Monte Carlo analyses).q2.3 Project computer hardware is a rare resource that my company has.q2.4 Project software is a rare resource that my company has (e.g., Primavera, Microsoft Office.q2.5 Project management methodologies are rare resources that my company has.q2.6 Project job shadowing is a rare resource that my company has.q2.7 Project management templates are rare resources that my company has (e.g., checklists or forms for project business cases, charters, lessons learned, issues logs, status reports, change requests).q2.8 Project social capital-the network of strong or weak relationships a person has with others within or outside the company, is a rare resource that my company has.q2.9 Project management communities of practices (whereby people regularly share and learn based on common interests) are rare resources that my company has.q2.10 Project management offices are rare resources that my company has.q2.11 Tacit project management knowledge is a rare resource that my company has e.g., personal and experiential knowledge shared by showing others how things are done).q2.12 Project mentoring is a rare resource that my company has.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(continued)

Question 3INIMITABLE resources are very difficult for competitors to copy. Inimitable resources have no equals. Please rate how stronglyyou agree or disagree with each of the following statements.


Agreeq3.1 My company's printed project management material is a resource that is very difficult for competitors to copy (e.g., manuals, books).q3.2 My company's databases are resources that are very difficult for competitors to copy (e.g., project databases, knowledge management databases, risk management simulations, such as Monte Carlo analyses).q3.3 My company's computer hardware is a resource that is very difficult for competitors to copy.q3.4 My company's software is a resource that is very difficult for competitors to copy (e.g., Primavera, Microsoft Office.q3.5 My company's project management methodologies are resources that are very difficult for competitors to copy.q3.6 At my company, project job shadowing is a resource that is very difficult for competitors to copy.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

MRR36,2

132

Figure A1.

q3.7 My company's project management templates are resources that are very difficult for competitors to copy (e.g., checklists or forms for project business cases, charters, lessons learned, issues logs, status reports, change requests).q3.8 At my company, project social capital-the network of strong or weak relationships a person has with others within or outside the company-is a resource that is very difficult for competitors to copy.q3.9 At my company, project management communities of practices (whereby people regularly share and learn based on common interests) are resources that are very difficult for competitors to copy.q3.10 My company's project management offices are resources that are very difficult for competitors to copy.q3.11 My company's tacit project management knowledge is a resource that is very difficult for competitors to copy (e.g., personal and experiential knowledge shared by showing others how things are done).q3.12 At my company, mentoring is a resource that is very difficult for competitors to copy.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question 4Which single level best describes your company's overall level of project management maturity; that is, how evolved and sophisticated are the practices? Each level builds on the previous level(s).

Initial Level: Our project management practices are mainly ad hoc and chaotic; we rely on the project management competences of some individuals.

Repeatable Level: Our project management practices include a project management system and plans, are based on previous experience.

Defined Level: Project management practices are commonly used at the company; we have an organization-wide understanding of project management activities, roles and responsibilities.

Managed Level: Our project management practices are stable and we measure processes against organizational goals; variations are identified and addressed.

Optimising Level: Our project management practices are organization wide and the entire organization is focused on continuous improvement.

Question 5 The quality of my company's project management practices is important to:


Agreeq5.1 The company's mission (the business it is in).q5.2 The company's services.q5.3 The company's products.

Question 6 At my company, I can:


Agreeq6.1 Communicate upwards in the project hierarchy.q6.2 Communicate upwards in the company hierarchy.q6.3 Communicate openly on the project.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(continued)

Projectmanagement

assets

133

Figure A1.

Question 7At my company:


Agreeq7.1 Upper management supports me, even in critical project phases.q7.2 People trust each other.q7.3 People work well together.q7.4 The environment encourages learning.q7.5 The environment promotes sharing knowledge/information.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question 8My company's project management processes generally allow us to:


Agreeq8.1 Meet deliverables quality.q8.2 Meet customer expectations.q8.3 Meet project scope requirements.q8.4 Meet project schedules.q8.5 Meet project costs.

Question 9My company's project management resources and capability allow us to achieve:

Below that of immediate

competitors

At about the same level as immediate

competitors

At a higher level than immediate

competitors (for 1-3 years)

At a much higher level than immediate

competitors (for over 3 years)

q9.1 Profitability levels.q9.2 Market share.q9.3 Customer satisfaction.q9.4 Sales targets.q9.5 Continuous innovation.q9.6 Customer loyalty.

Question 10My company's approximate annual sales revenue is (in Millions of dollars):

$0-$1 Million

$1-$10 Million

$10-$50 Million

Over $50 Million

NA

Question 11 My company best fits into the following economic sector:

Energy (i.e., oil and gas)

Materials (i.e., chemicals, construction, mining)

Industrial (i.e., aerospace, defense, construction/engineering, machinery, transportation)

Consumer Discretionary (i.e., automobiles, consumer durables & apparel, hotels, restaurants, leisure, media, retail)

Consumer Staples (i.e., food and drugs, personal products)

Health Care

Financials

Information Technology

Telecommunications Services

Utilities

Government (including not-for-profit organizations)

Other, please specify

1

1 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 4

2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 7

(continued)

MRR36,2

134

Figure A1.

Question 13 My current role in project management is

Senior-level project executive

Project manager

Project team member

Other, please specify

Question 14My company is

Less than 10 years old

11-25 years old

26-50 years old

51-75 years old

Over 76 years old

Question 15 I hold a project management designation (i.e., Project Management Professional®).

Yes

No

Question 16My highest level of education is

High school

College diploma/certificate

Undergraduate degree (e.g., BA, BSc)

Master's degree (e.g., MA, MBA, MSc, MEng)

Doctoral degree

Question 17I am

Male

Female

Question 18Please use this box to provide additional comments on this survey topic.

Question 12The number of full-time employees at my company ranges from

1 to 50

51 to 250

251 to 1,000

1,001 to 5,000

5,001 to 20,000

Over 20,000

Projectmanagement

assets

135

Documents

Project management assets and project management performance outcomes