Project Management Journal ■ Volume 46, Number 1 ■ February / March 2015
February/March 2015
Volume 46
Number 1
12
The Impact of Company Resources and Capabilities on
Global New Product Program Performance
Ulrike de Brentani and Elko J. Kleinschmidt
30
The Relationship Between Project Success and
Project Efficiency
Pedro Serrador and Rodney Turner
40
Learning Through Interactions: Improving Project
Management Through Communities of Practice
Lorraine Lee, Bryan Reinicke, Robin Sarkar,
and Rita Anderson
53
Formal and Informal Practices of Knowledge Sharing Between
Project Teams and Enacted Cultural Characteristics
Julia Mueller
69
An Inquiry to Move an Underutilized Best Practice Forward:
Barriers to Partnering in the Architecture, Engineering, and
Construction Industry
Sinem Mollaoglu, Anthony Sparkling,
and Sean Thomas
84
Communication Behaviors to Implement Innovations:
How Do AEC Teams Communicate in IPD Projects?
Weida (Aaron) Sun, Sinem Mollaoglu, Vernon Miller,
and Brian Manata
Editor
Hans Georg Gemünden, Dr. rer. oec. habil.,
Dr. h.c. rer. oec. et soc.,
Chair for Technology and Innovation
Management, Technische Universität Berlin,
Berlin, Germany
■
MISSION
The mission of the Journal is to provide information advancing the state of the art of the
knowledge of project management. The Journal
is devoted to both theory and practice in the
field of project management. Authors are
encouraged to submit original manuscripts that
are derived from research-oriented studies as
well as practitioner case studies. All articles in
the Journal are the views of the authors and are
not necessarily those of PMI. Subscription rate
for members is $14 U.S. per year and is included
in the annual dues.
PMI is a nonprofit professional organization
whose mission is to serve the professional interests of its collective membership by: advancing the
state of the art in the leadership and practice of
managing projects and programs; fostering professionalism in the management of projects; and
advocating acceptance of project management as
a profession and discipline. Membership in PMI is
open to all at an annual dues of $129 U.S. For information on PMI programs and membership:
Project Management Institute, 14 Campus
Blvd, Newtown Square, PA 19073–3299 USA; Tel:
11-610-356-4600; Fax: 11-610-482-9971; E-mail:
customercare@ pmi.org; Website: www.PMI.org;
Toll-free: 1-855-746-7879 (United States), 1-855746-4849 (Canada), 1-800-563-0665 (Mexico)
PMI Asia Pacific Service Centre, Singapore;
Tel: 165 6496 5501; E-mail: [email protected]
PMI Europe-Middle East-Africa (EMEA)
Service Centre, Lelystad, The Netherlands; Tel:
131 320 239 539; E-mail: customercare.emea@
pmi.org; Toll-free Numbers: 00-800-7464-8490 for
Austria, Belgium*, Bulgaria*, Czech Republic*,
Denmark, Estonia*, Finland, France, Germany,
Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia*, Lithuania*,
Luxembourg, Malta*, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Russia*, Slovak Republic*,
Slovenia*, Spain, Sweden*, Switzerland, United
Kingdom, Vatican City; 00-800-4414-3100 for
Cyprus, Greece; 131 320 239 539 (toll number) for
Andorra, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Croatia, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Moldova,
Monaco, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro,
Ukraine.
*Use the toll number (131 320 239 539) from
mobile phones in these countries.
Publisher
Donn Greenberg; [email protected]
Wiley Executive Editor
Margaret Cummins;
[email protected]
Product Editor
Roberta Storer; [email protected]
Copy Editor
Linda R. Garber; [email protected]
Publications Production Associate
Kim Shinners; [email protected]
Publications Production Supervisor
Barbara Walsh; [email protected]
Book Review Editor
Kenneth H. Rose, PMP
■
PMI India Service Centre, New Delhi, India;
Tel: 191 124 4517140; E-mail: (membership-related queries): [email protected]
Other Locations: Beijing, China; Shenzhen,
China; Montevideo, Uruguay; Bengaluru, India;
Porto Alegre, Brazil; Mumbai, India; Washington,
DC, USA, Brussels, Belgium. See www.pmi.org/
AboutUS/Pages?Customer-Care.aspx for contact
details.
The Project Management Journal (Print ISSN
8756-9728); Online ISSN 1938-9507 at Wiley
Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) is published six times a year by Wiley Subscription
Services, Inc., a Wiley Company, 111 River Street,
Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774.
Copyright © 2015 Project Management
Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this
publication may be reproduced in any form or
by any means, except as permitted under
Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States
Copyright Act, without either the prior written
permission of the publisher, or authorization
through the Copyright Clearance Center, 222
Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; Tel: (978)
750-8400; Fax: (978) 646-8600.
The code and copyright notice appearing
on the first page of an item in the journal indicates the copyright holder's consent that copies
may be made for personal or internal use of
specific clients, on the condition that the copier
pay for copying beyond that permitted by
Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law.
The per-copy fee is to be paid through the
Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. This consent
does not extend to other kinds of copying, such
as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new
collective works, or for resale. Such permission
requests and other permission inquiries should
be addressed to the Permissions Department,
c/o John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 111 River Street,
Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774; Tel. (201) 748-6011;
please visit http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions for more information.
NONMEMBER SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
Personal rates: For print in the US, Canada, and
Mexico, $149.00, rest of world, $173.00; electronic, all regions, $149.00; and for print and
electronic, in US, Canada, and Mexico, $165.00,
rest of world, $189.00. Institutional rates: For
print in the US, $465.00, in Canada and Mexico,
$505.00, and rest of world, $539.00; electronic,
all regions, $465.00; and for print and electronic,
in the US, $558.00, Canada and Mexico, $598.00,
and rest of world, $632.00. Claims for undelivered copies will be accepted only after the following issue has been received. Please enclose a
copy of the mailing label or cite your subscriber
reference number in order to expedite handling.
Missing copies will be supplied when losses
have been sustained in transit and where
reserve stock permits. Please address all subscription inquiries to Subscription Manager,
Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint, One Montgomery
Street, Suite 1200, San Francisco, CA 941044594; Tel. (888) 378-2537, (415) 433-1767
(International); E-mail: [email protected].
Postmaster: Periodical postage paid at
Newtown Square, PA 19073 USA and at additional
mailing offices. Send address changes to Project
Management Journal, 14 Campus Blvd, Newtown
Square, PA 19073-3299 USA.
Reprints: Reprint sales and inquiries
should be directed to the Customer Service
Department, Gale Krouser, c/o John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 070305774; Tel: (201) 748-8789; Fax: (201) 748-6326;
E-mail: [email protected].
MANUSCRIPTS
All manuscripts must be submitted electronically
via the journal’s Manuscript Central site
(http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pmj). Questions
regarding submission guidelines and manuscript
status should be sent to Kim Shinners
([email protected])
All manuscripts submitted to the journal
via Manuscript Central are assumed for publication and become the copyright property of PMI
if published.
© 2015 Project Management Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
“PMI” the PMI logo, “Making project management indispensable for business results,” “PMI Today,” “PM Network,” “Project Management Journal,” “PMBOK,” “CAPM,” “Certified
Associate in Project Management (CAPM),” “PMP,” the PMP logo, “PgMP,” “Program Management Professional (PgMP),” “PMI-RMP,” “PMI Risk Management Professional (PMI-RMP),”
“PMISP,” “PMI Scheduling Professional (PMI-SP),” and “OPM3” are registered marks of Project Management Institute, Inc.
The PMI Educational Foundation logo and “Empowering the future of project management” are registered marks of The PMI Educational Foundation. For a comprehensive list of PMI
marks, contact the PMI Legal Department.
February/March 2015
Volume 46, Number 1
Th e Pr o fe s s i o n a l Re s e a r ch Jo u r n a l o f t h e Pr o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t I n s t i tu t e
2
From the Editor
Hans Georg Gemünden, Dr. rer. oec. habil., Dr. h.c. rer. oec. et soc., Chair for Technology
and Innovation Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
PAPERS
12
The Impact of Company Resources and Capabilities on Global New Product Program Performance
Ulrike de Brentani and Elko J. Kleinschmidt
30
The Relationship Between Project Success and Project Efficiency
Pedro Serrador and Rodney Turner
40
Learning Through Interactions: Improving Project Management Through Communities of Practice
Lorraine Lee, Bryan Reinicke, Robin Sarkar, and Rita Anderson
53
Formal and Informal Practices of Knowledge Sharing Between Project Teams and Enacted Cultural
Characteristics
Julia Mueller
69
An Inquiry to Move an Underutilized Best Practice Forward: Barriers to Partnering in the
Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Industry
Sinem Mollaoglu, Anthony Sparkling, and Sean Thomas
84
Communication Behaviors to Implement Innovations: How Do AEC Teams Communicate in IPD
Projects?
Weida (Aaron) Sun, Sinem Mollaoglu, Vernon Miller, and Brian Manata
97
Index of 2014 Papers and Authors
99
Calendar of Events
100
Project Management Journal ® Author Guidelines
The Book Review Section can be found online.
Cover to Cover—Book Reviews
Kenneth H. Rose, PMP
From the Editor
Hans Georg Gemünden, Dr. rer. oec. habil., Dr. h.c. rer. oec. et soc.,
Chair for Technology and Innovation Management,
Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Photo credit: Markus Bullick
Success Factors of Global New Product Development Programs,
the Definition of Project Success, Knowledge Sharing,
and Special Issues of Project Management Journal ®
The first issue of this year has four major themes: (1) Success
Factors of Global New Product Development Programs, (2)
the Definition of Project Success, (3) Knowledge Sharing,
and (4) Special Issues of Project Management Journal®.
1. Success Factors of Global New Product
Development Programs
Innovation management is a major application field of
project management, program management, and project
portfolio management, but researchers from project management are often not sufficiently aware of more recent
innovation management research. Thus, I had the idea for
an invited article from two of the most influential researchers in new product development research: Ulrike de Brentani and Elko Kleinschmidt. Along with Robert Cooper
and Scott Edgett, these colleagues have written series of
seminal articles on the success factors of new product
development projects and programs, which belong to the
most often cited ones in this field.
However, the most often cited papers of this Canadian
quadriga are the ones that describe the findings from the
product portfolio management study done in the late nineties (Cooper, Edgett, & Kleinschmidt, 1999, 2001); the more
recent studies, which are also very important for project
management, have been neglected in the project management literature.
The world has changed tremendously since then:
One important and still ongoing trend has been strongly
neglected in traditional new product development
research: the globalization of product and service offerings. The implications of this trend for the success factors
in management of new goods and services, was the key
research object of a new research program, which Ulrike
de Brentani and Elko Kleinschmidt undertook in the first
decade of 2000, along with Sören Salomo, who joined later
as a research partner and co-author.
The first article in this issue from Ulrike de Brentani and
Elko Kleinschmidt, “The Impact of Company Resources
and Capabilities on Global New Product Program
Performance,” summarizes the theoretical foundation,
Project Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 1, 2–11
© 2015 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com)
DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21480
2
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
research design, and results of this research program and
elaborates on the implications for practice and research.
The article builds on an integrated framework, which has
been derived from three types of literature: new product
development, globalization, and organization. The basic
assumption is that success factors can be classified into
two groups: (1) ‘Resources,’ which are the longer-term,
background factors—that is, the more tacit, ‘softer,’ and
difficult-to-imitate—factors that must be part of the internal environment of the firm if it is to achieve a sustainable
competitive advantage; and (2) ‘Capabilities,’ which entail
more actionable and specific skills, competencies, and
routines that firms develop and adjust in line with the
dynamics of the situation in the shorter term. In this view
of what leads to success, resources are seen as having an
indirect impact on performance, in that they are empowered by relevant capabilities.
The invited article from Ulrike de Brentani and Elko
Kleinschmidt summarizes five of their previous articles:
(a) In the first article (de Brentani & Kleinschmidt, 2004) the
three resource constructs: (1) Global innovation culture,
(2) Resource commitment, and (3) Senior management
involvement are theoretically derived and measured
empirically, and they are related to four success constructs of the global new product development programs: (1) Financial performance, (2) Exploitation of
windows of opportunity, (3) Time efficiency, and (4)
Overall success.
It turns out that all three factors of the long-term “behavioral environment” are important for success, and the
cluster, which ranks high on all three factors, is also
successful on all performance criteria. The other three
clusters, each lacking one different of the three critical
behavioral resources only show a medium to low performance. Thus, in order to achieve high performance firms
should develop all three behavioral resources.
I want to emphasize that the items measuring the “global”
aspects of corporate culture and the items capturing
well-known aspects of innovation culture, load on only
one factor, which was a surprise to the authors. However,
the items reflecting the global dimension show higher
factor loadings and correlate stronger with performance
measures. Thus, the global aspect of developing new
goods and services had already become the more important one in the early 2000s. In a new research study on
the trends of project management until 2025, we surveyed a global sample of experienced project management
researchers and practitioners. Globalization is still a major
ongoing trend in project management and has a strong
impact on project management practices. (Gemünden &
Schoper, 2014)
The other four articles address the capability constructs:
(1) Global NPD Process, (2) Global NPD Strategy, (3) Global
NPD Team, and (3) IT and Communication Capability supporting Global NPD. The articles document the direct influences
of these capability constructs; show how they mediate the
behavioral resources, i.e., explain why and how the behavioral
resources influence performance; and they analyze to which
extent the capabilities moderate the behavioral resources, i.e.,
change the magnitude and/or direction of their impact.
(b) The second article (Kleinschmidt, de Brentani, & Salomo,
2007) investigates the influence of three global NPD process capabilities: (1) Global knowledge integration, (2)
Homework activities, and (3) Global launch preparation.
The significant positive influence of the behavioral environment resources on performance is mediated by these
three global NPD process capabilities. Global knowledge
integration is the most important process capability showing a significant influence on financial performance and
on windows of opportunity. The other capabilities influence only one of these performance measures in a significantly positive way.
The second article analyzes a fourth dimension of the
behavioral environment: the formality of the global NPD
process. This is a measure of maturity of the processes for
the global new product development program. However,
the authors explicitly state that just having established
such a process is not sufficient: “But the mere existence of
such a process does not make it a resource by which firms
sustain a competitive advantage, as required by resource
based theory. A formal NPD process becomes valuable
and rare only once it undergoes company-specific tuning
(e.g., adjustment for industry, firm size, NPD experience,
domestic versus global). In practical terms, this means
that the process needs full buy-in from NPD personnel,
team leaders, and senior managers and is implemented for
most of the firm’s NPD ventures. Added requirements are
(1) explicit and tacit knowledge of applying the process to
different product and market scenarios; (2) understanding by different functions in the firm; (3) knowledge of its
limitations; and (4) steady adjustment to help speed up the
development cycle, to increase flexibility, and to ensure
its relevance to changing technological and market conditions.” (Kleinschmidt, de Brentani, & Salomo, 2007, p. 425).
The formality of the process for global NPD projects has significant positive influences on all three global NPD process
capabilities, “indicating that a more formal process—that
is, clearly defined phases and decision points, a high degree
of buy-in by senior managers, and system implementation
for NPD throughout the organization—permits the effective
deployment of NPD process capabilities that significantly
impact global NPD program outcome. This supports the
notion that a higher degree of NPD process formality provides the base needed for NPD process capabilities to cope
with the increased complexity and diversity of NPD efforts
that are of a globalized scope” (Kleinschmidt, de Brentani, &
Salomo, 2007, p. 431).
However, holding constant the three NPD global process
capabilities and the other resources, formality of the process
for global NPD projects shows no significant direct effect on
financial performance, and even a significant negative direct
effect on windows of opportunity. A closer analysis of the
negative effect documents a significant inverted U-shaped
relationship of process formality and windows of opportunity. This means that an over-formalization of global NPD
processes may lead to losing opportunities and reducing
entrepreneurial activities and initiatives for radical innovations. (See Salomo, Weise & Gemünden, 2007, confirming
this argument).
In a similar vein, the second article documents potential
negative effects of senior management involvement. Here, it is
not a question of the amount of involvement, but of the focus
of senior management activities: “However, indiscriminate
highly active involvement on the part of senior managers,
meddling in all areas of global NPD, may have a deteriorating effect.” (Kleinschmidt, de Brentani, & Salomo, 2007, p.
433. See Bonner, Ruekert, & Walker, 2002, and Unger, Kock,
Gemünden, & Jonas, 2012, for similar findings.)
Thus, two very popular success factors in the project management literature: process maturity and senior management
involvement deserve some qualification.
(c) The third article brings in the global NPD strategy: “Resources
and capabilities alone do not make outcome. Only once these
are focused on specific strategic initiatives can they result
in competitive advantage.” (De Brentani, Kleinschmidt, &
Salomo, 2010, p. 145). The authors use two constructs: (1)
Global presence strategy and (2) Global product harmonization strategy. The findings show that global NPD strategies
are essential for ensuring successful NPD for international
markets. Taken together, the market- and product-based strategies identified in this study have a significant impact on all
three dimensions of global NPD program performance. These
market- and product-based strategies are themselves driven
by a global innovation culture and by senior management
involvement in global NPD.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
3
From the Editor
(d) The fourth article analyzes the influence of global NPD
teams (Salomo, Kleinschmidt, & de Brentani, 2010).
Suitably composed, supportive, and cohesive global NPD
teams offer an effective and efficient way of coordinating and integrating globally and functionally dispersed
knowledge with internal knowledge and capabilities. The
empirical findings confirm this by significant positive
influences on the success measure chosen in this article,
i.e., exploring and exploiting windows of opportunity:
Teams that integrate the diverse talents, knowledge, and
cultures from different parts of the global organization
are effective in opening new technology, market, and
product opportunities. Resource commitment and senior
management involvement are the drivers of globalized
NPD teams.
When resource spending for global NPD is highly dispersed
worldwide then the influences change: In case of low dispersion, global NPD teams show no significant influence on
performance, in case of high dispersion, the influence is very
strong.
The dispersion of spending also moderates the impact of
senior management: In the case of low dispersion, senior
management has no significant direct influence on performance; in the case of high dispersion, there is a significant
direct positive influence, in addition to the influence of
global NPD teams.
Finally, resource commitment shows a direct significant
positive influence on performance only in the case of low
dispersion.
These moderating influences are very interesting, because
they indicate that two very well founded resources need to
be qualified in managing global teams, depending on the
dispersion if NPD spending.
(e) The fifth article analyzes the influence of IT-Communication Competency, which is captured by two constructs (1)
IT-Communication Infrastructure and (2) IT-Communication Capability (Kleinschmidt, de Brentani, & Salomo,
2010). These two capabilities are assumed to influence
global NPD performance positively, and their impact
is assumed to be even higher in the case of high senior
management involvement and in the case of high resource
commitment to global NPD. The empirical results show
significant positive main effects of the two communication competency constructs, but confirm only two of the
four postulated interaction effects. The positive effect of
IT Communication infrastructure is lower in the case of
high resource commitment—which the authors explain
by overspending beyond requirements, and the positive
effect of IT Communication Capability is lower in the
case of high senior management involvement—which the
authors explain with meddling of senior management too
much into the details.
4
February/March 2015
Overall, these five articles, which are summarized and
assessed in the present article from the two experts, Ulrike
de Brentani and Elko Kleinschmidt, in an excellent way, have
several important implications for project management and
project management research.
(1) The ultimate goal of new product development projects,
programs, and portfolios is long-term value creation for its
customers, suppliers, and for the firms running these activities. This dedication to value creation and realization has not
always been a core performance measure in project management with its dedication to the “iron triangle” and extensions
of this.
(2) Long-term value creation through new products, including
goods and services, is taking place in a global economy with
interdependent regional markets. Thus, the competence to
explore and exploit these global markets is a major challenge
for the survival of firms. Product innovation has to consider
this global dimension, and empirical research has to document what this means for success factors.
(3) De Brentani, Kleinschmidt, and their co-author Salomo,
establish a causal chain with two layers: long-term behavioral resources, which are mediated by more mid-term
actionable capabilities and the constructs of these two
layers, which may also moderate each other. In project
management and in project management research the
softer background resources appear to be neglected, and
the focus is much more on the processes and actionable
capabilities.
(4) Further context constructs—like e.g., global dispersion of
NPD spending—may act as contingency factors that have to
be considered in research and management activities.
(5) Overall, the behavioral environment resources (1) global
innovation culture, (2) resource commitment, and (3)
senior management involvement show remarkable influences by driving a variety of paths of capability development, and are therefore very important. Regarding global
innovation culture—the “global” has become a very important feature.
(6) However, the findings also show that overspending may
occur, or that senior management can get too involved in
details, or has the wrong focus. Regarding the challenges of
mastering diversity, the articles do not provide much evidence, but diversity of global teams has been documented
to be a double-edged sword, whose impact on the performance of global NPD performance depends on critical moderator variables: Diversity has a potential positive impact
on elaborating more diverse information, alternatives, and
performance criteria, thus improving decision quality, but
it also has a potential negative effect by supporting social
categorization and affective tensions and conflicts between
team members (Kearney, Gebert, & Voelpel 2009). Thus,
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
more research is needed, to find out when less is more, when
and why champions fail, and when a too open culture may
become a drawback.
(7) In sum, I highly recommend reading this marvelous article
and considering its theoretical and empirical parts in future
research or on management decisions.
2. Defining Project Success: How Important Is
the Fulfillment of the Iron Triangle?
Finding the “right” measure for project success has a long
history. Over the years engaged debates have taken place of
what, when, how, by whom, and for whom such performance
measures should be made. Thus, it is not new, that such a
discussion is also led these days at the project, program, and
project portfolio levels, and that these levels are linked with
each other and with corporate and business unit success.
The traditional measure was to assess the success of a
single project by comparing its actual performance with its
targeted performance regarding the criteria of budget, time,
and functionality (respectively scope), which are sometimes
called the “iron triangle.” This simple measure has been criticized for neglecting the following three aspects:
(1) Stakeholder aspect: Value lies in the eye of the beholder.
Considering multiple, potentially contradictory, stakeholder
perspectives gives a comprehensive view on project success.
Projects can deliver additional value or loss by considering
the requirements and needs of stakeholders beyond the
project sponsor and the project contractor. In recent years,
the sustainability of projects results for the long-term benefits of future generations has become a much more critical
issue than before.
(2) Exploitation aspect: A project usually ends with the delivery
of certain outputs. Only when these outputs are exploited
and transformed to outcomes that have an impact, can
benefits emerge—possibly not earlier than years after project
completion.
(3) Strategic aspect: Nowadays organizations implement their
strategic goals by the entirety of their projects, which they
perform. In order to select, prioritize, and fund the right projects accordingly, the value contribution of projects to strategic
goals, and the generation of future business opportunities
have to be planned and controlled.
Notwithstanding the value of these contributions, the
question arises: What difference do these increasingly complex frameworks make? How strong is the empirical relationship between the fulfillment of the iron triangle criteria and
broader defined project success measures that are realized
much later?
In their article, “The Relationship Between Project Success
and Project Efficiency,” Pedro Serrador and Rodney Turner
pose this question. The authors define project efficiency: as
meeting cost, time, and scope goals; and project success: as
meeting wider business and enterprise goals as defined by
key stakeholders. Through a survey of 1,386 projects, they
show that the fulfillment of the iron triangle (“project efficiency”) correlates moderately strongly to overall project
success. Efficiency is thus neither the only aspect of project
success nor an aspect of project success that can be ignored.
Project performance criteria are rated by the participants
of a web-based survey on a five-point ordinal scale. Project
efficiency is measured as the mean rating of meeting timeline, budget, and scope goals. Project success measured as
the mean rating of sponsor, team, and client, and end-user
assessment. A single informant, who assessed two projects,
made all rankings for a more successful and a less successful project. The items of the two performance measure constructs project efficiency and project success load on two
different factors, with scope having a high loading (around
0.50) on both factors. However, according to their research
question, the authors do not delete this item because it has
no clear single-factor loading, but assign it to the efficiency
factor only. The correlations of meeting timeline, budget,
and scope goals with project success are 0.51, 0.42, and 0.58,
respectively, which are substantially high correlations (see
Table 9). Efficiency correlates with project success at 0.60
(see Table 8). The correlation between efficiency and project
success is also analyzed within industries (see Table 10): In
nine of the twelve industries the correlation is higher than
0.60, and the remaining three either have a lower proficiency
in project management (government, other) or a high uncertainty (high technology). Thus, the findings indicate that
achieving project efficiency might be a good early warning
indicator for a broader defined project success.
However, I want to emphasize that the reviewers of this
paper raised several questions:
(1) The first is that one single informant made all the performance ratings of one project and this may create a common methods variance, which increases the correlation
coefficients. Ideally, the researchers should have asked the
different stakeholders how they assessed the project’s performance.
(2) Ideally, the measurement of project efficiency should have
taken place at completion of a project, and the measurement
of project success should have taken place one or two years
later. However, this would have been a much more difficult
research task.
(3) The correlation coefficients may have also increased by the
fact that the respondents assessed two projects, one, which
was successful, and the other, which had failed. It is very
likely that in the case of the failed project, several success
measures were rated low, and in the case of the successful
project, several success measures were rated high. Since the
respondents knew that the one project was a success and
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
5
From the Editor
the other was a failure, a certain halo-effect of rating them
accordingly cannot be excluded—a longitudinal analysis
would avoid such a hindsight bias.
In order to assess the validity of these concerns, I present
additional data, taken from the sixth wave of the 2013 study on
success factors in project portfolio management, performed
at my chair of Technology and Innovation Management at TU
Berlin. I use these findings to illustrate that Pedro Serrador
and Rodney Turner make a valid point. In our study, we have
a sample of 177 firms with matched pairs of project portfolio
coordinators, and project portfolio decision makers, who are
usually decisive members of the project portfolio board. Our
items for measuring the iron triangle were similar, but we also
measured reaching customer satisfaction, target cost, and
revenue goals of the projects in a portfolio and these measures
are used as performance indicators of realized project success.
In contrast to Serrador and Turner we can use the data
from two different kinds of stakeholders, and thus test the
stability of the findings, and we can look at the consensus
between the two informants. In our study, the real correlations are probably underestimated, because we take per portfolio, only one measure, i.e., the average fulfillment of a goal
of all projects in the portfolio, and this leads to a truncation
of variance. Thus, we deliver more of a lower bound for the
real correlation, whereas Serrador and Turner deliver a kind
of upper bound. However, we still share some shortcomings in
our study, in that we also do not offer a longitudinal analysis.
Tables 1 and 2 show our results. The shaded background
highlights the relevant correlations.
Informant: Portfolio Coordinator
Time
Budget
Scope
We see that the performance indicators time, budget, and
scope correlate highly and significantly positively with the
performance measures for customer satisfaction, target cost,
and revenue goals. These correlations are somewhat higher
for the decision makers than for the coordinators. The correlations are on average in the 0.40s, but they show considerable
variance.
I can add that the correlations between the two informants, when assessing the same performance item, are in
between 0.30 and 0.50: time (0.50); budget (0.46); scope
(0.37); customer satisfaction (0.30); target cost (0.36); and
revenue goals (0.35). Compared with agreements between
assessors in a standardized assessment center situation, these
values are sufficiently high.
I can also add that we have done the same kind of analysis
for the data of the fifth wave of our project portfolio management study in 2011 and received similar correlation matrices.
There are many success factor studies in the literature,
and some of them publish correlations between different
performance measures. Some of these performance measures
represent the iron-triangle view, and others represent a view
on the project outcomes materializing later and documenting
value creation for various stakeholders. Thus, a meta-analysis
of these correlations could estimate the average correlations
and their variance, and investigate the moderators explaining this variance. I would like to publish such an analysis
and initiate a discussion about the value of the iron triangle
indicators. My guess is that studies that have analyzed pairs
of failed and successful projects, assessed by the same informant, will have higher correlations than studies that use a
Customer Satisfaction
Target Cost
Revenue Goals
Time
1.00
Budget
0.39
1.00
Scope
0.22
0.15
1.00
Customer Satisfaction
0.31
0.15
0.59
1.00
Target Cost
0.45
0.64
0.26
0.29
1.00
Revenue Goals
0.38
0.42
0.38
0.42
0.60
1.00
Table 1: Correlations between project performance measures (Informant Portfolio Coordinator).
Informant: Decision Maker
Time
Budget
Scope
Customer Satisfaction
Revenue Goals
Time
1.00
Budget
0.58
1.00
Scope
0.36
0.34
1.00
Customer Satisfaction
0.39
0.40
0.65
1.00
Target Cost
0.55
0.72
0.36
0.44
1.00
Revenue Goals
0.44
0.48
0.41
0.40
0.55
1.00
Table 2: Correlations between project performance measures (Informant Portfolio Decision Maker).
6
Target Cost
February/March 2015
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
random sample of projects. Moreover, studies in which the
same informant rates all performance measures will show
higher correlations.
I share with Rodney Turner, Pedro Serrador, and many
other researchers the view, that projects should be considered as investments, which should create value. Thus, I want
to make a plea that we should control projects, programs, and
portfolios according to the targeted outcome and impact, and
not according to the input of financial and human resources,
and how much time the project needed. And if time is used
as a performance indicator, the impact of a project delay, or
of an earlier project completion should be measured. In a
similar vein, an alignment of a project portfolio with strategic goals should not primarily be assessed to which extent
spending reflects strategy, but to which extent strategic goals
can be achieved with this portfolio in a targeted planning
period.
Thus, I want to make an argument that business case
control should guide the planning and control of project
performance, and not input control. Our research shows, that
business cases that are not only developed for initial screening and prioritization, but that are also monitored, further
developed and quickly adjusted to changes during the whole
life of the project, and that are also assessed a reasonable
time after project completion, lead to a much higher portfolio success, measured by outcome measures. These positive
influences of business control are particularly high if project
sponsors are made accountable for the investments they have
initiated and if their monetary bonuses are linked to the realized value of their projects (see Kopmann, Kock, Killen, &
Gemünden, 2014).
The problem with the iron triangle, then, is a more deeply
rooted problem with the control culture in a firm, and with
the responsibilities and decision autonomy of project sponsors and project managers. A business and benefits view on
projects would help to empower project managers and raise
the project management support and competence of project
sponsors. This could also help to wean some project practitioners off their beloved iron triangle.
I want to make a final comment regarding correlations
between performance indicators. If one performance result,
which is assessed at time t1, does not constitute a valuable
input for another performance result, which is assessed at a
later time t2, then the correlations between two performance
indicators hardly reflect a causal influence.
Why do we observe positive correlations between two
performance indicators? We learned in an introductory project management course that you can invest more resources
to finish a project quicker or to realize a higher functionality.
However, in both cases, meeting the budget goal will become
more difficult. In a similar vein, investing more time for developing and testing products with a better and safer functionality will improve the scope goal, but deteriorate the time goal.
Thus, we have learned that the achievement of the goals is in
conflict and we would expect a negative correlation between
performance indicators!
What explains the positive correlations between performance indicators, which we usually see in the published correlations matrices? My answer is that in the successful cases,
several success factors have influenced the performance
indicators at the same time and in the same direction. For
example, in the first article in this issue, from Ulrike de
Bretani and Elko Kleinschmidt, we learn that an open global
innovation culture, a high resource commitment for global
NPD programs, and a high involvement of senior managers in global NPD programs will increase the performance
of all four performance constructs that have been used in
this research program. Thus, the correlations between performance measures are to a certain extent spurious correlations.
Partialling out a bunch of well-known success factors as
control variables before correlating the performance criteria,
would reduce the correlations between performance measures considerably. It is a task for future research to make
such analyses and to find out how strong this reduction
would be. Until we do not have such results and theories
explaining why some performance measures should correlate, we should interpret correlations with more care. They
are of a different nature than the correlations between success factors and success criteria.
The Associate Editor for this paper was Monique Aubry.
3. Learning and Knowledge Sharing Within and
Between Organizations
The third paper “Learning through Interactions: Improving
Project Management Through Communities of Practice,” is
from Lorraine Lee, Bryan Reinicke, Robin Sarkar, and Rita
Anderson.
Communities of practice are a possible mechanism for
improving knowledge sharing among project managers within
as well as between organizations. This research addresses the
questions what motivates project managers to participate in
a community of practice, if collaborative, social web tools
facilitate the participation, and which individual and organizational benefits are associated with a project management
community of practice.
The authors theorize a model of participation intensity
in communities of practice by project managers. Data of 78
respondents were collected using a paper-based survey in the
United States. Findings indicate that intrinsic and extrinsic
motivational factors are drivers for participation in communities of practice, as well as the benefits associated with participation. Moreover, factors such as reputation, enjoyment, and
management support influence the participation intensity of
project managers. Further, the study provides evidence that
participation in communities of practice can result in individual benefits for the project managers. Additionally, top
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
7
From the Editor
organizational benefits include more successfully executing
existing projects, and improving the overall quality of project
management in the organization.
The Associate Editor for this paper was Monique Aubry.
The fourth paper “Formal and Informal Practices of
Knowledge Sharing Between Project Teams and Enacted Cultural Characteristics” is from Julia Mueller and investigates
the process of knowledge sharing between project teams.
They need to be effective in conducting knowledge sharing
and creation processes. However, project-based organizations often face the challenge that they structurally separate
one project team from another, which consequently hinders
knowledge flows between teams.
The article is based on a case study approach, with a qualitative and inductive research design in five knowledge-intensive and project-based organizations in Austria, Germany,
and the German-speaking part of Italy. Further, it makes use
of the analysis technique of GABEK.
Results show that despite the fact that projects generally
create boundaries, project team leaders and employees make
use of formal mechanisms and develop informal practices
for knowledge sharing between project teams. Findings also
identify cultural characteristics, stimulating the discussion
in “knowledge culture research” regarding the relationship
of cultural characteristics and specific knowledge processes.
The Associate Editor for this paper was Monique Aubry.
The fifth paper “An Inquiry to Move an Underutilized Best
Practice Forward: Barriers to Partnering in the Architecture,
Engineering, and Construction Industry” is from Sinem
Mollaoglu, Anthony Sparkling, and Sean Thomas.
This study conducted a literature review and a Delphi survey of partnering experts across a variety of sectors and disciplines in the United States, to understand and report barriers
to partnering. Generally speaking, project partnering can provide a great opportunity to improve project performance via
improved collaboration among key project stakeholders, and
reduce claims as a result, while letting all project members
stay in their traditional roles and work under any contractual
framework, including design-bid-build. However, the article
identifies main categories of barriers to project partnering: cultural barriers, organizational/program level barriers,
project team barriers, legislative/governance barriers, adoption and implementation barriers. Of the top reported barriers to project partnering, the majority is cultural; project
team related barriers show the greatest area of potential for
improvement. Further, contrary to the literature, the study
found that none is legislative. Further, results offer explicit
areas where efforts can provide guidance to owners and facilitators helping to eliminate apparent barriers to partnering in
their project teams.
The Associate Editor for this paper was Serghei Floricel.
The last paper in this issue, “Communication Behaviors to
Implement Innovations: How Do AEC Teams Communicate
8
February/March 2015
in IPD Projects” is from Weida (Aaron) Sun, Sinem Mollaoglu, Vernon Miller, and Brian Manata. This study proposes
that communication behaviors (i.e., monitoring, challenging,
managing, and negotiating) are vital for innovation implementation. Via an in-depth literature review, the study first
defines these metrics. Second, a content analysis of an integrated project delivery (IPD) case study report enables the
study to explore if these communication behaviors exist in
inter-organizational architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) project teams. Results provide four key communication metrics for innovation implementation, supported by
evidence and examples that illustrate these metrics in AEC
teams implementing IPD as an innovation.
The Associate Editor for this paper was Catherine Killen.
4. Special Issues
In this issue of Project Management Journal®, you find again a
call for papers for a special issue. The theme is “Philosophy of
Project Management: Creating Space – Creating Alternatives –
Creating Ideas – Creating Excellence in Practice” and the editors are Professor Ralf Müller, BI Norwegian Business School,
Norway and Dr. Efrosyni Konstantinou, University College
London, UK. The idea behind this special issue is to discuss
the role of the different lenses we use in researching and managing projects. It is a very interesting and open-ended special
issue, which addresses very fundamental issues of our view of
the project world.
This is probably the fifth special issue of Project
Management Journal® since I became Editor-in-Chief in January 2013. The Associate Editors of Project Management
Journal®, Professor Dr. Jonas Söderlund and Professor Dr.
Ralf Müller, published the first special issue last year with
a selection of the best papers from IRNOP 2013, hosted by
BI Norwegian Business School. The second special issue on
research methods in project management will be the next
issue of Project Management Journal®, which will be edited by
Professor Dr. Ralf Müller again.
The call for a special issue on Stakeholder Management,
edited by three external guest editors: Professor Dr. Pernille
Eskerod, Professor Dr. Martina Huemann, and Professor Dr.
Grant Savage, has received a good response. The papers are in
the review process, and will probably be included in a special
issue to be published in the beginning of 2016.
In the last issue of Project Management Journal® a special
issue on “Project and Innovation Management: Bridging Contemporary Trends in Theory and Practice” was announced; it
will be edited by the Associate Editors, Professor Dr. Christopher Midler, Professor Dr. Catherine Killen, and Professor
Dr. Alexander Kock.
With these special issues, we want to bundle relevant
themes, which we have identified in our analysis of trends in
project management and in project management research.
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Our readers are invited to make suggestions for future
special issues.
Last, but not least, I want to thank the reviewers of Project Management Journal® who supported our Journal in 2014
(please see the List of Reviewers in the Appendix at the end of
this editorial). A special thank you goes to the reviewers who
have been active in PMJ® several times during 2014. It is the
policy of our Project Management Journal® that the editorial
team first critically analyzes whether an article warrants a timeconsuming review; during this step, we have a high rejection
rate. This means that we carefully reflect on whether or not a
review should be done and who has the expertise to do it. For
this reason we have created quite a large editorial team, with
each editor specialized in a specific theme of project management. However, when it comes to a review, then we expect from
our reviewers that they not only give ratings to the questions we
ask them, but that they also provide a substantiated critique
that aims at improving the submission. We expect that three
to five main arguments should be explained and by doing this
the need for revisions should be made very clear. The reviewers should also be very explicit where they see the contributions and the value of the submitted article, so that the authors
understand why revising the paper is worth the effort and why
it should be finally accepted. Preferably, the reviewers should
give some orientation regarding the means to improving the
article. Would be wonderful if you would become a reviewer for
our Project Management Journal® in 2015!
References
Bonner, J.M., Ruekert, R.W., & Walker Jr., O.C. (2002). Upper
management control of new product development projects and
project performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management
19(2), 233–245.
Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J., & Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1999). New
product portfolio management: Practices and performance.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16(4), 333–351.
Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J., & Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2001).
Portfolio management for new product development: Results of
an industry practices study. R&D Management, 31(4), 361–380.
de Brentani, U., & Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2004). Corporate culture
and commitment: Impact on performance of international new
product development programs. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 21(5), 309–333.
de Brentani, U., Kleinschmidt, E.J., & Salomo, S. (2010).
Success in global new product development: Impact of strategy
and the behavioral environment of the firm. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 27(3), 143–160.
Gemünden, H.G., & Schoper, Y. (2014). First results of the New
Expert Survey 2014: Future Trends. Projektmanagement Aktuell,
25(5), 6–16.
Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2009): When and how
diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members’
need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3),
581–598.
Kleinschmidt, E.J., de Brentani, U., & Salomo, S. (2007).
Performance of global new product development programs: A resource-based view. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 24(5), 419–441.
Kleinschmidt, E.J., de Brentani, U., & Salomo, S. (2010).
Information processing and firm-internal environment
contingencies: Performance impact on global new product
development. Creativity and Innovation Management, 10(3),
200–218.
Kopmann, J., Kock, A., Killen, C., & Gemünden, H. G. (2014).
Business case control: The key to project portfolio success or
merely a matter of form? 13th EURAM Conference 2014 in
Valencia, Spain, June 4–7.
Salomo, S., Kleinschmidt, E.J., & de Brentani, U. (2010).
Managing new product development teams in a globally
dispersed NPD program. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 27(6), 955–971.
Salomo, S., Weise, J., & Gemünden, H.G. (2007). NPD planning activities and innovation performance: The mediating role
of process management and the moderating effect of product
innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24,
285–302.
Unger, B. N., Kock, A., Gemünden, H. G., & Jonas, D.
(2012). Enforcing strategic fit of project portfolios by project
termination: An empirical study on senior management
involvement. International Journal of Project Management,
30, 675–685.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
9
From the Editor
Appendix: PMJ ® Reviewers in 2014
Many thanks to:
Aaltonen, Kirsi
Aapaoja, Aki
Aarseth, Wenche
Acar, Emrah
Ahola, Tuomas
Al-Maghraby, Rania
Ali, Saleem
Alin, Pauli
Anantatmula, Vittal
Anbari, Frank
Anchor, John
Andersen, Bjørn
Andersen, Erling
Ang, Karyne
Arnulf, Jan Ketil
Atkinson, Roger
Aubry, Monique
Audet, François
Bannerman, Paul
Basten, Dirk
Bevilacqua, Maurizio
Biedenbach, Thomas
Blomquist, Tomas
Bonneau, Isabelle
Bosch-Rekveldt, Marian
Bourgault, Mario
Bousquet, Julien
Bredillet, Christophe
Brent, Alan
Brewer, Paul
Budzier, Alexander
Caldwell, Nigel
Cameron, Roslyn
Casler, James G.
Chan, Calvin
Chang, Chen-Yu
Chang, Jamie
Chiocchio, François
Chou, Jui-Sheng
Chronéer, Diana
Cicmil, Svetlana
Coelho, José
Cooke-Davies, Terry
Couillard, Jean
Coulombe, Caroline
Crawford, Lynn
Curlee, Wanda
Davis, Steven
de Bakker, Karel
10
February/March 2015
De Nito, Ernesto
de Souza, Enock
Dietrich, Perttu
Dingsöyyr, Torgeir
Discenza, Richard
Dobson, Stephen
Doloi, Hemanta
Dorée, André
Duray, Rebecca
Edwards, David
Ekrot, Bastian
Emsley, Margaret
Eskerod, Pernille
Farahmand, Haideh
Fortune, Joyce
Fragnelli, Vito
Frizelle, Gerry
Fuentes, Rahul
Gardiner, Paul
Garel, Gilles
Gemünden, Hans Georg
Geraldi, Joana
Gerdsri, Nathasit
Ghapanchi, Amir Hossein
Giard, Vincent
Gidel, Thierry
Godé, Cécile
Gogolin, Greg
Gransberg, Douglas
Grilo, António
Hällgren, Markus
Hamdi, Shabnam
Haried, Peter
Härkönen, Janne
Hartmann, Andreas
Hehl, Mark
Hellstöm, Magnus
Henderson, Linda
Heng, Cheng Suang
Henisz, Witold
Hobbs, Brian
Holt, Gary D.
Huang, Yen-Chih
Huemann, Martina
Hwang, Bon-Gang
Ika, Lavagnon
Iorio, Josh
Jepsen, Anna Lund
Jerbrant, Anna
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Jetu, Fanta
Jiang, James
Jørgensen, Frances
Joslin, Robert
Jouini, Sihem
Jugdev, Kam
Kamardeen, Imriyas
Kane, Kevin
Kapsali, Maria
Karlsen, Jan
Kauppila, Osmo
Ke, Yongjian
Keinz, Peter
Kendall, Julie
Khang, Do Ba
Klakegg, Ole Jonny
Klein, Gary
Kleinschmidt, Elko
Klofsten, Magnus
Kloppenborg, Timothy
Kock, Alexander
Koczula, Grzegorz
Konstantinou, Efrosyni
Kopmann, Julian
Krane, Hans Petter
Krcmar, Helmut
Kremic, Tibor
Kuruppuarachchi, Palitha
Kutsch, Elmar
Kvalnes, Öyvind
Kwak, Young
Lai, Chia-Yu
Laine, Teemu
Lam, Patrick
Laufer, Alexander
Lechler, Thomas
Lehmann, Valérie
Lehtonen, Juha-Matti
Lenfle, Sylvain
Leviäkangas, Pekka
Levin, Ginger
Leybourne, Stephen
Li, Heng
Li, Julia
Li, Yuzhu
Liinamaa, Johanna
Liu, Heng
Liu, Julie
Lloyd-Walker, Beverley
Lohikoski, Paivi
Love, Peter
Maaninen-Olsson, Eva
Macdonell, Stephen
Maniak, Remi
Manzer, Fred
Marnewick, Carl
Marshall, Nick
Marshall, Robert
Martinsuo, Miia
Marttila, Anneli
Mazur, Alicia
McCollum, Walter
Memon, Aftab
Michelfelder, Ingo
Midler, Christophe
Miller, Fabienne
Miller, Richard
Miraglia, Stefano
Mitchell, Alanah
Mohebbi, Cyrus
Morris, Peter
Motawa, Ibrahim
Mullaly, Mark
Müller, Ralf
Nilsen, Etty
Nuottila, Jouko
Oerlemans, Leon
Ojansivu, Ilkka
Ojiako, Udechukwu
Packendorff, Johann
Pajares, Javier
Patanakul, Peerasit
Pellegrinelli, Sergio
Peltokorpi, Antti
Pemsel, Sofia
Perminova, Olga
Perrons, Rob
Petit, Yvan
Pinto, Jeffrey
Pollack , Julien
Roehrich, Jens
Saghiri, Soroosh
Sambasivan, Murali
Sankaran, Shankar
Saraph, Jayant
Schultz, Carsten
Sergi, Viviane
Shao, Jingting
Shenhar, Aaron
Shrestha, Pramen P.
Sicotte, Hélène
Silvius, Gilbert
Simard, Magali
Skoufa, Lucas
Smyth, Hedley
Söderlund, Jonas
Spieth, Patrick
Starkweather, Jo Ann
Succar, Bilal
Sudevan, Smiju
Swaim, Tony
Tavares, Luis
Taylor, John
Tsai, Chih-Hung
Tukel, Oya
Turner, Neil
Tywoniak, Stephane
Unger, Barbara
Van Marrewijk, Alfons
van Oorschot, Kim
Vanyushyn, Vladimir
Verreynne, Martie-Louise
Vidal, Ludovic-Alexandre
Vignehsa, Kalpana
Wald, Andreas
Walker, Derek
Walker, Sandra
Warburton, Roger
Warren, Clive
Wiener, Martin
Wiewiora, Anna
Wikström, Kim
Williams, Terry
Winch, Graham
Woodward, George
Yazici, Hulya
Yiu, Tak Wing
Young, Raymond
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
11
PAPERS
The Impact of Company Resources
and Capabilities on Global New Product
Program Performance
Ulrike de Brentani, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
Elko J. Kleinschmidt, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
ABSTRACT ■
Product innovation and the trend to globalization
are two important and interrelated dimensions
driving business today. In this article, the results
of five published research articles on the topic of
global new product development (NPD) are summarized to provide an integrated overview of the
factors that impact global NPD program performance. The overall conceptual framework is based
on three types of literature—NPD, globalization,
and organization. The main theoretical approach
for establishing relationships between factors
is the dynamic capability/resource-based view.
Accordingly, factors linked to outcome are seen as
operating on different organizational levels, with
more actionable initiatives or ‘capabilities’ largely
mediating the softer and longer term background
‘resources’ of the firm. The analyses are based
on a broad cross-industry sample of 467 firms
(North America, Europe, B2B, goods/services).
Three global NPD-related background resources
(global innovation culture, resource commitment,
and senior management involvement), labeled the
‘behavioral environment’ of the firm, are identified
and shown to be linked to global NPD program
performance via the mediated effect of four specific
NPD capabilities (NPD process, strategy, team,
and IT/communication). A qualitative synthesis
of the findings is provided, along with recommended management initiatives with which firms
can enhance their performance in the global NPD
effort. Both sets of factors are found to be essential
and highly interrelated, but it is the strength of the
behavioral environment resources that distinguish
the best performing firms, setting the stage for
success in global NPD.
KEYWORDS: new product development; global
new product development; globalization,
resource-based view; dynamic capabilities;
success factors
Project Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 1, 12–29
© 2015 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21470
12
February/March 2015
INTRODUCTION ■
P
roduct innovation and the trend to globalization are two important
and highly interrelated dimensions driving business today, and the
success of the global new product development (NPD) program of the
firm is of primary importance when it comes to ensuring outstanding
performance. Thus, understanding what factors are critical to succeeding
in the global market arena and dealing effectively with its competitive and
complex nature are essential. To this end, in this article we summarize and
integrate the findings of five studies (five research articles published between
2004 and 2010), which are the results of a major empirical research effort that
deals with the factors that impact performance in the global NPD programs
of firms.
Focus on Global NPD
The focus of the research is global new product development. This, because
the success of firms is largely based on the development of new products, and
because today’s interdependence of world markets increasingly means that
excellent NPD program performance is predicated on the ability to perform
on a global rather than a national scale (Cateora & Graham, 2002; Katobe &
Helsen, 2004). Achieving success, indeed survival, calls for an NPD program
that proactively targets the opportunities that come with international markets, thus addressing the much more competitive, complex, and dynamic
nature of the global market arena. Despite the radical shift in recent years
from national to global markets, the NPD literature—in particular, studies
that benchmark factors linked to new product success—has largely focused
on NPD programs for domestic markets, with only a small number of studies
incorporating the international context (see recent meta-analyses by Evanschitzky, Eisent, Calantone, & Jiang, 2012 and by Henard & Szymanski, 2001).
Thus, an important second reason for focusing on global NPD is to expand
the literature on this topic and to develop a more realistic and comprehensive
view of how companies ensure NPD success.
Achieving Success in Global NPD
Three types of literature were used for identifying factors linked to performance when developing new products for global markets. They include the
NPD literature, the organizational literature, and the literature on globalization. In the new product development discipline, over the years, researchers
have undertaken studies with which to identify the key factors that explain
new product success. While earlier research dealt with this question by comparing successful with failed NPD projects, more recent studies focus on the
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
NPD program of the firm (i.e., all projects usually over a three-year period),
incorporating elements that include
both project- and organization-specific
factors, which can be summarized in
terms of the following groups of issues:
•
•
•
•
Strategy
NPD process
NPD team
Organization
Although most NPD research
focuses on only one or a small number of these factors, a few studies use
a broader approach, incorporating
several or all of the above groupings.
Specifically, the study by Cooper and
Kleinschmidt (1995), which ‘benchmarks’ the critical success factors of
the entire NPD program of firms; the
PDMA ‘best practices’ study by Griffin (1997); and the meta-analyses by
Henard and Szymanski (2001) and by
Evanschitzky et al. (2012), which present a comprehensive picture of the
factors linked to new product success.
In all of these studies, however, the factors are typically treated as operating
on an equal level, where each has the
potential to impact performance in a
direct manner.
Substantial research dealing with
the question of what the determinants
of corporate performance are hails from
the organizational discipline. Factors
seen as relevant to the NPD program
include such issues as: corporate culture, senior management involvement,
and resource commitment (Schuster
et al., 1997; Wei & Morgan, 2004; Zou &
Cavusgil, 2002). Of particular relevance
is the ‘resource based view’ (RBV) and
‘dynamic capabilities’ literature which,
in contrast to the NPD literature, view
the determining factors as operating on
different levels in terms of their impact
on performance. More specifically, the
RBV/dynamic capabilities literature categorizes success factors into two basic
groups: resources and capabilities.
‘Resources’ are the longer-term, background—that is, the more tacit, ‘softer’
and difficult-to-imitate—factors that
must be part of the internal environment of the firm if it is to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage (Peteraf
& Barney, 2003). ‘Capabilities’, on the
other hand, entail more actionable and
specific skills, competencies, and routines that firms develop and adjust in
line with the dynamics of the situation
in the shorter term (Teece, Pisano, &
Shuen, 1997). In this view of what leads
to success, resources are seen as having an indirect impact on performance,
in that they are empowered by relevant capabilities (Eisenhardt & Martin,
2000). In other words, the performance
impact on global NPD of the resources
of the firm is mediated by the specialized capabilities that have been created
for managing this endeavor.
The third theoretical sphere relevant
for researching global NPD is the literature on globalization. Despite a symbiotic relationship (between globalization
and NPD) with the potential to provide
new insights about what factors lead to
success, the two forms of literature flow
Global NPD
Resources
Global NPD
Capabilities
Global Innovation Culture
Global NPD Strategy
Resource Commitment
Global NPD Process
Senior Management
Involvement
Global NPD Team
IT/Comm Capability
in relatively separate streams, with only
a small number of studies that focus
specifically on managing and structuring the global NPD effort (e.g., Chiesa,
1996a; 1996b; Graber, 1996; Roberts
2001). Key contributions from the globalization literature relevant for NPD
include the issues of: degree of globalization of the marketing effort (i.e.,
targeting specific markets of interest
versus using a ‘truly global’ approach
(Capar & Katobe, 2003; Kaounides,
1999); localization versus globalization of products (Hsieh & Lindridge,
2005; Ohmae, 1989); and localization
versus centralization of the NPD effort
(Devinney, 1995; Mudambi , Mudambi,
& Navarra, 2007).
In the research described in this article, we pull together relevant portions of
these three forms of literature. While
focusing on the performance-related
factors identified in NPD, we incorporate theory and findings from the
globalization arena to adapt, moderate,
and expand this list to ensure relevance
to the broader and more complex spectrum that defines NPD programs for
global markets. Further, we incorporate
research from the organizational literature in two ways: first, by expanding on
the organizational factors linked to NPD
performance; and second, by using the
RBV/dynamic capabilities framework to
categorize factors that are linked to performance in terms of intangible, longerterm, ‘resources,’ the impact of which
are mediated by specific, shorter-term,
NPD-related ‘capabilities’. This relationship is presented in Figure 1.
Global NPD Program
Performance
Financial Performance
Windows of Opportunity
Time Efficiency
Figure 1: Model of the determinants of global NPD program performance.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
13
PAPERS
Global New Product Development Performance
Overview of the Research
Data Collection
As a basis for the five articles published
on this research, an extensive data set
was collected from a cross-national/
industry sample of B2B firms involved
in global NPD (North America, Europe,
about 50/50 goods/services). The original sample (article #1) consists of 320
North American firms (source: Dun &
Bradstreet), which was expanded to
include 147 European companies (source:
European industry lists) for a total sample
of 467 firms (articles #2 through #5).1
To collect data, a structured questionnaire was self-administered by managers with responsibility for their firm’s
global NPD program. The questionnaire
was developed over several stages—literature review, exploratory interviews
with industry experts, and pilot studies—which helped in the identification
of relevant concepts of previously operationalized scale items that could be
adapted to the global NPD context, as
well as of new items for which measures
were previously unavailable. The final
questionnaire, which was pretested in
two pilot studies, covered a broad range
of international NPD issues relating to
the organizational resources of the firm,
global NPD routines (capabilities), performance measures, and also several
descriptive dimensions such as size of
firm (sales, employment), NPD budget
(% of sales), number of countries firms
operate in, percentage of NPD expenses
local/global, and so forth. Respondents
were contacted by phone and asked to
participate. Several criteria were used
1 Data
from product and service firms were combined into
one set, because analysis comparing these two groups indicated no significant differences on all constructs, including
the performance measures. Separate factor analyses resulted
in nearly identical factors. The same was done for North
American and European firms as detailed tests (for measurement equality via structural equation modeling, comparing
a constrained model with the fit of a model in which all
relationships were free to vary) showed that there were no
significant differences (p < 0.05). The actual sample size used
for each specific analysis differs and is usually below the
maximum due to ‘missing values’ for the variables included in
the analysis and due to the sensitivity of the applied methodology to missing data.
14
February/March 2015
to ensure that participants were knowledgeable key informants (e.g., management position, involvement in global
NPD program, length of tenure). A total
of 1,187 firms were contacted, of which
39.5% responded. A non-response bias
test using firm-size comparison and
time-trend bias test (early versus later
participation) indicated no significant
differences.
Overall Theoretical Model and Analyses
In addition to NPD and globalization
theory, the underlying theoretical framework for all five studies is the resource
based view/dynamic capabilities of the
firm (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece
et al., 1997; Wernerfelt, 1984). This
theory postulates that company performance is primarily the result of internal
resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable, mediated by a set of capabilities, or routines
that are task specific and amenable to
adaptation and change. In other words,
organizational resources are seen less
as being productive in themselves and
more as working through a firm’s ability to assemble, integrate, and manage
them via a reliable set of organizational
capabilities (Helfat & Peteraf, 2003).
In all five analyses, we treat the firm’s
internal or behavioral environment as
comprising the background resources
that impact the global NPD capabilities, as per RBV; however, we do not
always use exactly the same template
in terms of modeling and analyzing
the specific relationships. Depending
on the objective(s) of the particular
analysis, different methodologies are
applied. These include: factor analysis
(exploratory, formative, confirmatory)
and related tests (articles #1 through
#5) to define and confirm the resource,
capability, and performance constructs;
cluster analysis and ANOVA to identify
distinct and holistic company groupings
based on the resource factors (article
#1); structural equation modeling using
LISREL or PLS Graph to test for mediated and direct relationships between
determinant constructs (resources and
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
capabilities) and performance (articles #2 through #4); and step-wise moderated multiple regression analysis to
test for direct and moderated effects on
performance (article #5). It should be
noted that, depending on the specific
topic of analysis, not all behavioral environment and performance constructs
were used in each article, because based
on theoretical considerations, a more
parsimonious model could be derived
that obtained greater clarity of interpretation.2 Table 1 provides a summary
of each article in terms of: objectives,
relevant theory and constructs, sample
and analyses, and results.
In this article, and as shown in
Table 1, we draw together the results of
five different analyses (published in separate articles) that deal with the firm’s
resources and capabilities considered
to have an impact on global NPD performance. Article #1 identifies and establishes the three behavioral environment
resource factors and also the global
NPD program performance constructs.
Articles #2 through #5 each deals with a
specific set of global NPD capabilities/
routines (i.e., process, strategy, team,
and IT/communication), showing how
these are defined and measured, testing
for their impact on performance, and
indicating to what extent they mediate
or are moderated by selected behavioral
environment factors (resources). The
remainder of this article is organized as
follows: first, each article/study is summarized in terms of the relevant theoretical concepts, the analyses, and the
primary research findings; next, contributions of the entire research program
are presented and discussed; finally,
managerial implications based on an
integration of the findings regarding
the issues and actions that are essential
for developing a successful global NPD
program are provided.
2 Certain
additional tests and results included in the original
articles are not reported because these go beyond the main
theme of the current summary—that is, the relationships
between the behavioral environment resources, capabilities,
and performance in the global NPD programs of firms.
#
1
2
Objectives
Underlying Theory/Constructs
Developed
Sample*
Analyses/
Methods
Modeling Results
Behavioral
environment (BE)
– identify BE factors
relevant for global NPD
– relate to global NPD
program performance
(PERF)
Theory: NPD, globalization, organization
– 3 BE factors:
Global innovation culture (GIC)
Resource commitment (RC)
Senior management involvement
(SMI)
– 3 PERF factors: Financial performance, time efficiency, windows of
opportunity
320 NA;
252 in
analysis
Factor analysis
(FA) and tests;
Cluster analysis;
ANOVA test for
x-cluster differences
BE factors (GIC, RC, SMI) confirmed;
4 clusters: ‘positive balanced,’ ‘hands
off,’ ‘no budget,’ and ‘high SMI only.’
Top performers: firms with high ratings
on all 3 BE factors achieve significantly
improved performance in global NPD.
Global NPD process
Theory: Resource-based view (RBV),
dynamic capabilities (DC); NPD process
– 3 global NPD process factors:
Global knowledge integration
Homework activities
Global launch preparation
467 NA
and EU;
387 in
analysis
Structural equation modeling
(SEM)
(LISREL)
3 global NPD process factors established as key ‘capabilities’; BE (GIC,
RC, SMI) confirmed as significant
‘resources’; BE/PERF relationship
mediated by all 3 capabilities; global
knowledge integration most important
for achieving success.
Theory: RBV/DC, entrepreneurial strategic posture, international diversification
– 2 global NPD strategy factors:
Global presence strategy
Global product harmonization
strategy
467 NA
and EU;
432 in
analysis
FA and tests;
SEM
(PLS-graph)
2 global product-market strategies
established as ‘capabilities’; BE (GIC,
SMI) confirmed as ‘resources’; BE/PERF
relationship mediated by both capabilities and these significantly related to
PERF; strategies of enhanced market
expansion and product standardization
are best.
467 NA
and EU;
467 in
analysis
FA and tests;
SEM
(PLS-graph);
Polar-extreme
groups (high/
low Dispersion)
BE (RC, SMI) confirmed as ‘resources’
and ‘global NPD team’ as capability
mediating the BE/PERF relationship;
high/low dispersion groups show significantly altered relationships: in ‘low’
groups, RC has a direct performance
impact; in ‘high’ groups, SMI and Team
determine outcome.
467 NA
and EU;
382 in
analysis
FA and tests;
Stepwise
Hierarchical
Regression
BE (RC, SMI) confirmed as ‘resources’;
IT/comm infrastructure and IT/comm
routines ‘capabilities’ linked to PERF; BE
as a contingency has significant interaction effects: high RC has negative
effect for Infrastructure, but positive for
routines; high SMI has negative effect
for routines (‘meddling’), but positive
for infrastructure.
– identify global NPD
process factors
– relate BE and process
factors to PERF
3
Global NPD strategy
– identify global productmarket strategy factors
– relate BE and strategies
to PERF
4
Theory: RBV/DC; NPD team
Global NPD team
– 2 dimensions:
– identify global NPD
Global NPD team construct
team factors
Global dispersion mediator (market
– relate BE to team and
breadth targeted, worldwide)
PERF
– impact of global
dispersion on team/PERF
relationship
5
IT/Comm capability
– identify IT/comm factors
– BE as contingency
between IT/comm-PERF
relationship
Theory: RBV/DC; organizational information processing
– 2 IT/communication factors:
IT/comm infrastructure
IT/comm routines
*NA and EU stand for North America and Europe. Sample size in each analysis differs due to the sensitivity of the analytical method to missing values.
Table 1: Overview of five research articles.
Article Reviews
The Behavioral Environment of the
Firm and Global NPD Performance
(Article #1)
Article #1 explores and specifies the
background resources of the firm considered to play a role in ensuring a
successful global NPD program (de
Brentani & Kleinschmidt, 2004). These
resource-based factors comprise the
‘softer’ elements that comprise the
‘behavioral environment’ (Chryssochoidis & Wong, 1998; Schein, 1990) and
“involve the firm’s organizational culture
and management commitment—that is,
the attitudes, values, experiences, and
managerial approaches that define and
guide the corporate effort” (de Brentani
& Kleinschmidt, 2004, p. 311). To ensure
that the dimensions reflect the global
aspects of the firm’s NPD program, the
study incorporates elements from three
forms of literature: NPD (e.g., Coo-
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
15
PAPERS
Global New Product Development Performance
per & Kleinschmidt, 1996; Henard &
Szymanski, 2001), organization (e.g.,
Acland, 1999; Gupta & Wilemon, 1990),
and NPD globalization (e.g., Goldner,
2000; Graber, 1996). Exploratory and
confirmatory factor analyses were used
to establish and confirm the behavioral environment and performance
constructs. Cluster analysis along with
ANOVA provided a basis for identifying
typical scenarios, or groupings, of firms
that display distinct positions in terms of
these resources. Table 1 provides a summary of the overall research, and Figure
2 presents the relationships addressed
in article #1.
Findings: According to the results,
three factors define the behavioral
environment (BE) (resources) for the
global NPD program of the firm. One factor integrates the notions of innovation
and globalization in the firm’s global
NPD culture, and two others represent different aspects of management
commitment to the global NPD program
(de Brentani & Kleinschmidt, 2004, pp.
317–318), specifically:
• Global innovation culture: an organizational culture that rewards entrepreneurship and innovativeness; does
not inadvertently punish risk-taking or
failure; encourages idea submission
and NPD participation, worldwide;
and creates an environment of formal
and informal international interdependence and communication.
• Resource commitment: an attitude on
the part of senior management to find,
dedicate, and/or redeploy resources to
worldwide NPD-related tasks; provide
sufficient resources for knowledge creation—including R&D and technology
development—international knowledge sharing and transfer; and allocate
the right, often the best, people to the
global NPD effort.
• Senior management involvement: a
commitment on the parts of senior
managers to be actively involved as
visionaries, sponsors, and champions of the international NPD effort of
the firm; this includes involvement in
16
February/March 2015
enhancing the reputation of the firm
and its new products, and encouraging strategic customers, worldwide, to
adopt the new products.
The findings further indicate that
three constructs provide a comprehensive basis for describing the performance of firms with respect to their
global NPD program, including:
• Financial performance: meeting sales,
budget, and profit objectives; technical success and profitability relative to
spending; performed better in global
(versus HQ) markets.
• Windows of opportunity: Over the last
three years . . . the global NPD program
has opened new market, product, and
technology arenas for the firm.
• Time efficiency (or time-to-market):
Over the last three years . . . new products launched on schedule; international rollouts were on schedule; the
NPD program was speedy and efficient.
Results of cluster analysis and
ANOVA indicate four distinct groupings of firms, where each group represents a typical behavioral environment
scenario in the real-world setting of
international NPD.3 The groups were
found to display profound differences
in terms of both their standing on the
three behavioral environment factors
and the performance of their global
NPD programs. The top performer,
labeled the ‘positive balanced’ scenario,
was found to have an organizational
behavioral platform that is strong in
all three resource dimensions. In these
firms, there is an open and innovative global NPD culture that encourages
both international interdependence
and also intra-organizational communication. Further, senior managers play
a key role as part of the NPD program
and are committed to its success on a
3 Nine (9) other aspects of global activities/dimensions
(e.g., ‘degree of internationalization’ and other company
identifiers) were used to ascertain that these were not responsible for the cluster foundation, and that indeed it is the
differences in the behavioral environment factors of the firm
that underlie the identified groupings.
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
worldwide scale. Finally, these firms
dedicate sufficient resources for handling problems and tasks inherent to
this complex global effort. The remaining three clusters have profiles with high
ratings in only one or at best two of the
behavioral environment factors (or low
on all), and they exhibit significantly
lower outcomes compared with the
top performing group. The ‘hands-off
approach’ cluster, although rating highto-medium/high on Global Innovation
Culture and Resource Commitment,
demonstrates low Senior Management
Involvement. In other words, only limited visioning and championing are provided by top managers to support and
guide the international NPD effort. For
the ‘no budget for global NPD’ cluster,
both culture and management involvement are found to be at acceptable
levels, but resource commitment is low.
Clearly, inadequate funding and thus
the inability to effectively perform the
complex tasks associated with global
NPD are linked to the low performance
exhibited by this group of firms. In the
fourth and lowest performing scenario,
only senior management involvement
has a high rating, which suggests that
negative results may be due to micromanagement and a perception of ‘meddling.’ Instead of providing overview,
leadership, and guidance, senior managers get too involved in the day-to-day
details of the program. The best performer group, that is, firms with high
ratings on all three behavioral environment factors, comprise 45% of the
sample. This suggests that achieving
a successful global NPD program is a
convincing possibility.
The Behavioral Environment and the
Global NPD Process (Article #2)
NPD performance has consistently been
linked to the nature of and the activities
comprising the process used for developing new products (Cooper, 2008; Evanschitzky et al., 2012). As with most NPD
research, however, the vast majority of
studies focus on the domestic scenario,
with little or no consideration for the
# Variables
Research Model
1 • Global innovation culture (GIC)
• Resource commitment
(RC)
• Senior management
involvement (SMI)
• Global NPD program
performance (PERF)
Cluster 1 (H,H,H)
High PERF
Cluster 2 (M,M,L)
Medium PERF
Cluster 3 (HM,L,H)
Medium PERF
Cluster 4 (L,L,H)
Lowest PERF
GIC
RC
PERF
SMI
2 GIC, RC, SMI, and PERF
• Global knowledge
integration (GKI)
• Homework
activities (HA)
• Global launch
preparation (GLP)
3 GIC , SMI, and PERF
• Global presence
strategy (GPS)
• Global product
harmonization strategy
(GPHS)
4 RC, SMI and PERF
• Global team (GT)
• Global dispersion (GD)
(moderator)
Results†
GIC
GKI
RC
HA
SMI
GLP
GIC
GPS
SMI
GPHS
Significance:
n.s. = not signif.
* = 0.05
** = 0.01
*** = 0.001
PERF
Significance:
n.s. = not signif.
* = 0.05
** = 0.01
*** = 0.001
PERF
RC
RC
GT
SMI
n.s.
High Dispersion
n.s.
SMI
GD
= moderator
RC
Low Dispersion
GT
SMI
5 RC, SMI, and PERF
• IT/comm
infrastructure (IT/CI)
• IT/comm routines
(IT/CR)
IT/CI
PERF
IT/CR
n.s.
n.s.
PERF
n.s.
RC
SMI
PERF
GT
PERF
n.s. = not signif.
*** = 0.001
Interaction Effects:
IT/CI*RC = –**
IT/CI*SMI = +**
IT/CR*RC = +*
IT/CR*SMI = –**
= Interaction
Note: all interaction effects are significant
† Cluster 1 (H,H,H) is high in all three BE factors and is significantly highest in global NPD program performance; Cluster 2 (M,M,L)
medium on GIC and RC, low on SMI and medium performance; Cluster 3 (HM,L,M) high-medium on GIC, low on RC, medium on SMI
and medium performance; Cluster 4 (L,L,H) low on GIC and RC, high on SMI and lowest performance.
Figure 2: Research models.
issue of globalization. Thus, the second analysis of this global NPD research
deals with how companies compete on
a worldwide stage using a NPD process
that allows not only for the coordination
of this complex endeavor, but also for the
effective leveraging of the NPD-related
creative skills and capabilities (Klein-
schmidt, de Brentani, & Salomo, 2007),
which often are diverse and internationally diffused (Roberts, 2001). Combining the dynamic capabilities/resource
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
17
PAPERS
Global New Product Development Performance
based view—which underscores that it
is the resources and capabilities of the
firm that are keys to achieving a sustainable competitive advantage—with an
emphasis on the process used for developing new products as primary determinants of success, the question driving
the analysis was: What are the organizational resources and process capabilities
and their inter-relationships that explain
performance in the global NPD setting?
To understand the activities, routines, or capabilities, that are the keys to
NPD success, it is useful to think of new
product development in terms of information processing, where firms “obtain
information about markets, technology,
competitors, and resources and translate this into product design” (Moeneart
et al., 2000, p. 361) and other relevant
NPD activities. Thus, success in NPD
is the result of organizational data processing that transforms information into
products and marketing activities that
respond to customer needs and achieve
a competitive edge (Akgun, Lynn,
& Reilly, 2002; Lynn, Reilly, & Akgun,
2000). Applied to global NPD, a key
capability is an information processing
approach that accesses, integrates, and
leverages the knowledge and skills of the
firm that often are dispersed, worldwide.
This, to ensure that products are conceived both in the forms of ‘global’ entities, while also including adaptations
that respond to stimuli from globally
dispersed country markets and sources
of expertise (Moenaert, 2000; Roberts
& Senturia, 1996). To be competitively
superior on a global scale, such information must be transformed through
‘homework’ activities that are effective
in creating new products that respond
to diverse customer needs worldwide
(Graber, 1996; Ogbuehi & Bellas, 1992).
Beyond product design, however, firms
must also have an effective global
launch capability—one that is based on
solid market information about differences in buyer readiness and behavior,
worldwide, which entails training and
empowering of the frontline for a complex international commercialization
18
February/March 2015
program (Argyres & Silverman, 2004;
Graber, 1996). In line with this theory,
the results of exploratory and confirmatory analyses identified three global
NPD process capabilities (Kleinschmidt
et al., 2007, pp. 423–424), as follows:
• Global knowledge integration: Capability by which firms access and integrate
globally and functionally dispersed
information about customers, technologies, and company expertise/
resources throughout the NPD process
in order to respond to customer needs
and preferences, worldwide.
• Homework activities: Application of
routines that permit evaluation of and
planning for market characteristics and
preferences; allow for development
and testing of product concepts, benefits, features and positioning, based
on global market conditions.
• Global launch preparation: A tactical
capability that entails the development of a detailed formal launch plan;
also includes training and empowering the frontline, internal marketing,
and ensuring that commercialization is
based on solid market information and
on differences in buyer readiness and
behavior, worldwide.
As per RBV/dynamic capabilities
theory, the relationship between capability and performance incorporates
the impact of the firm’s background
resources or behavioral environment.
It is well-established that adequate
resources are needed for NPD (Henard
& Szymanski, 2001) to ensure that the
right routines are in place and that these
are understood, coordinated, and effectively deployed (Daellenbach, McCarthy, & Schoenecker, 1999). Given the
complexity and dynamics of NPD programs that are of international scope—
e.g., coping with geographic and cultural
distances in markets, team members,
and affiliates; coordinating and integrating diverse information, worldwide—an
organizational attitude that embraces
sufficient resource commitment to the
global NPD effort is indispensable
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
(Graber, 1996; Swink, 2000). In addition,
having a strong global innovation culture
is essential as it is in the context of this
softer background resource—a culture
that entails openness to world markets,
to diverse customer needs and preferences, and to different national cultures
and competitive scenarios (Ogbuehi &
Bellas, 1992; Roberts, 2001)—that a firm’s
knowledge can be effectively leveraged
through NPD process capabilities. Such
a culture allows for the development of
innovative products and for the opening
of new markets on a global scale (Grant,
1996; Roberts, 2001). Similarly, senior
management involvement in global NPD
enhances the capability-performance
link through its visioning, championing,
and sponsoring roles (Reid & de Brentani, 2010; Reid, de Brentani, & Kleinschmidt, 2014). These roles are critical
for an effective global NPD process. They
reduce distance among geographically and culturally dispersed facilities
by translating company objectives and
values for NPD participants worldwide
and by pulling together elements of an
internationally dispersed NPD program
and team (Knight & Cavusgil, 2004;
McDonough, Kahn, & Barczak, 2001). A
schematic representation of these relationships is presented in Figure 2 (#2).
Findings: Structural equation modeling (LISREL) relating the two construct levels (resources and capabilities)
to outcome indicates that the three NPD
process capabilities identified in this
study are significantly and positively
linked to global NPD program performance but they are related in different
ways. Global knowledge integration was
found to be key because it plays a critical
role in achieving internal and external
coordination and integration of information about customers, markets, and
dispersed company resources, resulting
in new product offerings by which firms
gain a pioneering edge in international
markets. This factor has a strong and
positive impact on outcome, indicating
that an NPD process capability by which
firms can access and integrate globally
and functionally dispersed information
leads to new products that are successful in responding to diverse market
characteristics and needs. The other two
NPD process capabilities are also linked
to performance; however, at a reduced
level. Homework activities, potentially
through the application of routines by
which to identify latent needs in terms
of key benefits or specific local market requirements, allow companies to
exploit attractive market opportunities. For global launch preparation, the
positive link with global NPD program
outcome supports past evidence that
a highly developed launch capability
is essential for coordinating diverse
commercialization activities, ensuring frontline preparation, and coping
with international roll-out complexities
(Hultink & Atuahene-Gima, 2000).
The three behavioral environment factors were also found to play
a significant role in the NPD process/
performance relationship. Of particular
relevance is resource commitment for
assuring support for the effective deployment of NPD process routines. Further,
the findings highlight the importance
of global innovation culture, because
this corporate value of simultaneous
focus on innovation plus globalization
has a significant and positive effect on
the firm’s ability to undertake effective
global knowledge integration. Given
that the NPD process stages as outlined
in the model are largely sequential, it is
the knowledge creation capability, by
mediating the firm’s overall culture and
approach to global NPD that assures the
effectiveness of the ensuing homework
and launch preparation tasks. The third
resource factor, senior management
involvement, is also significantly linked
to both global knowledge integration
and global launch preparation, suggesting that senior managers have at least
two key roles in global NDP: (1) assuring the global scope of the NPD program and the overview that often only
they can provide of the firm’s worldwide endeavors (Graber, 1996; Roberts
& Senturia, 1996); and (2) their role as
innovation representatives, enhancing
the reputation of the firm and its new
products by interacting with strategic
and lead user customers (de Brentani,
2001). Regarding homework activities,
however, the finding of a non-significant
negative relationship suggests that too
active an involvement by senior managers in established and task-related
NPD process operations can constitute
‘meddling’ rather than a positive form
of management support.
The Behavioral Environment and
Global NPD Strategy (Article #3)
Article #3 tackles the issue of the product-market strategies needed for gaining a competitive edge in the context of
global NPD (de Brentani, Kleinschmidt,
& Salomo, 2010). Here too, the corporate internal resource environment is
seen as highly relevant. The question
driving the analysis is: What organizational resources and NPD strategies,
and their interrelationships, account for
success in capturing global markets?
The theoretical framework incorporates concepts from three literatures:
RBV, entrepreneurial strategic posture,
and international diversification strategy. According to the entrepreneurial
strategic posture model (Covin & Slevin,
1991), firms have a certain ‘posture’
with regard to innovation that involves
both proactive and risk-taking behaviors (McDougall & Oviatt, 2000; Morris
& Jones, 1999), as well as a managerial
philosophy, style, or culture that are
entrepreneurial and embrace the idea of
crossing national borders to create value
for firms (Knight, 2000; Slater & Narver,
2000). As with RBV, the ‘posture’ embodies a firm environment for international
NPD in which strategy acts as a primary
mediator between company resources
and performance (Thoumrungroje &
Tansuhaj, 2005). The third form of literature—international diversification
strategy—deals with both product- and
market-related expansion issues in the
global arena, including the degree of
product standardization versus adaptation and the extent of market breadth
or diversification versus concentration
worldwide (Capar & Katobe, 2003; Hitt,
Hoskisson, & Kim, 1997). Based on these
types of literature, the key questions
related to global NPD strategy are: (1)
What should the level of market coverage be geographically; in other words,
to what extent should firms be ‘truly
global’? And (2) to what extent should
products developed for world markets
be standardized versus adapted or localized (this is also linked to the issue
of centralized versus localized NPD
effort)? The hypothesis is that achieving superior performance in global NPD
requires that firms have the ‘right’ product-market strategies and that these are
nested in a supportive organizational
resource environment. Figure 2 (#3) provides a schematic representation of the
relationships addressed.
Findings: Based on the literature
and using the PLS Graph measurement
model, two global NPD strategy constructs were developed (de Brentani
et al., 2010, pp. 147–148):
• Global presence strategy: an international diversification approach in
which firms expand across borders
of global regions and countries into
different geographic locations or markets. The objective: to be ‘truly global’
and operate in all hemispheres of the
world. To this end, companies establish global NPD goals, with expanded
international product–market arenas,
planned innovation thrust, and commitment to the international effort.
• Global product harmonization strategy: the extent to which new products
are standardized (versus adapted) for
world markets, or globalization versus localization. ‘Globalization’ entails
centralizing NPD decisions, creating
products with one worldwide standard,
image and design, with only minor
adjustments for local markets; ‘localization’ entails decentralized NPD
decisions and localized products for
different countries and/or regions.
The results of model analysis indicate a significant, positive link between
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
19
PAPERS
Global New Product Development Performance
the behavioral environment and global
NPD program performance, and that
this impact is mediated by the global
NPD strategy of the firm. A global presence strategy at the higher end of a
firm’s expansion effort across international boundaries was found to be
significantly and positively related to
outcome. Further, a product harmonization strategy at the ‘globalization’
end of the localization–globalization
spectrum was found to have a positive
performance effect; these global NPD
strategies do not function in a vacuum,
however. The research supports the
notion that operating in international
markets calls for an organizational culture that incorporates at once proactive
NPD and a strong orientation to exploiting the multifaceted opportunities and
challenges in the global market arena
(i.e., global innovation culture), as well
as senior management that is actively
committed to and involved in the roles
of visioning, sponsoring, and championing in order to guide and coordinate
the firm’s global NPD effort (i.e., senior
management involvement).
The Behavioral Environment and the
Global NPD Team (Article #4)
Article #4 links the topic of NPD team
to global NPD program performance
(Salomo, Kleinschmidt, & de Brentani, 2010). Extensive literature deals
with the composition and interaction
of teams such that they develop new
products that are innovative, respond
to customer needs and preferences,
and are launched in a timely fashion (Evanschitzky et al., 2012; Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986). Because NPD is
multidisciplinary, where tasks, skills,
resources, and knowledge from various areas of expertise are combined,
the literature tends to concentrate on
the notion of cross-functionality. Yet
in addition, firms involved in global
NPD must deal with integrating crossnational and cross-cultural knowledge
differences. To this end, the study
deals with a broadened view of the
NPD team, incorporating the effects of
20
February/March 2015
international diversification and geographical dispersion. Because global
teams bring together knowledge and
experience that are often specific to certain countries and to markets that are
geographically dispersed, teams that
effectively integrate the international
scope of this knowledge enhance the
firm’s performance in the global NPD
initiative. Further, because the global
NPD team represents a key organizational capability, we assess the extent
to which it mediates the link between
the firm’s behavioral environment and
performance.
Research evidence and business
practice support the need for a global
NPD team (Smith & Blanck, 2002; Snow
et al., 1996); yet, establishing teams that
function well in line with the global
nature of the NPD task is still a challenge
for most firms (McDonough et al., 2001).
Further, a lack of or mismatch in certain
antecedent conditions internal to the
firm—including elements of the Behavioral Environment—are possible reasons
for this problem (Wei & Morgan, 2004).
In our analysis, therefore, the team–
performance relationship is extended
to incorporate the impact of background resources—specifically, resource
commitment and senior management
involvement. In addition, the relationships are viewed as contingent on the
degree of global dispersion of the firm’s
NPD effort, which is likely to influence
the management approach and to alter
the relationships among resources, the
team, and performance. The complexities and dynamics of a global NPD program that is dispersed internationally
(e.g., coping with geographical and cultural distances between markets, team
members and affiliates, and integrating
diverse information and competences,
worldwide) call for greater commitment
in both resources (Boghani, Onassis,
& Benebadji, 1999; Ogbuehi & Bellas,
1992) and senior management direction and support (Chiesa, 2000; Grassmann & von Zedwitz, 1999) to ensure
the functioning and coordination of this
effort. Because global teams are typi-
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
cally formed top down (Snow, Davison,
Snell, & Hambrick, 1996), senior management involvement, as well as adequate resource commitment (Schuster
et al., 1997; Sethi et al., 2001), become
particularly relevant because they signal
the value and legitimacy of global NPD
activities, encouraging individual commitment to the team (Pringle & Kroll,
1997). Further, committing sufficient
NPD resources allows for more slack,
which helps to reduce the potential
for conflict inherent in heterogeneous
international teams (McDonough et al.,
2001). One performance construct—
achieving windows of opportunity—was
considered the most relevant in the
analysis; this, because NPD teams that
integrate the talents and knowledge in
different parts of the organization and
that reflect its international scope are
likely to be of particular value when it
comes to enhancing the firm’s ability to
open up new technologies and markets
and to venture into completely new arenas (Snow et al., 1996; Mudambi et al.,
2007) (see Figure 2, #4, for a representation of the relationships addressed).
Findings: Using structural equation
modelling (PLS Graph measurement
model), a construct relating to the functioning of the global NPD team was
developed (Salomo et al., 2010, p. 965):
• Global NPD team: Teams make use of
and integrate the talents and knowledge available in different parts of the
global organization; teams are ‘truly
global’—they include members from
different countries and regions, who
combine and integrate their knowledge
of markets and technologies, reflecting
the international/global nature of the
business.
In the overall model, a well-functioning global NPD team was shown to
be significantly and positively linked
to performance. Also, the results support the hypotheses that senior management involvement in and resource
commitment to the development and
management of the global NPD team
play critical roles. The moderator—high
versus low geographical dispersion of
markets—shows, however, that companies experience a different impact in
terms of the team/performance relationship when it comes to the behavioral environment resource factors. In
highly dispersed global NPD programs,
not only is having an effective global
NPD team essential, but senior management involvement plays a significant
and direct role in achieving superior
performance. This presumably occurs
by facilitating the translation of global
NPD objectives and strategies across
diverse cultures and by pulling together
the knowledge and NPD activities from
different locations worldwide. In the low
dispersion scenario, however, the impact
of the global NPD team is less important,
while the direct effect on performance of
resource commitment becomes highly
significant. This suggests that in a more
centralized NPD scenario, the onus for
accessing and integrating information
and knowledge related to new product
development for global markets is on
the creation of effective communication and knowledge integration systems.
This is confirmed in articles #2 and #5,
respectively, where the importance of
the global knowledge integration and
the IT-communication capabilities (see
below) are shown to be primary drivers
of global NPD program performance.
The Behavioral Environment and
Global IT/Communication Capability
(Article #5)
Article #5 focuses on IT/communication (IT/comm) or the information
processing capability of the firm (Kleinschmidt, de Brentani, & Salomo, 2010).
NPD in essence is an information-processing activity in which teams “obtain
information about markets, technologies, competitors, and resources and
translate this information into product
design and strategy” (Moenaert et al.,
2000, p. 361). In the global NPD context, this calls for recognition of the
importance of acquiring information
that relates to global markets, a setting
that is often functionally, geographically, and culturally dispersed (Barczak
& McDonough, 2003). Today’s improved
informational means—networks that
incorporate a variety of systems and
advances in information and communication technology—are of particular
benefit for global NPD because they
enable users to access information
about competitive offerings and market
preferences quickly and at low cost,
allowing for access to the broad slate
of skills and knowledge relevant for the
NPD program, worldwide (Chung-Jen,
2007; Khurana, 2006). Such systems are
typically nested in a corporate internal
environment that affects their nature
and functioning (Chai & Xin, 2006; Farris et al., 2003; Menon, Chowdhury, &
Lucas, 2002). Background elements of
the firm’s behavioral environment, such
as senior management involvement and
resource commitment, are likely to moderate the outcome (Pentina & Strutton,
2007). Thus, in this article, the focus is
on the IT/communication (IT/comm)
capability of the firm and on testing a
model in which the firm’s behavioral
environment interacts with the global
NPD program performance impact of
this capability.
NPD involves learning that results
from information processing; thus,
organizational information processing
theory is used to describe and explain
the outcome of company efforts in this
regard. Organizational information processing entails “a combination of information processing activities, including
information acquisition, interpretation,
transmission, storing, retrieving, and
using” (Petina & Strutton, 2007, p. 151),
which has been shown to play a positive
role in facilitating new product success
(Calantone et al., 2002; Di Benedetto
et al., 2008). Because this theory is based
on a contingency model in which organizations fit their information processing capacity to environmental (internal
and external) demands (Egelhoff, 1982;
Tushman & Nadler, 1978), it is used to
explain how the firm’s behavioral environment—senior management involve-
ment and resource commitment—acts
as a contingency in determining the
link between its IT/comm capability
and global NPD program performance.
Figure 2 (#5) provides a schematic representation of these relationships.
Findings: Global NPD program performance, a second order construct
combining the items in the three performance factors (article #1) was created.
Based on the organizational information processing literature, along with
a formative measurement model, two
global IT/comm capability constructs
were identified (Kleinschmidt et al.,
2010, p. 204):
• IT/comm infrastructure: A system that
incorporates advances in technology; provides for a variety of means by
which to interact and communicate
(e.g., email, tele-/video-conferencing,
face-to-face/virtual meetings, data-/
project-based websites), enhancing the
firm’s ability to access, integrate and
transform widely dispersed information and skills.
• IT/comm routines: Advances in communication and information technology allow for the application of
routines/approaches by which to create solutions for NPD tasks. Such systems are often sophisticated but routine
and familiar to the NPD project team,
involving standardized processes. For
global NPD, this entails: approaches
for coping with geographic/cultural/
language barriers; routines for accessing and analyzing customer input to be
incorporated into product design; and
a capacity for centralizing information
about products and customers.
Step-wise moderated regression
analysis indicates that the two IT/
comm capabilities are highly significant and equally important in positively
impacting global NPD program performance. Success was found to result
from an organizational data processing
capability that effectively transforms
divergent and internationally dispersed information into products that
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
21
PAPERS
Global New Product Development Performance
achieve a competitive edge. Introduction of the moderators, along with the
four interaction terms (full contingency model), however, offers some
important insights. First, a significant
increase in explained variance (36%)
lends support to the moderating effects
of the two behavioral environment factors (senior management involvement
and resource commitment). Second,
and more important, these moderators behave differently in terms of their
impact on the link between IT/comm
capability and NPD program performance. Although the moderators were
hypothesized to positively affect each
capability–performance relationship,
only the moderating impact of senior
management Involvement on the IT/
comm infrastructure–performance
relationship and of resource commitment on the IT/comm routines–performance relationship were shown to
be positive; the other two moderating
relationships were found to be negative. This suggests that for IT/comm
infrastucture, active senior management involvement has a positive effect,
potentially by lending legitimacy to
the establishment of innovative NPDrelated networking systems. At the
same time, overfunding this capability (high resource commitment) such
that systems go beyond the needs and
competencies of the NPD team results
in decreasing returns (Huang & Liu,
2005). In the case of IT/comm routines, providing sufficient resource
commitment for these critical NPD
information processing tasks has the
effect of leveraging the already positive
capability–performance relationship,
while overzealous senior management
involvement in the discharge of these
established routines borders on ‘meddling,’ with a suppressive effect on the
capability–performance link.
Discussion and Contributions
This article reviews the findings of a
major empirical research study on the
success factors of global new product
development. The study incorporates
22
February/March 2015
a broad set of dimensions—based on
three forms of literature, including
NPD, globalization, and organization—
and these are integrated as parts of
an overall assessment of what leads to
superior performance. The findings are
discussed as follows and a condensed
summary is provided in Table 2.
An important contribution of the
research is the development and adaptation of NPD success factors that incorporate the globalization aspect of these
programs. One of these is global innovation culture, which combines concepts
from entrepreneurship and innovativeness (NPD literature) with the ideas
of openness to the world and of making NPD a ‘truly global’ undertaking
by emphasizing knowledge sharing and
responsiveness to markets, worldwide
(globalization literature). The research
results support the notion that successfully operating in global markets
calls for an organization culture that
incorporates at once a proactive NPD
approach and an orientation to multifaceted global opportunities and challenges. Another dimension specifically
adapted to the global NPD setting is
global presence strategy. Whereas the
globalization literature refers to diversification strategies in terms of multiple markets across the hemispheres
of the world (e.g., Hitt et al., 1997), the
present research adds the notions of
planning for specific arenas of strategic
thrust worldwide and also of involving
a geographically dispersed team in the
NPD effort. Further, the global product harmonization strategy factor was
developed by incorporating not only
the extent to which new products are
globalized (versus localized) but also
the tactics needed to achieve this—that
is, standardization of the ‘core’ product offering, centralized control of
NPD, one quality standard and brand
identity worldwide, and simultaneous
launch. The findings indicate that these
adapted constructs are valid, reliable,
and important in that they are significantly linked to global NPD program
performance.
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
A second major contribution of the
research is the assumption supported
by the findings that factors linked to
global NPD program performance function at different operational levels. Two
sets of dimensions are identified: (1)
the behavioral environment of the firm
(i.e., global innovation culture, resource
commitment, and senior management
involvement) and (2) specific capabilities or routines; (i.e., process, strategy,
team, and IT/comm capabilities. Using
the RBV/dynamic capabilities framework, we show that these dimensions
operate at different organizational levels and impact performance differently.
The behavioral environment comprises
one level of factors representing the
longer-term, inimitable, or background,
‘resources’ needed for achieving a sustainable competitive advantage (Helfat
& Peteraf, 2003; Smith, Vasudevan, &
Tanniru, 1996). The second level entails
specific ‘capabilities’ by which managers operate and integrate the organization’s skills and leverage its internal
resources (Teece et al, 1997). The three
behavioral environment factors identified in this research are found in all five
studies to be directly and/or indirectly
related to global NPD program performance, thus confirming the significance
of background resources in achieving a
sustainable competitive advantage in
this regard. Indeed, we show that to be a
top performer, firms must have all three
behavioral environment resources in
place: a strong innovation-plus-globalization culture, solid top management
involvement, and sufficient resource
commitment to support the global NPD
program (article #1). Further, we show
that these background resource dimensions play a significant role in leveraging
the second set of factors; in other words,
the specific NPD-related capabilities in
terms of their impact on performance
(articles #2 through #5). Whereas past
studies treat success factors—background resources and operating capabilities—as functioning on an even
plane, our results show that there are
important mediating and moderating
Article #1. de Brentani, Ulrike, and Elko J. Kleinschmidt (2004). Corporate culture and commitment: Impact on performance of international new
product development programs. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21 (5), 309–333.
– Three behavioral environment factors (resources) of the firm—global innovation culture, resource commitment, and senior management
involvement—established and found to be significantly linked to global NPD program outcome. Four holistic company groupings (clusters) based on
behavioral environment factors were identified, showing that ‘best’ performers in global NPD are firms with a high ranking on all three resources.
Article #2. Kleinschmidt, Elko J., Ulrike de Brentani, and Sören Salomo (2007). Performance of global new product development programs: A resourcebased view. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24 (5), 419–441.
– Three global NPD process capabilities—global knowledge integration, homework activities, and global launch preparation—established and found
to significantly mediate the impact on NPD program performance of the three behavioral environment factors. The NPD process capability of global
knowledge integration is highly significant for assuring success.
Article #3. de Brentani, Ulrike, Elko J. Kleinschmidt, and Sören Salomo (2010). Success in global new product development: Impact of strategy and the
behavioral environment of the firm. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27 (2), 143–160.
– Two global product-market strategies—global presence strategy (degree of diversification/expansion across countries) and global product
harmonization strategy (degree of product globalization versus localization)—established and found to support that success is linked to a
strategy of extensive market diversification (‘truly global’) and to products that are standardized with only minor local adaptations. The behavioral
environment factors of global innovation culture and senior management play a strong role in assuring success.
Article #4. Salomo, Sören, Elko J. Kleinschmidt, and Ulrike de Brentani (2010). Managing new product development teams in a globally dispersed NPD
program. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27 (5), 955–971.
– The impact of resource commitment and senior management involvement on global NPD program performance found to be partially mediated by
global NPD team, while resource commitment also impacts outcome directly. Taking into account the moderator (degree of global dispersion—
number of countries targeted), impact on performance of global NPD team changed: low dispersion cases, resource commitment plays dominant
role; high dispersion cases, senior management involvement and global NPD team account for success.
Article #5. Kleinschmidt, Elko J., Ulrike de Brentani, and Sören Salamo (2010). Information processing and firm-internal environment contingencies:
Performance impact on global new product development. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19 (3), 200–218.
– Two IT-communication capabilities—It/comm infrastructure and It/comm routines—established and found to be significantly linked to global NPD
program outcome. Introduction of senior management involvement and resource commitment as moderators indicates two potentially negative
effects: too high senior management involvement in routines indicates ‘meddling’; overspending on infrastructure can result in overcomplicated IT
systems.
Message: The research supports the underlying RBV/dynamic capabilities model; behavioral environment factors are valuable, inimitable, background
‘resources’ needed for achieving a sustainable competitive advantage in global NPD; and the activities/techniques/routines are the dynamic
‘capabilities’ that mediate the impact of these resources on global NPD program performance.
Table 2: Summary of results.
relationships between the two levels of
dimensions and their combined impact
on outcome. This provides insight for
managers about how to adjust their
existing resources and capabilities for
best performance.
A third contribution relates to the set
of capabilities identified in the study and
to showing how these impact global NPD
program outcomes directly and how they
interact with the behavioral environment
and the dispersion moderator in terms of
performance. Specifically,
• In the global NPD process analysis (article #2), three factors—global knowledge
integration, homework activities, and
global launch preparation—are linked
to performance. Global knowledge
integration (the capability to access
and integrate globally dispersed information throughout the NPD process
in order to respond to customer needs
and preferences, worldwide) is shown
to be the most important success factor. The finding that this dimension is
also significant in mediating the impact
on performance of the three behavioral environment factors suggests that
achieving success requires strength at
both the resource and capability levels.
• In the strategy analysis (article #3),
two factors are identified: Global presence strategy (the degree of international dispersion of the global NPD
marketing effort) and global product
harmonization strategy (the degree of
product globalization/standardization
versus localization). The two strategies
are found to be significantly related
directly to and in mediating the effect
of the behavioral environment (global
innovation culture and senior management involvement) on performance.
• The NPD team analysis (article #4)
goes beyond the traditional literature
on cross-functionalism and defines the
global NPD team as integrating the
talents and knowledge about markets
and technologies available in different parts of the global organization,
and involving frontline personnel,
worldwide. This, along with the global
dispersion of NPD effort moderator,
leads to insights about the mediating
effect of the global NPD team capability on performance. ‘High’ and ‘low’
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
23
PAPERS
Global New Product Development Performance
dispersion groups are shown to differ.
A strong global NPD team has a stronger performance impact when global
NPD is highly dispersed worldwide.
In scenarios involving low dispersion,
a global NPD team is less relevant,
with the onus for knowledge access
and assimilation falling on the global
knowledge integration and IT-comm
capabilities of the firm.
• Article #5 introduces IT/communication, a capability that has received
limited attention in the NPD literature, but considered relevant due to
the dispersion of knowledge, teams,
resources, and markets in global NPD.
Two factors—IT/comm infrastructure
(a means for incorporating advances
in technology for interacting and communicating worldwide), and IT/comm
routines (the ability to use advanced
systems to analyze and create solutions
for specific global NPD tasks)—are
positively linked to global NPD performance. Introducing the behavioral
environment factors as moderators of
the IT/comm-performance relationship, however, leads to new insights.
Senior management involvement in
IT/comm infrastructure is positive
(senior managers have an overview
and understanding of technical system
needed for the global effort), but is
negatively linked to IT/comm routines
(over-involvement in specific tasks
may constitute ‘meddling’). Resource
commitment has the opposite effect:
high levels negatively affect IT-comm
infrastructure (presumably due to a
complex technical system not in line
with requirements), but results in a
stronger IT-comm routines capability
(presumably because it matches people, training, and data with analytical
requirements).
Managerial Implications
Today, markets are global in scope and
so the NPD program of firms must be
as well. Managers must create a new
product development environment and
approach within their firm, which incorporate not only the ‘right’ elements that
24
February/March 2015
lead to NPD success, but each of these
must embrace the notion of globalization. In this article, we provide a summary of these globalization-adapted
factors based on five topic-specific analyses of a major empirical study of global
NPD. An important aspect of the research
is that it distinguishes between two levels
of success factors, including background
resources that define the organizational
setting, experience or ‘posture’ of the
firm (behavioral environment), and the
more explicit dynamic capabilities or
routines that must be deployed in order
to achieve superior performance in the
global NPD program.
Importance of the Behavioral
Environment
According to the findings, an overall corporate resource platform that is strong
on all three of the Behavioral Environment dimensions is essential. In each
of the analyses, the resource factors
were found to be significantly linked
to global NPD program outcome due
to the important leveraging effect they
have on the deployment of the firm’s
NPD-related capabilities. The best performing companies have an NPD culture
that is open, innovative, and focused
on globalization; they encourage active
involvement on the parts of senior managers; they are committed to dedicating
sufficient resources to the international
NPD effort. In sum, these firms place
substantial emphasis on the ‘softer’
background resource elements of the
firm and in this way set the ‘right’ tone
for a successful global NPD program.
How can companies go about creating this ‘right’ internal environment?
When speaking of a firm’s background
resources, we are talking about its overall organizational culture; and, making real changes to this background
resource base requires thought, effort,
and time, and must be stimulated
through a variety of shorter-term initiatives.
Initiative #1: Senior managers must
be actively involved. When planning
for a successful global NPD program, a
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
key resource is the more tacit, experience-based, input that comes with the
involvement of senior managers. Their
role is to have a guiding and bringingtogether influence, acting as visionaries
and champions for proactive initiatives
by providing an overview of the firm’s
international objectives and competency base, and enhancing the reputation of the firm and its new products for
strategic markets and customers. Developing this wide-ranging and dynamic
resource calls for the following:
• Start with hiring and training personnel who have had exposure to both new
product development and the international business environment.
• Hire and/or develop managers to
become actively involved in the global
NPD program. They should have
the experience and backgrounds to
enhance the international reputation
of the firm in terms of its new product
ventures and develop strong relationships with strategic customers worldwide, enhancing the standing of the
organization internationally.
• Senior managers should actively participate in project review to get an overview of the program, become familiar
with the projects and teams that are
parts of the global NPD effort, and to
ensure that projects are in line with the
overall strategy of the firm.
• Be sure to maintain a balance between
focus and intensity of involvement. For
a positive effect, senior management
attention should be deployed such that
it has a leveraging effect on the capabilities of the firm (e.g., encouraging
global knowledge integration, guiding
the global NPD strategy), while avoiding overly intense immersion at the
operational level (‘meddling’) that can
lead to poorly motivated teams and
negative program outcomes.
Initiative #2: Develop a plan for
resource commitment. Firms must
have the right attitude about resource
commitment to global NPD. Striving
for world markets makes little sense if
managers do not to commit adequate
resources to R&D and marketing and
to the coordination and integration of
these endeavors. Only by dedicating
the needed resources can companies
ensure that an effective global NPD process is in place, that the global team
functions successfully, and that the
needed IT/communication capability is
in place. To this end, companies should:
• Ensure adequate spending for technical and marketing activities, with the
knowledge that the latter are more
complex, time consuming, and expensive in the global versus the domestic
NPD sphere.
• Establish a new product steering/coordination committee that is sufficiently
funded to operate effectively and on
time.
• Emphasize resource commitment for
facilitating international knowledge
integration both in terms of encouraging involvement and interaction by
global NPD personnel and in establishing an advanced IT/communication
capability that meets the information
needs of the team.
• Respect the balance between sufficient
versus overspending on IT/comm
infrastructure, where the latter goes
beyond the needs and competencies
of the firm and can have an adverse
effect (e.g., overly complex, non-use,
too much information, and so forth).
Initiative #3: Create a global innovation culture within the firm. Global NPD
success requires so much more than
managers getting involved and a budget. Without a culture of commitment to
innovations-plus-globalization, senior
manager involvement and resource sufficiency end up being not much more
than an attempt at process control with
little chance of success. What is needed
is a background resource that values
innovation-plus-globalization, and
where the ideas of entrepreneurship,
risk taking, knowledge sharing, cooperation between countries, and responding
to broad and diverse markets are inte-
gral to the firm’s NPD effort. Achieving
this entails a complex and longer-term
endeavor because it involves people,
how they think, and often a paradigm
shift in the way NPD is accomplished.
Moving in the right direction entails:
• Establishing systems and techniques
that foster creativeness, learning, and
divergent thinking on the part of personnel involved in global NPD; encouraging new product idea submission.
• Recognizing that risk taking and entrepreneurship are important for the firm;
rewarding championing behavior; and
not punishing failed or cancelled projects.
• Instilling the idea of globalization as
integral to NPD by: involving units
located in different geographical
regions; focusing on information-,
knowledge-, and meaning-sharing
across language and cultural sectors;
and emphasizing responsiveness to
both the ‘global’ and ‘local’ elements
of markets.
Developing the ‘Right’ Capabilities for
Global NPD
Firms that are proficient in the four
capability sets identified in this study
achieve superior performance when
these are applied to the development of
new products for global markets. Compared with the behavioral environment
resources, however, these capabilities are more amenable to managerial
action and can be built and adjusted in
the shorter term. Key initiatives include:
Initiative #4: Commit to the ‘right’
global NPD strategies. Develop a product-market strategy that takes into
account both the extent of global market dispersion/diversification and the
degree to which new products for international markets are globalized versus
localized. To this end,
• Have a planning process that has active
involvement from the worldwide NPD
group and that ensures sufficient funding in support of a major global expansion effort.
• Commit to a global presence strategy
that emphasizes broad expansion and
diversification across world markets,
where the aim is to create and maintain a ‘truly’ globalized position with a
marketing effort that extends across all
geographical hemispheres.
• Develop an NPD process that effectively deals with the extent to which
new products developed for global
markets are adapted to respond
to individual country or regional
markets.
• Create an NPD platform where the
product focus is at the ‘globalization’
end of the globalization-localization
spectrum (i.e., global harmonization
strategy), ensuring a unique identity,
worldwide.
Initiative #5: Create a solid global
knowledge integration capability: Managers must establish a capability that
focuses on integrating globally and
functionally dispersed information
throughout the stages of the NPD process. To achieve this:
• Create systems/approaches that
achieve internal and external coordination and integration of information about customers, markets, and
company skills and knowledge-based
resources, worldwide.
• Encourage and support openness and interaction among NPD
personnel throughout the global NPD
organization.
• Ensure sufficient direct investment in
advanced interactive IT systems, regular face-to-face global NPD team meetings, and conference-call facilities, and
so forth.
Initiative #6: Ensure an effective
global NPD team. Success in global NPD
requires having teams who develop
products that respond to the unique
opportunities and needs in the global
marketplace. These teams not only
combine different areas of functional
expertise, but bring together diverse
sets of knowledge, talents, experiences,
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
25
PAPERS
Global New Product Development Performance
and cultures from different parts of the
global organization. Thus,
• As a first step, analyze the composition
of existing NPD teams and identify the
knowledge and skill-related competencies available in the firm, worldwide.
• Ensure through training that team
members/leaders have the ability to
recognize and integrate these diverse
talents and technologies, including the
knowledge of members who have close
contact with local markets and partners.
• Frontline involvement is of particular
importance, because customers and
market conditions tend to vary much
more in the international context than
do technological regimes.
Initiative #7: Establish a strong ITbased communication capability: The
relevance of information processing in
NPD is clear and, for global NPD, this
capability is even more important. In a
setting that typically is widely dispersed
functionally, geographically and culturally, firms need to have systems and
routines in place by which to acquire,
apply, and mine the complex information essential for developing new products that respond to global markets. To
this end,
• Establish and through senior management involvement, legitimize the
use of an IT/comm infrastructure that
incorporates advanced systems and
technologies by which company personnel can communicate and interact,
worldwide.
• Plan for infrastructure that incorporates web-based, multi-media,
multi-mode, 24/7, interactive communication platforms, which are open and
uncensored by senior management,
and that enable globally dispersed
team members to capture, develop,
and preserve corporate memory, and
to collaborate through the exchange of
unique information and ideas.
• Avoid overspending on too complex
a system or one that goes beyond the
26
February/March 2015
needs and competencies related to the
global NPD task.
• Complement the infrastructure with
a sufficiently funded IT/comm routines capability that incorporates relatively standardized processes and
approaches for analyzing problems,
developing solutions, and for overcoming geographical, cultural, and
language barriers.
• Regarding IT/comm routines, avoid
the negative effect of micro-management or the use of ad hoc approaches
through over involvement by senior
managers.
Limitations and Future
Research
Some limitations of the work, for which
further research is suggested, are presented in this article and noted while
there is real value in summarizing
and pulling together in one article the
research findings of several individual
analyses—all stemming from one major
empirical study and getting an overview
of the findings and how these complement each other—one limitation is
that this integration and the conclusions drawn are based on a qualitative
review of the roles and relationships of
the behavioral environment resources
and specific capabilities that are linked
to global NPD program performance.
Connected to this is the concern that
different methodologies (e.g., cluster
analysis, regression analysis, structural
equation modeling, etc.) were used in
the original analyses to assess numerically the hypothesized relationships and
this may impact the findings and, in particular, the summary conclusions. Along
a similar vein, the five analyses did
not all use the same/full set of behavioral environment and performance
constructs, which also can affect the
results and the interpretation of these.
What is recommended for research in
the near future using the same dataset,
is to develop a full model incorporating all of the constructs—three behavioral environment factors, the full set of
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
capability constructs covering the four
key areas of strategy, process, team, and
IT-communication, as well as the three
performance dimensions—and applying one methodology (e.g., LISREL,
PLS Graph [structural methodology] or
contingency approaches [e.g., hierarchical regression]) to permit a comparable synthesis for the present findings.
In the longer term, it is recommended
that new research in the area of NPD
program success factors should use
an organizational perspective explaining the outcome on the firm level in
terms of the characteristics and processes needed for success. To this end,
researchers should consider using both
sets of factors, resources, and capabilities, concurrently. This would allow for
a better understanding of what impacts
a positive outcome in this important
and highly complex endeavor.
Conclusion
Based on the review of five analyses of
the determinants of success in global
NPD, one message is clear: While
companies must have the right set of
dynamic capabilities in place—including process, strategy, team, and IT/communication—if they are to succeed in
undertaking the initiatives needed for
responding to opportunities in global
markets, it is the underlying resource
base of the firm—that is, the factors that
define the Behavioral Environment—
that plays a critical role in ultimately
ensuring success. This result is significant in two ways. First, it confirms the
hypothesis that success factors operate at different operational levels—
with resource factors that define the
organizational setting, experience, and
‘posture’ of the firm; and with explicit
capabilities needed for operationalizing
the NPD program, allowing the firm to
exploit opportunities in global markets.
Second, this result offers insights for
managers when it comes to planning
for global NPD success. This planning
requires several short- to medium-term
initiatives by which to set the stage for
developing and maintaining the longer
term resource base and the dynamic
capabilities needed for operationalizing
and realizing the global NPD objectives.
This message is confirmed in several
recent articles by recognized researchers. Lafley and Charman (2008, p. 10)
argue in The Game Changer that successful innovation must be “. . . integrated into how you run your business;
its overall purpose, goals and strategies, structure and systems, leadership
and culture.” And, based on an extensive study of innovation results, Cooper
(2013, p. 32) concludes:
. . . at the end of the day, (success in
NPD) all boils down to climate and
culture . . . Indeed, having the right
climate and culture for innovation,
an appetite to invest in innovative
and more risky projects, and the right
leadership from the top is the number
one factor that distinguishes top innovation companies.
Further, a study by Koen, Bertels, &
Kleinschmidt (2014) on front-end innovation shows that success is twice as
likely to be related to organizational
attributes (e.g., culture, management
support, resources, etc.) than to specific
innovation activities. They conclude
“. . .that initiatives to create more innovation should start with a focus on the
organizational attributes rather than on
the activity elements such as team formation, opportunity identification, ideation or business planning” (p. 9). Thus,
as shown in our study of global NPD,
while the two sets of factors—resources
and capabilities—are both essential and
highly interrelated, it is the internal
resources, including global innovation
culture, resource commitment, and
senior management involvement, that
set the stage for success in the firm’s
global NPD program.
References
Acland, H. (1999). Harnessing international innovation. Marketing, July 22,
27–28.
Akgun, A.E., Lynn, G.S., & Reilly,
R. (2002). Multi-dimensionality of
learning in new product development
teams. European Journal of Innovation
Management, 5, 57–72.
Argyres, N.S., & Silverman, B.S. (2004).
R&D, organization structure, and the
development of corporate technological knowledge. Strategic Management
Journal, 25, 929–958.
Barczak, G., & McDonough, E.F. III
(2003). Leading global product development teams. Research Technology
Management, 46, 14–18.
Boghani, A., Onassis, I., Benebadji, A.,
& Biji, C. (1999). Globalization of R&D.
International Journal of Technology
Management, 17(6), 696–709.
Capar, N., & Katobe, M. (2003). The relationship between international diversification and performance in service firms.
Journal of International Business Studies,
34(4), 345–355.
Cateora, P.R., & Graham, J.L. (2002).
International Marketing, 11th ed. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Chai, K.H., & Xin, Y. (2006). The application of new product development tools
in industry: The case of Singapore.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 53, 543–554.
Chiesa, V. (1996a). Managing the
internationalization of R&D activities. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 43(1), 7–23.
Chiesa, V. (1996b). Strategies for global
R&D. Research-Technology Management,
39(5), 19–25.
Chiesa, V. (2000). Global R&D project management and organization: A
taxonomy. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 17(3), 341–359.
Chryssochoidis, G.M., & Wong, V.
(1998). Rolling out new products across
country markets: An empirical study
of causes of delays. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 15(1), 16–41.
Chung-Jen, C. (2007). Information technology, organizational structure and new
product development: The mediating
effect of cross-functional team interaction. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 54, 687–698.
Cooper, R.G., & Kleinschmidt, E.J.
(1995). Benchmarking firms’ critical
success factors in new product development. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 12(5), 374–391.
Cooper, R.G., & Kleinschmidt, E.J.
(1996). Winning businesses in product
development: Critical success factors.
Research Technology Management, 39(4),
18–29.
Cooper, R.G. (2008). Perspective:
The stage-gate idea-to-launch process; update, what’s new, and NexGen
systems. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 25, 3(May), 213–232.
Cooper, R.G. (2013). Where are all the
breakthrough new products? ResearchTechnology Management, 56(4), 25–33.
Covin, J.G., & Slevin, D.P. (1991). A
conceptual model of entrepreneurship as
firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 17(4), 7–25.
Daellenbach, U.S., McCarthy, A.M., &
Schoenecker, T.S. (1999). Commitment
to innovation: The impact of topmanagement team characteristics. R&D
Management, 29(3), 199–208.
de Brentani, U. (2001). Innovative
versus incremental new business
services: Different keys for achieving
success. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 18(4), 169–187.
de Brentani, U., & Kleinschmidt, E.J.
(2004). Corporate culture and commitment: Impact on performance of
international new product development
programs. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 21(5), 309–333.
de Brentani, U., Kleinschmidt, E.J., &
Salomo, S. (2010). Success in global
new product development: Impact of
strategy and the behavioral environment
of the firm. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 27(3), 143–160.
Devinney, T. (1995). Significant issues in
the future of product innovation. Journal
of Product Innovation Management,
12(1), 7–15.
Egelhoff,W.G. (1982). Strategy and
structure in multinational corporations:
An information-processing approach.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
27
PAPERS
Global New Product Development Performance
Administrative Science Quarterly, 27,
435–458.
Eisenhardt, K.M., & Martin, J.A. (2000).
Dynamic capabilities: What are they?
Strategic Management Journal,
21(10–11), 1105.
Evanschitzky, H., Eisent, M., Calantone,
R.J., & Jiang, Y. (2012). Success factors of
product innovation: An updated metaanalysis. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 29(S1), 21–37.
Farris, G.F., Hartz, C.A., Krishnamurthy,
K., McIlvaine, B., Postle, S.R., Taylor,
R.P., & Whitwell, G.E. (2003). Webenabled innovation in new product
development. Research-Technology
Management, Nov/Dec, 24–35.
Grassmann, O., & von Zedwitz, M.
(1999). New concepts and trends
in international R&D organizations.
Research Policy, 28, 231–250.
Goldner, P.N. (2000). Insights from
senior executives about innovation in
international markets. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 17(5), 326–340.
Graber, D.R. (1996). How to manage a
global product development process?
Industrial Marketing Management, 25(6),
483–489.
Grant, L. (1996). Gillette knows shaving
and how to turn out hot new products.
Fortune, Oct. 14, 207–210.
Griffin, A. (1997). Research on new
product development practices:
Updating trends and benchmarking best
practices. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 14, 429–458.
Helfat, C.E., & Peteraf, M.A. (2003). The
dynamic resource based view: Capability
lifecycle. Strategic Management Journal,
24(10), 997–1010.
Henard, D.H., & Szymanski, D.M.
(2001). Why some new products are
more successful than others. Journal of
Marketing Research, 33, 362–375.
Hitt, M.A., Hoskisson, R.E., & Kim, H.
(1997). International diversification:
Effects on innovation and firm performance in product diversified firms.
Academy of Management Journal, 40(4),
767–798.
28
February/March 2015
Hsieh, M.H. & Lindridge, A. (2005).
Universal appeals with local specifications. Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 14(1), 14–28.
Huang, C.J., & Liu, C.J. (2005).
Exploration for the relationship between
innovation, IT and performance. Journal
of Intellectual Capital, 6, 237–252.
Hultink, E.J., & Atuahene-Gima, K.
(2000). The effect of sales force adoption on new product selling performance. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 17(6), 435–450.
Kaounides, L.C. (1999). Science, technology and global competitive advantage.
International Studies of Management &
Organizations, 29(1), 53–79.
Katobe, M., & Helsen, K. (2004).
International Marketing, 3rd ed. New
York, NY: Wiley.
Khurana, A. (2006). Strategies for global
R&D. Research-Technology Management,
March–April, 48–57.
Kleinschmidt, E.J., de Brentani, U., &
Salomo, S. (2007). Performance of global
new product development programs: A
resource-based view. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 24(5), 419–441.
Kleinschmidt, E.J., de Brentani, U., &
Salomo, S. (2010). Information processing and firm-internal environment
contingencies: Performance impact
on global new product development.
Creativity and Innovation Management,
10(3), 200–218.
Knight, G. (2000). Entrepreneurship
and marketing strategy: The SME under
globalization. Journal of International
Marketing, 8(2), 12–32.
Knight, G.A., & Cavusgil, S.T. (2004).
Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm. Journal
of International Business Studies, 35,
121–141.
Koen, P., Bertels, H.M.J., &
Kleinschmidt, E. (2014). Managing the
front end of innovation: Part I. ResearchTechnology Management, 57(2), 1–10.
Lafley, A.G., & Charan, R. (2008). The
Game Changer. New York, NY: Crown
Business.
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Lynn, G.S., Reilly, R.R., & Akgun, A.E.
(2000). Knowledge management in new
product teams: Practices and outcomes.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 47, 221–231.
McDonough, E.F., Kahn, K.B., &
Barczak, G. (2001). An investigation of
the use of global, virtual, and co-located
new product development teams. Journal
of Product Innovation Management,
18(2), 110–120.
McDougall, P.P., & Oviatt, B.M. (2000).
International entrepreneurship: The
intersection of two research paths.
Academy of Management Journal, 43(5),
902–910.
Menon, A., Chowdhury, J., & Lukas,
B.A. (2002). Antecedents and outcomes
of new product development speed: An
interdisciplinary conceptual framework.
Industrial Marketing Management, 31,
317–328.
Moenaert, R.K., Caeldries, F.,
Lievens, A., & Wauters, E. (2000).
Communication flows in international
product innovation teams. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 17(5),
360–377.
Morris, M.H., & Jones, F.F. (1999).
Entrepreneurship in established organizations: The case of the public sector.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
24(1), 71–79.
Mudambi, R., Mudambi, S.M., &
Navarra, P. (2007). Global innovation in
MNCs: The effects of subsidiary selfdetermination and teamwork. Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 24,
442– 455.
Ogbuehi, A.O., & Bellas Jr., R.A. (1992).
Decentralized R&D for global product
development: Strategic implications
for the multinational corporation.
International Marketing Review, 19(5),
60–70.
Ohmae, K. (1989). Managing in a borderless world. Harvard Business Review,
67(3), 152–161.
Pentina, I., & Strutton, D. (2007).
Information processing and new product
success: A meta-analysis. European
Journal of Innovation Management, 10,
149–175.
Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1),
73–85.
Peteraf, M.A., & Barney, J.B. (2003).
Unraveling the resource-based tangle.
Managerial and Decision Economics,
24(4), 309–323.
Slater, S.F., & Narver, J.C. (2000). The
positive effect of a market orientation on
business profitability: A balanced replication. Journal of Business Research, 48(1),
12–32.
Pringle, C.D., & Kroll, M.J. (1997). Why
Trafalgar was won before it was fought:
Lessons from the resource-based theory.
Academy of Management Review, 11(4),
73–89.
Reid, S.E., & de Brentani, U. (2010).
Market vision and market visioning competence: Impact on early performance of
radically new high-tech products. Journal
of Product Innovation Management,
27(3), 500–518.
Reid, S.E., de Brentani, U., &
Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2014). Divergent
thinking and market visioning competence: An early front-end radical
innovation success typology. Industrial
Marketing Management 43(8),
1351–1361.
Roberts, E.B. (2001). Benchmarking
global strategic management of technology. Research-Technology Management,
44(2), 25–36.
Roberts, E.B., & Senturia, T.A. (1996).
Globalizing the emerging high-technology company. Industrial Marketing
Management, 25, 491–506.
Salomo, S., Kleinschmidt, E.J., & de
Brentani, U. (2010). Managing new
product development teams in a globally dispersed NPD program. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 27(6),
955–971.
Schein, E. (1990). Organizational culture.
American Psychologist, 45(2), 109–119.
Schuster, F.E., Morden, D.L., Baker, T.E.,
McKay, I.S., Dunning, K.E., & Hagan,
C.M. (1997). Management practice,
organizational climate and performance.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 28(3), 209–226.
Sethi, R., Smith, D.C., & Park, C.W.
(2001). Cross-functional product development teams, creativity and the innovativeness of new consumer products.
Smith, K.A., Vasudevan, S.P., & Tanniru,
M.R. (1996). Organizational learning and
resource-based theory: An integrative
model. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 9(6), 41–53.
Smith, P.G., & Blanck, E.L. (2002).
From experience: Leading dispersed
teams. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 19, 294–304.
Snow, C.C., Davison, S.C., Snell,
S.A., & Hambrick, D.C. (1996). Use
transnational teams to globalize your
company. Organizational Dynamics,
32(4), 20–32.
Swink, M. (2000). Technological innovativeness as a moderator of new product
design integration and top management
support. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 17(3), 208–220.
Takeuchi, H., & Nonaka, I. (1986).
The new product development game.
Harvard Business Review, XX, (January–
February), 137–146.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A.
(1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management
Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Thoumrungroje, A., & Tansuhaj, P.
(2005). Entrepreneurial strategy, posture,
international diversification and firm
performance. Multinational Business
Review, 13(1), 55–73.
Tushman, M.L., & Nadler, D.A. (1978).
Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design.
Academy of Management Review, 3,
613–624.
Wei, Y.S., & Morgan, N.A. (2004).
Supportiveness of organizational climate,
market orientation, and new product
performance in Chinese firms. Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 21,
375–388.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource based
view of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 5, 171–180.
Zou, S., & Cavusgil, S.T. (2002). The
GMS: A broad conceptualization
of global marketing strategy and its
effect on firm performance. Journal of
Marketing, 66(4), 40–56.
Dr. Ulrike de Brentani, Professor,
Department of Marketing, John Molson
School of Business, Concordia University,
has research interests in B2B new product/
service development with current studies on Global New Product Development
and Market Vision for new-to-the-world
high-tech products. She has received
several research grants and awards of
excellence and has published in such
journals as: Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, International Journal
of Research in Marketing, Journal of
Business Research, Industrial Marketing
Management, and European Journal
of Marketing. She has received journal
volume best paper awards, including the
2007 JPIM “Thomas P. Hustad Best Paper
Award” and the 2010 CIM “Tudor Rickards
Best Paper Award.” She can be contacted
at [email protected]
Dr. Elko J. Kleinschmidt, Professor
Emeritus of Marketing at McMaster
University, Canada (grad. Eng., MBA,
Ph.D.) is a leading expert and recognized
researcher in the fields of NPD, portfolio management, and the impact of the
international dimension on new products. He has published in more than 100
publications, including the book Portfolio
Management for New Products (with
Cooper and Edgett, 2nd edition, 2001). In
1999 (with Cooper and Edgett) and in 2007
(with de Brentani and Salomo) he received
the “Thomas P. Hustad Best Paper Award”
of the Journal of Product Innovation
Management. Dr. Kleinschmidt’s ongoing
research deals with global NPD and the
front end of the innovation process. He can
be contacted at [email protected]
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
29
PAPERS
The Relationship Between Project
Success and Project Efficiency
Pedro Serrador, Serrador Project Management, Toronto, Canada
Rodney Turner, SKEMA Business School, Lille, France
ABSTRACT ■
Many researchers have suggested that meeting time, scope, and budget goals, sometimes called ‘project efficiency,’ is not the
comprehensive measure of project success.
Broader measures of success have been
recommended; however, to date, nobody
has determined empirically the relationship
between efficiency and overall success or
indeed shown whether efficiency is important at all to overall project success. Our
aim in this article is to correct that omission.
Through a survey of 1,386 projects we have
shown that project efficiency correlates moderately strongly to overall project success
(correlation of 0.6 and R2 of 0.36). Efficiency
is shown through analysis to be neither the
only aspect of project success nor an aspect
of project success that can be ignored.
KEYWORDS: project; success; efficiency;
project success; project and industries
Project Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 1, 30–39
© 2015 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21468
30
February/March 2015
INTRODUCTION ■
P
roject success criteria have been measured in a variety of ways.
Although the conventional measurement of project success has
focused on tangibles, the current thinking is that, ultimately, project
success is best judged by the stakeholders, especially the primary
sponsor (Turner & Zolin, 2012). As Shenhar, Levy, and Dvir (1997) and Turner
and Zolin (2012) note, assessing success is time-dependent: “As time goes
by, it matters less whether the project has met its resource constraints; in
most cases, after about one year it is completely irrelevant. In contrast, after
project completion, the second dimension, impact on the customer and
customer satisfaction, becomes more relevant.” (Shenhar et al., 1997, p. 12)
Building on that work, Shenhar and Dvir (2007) suggested a model of success
based on five dimensions (Table 1). In a similar vein, Cooke-Davies (2002)
differentiated between project success and project management success.
Project management success is the traditional measure of project success,
measured at project completion, and is primarily based on whether the
output is delivered to time, cost, and functionality (Atkinson, 1999). Following
Shenhar and Dvir (2007), we call this ‘project efficiency.’ Project success is
based on whether the project outcome meets the strategic objectives of the
investing organization. In this article we focus on overall project success,
which is measured by how satisfied key stakeholders are about how well the
project achieves its strategic objectives.
Munns and Bjeirmi (1996) noted that much of the project management
literature considers “projects end when they are delivered to the customer”
(p. 83). They continued: “That is the point at which project management ends.
They do not consider the wider criteria, which will affect the project once
in use” (p. 83, our italics); this focus on the end date of the project is understandable from a project and project manager’s standpoint. The definitions
of a project imply an end date; at that time the project manager is likely to be
released or move on to another project. Also, the reward structure in many
organizations encourages the project manager to finish the project on cost
and time and little else (Turner, 2014). Gareis (2005) and Gareis, Huemann,
and Martinuzzi (2013) are very specific that project closing occurs with the
delivery of the new asset (the project output) to the client, and that the project process is only part of the overall investment process. Thus the success
of the project itself is measured by project efficiency, but the success of the
investment is measured by the wider measures, as suggested by Turner and
Zolin (2012).
The literature has also examined the wider impact of projects on the
business. Customer satisfaction has long been a part of the project management literature (Kerzner, 1979, 2009) but it has not usually been included in
the formal measures of success. Shenhar et al. (1997) note that of the three
traditional dimensions of project efficiency—time, budget, and scope—scope
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Success Dimension
Measures
Project efficiency
Meeting schedule goal
Meeting budget goal
Team satisfaction
Team morale
Skill development
Team member growth
Team member retention
Impact on the customer
Meeting functional performance
Meeting technical specifications
Fulfilling customer’s needs
Solving a customer’s problem
The customer is using the product
Customer satisfaction
Business success
Commercial success
Creating a large market share
Preparing for the future
Creating a new market
Creating a new product line
Developing a new technology
Table 1: The five dimensions of project success after Shenhar and Dvir (2007).
has the largest role, because it also has
an impact on the customer and his or
her satisfaction. They note: “Similarly,
project managers must be mindful to
the business aspects of their company.
They can no longer avoid looking at
the big picture and just concentrate on
getting the job done. They must understand the business environment and
view their project as part of the company’s struggle for competitive advantage,
revenues, and profit” (p. 10). This view
was reiterated by Jugdev and Müller
(2005), who reviewed the project success literature over the past 40 years and
found that a more holistic approach to
measuring success was becoming more
evident.
Researchers increasingly measure
success by impact on the organization rather than just meeting the triple constraint. Dvir, Raz, and Shenhar
(2003) state that “there are many cases
where projects are executed as planned,
on time, on budget and achieve the
planned performance goals, but turn
out to be complete failures because
they failed to produce actual benefits to
the customer or adequate revenue and
profit for the performing organization.”
(p. 89). They also found that “all four
success-measures (meeting planning
goals, end-user benefits, contractor
benefits, and overall project success)
are highly inter-correlated, implying
that projects perceived to be successful
are successful for all their stakeholders”
(p. 94). Thomas, Jacques, Adams, and
Kihneman-Woote (2008) state that measuring project success in not straightforward. “Examples abound where the
original objectives of the project are not
met, but the client was highly satisfied.
There are other examples where the
initial project objectives were met, but
the client was quite unhappy with the
results” (p. 106). Collyer and Warren
(2009) cite the movie Titanic, which was
touted as a late, over-budget flop but
went on to be the first film to generate
more than US$1 billion. Munns and
Bjeirmi (1996) also note that a project
can be a success despite poor project
management performance.
Zwikael and Globerson (2006), using
data collected from 280 project managers showed that aspects of success
show a similar frequency distribution.
Figure 1 shows a highly similar distribution between technical performance (a
partial though not full measure of project efficiency) and stakeholder satisfaction. In addition, they reported a linear
correlation between two components
of success: technical performance and
customer satisfaction with an R2 of 0.37
(p < 0.001). This result showed a strong
relationship between the two components, though this was not generalized
to overall success.
The importance of broader success
measures for projects is now the norm.
A Guide to the Project Management Body
of Knowledge (PMBOK ® Guide) – Fifth
Edition, as an example, no longer just
mentions the triple constraint (Project Management Institute, 2013) and
now includes project constraints such
as scope, quality, schedule, budget,
resources, and risks. It also refers to
stakeholder satisfaction as well as other
constraints that are not mentioned but
may impact project success. Now that
the most recent edition of the PMBOK ®
Guide (Project Management Institute,
2013) recognizes stakeholder satisfaction as an additional measure of project
success, it is timely to ask what the
correlation is between that and project
efficiency.
Thus we see there are two competing measures of success on projects,
what Cooke-Davies (2002) calls ‘project
management success’ and ‘project success.’ We adopt more current terminology, which uses ‘project efficiency’
instead of ‘project management success’ (Shenhar et al., 1997; Shenhar &
Dvir, 2007) and define the two competing measures as:
Project efficiency: meeting cost, time,
and scope goals; and
Project success: meeting wider business and enterprise goals as defined by
key stakeholders
Apart from the work of Zwikael
and Globerson (2006), few people have
investigated to what extent these two
measures of success are correlated.
Turner and Zolin (2012) suggest project efficiency is important to success,
because if the project is completed late
and over budget it will be more difficult
for it to be a business success. Prabhakar
(2008) notes: “There is also a general
agreement that although schedule
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
31
PAPERS
The Relationship Between Project Success and Project Efficiency
Percentage of Questionnaires
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0
2
4
6
8
10
Levels of Performance
Customer Satisfaction
Technical Performance
Figure 1: Frequency distribution of technical performance and customer satisfaction, after Zwikael and Globerson (2006).
and budget performance alone are
considered inadequate as measures of
project success, they are still important
components of the overall construct.
Quality is intertwined with issues of
technical performance, specifications,
and achievement of functional objectives and it is achievement against these
criteria that will be most subject to variation in perception by multiple project
stakeholders” (p. 7). As we saw above,
however, the components of project
efficiency are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions of success (Dvir et al.,
2003; Thomas et al., 2008; Turner &
Zolin, 2012; Xue, Turner, Lecoeuvre, &
Anbari, 2013). Many projects are finished on time and cost but are abject
failures, and many finish late and over
spent but are considered successful.
So what, if anything, is the relationship
between project efficiency and project
success? To date there is little empirical
work to investigate this relationship. An
exploratory study is warranted and this
leads to our research question:
To what extent is project efficiency
correlated with overall project success?
where a completely objective solution
can be found and phenomenology, where
all experience is subjective (Trochim,
2006). Because perception and observation are based on subjective opinion, our
results cannot be fully objective. Some
concepts such as project success are not
fully quantifiable and are impacted by
subjective judgment. Post-positivism
understands that although positivism
cannot tell the whole truth in business
research, its insights are still useful.
Research Methodology
• Which industry does it come from?
• In which country was it performed?
• Was it a national or international project?
We adopted a post-positivist approach.
Post-positivism falls between positivism,
32
February/March 2015
Survey
To gather the data we conducted a survey. The questions are shown in Table 2.
We asked the respondents to judge success in three categories:
• Overall project success rating;
• Project success as perceived by four
groups of stakeholders: the sponsor,
the project team, the client, and the
end users; and
• Performance against the three components of project efficiency: time, cost,
and scope.
We also asked demographic questions about the nature of the project:
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Data collection ran for 12 weeks.
A total of 865 people started the survey, with 859 completing at least the
first portion, which requested information on one more successful project. The sources of participants were
PMI’s community of practice organizations (638), LinkedIn groups focusing
on project management (197), the PMI
Survey Links site (18), and personal
networks (12). Participants reported filling a variety of roles on projects: project
manager (304), senior project manager
(141), program manager (72), project
coordinator (66), project team member (58), senior manager (36), senior
program/portfolio manager (22), and C
level management (14); 146 chose not to
answer. Responses were received from
60 countries. The largest percentage
of respondents were from the United
States (36%), followed by Canada and
India. More than 10 responses were
received from Australia, Spain, Brazil,
Singapore, and Germany; 183 respondents chose not to answer the question.
Each participant was asked to provide
data on two projects, one more successful and another less successful. However, not all participants entered data for
two projects; therefore, the total number of projects available for study was
Question
Project success: meeting timeline goals
How successful was the project in meeting project
time goals?
Project success: meeting budget goals
How successful was the project in meeting project
budget goals?
Project success: meeting scope/ requirements goals
How successful was the project in meeting scope and
requirements goals?
Project success rating: sponsor assessment
How did the project sponsors rate the success of the
project?
Project success rating: project team assessment
How do you rate the project team’s satisfaction with
the project?
Project success rating: client assessment
How do you rate the client’s satisfaction with the
project’s results?
Project success rating–end user assessment
How do you rate the end users’ satisfaction with the
project’s results?
Overall project success rating:
How do you rate the overall success of the project?
Response Ranges
7-point scale:
> 60% over time
45%–59% over time
30%–44% over time
15%–29% over time
1%–14% over time
on time
ahead of schedule
7-point scale:
> 60% over budget
45%–59% over budget
30%–44% over budget
15%–29% over budget
1%–14% over budget
on budget
under budget
7-point scale:
> 60% requirements missed
45%–59% requirements missed
30%–44% requirements missed
15%–29% requirements missed
1%–14% requirements missed
requirements met
requirements exceeded
5-point scale:
failure
not fully successful
mixed
successful
very successful
5-point scale:
failure
not fully successful
mixed
successful
very successful
5-point scale:
failure
not fully successful
mixed
successful
very successful
5-point scale:
failure
not fully successful
mixed
successful
very successful
5-point scale:
failure
not fully successful
mixed
successful
very successful
Reference
Dvir et al. (2003)
Zwikael and Globerson (2006)
Dvir et al. (2003)
Zwikael and Globerson (2006)
Dvir et al. (2003)
Müller and Turner (2007a); Shenhar and
Dvir (2007)
Müller and Turner (2007a)
Müller and Turner (2007a)
Müller and Turner (2007a)
Shenhar and Dvir (2007a)
Table 2: Questions in the survey.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
33
1,539. After removal of outliers and bad
data, the usable total was 1,386 projects.
Outlier removal included the removal
of projects that were cancelled or not
completed. The breakdown of projects
by success rating is shown in Table 3.
If we create a histogram (Figure 2),
we can see that the methodology has
resulted in an acceptable range of projects. When the projects were consolidated, we confirmed there was a range
of projects available in a usable distribution. Results were similar for the two
success measures.
Although there are aspects of project
success that are temporal (Shenhar &
Dvir, 2007; Turner & Zolin, 2012), this
research did not specifically measure the
impact of time on judgments of project
success. Data were selected for completed projects to ensure that enough
Valid N
Failure
98
Not Fully Successful
259
Mixed
345
Successful
451
Very Successful
233
All Groups
1,386
Table 3: Project success rating for all
projects.
time had passed to have a reasonable
assessment of overall project success.
With most studies of project success using questionnaires or interviews,
the results rely on participants stating
how successful a project was, which
is subjective by nature. There may be
ways to measure success in objective
ways, but this may only apply to project efficiency; therefore, this article is
mainly concerned with perceived project success as reported by participants.
To measure this factor, questions in the
survey were based on a combination
of the success dimensions defined by
Müller and Turner (2007b) and Shenhar
and Dvir (2007).
It is the nature of an anonymous,
open global survey that there may be
single respondent bias. Each project is
described by one respondent and for the
sake of privacy the names of the projects
or organizations were not sought. It is
not possible to completely remove the
single respondent bias, but to minimize
the impact, each respondent was asked
to provide information on one more successful and one less successful project.
This was intended to ensure respondents did not just provide information
on their most successful project.
Mono-source bias and other
response biases can occur in self-rated
Histogram: Project Success Rating
500
Expected Normal
450
Analysis
350
To facilitate further analysis, the success measures were grouped into
three measures of success. These were
the measures of project success used
throughout the analysis:
Efficiency measure = mean of the
following three responses as a summated scale:
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Figure 2: Histogram of project success rating compared with normal distribution.
34
performance measures, as discussed by
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) and Conway and Lance
(2010). By targeting project managers,
we intended to receive information
from the individual who would have a
chance to provide the best overall view
of the project.
Questions also used varied scales,
as recommended by Podsakoff et al.
(2003). In addition, factor analysis and
Cronbach’s alpha analysis were completed where appropriate. To avoid
social desirability issues related to project success, respondents were asked to
provide data for both a more successful and less successful project. Finally,
the use of PMI’s community of practice
groups, LinkedIn, and personal contacts
ensured there were no convenience
sample issues; hence, mono-source
bias was assumed not to be an issue
for this research. Survey questions, in
general used a 5- or 7-point Likert-like
numerical scale (Cooper & Schindler,
2008). Pure Likert scales were not used
because there were several questions
where numerical responses were appropriate. The varying scale was partially
due to following the scales from the
existing literature, using 7-point scales
to allow optimum ordinal value for
numerical ranges and 5-point scales
for subjective ratings. Since a variety of
scales were used this ensured that item
context effects as per Podsakoff et al.
(2003) were not an issue.
Results and Analysis
400
No. of observations
PAPERS
The Relationship Between Project Success and Project Efficiency
February/March 2015
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
5.0
1. Project success: meeting timeline goals
2. Project success: meeting budget goals
3. Project success: meeting scope and
requirements goals
As project success is best judged by
the stakeholders, especially the primary
sponsor (Turner & Zolin, 2012), we will
use the following project success measure:
Project Success measure = mean of
the following four responses as a summated scale:
1. Project success rating: sponsor assessment
2. Project success rating: project team
assessment
3. Project success rating: client assessment
4. Project success rating: end-user assessment
In addition, we will compare these
measures to the single overall project
success rating given by respondents.
Although these measures were based
on the findings of previous researchers,
a confirmatory factor analysis was also
completed (Table 4).
Factor 1 clearly corresponds to
project success; factor 2 corresponds
to project efficiency. This factor analysis confirms our selection of measures,
with the exception of the scope question. This question could fit with either
the efficiency or success measure. This
is in keeping with Shenhar et al. (1997)
who stated that scope was the most
important of the triple constraint for
overall success. Since the result for
scope is somewhat higher for factor 2
(efficiency), we will continue to use it as
part of the efficiency measure.
Reliability
A Cronbach alpha analysis was performed on the success measures. The
Cronbach alpha coefficient is a number
that ranges from 0 to 1; a value of 1
indicates that the measure has perfect
reliability, whereas a value of 0 indicates
that the measure is not reliable and variations are due to random error. Ideally
the alpha value should approach 1. In
general, an alpha value of 0.9 is required
for practical decision-making situations,
whereas a value of 0.7 is considered to
than 0.90. In practical terms, this meant
there was a high degree of confidence
in the reliability of the data collected
and it is accurate and meaningful for the
purposes of this research. This indicates
that all of the factors are interrelated to
some extent.
The results for the efficiency measure (Table 6) were lower than those
for the success measure; however, they
are still adequate for research purposes
(Nunnally, 1978). The factor would
have been marginally improved by
removing scope; however, as scope is
defined as part of the triple constraint
be sufficient for research purposes (Nunnally, 1978). Three items measured project efficiency and four measured overall
project success. All measures showed a
high Cronbach alpha score, which shows
that they are correlated (Table 5).
The results of the Cronbach’s
alpha analysis supported the initial
assumptions that the elements identified for measuring success (Dvir et al.,
2003; Zwikael & Globerson, 2006; Müller
& Turner, 2007) were valid measures for
this survey and accurately measured the
judgments of respondents. Each variable achieved an alpha score greater
Factor 1
Factor 2
Project sponsors and stakeholders success rating
0.893*
0.267
Project budget goals
0.162
0.877*
Project time goals
0.288
0.845*
Scope and requirements goals
0.522
0.524
Project team’s satisfaction
0.836*
0.299
Client’s satisfaction
0.916*
0.256
End users’ satisfaction
0.897*
0.202
Factor Loadings (Varimax normalized).
*Marked loadings are > 0.700000.
Table 4: Confirmatory factor analysis of success measures.
Mean if
deleted
Var. if
deleted
Std. Dv. if
deleted
Itm-Totl
-Correl.
Alpha if
deleted
Sponsors success rating
10.112
9.651
3.107
0.886
0.921
Project team’s satisfaction
10.151
10.490
3.239
0.818
0.942
Client’s satisfaction
10.081
9.671
3.110
0.915
0.912
End users’ satisfaction
10.126
10.227
3.198
0.849
0.933
Summary for scale: Mean = 13.495; Std. Dv. = 4.18; Valid N:1378.
Cronbach alpha: 0.945; Standardized alpha: 0.944; Average inter-item corr.: 0.815.
Table 5: Cronbach alpha analysis of success measure.
Mean if
deleted
Var. if
deleted
Std. Dv. if Itm-Totl
deleted - Correl.
Alpha if
deleted
Project time goals
9.214
8.484
2.913
0.605
0.686
Project budget goals
9.667
7.477
2.734
0.690
0.584
Scope and requirements goals
9.001
9.733
3.120
0.521
0.774
Summary for scale: Mean = 13.941; Std. Dv. = 4.158; Valid N:1386.
Cronbach alpha: 0.769; Standardized alpha: 0.767; Average inter-item corr.: 0.529.
Table 6: Cronbach alpha analysis of efficiency measure.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
35
PAPERS
The Relationship Between Project Success and Project Efficiency
in the literature (Atkinson, 1999;
Cooke-Davies, 2002; Shenhar & Dvir,
2007), there is adequate justification to
keep it part of the efficiency measure
as defined.
Subgroup Analysis
The means of these measures were
reviewed using subgroup analysis.
First, the measures were compared
by industry (Table 7). In addition, to
the three calculated measures of success, the respondents’ response to the
single question: “Overall project success rating” was examined. We see that
construction has the highest project
success measure. This is in agreement
with the literature in general that construction has better perceived rates of
success than other industries (Zwikael
& Globerson, 2006). However, other
trends are more difficult to see, and
ANOVA analysis does not indicate that
any of the measures are significantly
related to industry.
Next, subgroup analysis was completed by geographic region, which
showed similar results, supporting the
overall results.
Next, we examined the correlation
between the respondents’ project success ratings and the success measures
(Table 8). The analysis shows close to
90% correlation between this one question and the project success measure
and 0.58 to the efficiency measure,
which indicates a very close correlation
between the respondents’ overall rating
of project success and measures combining the wider success components.
However, the efficiency measure only
shows a 0.58 correlation with the manager’s assessment; this appears to indicate that project managers also believe
the overall success of their projects is
most closely correlated with the stakeholder’s views.
project success measure and 0.58 with
the respondents’ self-reported overall
success rating.
Table 9 shows the correlation of
the individual measures of project
efficiency, time, cost, and scope with
the measures of project success. The
correlation with the overall project
Efficiency
Measure
success rating and the project success measure is between 0.4 and 0.6.
The highest correlation is with meeting scope goals, as we would expect
(Shenhar et al., 1997).
We can also look at how this relationship varies by industry (Table 10).
It is interesting to note that efficiency
Project Success
Measure
Overall Project
Rating
Valid N
Construction
4.630
3.660
3.528
41
Financial services
4.618
3.354
3.355
257
Utilities
4.535
3.553
3.455
42
Government
4.731
3.438
3.423
152
Education
5.080
3.530
3.480
42
Other
4.455
3.233
3.231
157
High technology
4.784
3.538
3.477
223
Telecommunications
4.805
3.458
3.393
133
Manufacturing
4.298
3.295
3.286
122
Healthcare
4.895
3.408
3.303
113
Professional services
4.685
3.292
3.352
69
Retail
4.367
3.000
2.933
35
All groups
4.656
3.397
3.361
1386
p(F)
0.397
0.496
0.882
Table 7: Descriptives by industry with ANOVA results.
Means
Std
Dev
Overall Project
Success Rating
Efficiency Project Success
Measure
Measure
Overall project
success rating
3.333
1.165
1.000
Efficiency
measure
4.647
1.386
0.584*
1.000
Project success
measure
3.376
1.044
0.870*
0.602*
1.000
*p < 0.05.
Table 8: Correlations between project success measures.
Project time goals
Overall Project
Success Rating
Efficiency
Measure
Project Success
Measure
0.508*
0.880*
0.506*
Project Efficiency versus Project Success
Project budget goals
0.408*
0.830*
0.417*
The success measure that had the lowest correlation with the other success
measures was the efficiency measure,
which had a correlation of 0.60 with the
Scope and requirements goals
0.537*
0.768*
0.578*
36
February/March 2015
*p < 0.05.
Table 9: Correlation of individual efficiency measures to project success measures.
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
is most highly correlated to project success in utilities, healthcare, and professional services and is the least correlated
for government and high technology.
This result for high technology may surprise some people, although the result
for government might not surprise
many. Again, this is perceived success
and perceptions may differ by industry
(Müller & Turner, 2007b).
We can compare which components
of efficiency were most important by
industry (Table 10). Kerzner (2009,
p. 736) suggests which industries are
most likely to sacrifice time, cost, or
scope (performance) when trade-offs
are required. Table 11 suggests budget
goals and project success were most
correlated for utilities, financial services, and healthcare, which is in agreement with Kerzner (2009) for utilities
and healthcare, though not for financial
services and were the least important for
government and retail. The finding for
government is also in agreement with
Kerzner (2009). Time goals were most
correlated for construction and healthcare and least correlated with government and high technology. Scope goals
were most correlated for education and
utilities and least correlated with government and construction.
Finally, we completed a regression analysis of the efficiency measure
versus the project success measure
(Table 12). This analysis indicates with
a quite low p value that the two are
related with an R2 of 0.362. The coefficient of determination R2 provides a
measure of how well future outcomes
are likely to be predicted by a model.
This could indicate that 36% of the
variation in project success can be
explained by meeting a project’s time,
budget, and scope goals. This is concordance with and further generalizes the
result of R2 = 0.37 reported by Zwikael
and Globerson (2006) who studied the
relationship solely between technical
goals and customer satisfaction.
A similar analysis was completed
for a modified efficiency measure
where scope had been removed, leav-
ing only time and budget. It has been
suggested by a number of authors
that scope is more closely related to
project success measures (Turner &
Zolin, 2012; Shenhar et al., 1997). In this
case, the correlation was 0.512, whereas
R2 = 0.262. Therefore, even with scope
removed, there is a clear correlation
Overall Project
Success Rating
Project Success
Measure
Valid N
Construction
0.530
0.635
41
Financial services
0.635
0.680
257
Utilities
0.744
0.706
42
Government
0.465
0.410
152
Education
0.592
0.627
42
Other
0.507
0.579
157
High technology
0.498
0.515
223
Telecommunications
0.664
0.651
133
Manufacturing
0.692
0.687
122
Healthcare
0.606
0.694
113
Professional services
0.658
0.673
69
Retail
0.598
0.616
35
All results above were significant at p < 0.001.
Table 10: Correlation of efficiency versus other success measures by industry.
Budget Goals
Time Goals
Scope Goals
Valid N
Construction
0.465
0.714
0.442
41
Financial services
0.496
0.566
0.660
257
Utilities
0.552
0.552
0.697
42
Government
0.304
0.300
0.424
152
Education
0.094*
0.572
0.701
42
Other
0.405
0.473
0.568
157
High technology
0.387
0.431
0.461
223
Telecommunications
0.396
0.557
0.684
133
Manufacturing
0.492
0.673
0.563
122
Healthcare
0.463
0.566
0.607
113
Professional services
0.450
0.564
0.662
69
Retail
0.349
0.474
0.702
35
*Marked result was not significant at p < 0.05. All others were significant.
Table 11: Project success measures versus efficiency components by industry.
Beta
Intercept
Efficiency Measure
0.602
B
Std.Err. of B
t(1384)
p-level
1.267
0.078
16.159
0.000
0.454
0.016
28.068
0.000
Regression Summary for Dependent Variable: Success Measure.
R = 0.602; R² = 0.362; Adjusted R² = 0.362 F(1,1384) = 787.82 p < .001.
Table 12: Regression analysis for efficiency measure versus project success.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
37
PAPERS
The Relationship Between Project Success and Project Efficiency
between measures of time and budget
success and project success.
Conclusions
As suggested by many authors (Collyer
& Warren, 2009; Cooke-Davies, 2002;
Jugdev & Müller, 2005; Shenhar et al.,
1997; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007; Thomas
et al., 2008; Turner & Zolin, 2012), overall project success is a much wider concept than the traditional so called ‘iron
triangle’ of project efficiency (Atkinson,
1999). In this article we have investigated to what extent project efficiency is
correlated with overall project success.
Through a survey of 1,386 projects we
found that project efficiency is 60% correlated with project success; this falls to
51% if efficiency is defined as time and
budget only. This supports the assertion that project efficiency is an important contributor to project success, but
shows quite clearly that other factors
contribute significantly as well. We can
postulate that these other factors might
include:
• Performance of the project’s output
post implementation and achievement
of the project’s output and impact
(Turner et al., 2010; Turner & Zolin,
2012; Xue et al., 2013)
• Whether the project’s output was what
the stakeholders were actually expecting, or whether there was an omission in or misinterpretation of the
specification
• Risks that were not considered or
changes to the environment that were
not anticipated (Munns & Bjeirmi,
1996; Thomas et al., 2008; Collyer &
Warren, 2009)
• Acts of God beyond the project team’s
control.
Academic Implication
It has long been postulated that project
success is more than the achievement
of project efficiency measures, but we
believe this is the first time the relationship has actually been measured and
analyzed using a large dataset.
38
February/March 2015
Practical Implications
Whether we will ever be able to wean
project practitioners off their beloved
iron triangle we cannot know. This
supports the work of Turner and Zolin
(2012) that project managers need project control parameters that look beyond
completing the scope of the project on
time and within budget. Practitioners
should be aware that when they plan
and control the project broader success measures need to be taken into
account and made parts of the planning
and control process. This will improve
project and project manager perceived
success, especially over the long term.
These results also demonstrate that
practitioners cannot ignore project efficiency goals if they want to maximize
overall success.
Future Research
There are aspects of the relationship
between efficiency and success that
could be further explored:
• How do timeframes impact project success? Do the sponsor’s views of project
success change over time and how long
before that does the view crystallize or
become the final view?
• Are there any moderators or contingency factors in the relationship
between efficiency and success? This
could also become a topic for future
research.
• A similar study could be undertaken
with a wider array of project participants. This would require more of a
case study approach but would give a
broader view of how project success is
perceived.
References
Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: Cost, time and quality, two
best guesses and a phenomenon, it’s
time to accept other success criteria, International Journal of Project
Management, 17(6), 337–342.
Collyer, S., & Warren, C. M. (2009).
Project management approaches for
dynamic environments. International
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Journal of Project Management, 27(4),
355–364.
Conway, J., & Lance, C. (2010). What
reviewers should expect from authors
regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 25(3), 325–334.
Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2002). The real
success factors in projects. International
Journal of Project Management, 20(3),
185–190.
Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2001).
Business research methods. New York, NY:
Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Dvir, D., Raz T., & Shenhar, A. (2003).
An empirical analysis of the relationship
between project planning and project
success. International Journal of Project
Management, 21(2), 89–95.
Gareis, R. (2005). Happy projects!
Vienna, Austria: Manz.
Gareis, R., Huemann, M., & Martinuzzi,
A. (2013). Project management
and sustainable development principles. Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Jugdev, K., & Müller, R. (2005). A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project success. Project
Management Journal, 36(4), 19–31.
Kerzner, H. (1979). Project management:
A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. New York, NY: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Kerzner, H. (2009). Project management:
A systems approach to planning,
scheduling, and controlling. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Müller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2007a).
Matching the project manager’s leadership
style to project type. International Journal
of Project Management, 25(1), 21–32.
Müller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2007b). The
influence of projects managers on project
success criteria and project success by
type of project. European Management
Journal, 25(4), 298–309.
Munns, A., & Bjeirmi, B. (1996). The
role of project management in achieving
project success. International Journal of
Project Management, 14(2), 81–87.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., &
Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology 88(5), 879–903.
Prabhakar, G. (2008). What is project
success: A literature review. International
Journal of Business and Management,
3(8), 3–10.
Project Management Institute. (2013).
A guide to the project management body
of knowledge (PMBOK ® guide) – Fifth
edition. Newtown Square, PA: Author.
Shenhar, A., & Dvir, D. (2007).
Reinventing project management: The
diamond approach to successful growth
and innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business Press.
Shenhar, A. J., Levy, O., & Dvir, D.
(1997). Mapping the dimensions of
project success. Project Management
Journal, 28(2), 5–9.
Thomas, M., Jacques, P. H., Adams,
J. R., & Kihneman-Woote, J. (2008).
Developing an effective project:
Planning and team building combined.
Project Management Journal, 39(4),
105–113.
Trochim, W. (2006). Positivism and postpositivism. Research Methods Knowledge
Base.
Turner, J. R. (2014). The handbook of
project-based management (4th ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Turner, J. R., Huemann, M., Anbari, F. T.,
& Bredillet, C. N. (2010). Perspectives on
projects. New York, NY: Routledge.
Turner, R., & Zolin, R. (2012).
Forecasting success on large projects:
Developing reliable scales to predict
multiple perspectives by multiple
stakeholders over multiple time frames.
Project Management Journal, 43(5),
87–99.
Xue, Y., Turner, J. R., Lecoeuvre, L., &
Anbari, F. (2013). Using results-based
monitoring and evaluation to deliver
results on key infrastructure projects in
China. Global Business Perspectives, 1,
85–105.
Zwikael, O., & Globerson, S. (2006).
Benchmarking of project planning
and success in selected industries.
Benchmarking: An International Journal,
13(6), 688–700.
Pedro Serrador, PMP, P.Eng., MBA, PhD,
is a writer and researcher on project
management topics and owner of Serrador
Project Management, a consultancy in
Toronto, Canada. He specializes in technically complex and high-risk projects,
vendor management engagements, and
tailoring and implementing project management methodologies; he has worked
on projects in the financial, telecommunications, utility, medical imaging, and
simulations sectors for some of Canada’s
largest companies. His areas of research
interest are project success, planning, and
agile and he has presented a number of
peer-reviewed papers on these topics at
academic conferences. He is an author
of books and articles on project management and is also a regular speaker
at PMI global congresses. He currently
teaches project management as a parttime faculty member at Humber College
in Toronto. He was the recipient of the
PMI 2012 James R. Snyder International
Student Paper of the Year Award and
the Major de Promotion Award for best
PhD Thesis 2012–2013 from SKEMA
Business School. He holds an Hons. BSc
in Physics and Computer Science from the
University of Waterloo, Canada; an MBA
from Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh,
Scotland; and a PhD in Strategy,
Programme & Project Management
from SKEMA Business School (Ecole
Supérieure de Commerce de Lille). He can
be contacted at [email protected]
Rodney Turner is Professor of Project
Management SKEMA Business School,
in Lille, France, where he is Scientific
Director for the PhD in Project and
Programme Management and is the
SAIPEM Professor of Project Management
at the Politecnico di Milano. He is also
Adjunct Professor at the University of
Technology Sydney. Rodney is the author
or editor of eighteen books, and editor
of The International Journal of Project
Management. His research areas cover
project management in small to medium
enterprises; the management of complex projects; the governance of project
management, including ethics and trust;
project leadership; and human resource
management in the project-oriented firm.
Rodney is Vice President, Honorary Fellow
of the United Kingdom’s Association for
Project Management, and Honorary Fellow
and former President and Chairman of
the International Project Management
Association. He received a life-time
research achievement award from PMI in
2004 and from IPMA in 2012. He can be
contacted at [email protected]
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
39
PAPERS
Learning Through Interactions:
Improving Project Management
Through Communities of Practice
Lorraine Lee, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, USA
Bryan Reinicke, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, USA
Robin Sarkar, Lakeland Healthcare, St. Joseph, MI, USA
Rita Anderson, University Technology Services Organization, University of South Carolina,
Columbia, SC, USA
ABSTRACT ■
INTRODUCTION ■
Communities of practice are a possible
mechanism for improving knowledge sharing among project managers, both within
and between organizations. Based on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, we theorize a
model of participation intensity in communities of practice by project managers and
explore the use of Web 2.0 technologies to
increase this participation. Using structural
equation modeling, we test the research
model and find that the factors of reputation, enjoyment, and management support
impact the participation intensity of project managers in communities of practice.
However, we do not find support for the
impact of Web 2.0 technologies on participation intensity. This study provides evidence
that participation in communities of practice
can result in individual benefits for the project manager, as well as in more far-reaching
organizational benefits.
T
KEYWORDS: project management; communities of practice; intrinsic motivation;
extrinsic motivation; Web 2.0
Project Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 1, 40–52
© 2015 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21473
40
February/March 2015
he project manager position can be a somewhat isolating position
within an organization. Situated between workers who perform the
project tasks and the management team ultimately responsible for
delivering the project, the project manager often works without the
camaraderie and close interactions with other project managers. Because
organizations typically employ a smaller number of project managers relative
to other positions, a project manager’s ability to learn and improve job skills
through daily interactions with other project managers is limited. Although
larger organizations may have a project management office (PMO) provide
formal structure and interactions related to project management, many
smaller and mid-size organizations may not have the critical mass to justify a
PMO.1 As such, other mechanisms for learning and innovation are essential
for project managers. One such mechanism that project managers may
choose to leverage is an inter- or intra-organizational community of practice.
Communities of practice are one mechanism for business professionals
to learn and innovate in the workplace (Brown & Duguid, 1991). For project
managers, especially those working in organizations with relatively few peer
project managers, participation in an external community of practice can
possibly be a critical means for improving project management skills. Findings from past studies point to several general drivers and benefits derived
from communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). In addition, the past few years have seen the rising adoption of Web 2.0 technologies (e.g., social media, blogs, webinars) to increase the interactivity among
employees in order to encourage participation in projects and increase the
sharing of ideas (McKinsey & Company, 2009). By incorporating Web 2.0
technologies into a more traditional model of the drivers of participation
in communities of practice, this study seeks to examine the individual and
organizational impacts of project manager participation in communities of
practice. Using motivational theory as our overarching theory, we develop an
integrative model that addresses the following questions:
1. What motivates a project manager to participate in a community of practice?
2. Are Web 2.0 technologies facilitating participation in communities of practice?
3. What are the individual and organizational benefits associated with a project
management community of practice?
1A
comprehensive review of PMOs is available in Aubry, Hobbs, and Thuillier (2009).
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
This article is organized as follows.
First, the community of practice concept is introduced. Second, we discuss
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in
the context of communities of practice
and utilize the theory to develop the
hypotheses associated with the research
model. Third, we develop the constructs
used to test the model. Fourth, we discuss the research design and the data
analysis, ending with a discussion and
conclusion of the results.
Theoretical Background
and Hypotheses
Communities of Practice
A community of practice is defined as
an informal group of people bound
together by a common disciplinary
background and similar work activities (Millen, Fontaine, & Muller, 2002)
with the primary purpose of developing members’ capabilities by building
and exchanging knowledge (Wenger &
Snyder, 2000). Communities of practice
can be internal to a specific workplace
or span across different companies and
organizations. In contrast to formal
work groups or project teams where
the employees are assigned by management, members of a community of practice select and organize themselves. As
aptly described by Wenger and Snyder
(2000, p. 142), “. . .people in such communities tend to know when and if they
should join.”
Communities of practice have been
recognized in the management literature as an influential mechanism by
which knowledge is created, stored,
and transferred (Brown & Dugid, 1991;
Roberts, 2006). Communities of practice can add value to organizations
through driving strategy (Saint-Onge &
Wallace, 2003), developing new ideas
for products and services (Lesser &
Storck, 2001), transferring best practices (Millen et al., 2002), and helping
with recruiting and retaining employees
(Wenger & Snyder, 2000).
From a project management context,
the transfer of knowledge has been recognized as being fraught with obstacles,
especially in project-based organizations (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008). Some
of the recent literature in project management focuses on knowledge sharing
by project teams, such as Jepsen (2013),
who studies the core actors assisting a
project manager in knowledge sharing
both inside and outside an organization. Dietrich, Kujala, and Artto (2013)
examine communication mechanisms
of inter-related project teams, whereas
Algeo (2014) explores knowledge acquisition and exchange in project team
environments. In addition, communities of practice have been positioned
as a possible solution to the knowledge
transfer problem. For example, communities of practice have been positioned
as a method for project managers to
garner input from various stakeholders
in a project (Garrety, Robertson, & Badham, 2004) or as a means of enhancing
knowledge sharing within specific project teams (Ruuska & Vartiainen, 2005).
However, there has been less empirical
focus on how these communities can
enable individual and organizational
benefits, or how they can enhance the
project management profession itself.
For project managers, especially
those working in organizations with a
limited number of project managers,
communities of practice offer a way
of interacting with a wider range of
colleagues. The Project Management
Institute (PMI) sponsors chapter organizations2 that foster knowledge sharing at a local level, as well as a global,
online community that supports knowledge sharing and creation across and
within specific industries and knowledge domains of project management.
These chapters offer members a means
to meet face-to-face or online, discuss
ideas, and build the overall project
management body of knowledge.
Despite the increasing number of
communities of practice overall, as well
as the many potential benefits associ-
2While PMI chapters may be viewed as a geographic or localized setting for a project management community, PMI does
not refer to a local chapter as a “community of practice.”
ated with the communities, there have
been relatively few quantitative studies
of the linkages among the drivers of
participation in a community of practice and the subsequent benefits (both
individual and organizational) from
participation, especially in the context
of project management. Many of the
studies on the benefits of communities of practice have utilized a qualitative, case-based approach. For example,
Lesser and Storck (2001) performed
a case study based on seven organizations and identified four outcomes
associated with communities of practice: (1) decreased learning curve; (2)
increased customer responsiveness; (3)
reduction in the amount of rework; and
(4) increased innovation.
This study addresses the lack of
quantitative research in the area of communities of practice and project management by developing a theory-driven
model explaining why project managers
participate in communities of practice
and the individual and organizational
benefits resulting from participation.
Through this approach, we compliment the previous qualitative research
in order to provide more generalizable
results and an improved understanding
of what drives participation. Based on
theories of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, our overarching research model
is presented in Figure 1.
Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation
Previous studies in the information systems (IS) literature have identified extrinsic and intrinsic motivation as distinct
classes of drivers influencing contributions to electronic knowledge repositories (Kankanhalli, Tan, & Wei, 2005), as
well as influencing individual technology
acceptance (Venkatesh, 2000). Extrinsic
motivation focuses on goal-driven reasons for committing an action (Deci &
Ryan, 1985), whereas intrinsic motivation
taps into the innate pleasure and satisfaction derived from a specific action (Deci,
1975; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
At one end of the intrinsic/extrinsic
motivation continuum, extrinsically
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
41
PAPERS
Improving Project Management Through Communities of Practice
Web 2.0
Technologies
Extrinsic Motivation
H5
Individual Rewards
H1
Reputation
H2
Organizational Rewards
H3
H7
Participation
Intensity
Intrinsic Motivation
Enjoyment
H4
H6
Individual
Impacts
H8
Organizational
Impacts
Management
Support
Figure 1: Research model.
motivated behaviors are those based
on something other than an interest in
the activity itself (Deci & Ryan, 1985). In
the context of communities of practice
involvement, perceived tangible returns
on information values such as personal
rewards have been identified as influential drivers of participation in electronic
communities of practice (Wasko & Faraj,
2000).
In our research model, the constructs of individual rewards, reputation, and organizational values reflect
extrinsic motivators of participation
in communities of practice. Individual
rewards include the specific rewards
to an individual for participating, such
as better promotion opportunities,
work assignments, or job performance
reviews. These specific rewards can
drive participation in a community of
practice, and we hypothesize:
H1: There is a positive association between
individual rewards and participation
intensity in project management communities of practice.
Reputation has also been tied to
knowledge contribution in online communities of practice (Wasko & Faraj,
2005). Similar to reputation, Lampel
and Bhalla (2007) identified statusseeking as a primary influencing driver
of participation in online communities
among a group of intrinsic and extrinsic
42
February/March 2015
motivating factors. Overall, the literature demonstrates that perceived image
and/or reputation enhancement within
the knowledge sharing community can
serve as a powerful motivational driver
to be involved in the community; therefore, we hypothesize:
H2: There is a positive association between
reputation and participation intensity
in project management communities of
practice.
A final relevant extrinsic motivation for participation in a community
of practice involves the value an organization places on participation. This
construct reflects the extent to which
people in the organization value participation. As an extrinsic motivator,
participation in the community could
occur because the organization rewards
participation or places a premium on
the new project manager skills gained
through participation. We hypothesize:
H3: There is a positive association between
the extent to which an organization values the community of practice and participation intensity in the community of
practice.
At the other end of the intrinsic/
extrinsic motivation continuum, intrinsically motivated behaviors are beneficial
unto themselves, and the enjoyment of
the behavior serves as the actual reward
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
of intrinsically motivated behavior (Deci
& Ryan, 1985). Tailored to the context
of communities of practice, intrinsic
motives for exchange will be specifically
concerned with the perceived enjoyment
tied to the knowledge exchanged within
the community. Findings from past studies on involvement in communities of
practice are consistent with these notions.
Across domains of expertise and internal/
external organizational contexts, the literature points to a relationship between
perceived enjoyment and the subsequent
involvement in online and offline communities (Lin, 2001; Kankanhalli et al.,
2005; Tedjamulia, Olsen, Dean, & Albrecht, 2005; Wasko & Faraj, 2000, 2005);
therefore, we hypothesize:
H4: There is a positive association between
enjoyment and participation in project
management communities of practice.
Web 2.0 Technologies
Web 2.0 refers to an emerging set of
social and collaborative technologies
that can be used to create a more networked organization. Examples of Web
2.0 technologies include social media
platforms (e.g., Facebook), discussion
boards, forums, blogs, webinars, and
file-sharing services (e.g., Dropbox).
Web 2.0 technologies can be used to connect the internal employees and groups
of an organization, as well as to extend
the organization’s influence and collaboration to external stakeholders. When
used effectively, Web 2.0 technologies
can facilitate contact and interactions
between employees, encourage participation in projects, improve communications, and strengthen bonds between
customers and suppliers (McKinsey &
Company, 2009). With the emphasis
of Web 2.0 technologies on collaboration, it is a natural extension to use
these tools to develop and strengthen
the bonds of project managers in a community of practice, specifically:
H5: There is a positive association between
the use of Web 2.0 technologies and participation in a project management community of practice.
Management Support
In the information systems and project management literature, management support has been recognized
as a key factor in successful systems
implementations (e.g., Leonard-Barton
& Deschamps, 1988; Sharma & Yetton,
2003) and project implementations (e.g.,
Cooke-Davies, 2002; Pinto & Slevin,
1987). In the context of communities
of practice, Wenger and Snyder (2000,
p. 140) find that managers cannot simply mandate communities of practice.
Instead, they recommend a cultivation
approach, where managers “. . .bring the
right people together, provide an infrastructure in which communities can
thrive, and measure the communities’
value in nontraditional ways.” Given the
important role of management support
in cultivating communities of practice,
we hypothesize the following:
H6: There is a positive association between
management support and participation
intensity in project management communities of practice.
Participation Intensity and Impacts
The participation intensity in communities of practice refers to the degree
of involvement by individual members
of the community. Active participation, including face-to-face contact, has
been found to be critical in the formation of voluntary groups or associations
(Wollebaek & Selle, 2002). For communities of practice, the intensity of participation and involvement by the members
has been recognized as an indication of
the overall success of a community of
practice (Wenger & Snyder, 2000.)
The benefits derived from communities of practice have been documented in
various case-based studies (e.g., Lesser
& Storck, 2001; Wenger & Snyder, 2000).
Individual benefits from a community
of practice include professional development activities such as learning new
tools, methods, and procedures; accessibility to other professionals in their fields;
and a better understanding of what others are doing in the organization (Millen
et al., 2002). However, the benefits are not
just at the individual level. From an organizational perspective, communities of
practice can help drive strategy, start new
lines of businesses, transfer best practices, and foster an environment of innovation (Lesser & Storck, 2001; Wenger &
Snyder, 2000).
In a project management context,
communities of practice provide project
managers with the opportunity to network with other project management
practitioners, improve specific project management skills, and learn new
methods of project management. Organizationally, participation by project
managers in communities of practice
can have organizational benefits such
as decreasing project delivery times
and improving the overall project quality through the implementation of new
project management techniques.
Utilizing the DeLone and McLean
IS success model (DeLone & McLean,
1992), which links the use of an IS to
both individual impacts and organizational impacts, we hypothesize a similar
relationship for communities of practice. We hypothesize that the intensity of
participation in a project management
community of practice can lead to individual impacts (H7) and organizational
impacts (H8). More formally:
H7: There is a positive association between
participation in project management
communities of practice and individual
impacts
H8: There is a positive association between
participation in project management communities of practice and organizational
impacts
Research Methodology
Based on theories of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, this study empirically
examines the determinants of participation intensity in project management
communities of practice and the associated benefits of participation. The
constructs of interest in this study are
measured through a survey methodology that includes nine scales of interest.
Scale Development
Following the guidelines of Netemeyer,
Bearden, and Sharma (2003), we developed nine scales to measure the constructs shown in Figure 1. We first began
the process by conceptually determining whether each construct should
be modeled as reflective or formative
(Petter, Straub, & Rai, 2007). Next, we
selected and/or developed a set of question items designed to measure each
variable construct. Where possible and
applicable, we used items from previously validated instruments. When our
review of the literature indicated no previously developed measurement scale,
we defined and developed new items
based on the literature. Table 1 provides
an overview of each of the constructs
and the categorization as either formative or reflective. The survey items
for the data collection are presented in
Appendix.
Data Collection
The measurement items were initially tested in a pilot study. The pilot
study consisted of 38 respondents from
two different information technology
project management communities of
practice: (1) a community of project
managers in the governmental sector
(28 respondents) and (2) a community
in a Fortune 500 company (9 respondents). From this initial collection of
data, the measurement items were
refined to those listed in the Appendix.
The data for the main study were
collected from project managers participating in a local project management community in the southeastern
part of the United States. Through
the support of a Project Management
Institute (PMI) chapter, the data were
collected at a local chapter meeting.3
A total of 78 respondents completed the
3Although
PMI does not use the term “community of practice”
when referring to local chapters, we are following a broad
interpretation of the Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002,
p. 4) definition of community of practice as “groups of people
who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a
topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this
area by interacting on an ongoing basis.” As such, this study
positions a PMI chapter as a community of practice.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
43
PAPERS
Improving Project Management Through Communities of Practice
Theoretical
Foundation
Construct
Formative
or Reflective
Intrinsic Motivation
Enjoyment
Reflective
The pleasure that results from participating in a community of practice.
Extrinsic Motivation
Individual Reward
Formative
The specific rewards to an individual for participating in a community of practice.
Organizational Value
Reflective
The extent that people in the organization value participation in the community of
practice.
Reputation
Reflective
The opinions held by others concerning the project manager.
Management Support
Reflective
The management team in the organization provides the help, encouragement, and/
or financial resources enabling the individual to participate in the community of
practice.
Participation Intensity
Reflective
The extent of participation in the community of practice.
Web 2.0 Technologies
Reflective
(single-item)
Individual Impacts
Formative
The impacts or consequences of community of practice participation that accrue to
the individual.
Organizational
Impacts
Formative
The impacts or consequences of community of practice participation that accrue to
the organization.
Definition
The extent of usage of Web 2.0 technologies (such as social media and collaboration
tools) in the community of practice
Table 1: Constructs and definition.
paper-based survey. The respondents
are experienced project managers, with
67% having more than 10 years of experience in project management and 95%
are Project Management Professional
(PMP)® credential holders. A summary
of the demographic information is presented in Table 2.
Results
The hypotheses were tested using partial least squares (PLS), a structural
equation modeling technique. As illustrated in Figure 1, we hypothesized
a comprehensive set of relationships
among the various constructs.
Measurement Model
With PLS, the measurement model
can be tested simultaneously with the
structural model. The first step in the
PLS analysis is the assessment of the
measurement model by examining construct validity, which tests how well the
indicators are measuring the construct.
We assess construct reliability for both
the reflective and formative constructs.
Reflective Constructs
In our research model, five constructs
(Enjoyment, Organizational Value, Repu44
February/March 2015
tation, Management Support, and Participation Intensity) are modeled as
reflective constructs. Reliability measures such as Cronbach’s alpha and
composite reliability are used to assess
the internal consistency of a reflective
latent construct. As shown in Table 3,
the Cronbach’s alpha and composite
reliability for the five reflective constructs are all above the adequate level
of 0.70 as recommended by Nunnally
(1978).
To test for discriminant validity, we
are verifying that the items measuring
the construct are more closely associated with the intended construct than
with the other constructs in the model.
Discriminant validity is assessed by verifying that the squared root of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each
construct is higher than the correlation
between it and the other constructs.
Table 4 displays the correlations, with
the diagonal element representing the
square root of the AVE.
We further tested for discriminant
validity by following the Chin (1998)
cross-loading analysis, which validates
that each item loads more highly on
its assigned construct than on other
constructs (Table 5). In this analysis,
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
we are expecting each item loading to
be greater than 0.707, implying that
there is more shared variance between
the construct and its item than error
variance. As shown in Table 5, all of the
loadings for each construct are above
0.707.
Formative Constructs
To assess the validity of the formative
constructs, we followed the guidelines
of Petter et al. (2007). Our formative
constructs include individual rewards,
individual impacts, and organizational
impacts. Because the formative measurement model is based on multiple
regression, the stability of the coefficients (i.e., multicollinearity among
formative constructs) is sensitive to
sample size and the strength of the
item correlations (Diamantopoulos &
Winklhofer, 2001). Following the general rule of thumb that values above
a VIF of 10 can indicate a potentially
severe problem with multicollinearity
(e.g., Kutner, Nachtscheim, Neter, & Li,
2004), we computed the VIF for the formative items. One item for the “Organizational Impact” construct (ORG_IMP3)
had a VIF greater than 10 and was not
included in the data analysis.
Value
Total Number of Respondents
Percentage
78
100%
< 1 year
0
0%
1–5 years
1
1%
6–10 years
4
5%
11–20 years
23
29%
> 20 years
50
64%
0
0%
3
4%
Number of Years Work Experience
No response
Number of Years of Project Management Experience
< 1 year
1–5 years
8
10%
6–10 years
15
19%
11–20 years
30
38%
> 20 years
20
26%
2
3%
< 30
0
0%
31–40
7
9%
41–50
31
40%
51–60
28
36%
> 60
10
13%
2
3%
Male
47
60%
Female
24
31%
7
9%
No response
Age
No response
Gender
No response
Education
Associate’s degree
3
4%
Bachelor’s degree
38
48%
Graduate degree
37
47%
2
2%
74
95%
1
1%
No response
Project Management Professional
Designation
(PMP)®
Credential
Self-Rated Project Management Expertise
1 (Novice)
2
4
5%
3
22
28%
4
28
36%
5 (Expert)
18
23%
5
6%
No Response
Table 2: Demographic information.
Structural Model
The hypotheses were tested using
SmartPLS 2.0 software (Ringle, Wende,
& Will, 2005). As recommended by Chin
(1998), bootstrapping (with 500 subsamples) was performed to test the statistical significance of each PLS path
coefficient using t-tests.
The estimates for the PLS path coefficients are used to test the direct effects
of the hypothesized relations between
constructs. Overall, the results of the
structural model were positive. Figure 2
reveals statistical support for H2, H4,
H6, H7, and H8, all with p < 0.001. As
predicted, there is a positive and significant association between participation
intensity and the following: reputation
(H2, 0.495, p < 0.001); enjoyment (H4,
0.162, p < 0.001); and management support (H6, 0.237, p < 0.001). Additionally,
the data support the positive association between participation intensity and
individual impacts (H7, 0.788, p <0.001)
and participation intensity and organizational impacts (H8, 0.478, p < 0.001).
We did not find statistical support for
H1, H3, and H5.
Web 2.0 Technologies
In addition to the research model,
another objective of this study is to
assess the extent of usage of various
Web 2.0 technologies in project management communities of practice. In
Table 6, we report the percentage of
respondents who use the various Web
2.0 technologies for personal objectives,
professional objectives, and for project management community of practice objectives. From Table 6, the most
popular tools used for assisting in personal, professional, and communities
of practice objectives were LinkedIn
and webinars. As expected, Facebook is
frequently used for achieving personal
objectives, but is not as popular for
professional and communities of practice objectives. From a community of
practice perspective, the only other tool
(besides LinkedIn and webinars) used
by at least 20% of respondents were discussion boards/forums.
Benefits of Communities of Practice
A final objective of this study is to assess
the individual and organizational benefits of communities of practice. From
the data, we calculated the mean and
standard deviations for the individual
benefits and the organizational benefits
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
45
PAPERS
Improving Project Management Through Communities of Practice
Cronbach’s Alpha Composite Reliability
Enjoyment
0.895345
0.950262
Organizational Value of Project Management
0.889212
0.931119
Reputation
0.892943
0.933061
Management Support
0.865210
0.917831
Participation Intensity
0.872808
0.95062
Table 3: Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability for reflective constructs.
Enjoyment Org_Value Reputation Mgmt_Support Participation
Enjoyment
0.905238
Org_Value
0.218973
0.818560
Reputation
0.502118
0.203062
0.823074
Mgmt_Support
0.294584
0.450768
0.517779
0.788487
Participation
0.464592
0.189878
0.665348
0.503682
0.723780
Table 4: Reflective construct correlations and square root of AVE on diagonals.
(Table 7). From Table 7, the ability to
network with other project managers and
a better understanding of what others
in the profession are doing emerged as
the top individual benefits for participating in a community of practice. The top
organizational benefits are: (1) more successfully executing existing projects and
(2) improvements in the overall quality of
project management in the organization.
Discussion and Conclusion
Overall, this study provides support
for the role of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivators in driving participation in
communities of practice, as well as the
benefits associated with participation.
In our analysis, the intrinsic motivator of
enjoyment and the extrinsic motivator
of reputation are both strong predictors
of participation intensity. Participants
Management Support
Organizational Value
Participation Intensity
Reputation
Enjoyment
ENJOY1
0.256788
0.179633
0.45052
0.444917
0.953177
ENJOY2
0.304558
0.237945
0.435039
0.511648
0.949695
PARTICIPATION1
0.472515
0.139855
0.832807
0.617024
0.488347
PARTICIPATION2
0.364815
0.141242
0.835724
0.603452
0.381592
PARTICIPATION3
0.37213
0.164433
0.880506
0.492658
0.33893
PARTICIPATION4
0.490084
0.19958
0.852729
0.543353
0.359704
MGMT_SUPPORT1
0.847039
0.443317
0.464531
0.420416
0.202951
MGMT_SUPPORT2
0.893292
0.305591
0.444329
0.45997
0.269167
MGMT_SUPPORT3
0.921966
0.449495
0.429193
0.499576
0.315683
ORG_VALUE1
0.370322
0.859458
0.165229
0.127971
0.123411
ORG_VALUE2
0.43245
0.928532
0.197976
0.205811
0.267606
ORG_VALUE3
0.417243
0.924576
0.141809
0.217732
0.187975
REPUTATION1
0.481868
0.226842
0.69738
0.923709
0.453898
REPUTATION2
0.398797
0.135977
0.567587
0.934413
0.463127
REPUTATION3
0.533675
0.180855
0.522802
0.861905
0.452418
Table 5: Loadings and cross-loadings.
46
in project management communities
of practice enjoy sharing their expertise
with others and enjoy the camaraderie
of interacting with other project managers, while at the same time building and
strengthening their reputation among
their peers.
With the exception of reputation,
the other extrinsic motivators of individual rewards and organizational value
were not statistically significant predictors of participation intensity. Project
managers who participate in communities of practice appear not to be driven
by specific individual rewards, such as
improved job security or better work
assignments; nor were the project managers motivated to participate only if
their organization specifically valued
or rewarded project management skills.
The data also revealed that Web 2.0
technologies are currently not extensively used by project managers for
professional objectives and also not
being utilized by communities of practice to encourage participation. With
Web 2.0’s focus on increasing collaboration and improving interactivity among
groups, the technologies may represent untapped resources for improving
February/March 2015
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Web 2.0
Technologies
Extrinsic Motivation
Individual Rewards
0.007
0.1
32
Reputation
**
8*
0.49
8
0.7
5**
Organizational Rewards
*
Participation
Intensity
–0.066
Individual
Impacts
0.
47
8*
**
*
Intrinsic Motivation
*
2*
6
0.1
Enjoyment
Organizational
Impacts
0.237***
Management
Support
Hypothesis
Link
Path
coefficients
p-value
PLS Analysis Support
H1
Individual Rewards →
Participation Intensity
0.132
n.s.
NO
H2
Reputation →
Participation Intensity
0.495
***
YES
H3
Organizational Rewards →
Participation Intensity
-0.066
n.s.
NO
H4
Enjoyment →
Participation Intensity
0.162
***
YES
H5
Web 2.0 Technologies →
Participation Intensity
0.007
n.s.
NO
H6
Management Support →
Participation Intensity
0.237
***
YES
H7
Participation Intensity →
Individual Impacts
0.788
***
YES
H8
Participation Intensity →
Organizational Impacts
0.478
***
YES
*** p < 0.001
n.s: not significant
Figure 2: PLS results.
project management effectiveness as
well as facilitating a stronger community of practice. Additionally, the lack of
usage of Web 2.0 technologies by project managers represents an opportunity
for future research, which could explore
specific barriers of adoption.
The final factor significantly affecting participation intensity is management support. Management support
has been found to be a key component
in nurturing communities of practice
(e.g., Wenger & Snyder, 2000), and this
holds true in the context of project management communities of practice.
A primary contribution of this article is the empirical support of tangible
benefits associated with participation
in communities of practice. The data
show strong support for individual
benefits such as learning new project
management techniques and skills,
increased access to project management experts, and increased ability to
network with other project managers.
In addition to individual benefits, the
data also revealed strong support for
tangible organizational benefits, including decreased project delivery times
and improvements in overall quality of
project deliverables.
This study is not without limitations.
One potential limitation is that a PMI
local chapter represents a community
of practice. In the literature, there is
some confusion on what constitutes a
community of practice, specifically in
the relationship between communities of practice and an occupational
professional community (Cox, 2005).
Part of this uncertainty regarding communities of practice is that they can vary
in size and location and can take on
many forms. This uncertainty can also
be attributed to the ambiguity of the
terms of “community” and “practice”
themselves (Cox, 2005). Future research
could further explore the specific distinctions and overlap between communities of practice and professional
associations, as well as the possible evolution of professional associations from
local communities of practice.
The diversity of communities of
practice has led to the recognition
that these communities of practice are
not isolated and are part of broader
social systems that involve many other
communities or “a whole landscape of
practices” (Wenger, 2010, p. 182). Landscapes of practice focus on the boundaries, overlap, and interactions between
interrelated communities of practice (Wenger, 2010; Blackmore, 2012).
Future research could also address if
the various groups within a professional
association (e.g. local PMI chapters) are
actually part of a larger landscape of
practice.
Another limitation is that this study
did not explore participation in smaller
sub-communities of practice, such as
industry-specific communities (e.g.,
information systems or pharmaceuticals) or topic-specific communities
(e.g., agile project management or risk
management). Note, however, that the
pilot study consisted of respondents
from smaller communities with similar
results. Future studies might explore
possible differences in communities of
practice based on membership size and
type.
One final limitation is that we did
not distinguish between virtual aspects
of communities of practice and face-toface interactions. Virtual communities
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
47
PAPERS
Improving Project Management Through Communities of Practice
I have used this for
PERSONAL goals/objectives
I have used this tool for
PROFESSIONAL goals and
objectives
I have used this tool as part
of the Project Management
Community of Practice
Blogs
35%
36%
4%
Discussion Boards/Forums
44%
40%
22%
Dropbox
46%
24%
5%
Facebook
60%
14%
8%
Google+
45%
27%
9%
Google Drive
24%
10%
3%
Google Hangouts
18%
5%
4%
Helpouts by Google
3%
1%
3%
Collaboration Tool
Instagram
17%
4%
3%
Internal Company Social Media
23%
41%
15%
LinkedIn
69%
67%
31%
Pinterest
19%
5%
1%
Podcasts
32%
19%
10%
Snapchat
19%
1%
1%
Tumblr
8%
1%
1%
Twitter
31%
14%
4%
Webinars
60%
60%
38%
YouTube/Vlogs
58%
27%
12%
Table 6: Web 2.0 collaboration tools.
ITEM
Individual Benefits/ Impacts
Mean Std Dev
Because of my participation in the community of practice, I have ...
IND_IMP6
• … increased my ability to network with other project management professionals
5.618
IND_IMP3
• … a better understanding of what others in the profession are doing
5.487
1.137
IND_IMP2
• … improved my project management skills
5.25
1.128
IND_IMP1
• … learned new ways to solve problems related to project management
5.158
1.244
IND_IMP4
• … increased my access to project management experts
5.158
1.286
IND_IMP5
• … increased my access to specialized project management information
5.158
1.286
IND_IMP10
• … increased my competence in new areas of project management
4.970
1.222
IND_IMP7
• … been able to share project management processes and practices with others
4.894
1.102
IND_IMP9
• … enhanced my ability to work through unstructured project management situations
4.840
1.346
• … developed new project management techniques and skills
4.802
1.357
IND_IMP8
1.070
Organizational Benefits/ Impacts
Because of participation in the community of practice, my team has ...
ORG_IMP4
• … more successfully executed existing projects
4.237
1.365
ORG_IMP5
• … improved the overall quality of project management in my organization
4.211
1.417
ORG_IMP2
• … experimented or implemented new project management techniques
4.052
1.469
ORG_IMP3
• … experimented or implemented more innovative project management techniques
3.987
1.351
ORG_IMP1
• … decreased project delivery times
3.895
1.217
ORG_IMP6
• … benchmarked our project management performance against the performance at other organizations
3.895
1.302
Table 7: Individual and organizational benefits of communities of practice
48
February/March 2015
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
of practice by their virtual nature and
their reliance on technologies are perhaps early adopters of Web 2.0 technologies and may use Web 2.0 technologies
more innovatively or extensively than
traditional face-to-face communities,
thus providing another area of future
research.
Overall, this study has found that
communities of practice can play an
important role in the development of
project managers. The project manager
respondents in this study enjoyed participating in the community and were
not solely driven by extrinsic rewards. In
addition, the project managers were able
to identify tangible individual and organizational/team rewards associated with
their participation. Our study provides
evidence of the benefits of project management communities of practice and
the role of these communities in improving the project management profession.
References
Ajmal, M. M., & Koskinen, K. U. (2008).
Knowledge transfer in project-based
organizations: An organizational culture
perspective. Project Management Journal,
39(1), 7–15.
Algeo, C. (2014). Exploring project
knowledge acquisition and exchange
through action research. Project
Management Journal, 45(3), 46–56.
Aubry, M., Hobbs, B., & Thuillier, D.
(2009). Organisational project management: An historical approach to the
study of PMOs. International Journal of
Project Management, 26, 38–43.
Blackmore, C. (2012). Landscapes of
practices, social learning systems, and
rural innovation. The 10th European
IFSA Symposium: Producing and
Reproducing Farming Systems: New
Modes of Organisation for Sustainable
Food Systems of Tomorrow, 1–4 July 2012,
Aarhus, Denmark.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991).
Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view
of working, learning, and innovation.
Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.
Chin, W. (1998). The partial least squares
approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern
business research methods. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B., & Wei, K.
(2005). Contributing knowledge to
electronic knowledge repositories: An
empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly,
29(1), 113–143.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The “real”
success factors on projects. International
Journal of Project Management, 20,
185–190.
Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., Neter,
J., & Li, W. (2004). Applied linear statistical models (5th ed.). Homewood, IL:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Cox, A. M. (2005). What are communities of practice? A comparative
review of four seminal works. Journal of
Information Science, 31(6), 527–540.
Lampel, J., & Bhalla, A. (2007). The role
of status seeking in online communities:
Giving the gift of experience. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication,
12(2), 434–455.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998).
Working knowledge: How organizations
manage what they know. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation.
New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated
learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic
motivation and self-determination in
human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum
Press.
Leonard-Barton, D., & Deschamps,
I. (1988). Managerial influence in
the implementation of new technology. Management Science, 34(10),
1252–1265.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992).
Information systems success: The quest
for the dependent variable. Information
Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95.
Lesser, E. L., & Storck, J. (2001).
Communities of practice and organizational performance. IBM Systems Journal,
40(4), 831–841.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer,
H. M. (2001). Index construction with
formative indicators: An alternative to
scale development. Journal of Marketing
Research, 38, 269–277.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dietrich, P., Kujala, J., & Artto, K. (2013).
Inter-team coordination patterns and
outcomes in multi-team projects. Project
Management Journal, 44(6), 6–19.
Garrety, K., Robertson, P.L, & Badham,
R. (2004). Integrating communities of
practice in technology development
projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 22(5), 351–358.
Hargadon, A. B. (1998). Firms as
knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursuing continuous innovation. California
Management Review, 40(3), 209–227.
Jepsen, L. (2013). Complex new product development projects: How the
project manager’s information sharing
with core actors changes over time.
Project Management Journal, 44(6),
20–35.
McKinsey & Company. (2009). How
companies are benefitting from Web 2.0.
Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.
com/insights/business_technology/
how_companies_are_benefiting_from_
web_20_mckinsey_global_survey_results
Millen, D. R., Fontaine, M. A., & Muller,
M. J. (2002). Understanding the benefits
and costs of communities of practice.
Communications of the ACM, 45(4),
69–73.
Netemeyer, R., Bearden, W., & Sharma,
S. (2003). Scaling procedures. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric
theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Petter, S., Straub, D., & Rai, A. (2007).
Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. MIS Quarterly,
31, 623–656.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1987).
Critical factors in successful project
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
49
PAPERS
Improving Project Management Through Communities of Practice
implementation. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 34(1), 22–27.
Information Systems Research, 11(4),
342–365.
Ringle, C. M., Wende S., & Will, W.
(2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) Beta,
Hamburg. Retrieved from http://www.
smartpls.de
Wasko, M., & Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what
one does:” Why people participate and
help others in electronic communities of
practice. Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, 9(2–3), 155–173.
Roberts, J. (2006). Limits to communities of practice. Journal of Management
Studies, 43(3), 623–639.
Ruuska, I., & Vartiainen, M. (2005).
Characteristics of knowledge sharing communities in project organizations. International Journal of Project
Management, 23(5), 374–379.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Selfdetermination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being. American
Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Saint-Onge, H., & Wallace, D. (2003).
Leveraging communities of practice
for strategic advantage. London, UK:
Butterworth Heinemann.
Sharma, R., & Yetton, P. (2003). The contingent effects of management support
and task interdependence on successful
information systems implementation.
MIS Quarterly, 27(4), 533–555.
Tedjamulia, S.J.J., Olsen, D. R., Dean, D.
L., & Albrecht, C. C. (2005). Motivating
content contributions to online communities: Toward a more comprehensive
theory. In Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii
International Conference on System
Sciences (HICSS).
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of
perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion
into the technology acceptance model.
50
February/March 2015
Wasko, M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why
should I share? Examining social capital
and knowledge contribution in electronic
networks of practice. MIS Quarterly,
29(1), 35–57.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of
practice: Learning, meaning, identity.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of
practice and social learning systems:
The career of a concept. In C. Blackmore
(Ed.), Social learning systems and
communities of practice (pp. 179–198).
London, UK: Springer.
Wenger, E. C., McDermott, R., & Snyder,
W. C. (2002). Cultivating communities
of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000).
Communications of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business
Review, January–February, 139–145.
Wollebaek, D., & Selle, P. (2002). Does
participation in voluntary associations
contribute to social capital? The impact of
intensity, scope, and type. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 32–61.
Lorraine Lee is an associate professor
of accounting at the University of North
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, North
Carolina, USA. She is a former software
project manager with NCR. Lorraine
received her PhD in business administration from the University of South Carolina.
She can be contacted at [email protected]
Bryan Reinicke is an associate professor
of management information systems at the
University of North Carolina Wilmington,
Wilmington, North Carolina, USA. He is a
former consultant with Accenture. Bryan
received his PhD in information systems
from Indiana University. He can be contacted at [email protected]
Robin Sarkar is the director of information
technology for Lakeland Healthcare in St.
Joseph, Michigan, USA. Robin received
his PhD in management from the Indian
Institute of Technology. Before joining
Lakeland Healthcare, Robin held various positions with Whirlpool Corporation
and Bank of America. Robin is an adjunct
faculty member of Andrews University. He
can be contacted at [email protected]
Rita Anderson, PMP, is a Program
Manager with the University Technology
Services organization at the University of
South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina,
USA. Before joining the university, Rita
held numerous positions at NCR, including Director of the Project Management
Office for the Managed Services Division.
Rita has a Bachelor of Science degree from
the Georgia Institute of Technology and a
Master of Business Administration from
the University of South Carolina. She can
be contacted at [email protected]
Appendix: Survey Items
Construct
Enjoyment
Item
ENJOY1
I enjoy sharing my project management knowledge with others
through the community of practice.
ENJOY2
I enjoy helping others by sharing my project management knowledge through the community of practice.
Individual Reward
Organizational Value
Reputation
Source
Adapted from Kankanhalli et al.,
2005; Wasko and Faraj, 2000
Through participation in the community of practice, …
IND_REW1
I hope to receive professional development credits to maintain my
project management certification(s) and/or credential(s).
New
IND_REW2
I hope to increase my overall job security.
Kankanhalli et al., 2005;
Davenport and Prusak, 1998
IND_REW3
I hope to receive a better job performance review.
New
IND_REW4
I hope to receive better work assignments.
Kankanhalli et al., 2005
IND_REW5
I hope to improve my opportunities for a promotion within my
current organization.
Kankanhalli et al., 2005;
Hargadon, 1998
IND_REW6
I hope to improve my opportunities for finding a position at
another organization.
Kankanhalli et al., 2005;
Hargadon, 1998
ORG_VAL1
My organization /employer values project management -related
skills, know-how, or technologies.
New
ORG_VAL2
My organization/employer rewards the development of new project management techniques, competencies, or technologies.
ORG_VAL3
My organization/employer places a premium on new project
management ideas or skills.
REPUTATION1
I earn the respect from others by participating in the community
of practice
REPUTATION2
I feel that participation in the community of practice improves my
status in the profession.
REPUTATION3
I participate in the community of practice to improve my reputation in the profession.
Management Support MGMT_SUPPORT1
My management is supportive of my participation in the community of practice.
MGMT_SUPPORT2
My management allows me to spend time and resources on community of practice activities.
MGMT_SUPPORT3
My management encourages me to participate in the community
of practice.
Participation Intensity PARTICIPATION1
I actively participate in the community of practice.
PARTICIPATION2
I regularly attend the community of practice meetings.
PARTICIPATION3
I am considered by others to be an active member of the community of practice.
PARTICIPATION4
Compared to others in the community of practice, my participation
would be considered high.
Adapted from Wasko and Faraj,
2005.
New
New
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
51
PAPERS
Improving Project Management Through Communities of Practice
Web 2.0
Technology
WEB_TECH
Social media and collaboration tools are used extensively by members of this project
management community of practice.
New
Because of my participation in the community of practice, I have …
IND_IMP1
… learned new ways to solve problems related to project management
IND_IMP2
… improved my project management skills
New items;
adapted from
Wenger and Snyder
(2000)
IND_IMP3
… a better understanding of what others in the profession are doing
IND_IMP4
… increased my access to project management experts
IND_IMP5
… increased my access to specialized project management information
IND_IMP6
… increased my ability to network with other project management practitioners
IND_IMP7
… been able to share processes and practices with others
IND_IMP8
… developed new project management techniques and skills
IND_IMP9
… enhanced my ability to work through unstructured project management situations
IND_IMP10
… increased my competence in new areas of project management
Individual Impacts
Organizational
Impacts
Because of participation in the community of practice, my organization has …
ORG_IMP1
…decreased project delivery times
ORG_IMP2
…experimented or implemented new project management techniques
ORG_IMP3*
…experimented or implemented more innovative project management techniques
ORG_IMP4
…more successfully executed existing projects
ORG_IMP5
… improved the overall quality of project management in my organization
ORG_IMP6
… benchmarked our project management performance against the performance at other
organizations
* Item not included in analysis due to a VIF > 1.
52
February/March 2015
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
PAPERS
Formal and Informal Practices
of Knowledge Sharing Between
Project Teams and Enacted Cultural
Characteristics
Julia Mueller, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany
ABSTRACT ■
This article investigates the process of knowledge sharing between project teams and
uses a case study approach. This is especially relevant, as organizations face both the
needs for separating work into projects and
integrating knowledge created in projects
into the organization.The results provided by
the analysis technique of GABEK® indicate
that, although projects create boundaries,
employees and project team leaders use
formal mechanisms and develop informal
practices for knowledge sharing between
project teams. Furthermore, the article identifies organizational cultural characteristics
enacted in these practices that can stimulate the discussion in “knowledge culture
research” regarding the relationship of organizational cultural characteristics and (specific) knowledge processes.
KEYWORDS: knowledge sharing; projectbased organization; organizational learning;
practice perspective
Project Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 1, 53–68
© 2015 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21471
INTRODUCTION ■
P
roject-based organizations have become prominent in today’s
economy because their configuration makes them flexible, wellequipped to overcome traditional barriers to innovation and
organizational change (Sydow, Lindkvist, & DeFillippi, 2004), and
able to react timely to sophisticated customer demands (Hobday, 1998).
Therefore, project teams need to be effective in conducting knowledge
sharing and creation processes; thus, project-based organizations provide
project teams with the autonomy needed to conduct their tasks.
In addition to these opportunities, however, project-based organizations face a dilemma: their configuration structurally separates one project team from another. This configuration has negative consequences for
organization-wide knowledge processes (Swan, Scarbrough, & Newell, 2010)
because it hinders smooth knowledge flows between project teams (Ajmal,
Helo, & Kekäle, 2009; Ruuska & Vartiainen, 2005). A knowledge-based perspective (Grant, 1997) nevertheless suggests that companies should focus on
cross-boundary knowledge sharing, because this process strongly enhances
innovation, organizational learning, and productivity at the organizational
level (Ajmal et al., 2009; Joshi, Pandey, & Han, 2009; Kale & Karaman, 2011;
Scarbrough et al., 2004). It is important to focus on knowledge sharing across
organizational boundaries, such as between project teams, in order to help
project-based organizations fully exploit their project teams’ potential. Organizations need results—especially the knowledge created through project
work—to be integrated into the whole organization (Demaid & Quintas, 2006).
Project team members, thus, are formally asked to divide their effort and time
between the immediate project tasks and the knowledge sharing activities for
organization-wide learning (Sydow et al., 2004).
This situation creates an interesting setting for practice-based studies in
order to find out how employees cope with two competing aims: conducting
project work and engaging in cross-boundary knowledge sharing. In reality,
employees mostly focus on project-based activities and neglect cross-boundary knowledge sharing (Swan et al., 2010). Thus, the article concentrates on
the neglected side of cross-boundary knowledge sharing practices. Furthermore, the temporary organization that is associated with building and dissolving project teams provides an interesting setting for getting insights into
how practices are developed.
The practice perspective (Bourdieu, 1990; Schatzki, Knorr-Cetina, &
Savigny, 2001), which is prevalent in many organizational learning and
knowledge management articles (see e.g., Blackler, 1993; Brown & Duguid,
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
53
PAPERS
Knowledge Sharing Between Project Teams
2001; Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011; Miettinen, Samra-Fredericks, & Yanow, 2010;
Nicolini, Gherardi, & Yanow, 2003a),
considers a specific process—in this
case, knowledge sharing between project teams—and shows how that process
is put into action by means of specific
practices (Gherardi, 2000; Jarzabkowski,
Balogun, & Seidl, 2007; Nayak & Chia,
2011). Knowledge-sharing practices
are, thus, seen as the “actual action” or
“routinized types of behavior” that constitute the higher order process (Reckwitz, 2002; Spee & Jarzabkowski, 2011).
Knowledge, which is always closely
linked with individuals’ actions, can be
viewed as an output that is acquired
during the practice, as well as the
medium that enables the execution of
certain practices (see also the concept
of “knowing” in Cook & Yanow, 1993;
Duguid, 2005; Lakomski, 2004; Nicolini,
Gherardi, & Yanow, 2003b). The practices, which are “both our production of
the world and the result of this process”
(Gherardi, 2000), associated with this
process of knowledge sharing are at the
center of this study. By focusing on practices, we can analyze human action in a
particular situation, including artifacts,
habits, language, and others engaged in
the practice (Jarzabkowski, 2004; Yanow,
2006). This perspective extends beyond
the functional management perspective,
which focuses on formal ways of knowledge sharing (e.g., official roles of the
project management office or the use
of documents), taking into equal consideration informal practices developed
by employees. Informality in business
research has received growing interest in recent years (Chan & Räisänen,
2009; Rooke, Koskela, & Kagioglou,
2009). Thus far, however, few studies
have explicitly investigated the practices
of knowledge sharing across organizational boundaries (Joshi et al., 2009),
although a number of studies have provided some relevant evidence (Ajmal &
Koskinen, 2008; Boden, Avram, Bannon,
& Wulf, 2012; Boh, 2007; Mueller, 2014).
The success of knowledge processes
often relates to organizational cultural
54
February/March 2015
characteristics.
The
relationship
between corporate culture and knowledge processes is interdependent. This
resembles the “knowing perspective,”
a stream of the practice perspective
that treats knowledge as input, output,
and medium of knowledge processes
(Cook & Yanow, 1993; Duguid, 2005;
Lakomski, 2004; Nicolini et al., 2003b).
As Mueller (2012) suggests, three different perspectives can describe the relationship between the two factors: (1)
Organizational cultural characteristics
can be seen as a knowledge resource
or type of knowledge that needs to be
integrated into knowledge management
and shared throughout the company.
(2) Organizational cultural characteristics can provide favorable antecedents
for knowledge processes and serve a
function in knowledge management. (3)
The third view overcomes this functional perspective and assumes that
conducting knowledge processes can
modify cultural assumptions if employees are subject to positive experiences.
This is in line with the cultural approach
to organizational knowledge and learning practices that sees organizational
cultural characteristics enacted in work
practices (Gherardi, 2000; Yanow, 2000).
This approach allows us to identify factors of a knowledge culture that are relevant to practices of knowledge sharing
between project teams (see for a similar study, Gherardi & Nicolini, 2000).
The study aims to provide evidence
for organizational cultural factors that
affect cross-boundary knowledge sharing processes, with the intent of building the basis for discussing the various
ways that culture influences different
knowledge processes.
This article contributes to the literature in two ways: (1) The study aims
to gain insight into how knowledge
sharing between project teams occurs.
The practice perspective considers
not only the functional, top-down,
and formal ways of knowledge sharing between project teams, but also
the informal ways developed bottomup by the employees. This provides
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
insights for project-based organizations
to enhance organization-wide learning.
For example, this study shows that selfreinforcing circles, such as the trust
of management in the employees and
positive experiences enable employees
to develop new practices. (2) By analyzing the organizational cultural characteristics enacted in these practices, we
are able to enhance the research on
knowledge culture by showing which
organizational cultural characteristics
are particular to knowledge sharing
between project teams. This process
is regarded differently than general
knowledge processes, because sharing
activities differ from knowledge storage, acquisition, application, and generation/creation (Alavi & Leidner, 2001;
Probst, Raub, & Romhardt, 2006). Furthermore, knowledge sharing between
project teams is different from general
knowledge sharing, because crossing
boundaries implies other challenges
than, for example, knowledge sharing within a project team. So far, most
knowledge culture research has focused
on (sharing) knowledge processes in
general without distinguishing between
different kinds of knowledge processes
(Bock, Zmud, & Kim, 2005; Levin &
Cross, 2004; Renzl, 2008; von Krogh,
1998; Wang & Noe, 2010; Wiewiora,
Trigunarsya, Murphy, & Coffey, 2013;
Zárraga & Bonache, 2005). Furthermore, taking an organizational cultural
approach can stimulate the discussion
on overcoming the mere functional perspective of a knowledge culture.
To examine practices of knowledge sharing between project teams
and enacted cultural characteristics,
this article starts with an overview of
the existing research on the process
of knowledge sharing between project
teams and knowledge culture issues. In
the empirical section, the study of practices, used by project team members
to share different kinds of knowledge
with other project teams are described.
The research settings for this explorative case study are five knowledgeintensive and project-based companies
in Austria, Germany, and the Germanspeaking part of Italy. After reporting
the findings, the insights gained in light
of the existing literature and the derived
implications for theory and practice are
discussed.
The Process of (CrossBoundary) Knowledge Sharing
and the Knowledge Culture
The process of knowledge sharing is
vital for innovation, organizational
learning, the development of new skills
and capabilities, increase in productivity, and the maintenance of competitive
advantages (Argote, Ingram, Levine, &
Moreland, 2000; Mooradian, Renzl, &
Matzler, 2006; von Krogh, 1998). Knowledge sharing has therefore received
considerable attention (Eisenhardt &
Santos, 2002), even more than other
knowledge processes, including knowledge identification and knowledge
acquisition. Following the “organic
paradigm” of knowledge management
(Hazlett, McAdam, & Gallagher, 2005),
knowledge sharing is regarded as more
than simply transferring information.
Knowledge sharing is defined as “… the
provision or receipt of task information,
know-how, and feedback regarding a
product or procedure” (Cummings,
2004, p. 352). This definition indicates
that sharing knowledge is a social,
interactive, and complex process, which
includes both tacit and explicit knowledge (Polanyi, 1966). Sharing is not a
one-way act of communication, rather a
communal activity of giving and taking
(Belk, 2010).
Practices of knowledge sharing
relate to communication, observation,
artifacts, and human resource practices.
Communication plays an important role
in these practices, as individuals share
a considerable amount of knowledge in
conversations and in written communication, such as documents, guidelines,
and handbooks (Patriotta, 2003; Renzl,
2007). Observations are necessary to
share tacit knowledge that cannot be
articulated (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Artifacts—for example, prototypes or
patents—incorporate a lot of knowledge
as well (Appleyard, 1996; Galbraith,
1990). Human resource practices that
foster knowledge sharing include hiring
of new employees, transfer of personnel to other subunits, and training programs and workshops (Collins & Smith,
2006; Lave, 1991).
In spite of the two well-developed
areas of knowledge sharing on the interorganizational and individual levels
(Eisenhardt & Santos, 2002), a rather
neglected aspect of knowledge sharing
is that which occurs between departments, functional units, professional
groups, or project teams. Thus far, intraorganizational teams, departments, and
networks are mostly described in order
to show how they enable individual
knowledge sharing (Wasko & Faraj,
2005) or to provide a closed setting
for knowledge management research
(Adenfelt & Lagerstrom, 2006; Cummings, 2004; Fong, 2003; Kasvi, Vartiainen, & Hailikari, 2003; Zárraga &
Bonache, 2005). Project teams need
separation and autonomy from one
another to conduct their work. Since
organizations need to integrate distributed knowledge in order to create value
(Bechky, 2003; Tagliaventi, Bertolotti,
& Macri, 2010; Tagliaventi & Mattarelli,
2006)—a task that proves difficult in
practice (Swan et al., 2010)—further
research in this area is needed. Thus far,
research has shown that difficulties lie
in the practice-based nature of learning
(which might differ from one project
team to the next), in project autonomy,
and in the challenges of knowledge
integration (Scarbrough et al., 2004).
In an effort to overcome the necessary task-related or functional separation of sub-groups, project-based
organizations try to implement strategies to ensure that the organization
learns from the experiences of the
project teams. Therefore, management
implements formal and institutionalized ways of cross-boundary knowledge sharing (Boh, 2007). Relevant
knowledge can be shared by “itinerant
members” (i.e., employees who work
temporarily in other groups [Gruenfeld, Martorana, & Fan, 2000]), “boundary objects” (i.e., abstract or concrete
objects that are passed on from one
group to the other (Carlile, 2002; Ewenstein & Whyte, 2009; Swan, Bresnen,
Newell, & Robertson, 2007), embedding accumulated knowledge into project routines (e.g., “lessons learned,”
(Fong & Yip, 2006; Julian, 2008; Newell, Bresnen, Edelman, Scarbrough, &
Swan, 2006)), or the role of the project managers as “knowledge brokers”
(Pemsel & Wiewiora, 2013). Furthermore, top management introduces
databases where project reports, codifications, and “lessons learned” are
stored and accessible to other project teams (Cacciatori, Tamoschus, &
Grabher, 2012; Julian, 2008; Prencipe
& Tell, 2001). Some companies address
the boundaries of project teams by
using communities of practice, which
are informal and voluntary groups of
employees who enhance knowledge
regarding their work practices (Wenger
& Snyder, 2000). Despite these formal
ways of cross-boundary knowledge
sharing, project teams need to feel the
necessity to engage in team-boundary
spanning practices to get access to relevant knowledge and coordinate taskrelated activities (Joshi et al., 2009).
However, this area of inquiry requires
further research on informal and individualized ways of knowledge sharing
between project teams (Boh, 2007).
Bechky (2003) found out that a shared
meaning across different occupational
groups is important to overcoming
problems of misunderstanding; thus,
different groups need to find ways to
generate a common ground for future
interaction. Furthermore, individuals’
involvement, shared cultural values,
and operational proximity are necessary for cross-boundary knowledge
sharing (Tagliaventi & Mattarelli, 2006).
Research has shown that organizational cultural characteristics of
the (project-based) company are relevant for knowledge processes (see e.g.,
Davenport, De Long, & Beers, 1998;
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
55
PAPERS
Knowledge Sharing Between Project Teams
De Long & Fahey, 2000; King, 2007;
McDermott & O’Dell, 2001; Tagliaventi
& Mattarelli, 2006). Although corporate culture research suggests that the
culture of a company is not monolithic and includes several subcultures,
especially in project-based organizations (Wiewiora et al., 2013), some core
values are shared by all organizational
members (Sackmann, 1992; Sackmann,
2004). In the dynamic perspective of
corporate culture research, companies
are seen as cultures that have cultural
aspects that can be modified (Hatch,
1993; Sackmann, 1990). Cultural characteristics consist of basic assumptions
(unconscious assumptions about the
human nature and the environment),
shared values (shared beliefs and rules
that guide human attitude and behavior), and manifestations (visible artifacts of these values, such as structures,
documents, and buildings) (Gagliardi,
1990; Mueller, 2014; Sackmann, 1991;
Schein, 1992). The common view in
the knowledge management literature
(for an overview see Mueller, 2012) is
that organizational cultural characteristics influence if and how knowledge is shared (De Long & Fahey, 2000;
King, 2006; McDermott & O’Dell, 2001).
Knowledge culture research mostly
focuses on cultural values that support knowledge processes in general.
Research discovered that if employees in organizations share the cultural
value of care (von Krogh, 1998; Zárraga & Bonache, 2005), trust (Levin &
Cross, 2004; Renzl, 2008), team orientation (Alavi, Kayworth, & Leidner, 2005;
Jones, Cline, & Ryan, 2006), autonomy
(Jamrog, Vickers, & Bear, 2006), risk
orientation (Park, Ribiére, & Schulte,
2004), fairness (Bock et al., 2005), longterm orientation (Jones et al., 2006),
openness (Kayworth & Leidner, 2003),
and learning orientation (Brachos, Kostopoulos, Soderquist, & Prastacos, 2007)
knowledge processes are supported.
Most knowledge culture research
has focused on knowledge processes in
general without distinguishing between
different kinds of knowledge processes
56
February/March 2015
(Bock et al., 2005; Levin & Cross, 2004;
Renzl, 2008; von Krogh, 1998; Wang &
Noe, 2010; Zárraga & Bonache, 2005).
Wang, Su, and Yang (2011) made a first
attempt to focus on organizational cultural characteristics that explicitly influence the knowledge creation process;
furthermore, most knowledge culture
research assumes a causal relationship
that organizational cultural characteristics influence knowledge processes.
However, the practices of knowledge
sharing and their enacted organizational cultural values might also be able
to influence the corporate culture (Gherardi, 2000; Gherardi & Nicolini, 2000;
Mueller, 2012; Yanow, 2000). In order
to understand a knowledge culture
especially relevant for cross-boundary
knowledge sharing, this study investigates how organizational cultural
characteristics are enacted in practices
of knowledge sharing between project
teams (see for a similar study Gherardi
& Nicolini, 2000). This study not only
provides new insights into practices of
cross-boundary knowledge sharing, but
also broadens our understanding of the
relationship of knowledge processes
and corporate culture by integrating
enacted organizational cultural characteristics.
Empirical Study
As the literature review above indicates,
organization-wide learning is vital for an
organization’s performance, suggesting
that project-based organizations should
focus on knowledge sharing between
project teams. However, research also
shows that the formal separation of project teams from one another and from
the functional units of the organization
makes this kind of knowledge sharing
difficult. To gain a deeper understanding of the practices used to share knowledge between project teams and which
organizational cultural characteristics
are enacted in these practices, a study
was conducted in five knowledge-intensive and project-based organizations.
A qualitative and inductive research
design was applied (Eisenhardt, 1989;
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Maxwell, 2008; Yin, 2003). As Orlikowski
(2002) suggested, interviews, observations, group discussions, and analyses
of documents provided by the five studied companies (see method triangulation; Eisenhardt, 1989; Maxwell, 2008;
Yin, 2003) were used. These qualitative
methods have proven to provide relevant data for the practice-based analysis
(Gherardi & Nicolini, 2000). The observations and documents (i.e., values,
code of conduct, vision, and mission
statement) were used to identify organizational cultural elements. In the interviews with project team members and
leaders, questions were asked about
how knowledge sharing between project teams takes place (i.e., practices) as
well as about their organizational cultural antecedents and meaning. Project team members and leaders were
asked about how knowledge sharing
takes place with other teams, which
factors enabled or hinder knowledge
sharing between the teams, and how
these teams describe their companies.
Furthermore, the company visits were
used to gain more evidence about cultural values through observation; notes
were taken on what was seen in buildings, corporate communication, the
dress codes of employees, interaction
between employees, symbols of status,
and so forth. As the unit of analysis was
the project team, all collected data were
presented to each project team and discussed whether they represented the
view of the project team (see the following description).
This study was conducted in subsidiaries of five organizations located
in Austria, Germany, and the Germanspeaking part of Italy (for an overview
see Table 1).
In selecting the companies for the
study, the organizations needed to fulfill the following criteria: They had to
be knowledge intensive. In other words,
able to rely on the intellectual capital of their knowledge workers to solve
complex tasks and generate new knowledge (Newell, Robertson, Scarbrough,
& Swan, 2002); they had to organize
Number of
Interviewees
Main
Professions
Number of
Employees
Industry
Location of
Subsidiary
Company 1
15
Engineers
Company 2
12
Engineers
+ 1,300
Engineering
Austria
+ 2,500
Engineering
Italy
Company 3
17
Researchers
+ 800
Research
Austria
Company 4
10
Marketing
Company 5
27
Engineers
+ 200
Marketing
Germany
+ 6,000
Metal production
Austria
Table 1: Characteristics of companies.
their work around projects (Pemsel &
Wiewiora, 2013); and they had to be
part of the Germanic culture (for characteristics of this culture see, e.g., Hofstede, 2001). Because the industry was
not a selection criterion, the selected
organizations operated in different
industries. As in many exploratory
studies, we began to contact various
organizations that fulfilled the criteria
described above. Soon we realized that
German-speaking, knowledge-intensive
project-based organizations differ in
their configurations, for example with
regard to company size, company structure, project size, and top-management
involvement. However, the practices
discovered provided so many different
ways to organize practices of knowledge
sharing between project teams that we
did not control for these factors. Rather,
the aim was to gain a diverse, though
not exhaustive list of practices. The
method used for data analysis helped
in this attempt by focusing on “weak
signals”; in other words, even if only one
interview partner mentioned a practice,
this insight was not lost during the analysis and consolidation process.
The limitations associated with the
lack of control for contextual factors
were overcome by the selection of the
analysis method. All text data (the field
notes from the observations, the texts
of the documents, and the transcribed
interviews) were imported into the
analysis tool GABEK (“GAnzheitliche
BEwältigung von Komplexität”—
Holistic Processing of Linguistic
Complexity © Josef ZELGER (2008),
Innsbruck, Austria). This method
is based on the theory of linguistic
®
gestalten and provides a number of
analysis steps used to collect and systematize the unordered, but potentially
significant information. Data analysis
is rule-based, taking both syntax and
semantics into account. By means of
indexing—representation of conceptual structures, causal assumptions,
and linguistic gestalten—an understanding of the specific problems is presented, along with possible measures
for changes. Furthermore, the method
allows for coding of causal relationships and an evaluation of an object, an
attribute, or a situation. This produces
overviews of the positive and negative
values associated with the keywords—
either to reflect the actual situation or
the desire for a changed situation in
the future (Buber & Kraler, 2000; Zelger
& Oberprantacher, 2002). This method
was chosen for several reasons: (1) It
addresses the hybrid nature of textual
data, in other words, a combination
of qualitative and quantitative analysis
(Raich, Abfalter, & Mueller, 2014). (2)
It includes a number of analysis steps
in order to collect and systematize the
unordered data (Zelger, Raich, Abfalter,
& Mueller, 2011). (3) It makes note of
“weak signals” (i.e., types of information that only occur once in the data
set), which suited the research design
because of not controlling for all contextual factors when selecting the organizations. Two researchers conducted
the analysis steps independently and
continuously negotiated meanings. The
results of this analysis were used as
input for the group discussions with
members of the project teams in order
to ensure the validity of the results.
Descriptions of Research Sites
All selected companies were knowledgeintensive, project-based, and based in
German-speaking areas.
Company 1, headquartered in Austria and Germany, is a world-leading
independent engineering consultant
company, with a particular interest in
tunneling, underground, and pipeline
construction. The company’s over 1,300
employees are civil, mechanical, and
electrical engineers. Its work organization resembles a matrix structure with
functional departments and interdisciplinary project teams (Galbraith, 1971).
This fast-growing organization has
taken several initiatives to foster knowledge sharing, for example, by introducing mentoring systems, orientation
sessions for new employees, information and communication technologies,
including a project database, trainings,
and a constructive approach to handling mistakes.
Company 2 is a leading organization
in ropeway engineering and has more
than 2,500 employees. This organization also has a matrix structure, where
the project structure complements the
functional departments. Mostly, project
team leaders are department managers
responsible for representing the company to the B2B customers. Because the
projects are rather large in scale, one
single project team includes most of the
subsidiary’s employees.
Company 3 is a research institute
that conducts projects in the most significant economic and technological
areas of the future; over 800 employees
do research in health, material, and
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
57
PAPERS
Knowledge Sharing Between Project Teams
innovation technology. The research
projects are rather diverse in nature.
However, the company has implemented so-called ‘flagship projects,’
which are interdisciplinary projects
conducted by multiple departments.
With more than 200 employees,
Company 4 is a marketing and media
agency that focuses on German–Turkish ethno-marketing. Projects in this
company mostly consist of the same
four to eight permanent employees
and external project partners, including computer animation, digital print,
audiovisual production, and broadcasting companies. Employees know each
other very well and discuss project
problems in their weekly meetings. As
written communication often creates
misunderstandings, project partners
share their knowledge via telephone
conferences and meetings.
Headquartered in Austria, Company 5 is a producer of powder–metallurgical materials and has more than
6,000 employees worldwide. It uses
interdisciplinary project teams mainly
for research and development activities to create new ideas. Project teams
are therefore strategically important
because they ensure the organization’s
competitiveness and ability to garner
sufficient resources. The project teams
are integrated into the organization via
a matrix structure, wherein project team
leaders serve as coordinators. However,
often project teams do not know about
other teams’ tasks and aims. This difficulty is enhanced by strict data security
rules.
The 81 interview partners (for
characteristics see also Table 2) were
members of 21 project teams (at the
time of interviewing in summer 2008).
The project teams consisted of 7 to 15
people each. Average affiliation of the
interviewed employees with the respective company was 12 years. Based on
the interview guideline, the participants were asked to reflect on different
practices they used for sharing knowledge between project teams, as well
as what factors enabled or impeded
58
February/March 2015
Criteria
Interviewees
Male
66
Female
15
Project team member
63
Project team leader
(assistance)
18
Table 2: Characteristics of the 81
interviewees.
such a process. Additional to the interviews, observations were conducted
at the time the interviews were set.
Furthermore, in each company, there
was the opportunity to be given a tour
to see all areas of the project-related
work. In total, there were 32 hours of
observation.
Results—Formal and Informal
Practices of Knowledge
Sharing Between Project
Teams
Although none of the organizations’
top management placed an explicit
emphasis on fostering knowledge sharing between project teams, some have
introduced different initiatives that
implicitly support this process. Further,
project team members have developed
informal ways to share knowledge with
other project teams (see also Figure 1).
In the following section, the formal and
institutionalized initiatives that employees use for their practices of knowledge
sharing between project teams are presented first:
• Flagship projects: Company 3 has
introduced a formal mechanism that
explicitly supports knowledge sharing
between project teams and not just
knowledge sharing in general: The
flagship projects, which are a way to
make sure that otherwise separated
employees interact in additional projects. Activities that take place in using
flagship projects for knowledge sharing between project teams are initiating flagship projects, assigning flagship
project members, taking part in a flagship project, and talking with others
about the work and experiences in
flagship projects. However, as flagship
projects are not regarded as “part of
the daily work,” interactions within
the flagship project teams are rather
limited.
• Project report database: Company 1’s
project report database sometimes
helps new project teams to learn from
others’ experience. This database is
intended to store information related to
each project and to serve as a basis for
assessing project team performance.
Intended for KSBPT
Not intended for KSBPT
Flagship project
Project report database
Same employees in different project
teams (synchronous/sequentially)
Formal
Training workshops for more than
1 project team
Meeting of project team leaders
Collocation/coffee room/elevator
Via department colleagues
Informal (matrix structure)
Top management hints
to similar projects
Figure 1: Formal and informal practices of knowledge sharing between project teams
(KSBPT).
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Nevertheless, project team members
use the database in the hope of finding
knowledge that can be used in their
current project situation. They conduct activities, such as writing reports,
uploading reports, accessing the database, and searching for reports; however, the database does not always have
this effect, because most project teams
do not donate enough time to writing a
project report and reflecting on lessons
learned.
• Same employees are assigned to similar
projects: The interview partners in all
of the companies stated that usually
the same employees are assigned to
similar projects. The intention of this
measure is to have the necessary specialists in the project teams. The side
effect of this measure is that knowledge is shared from one project team
to the other. This is most prominent
in Company 4, with its small permanent staff that works on nearly every
project; and in Company 2, where the
projects are large and require nearly
all of the employees in the subsidiary.
Activities related to using the similar
project team composition for knowledge sharing between project teams
are working in previous projects,
assigning project team members, and
taking from previous projects for new
work, establishing common ground
for future work and talking easily with
one another based on the common
ground.
• The training programs and workshops
offered by all of the companies are
another opportunity that employees
use to share knowledge between project teams. The trainings allow employees to get to know others who are not
members of the same project team.
Company 1 offers workshops for more
than one project team or department.
This increases the knowledge about
what other employees do and know
while minimizing the hurdles to contact someone an employee has not
met before. These workshops are not
intended to share knowledge between
project teams, but as a benefit they
provide the basis for developing practices of knowledge sharing between
project teams. Activities related to
this practice include being informed
about trainings/workshops, selecting workshops, being advised to participate in workshops, taking part
in workshops, talking to people in
the workshops, asking participants
after the workshops, and talking with
others about lessons learned in the
workshops.
In the other companies, employees
have found additional informal—and,
as they stated, more effective—practices
to share knowledge with other project
teams. The interviewees from all of the
companies and at all hierarchical levels
explained that these informal practices
have evolved, because the exchange of
experiences with other project teams
makes their own work easier. They feel
an interconnectedness between their
tasks and therefore use the following
practices:
• In all of the organizations, employees
are located in one building. Company 1
recently built a new, centralized building, and its employees reported that
they immediately experienced that it
was easier to communicate directly
with others. Working in the same building increases the chances of meeting
others in unplanned settings, for example, while taking a coffee break or riding the elevator.
• Regardless of their hierarchical positions, all interviewees from Companies
1, 2, and 5 said that they effectively use
the matrix structure of their organizations. They talk to colleagues from
the same departments about how they
have dealt with similar problems in
their project teams, thereby sharing
knowledge between the project teams.
It is not formally intended that employees outside the project team engage in
problem-solving activities; however, if
employees work daily with colleagues
outside the project team and talk about
their work, the outsiders inevitably
become engaged in the project work.
All interviewees in these companies
stated that this is a reciprocal activity
that helps all parties involved.
• Furthermore, in addition to chance
encounters, project team leaders have
found ways to increase the amount
of knowledge shared between project
teams. In Companies 1 and 5, they have
initiated project team leader meetings,
during which they share knowledge
primarily regarding the organization
and the administration of project
teams. If new project teams are set up,
project leaders bring their experiences
into the new teams.
• At the top-management level, too, the
organizations have informal ways of
fostering knowledge sharing between
project teams. In all of the companies,
there were some top managers who
displayed a detailed knowledge of the
project teams’ tasks and problems and
they let team members know when
other project teams were facing the
same kinds of challenges. This encourages project team leaders to directly
contact their colleagues.
To conclude, the interviewed project team members and leaders perceive
an interconnectedness among their
tasks and the tasks of their colleagues
from other project teams. Further, they
feel a need to pass on their experiences in order to help others, and to
ask questions if problems arise. This is
the starting point to engage in informal
practices of knowledge sharing between
project teams. To keep up these practices, the employees need a high level
of intrinsic motivation, because formal directives for knowledge sharing
between project teams are limited in
all five of the companies. Because this
process is not explicitly rewarded, it
depends on the project teams to establish ways to connect with one another.
The above mentioned practices, however, can only evolve if organizational
cultural characteristics resonate with
the initiatives of project team members
and leaders.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
59
PAPERS
Knowledge Sharing Between Project Teams
Results—Organizational
Cultural Characteristics
Enacted in Knowledge Sharing
Practices
By asking the interviewees about what
they did in order to share knowledge
across team boundaries, it became
apparent that the situation of the company and its cultural values are expressed
in these practices. On the one hand, all
interviewees explicitly stated that they
could not have developed these informal
practices of knowledge sharing between
project teams if the practices were not in
line with the explicitly stated and lived
corporate values. This refers to values
such as high orientation toward project teams and autonomy for conducting
work. On the other hand, all interviewees
also explained that they have changed
their practices whenever certain characteristics of the company or their work
environment changed (e.g., the company’s size, which is a result of the higher
growth orientation; its structure and
internal organization, which reflects, for
example, the priority of projects or the
lack of priority of flagship projects, the
top management, or direct supervisor).
With this in mind, the results concerning
organizational cultural factors enacted
in these knowledge sharing practices are
described.
Project team members and leaders
can only engage in self-initiated informal
practices of knowledge sharing between
project teams if they are provided with
a certain degree of autonomy and trust.
In this context, the interview partners
understood trust as the trust that topmanagement has in its employees to
act in favor of the organization’s performance. This gives them autonomy to
act upon their own initiative. In most
of the companies in the study, leadership responsibility is shared among top
management, project team leaders, and
project team members; meaning that
hierarchical differences are rather small
and easy to overcome. Only Company 2
finds it important that knowledge sharing between project teams takes place
60
February/March 2015
according to the hierarchical position;
thus, in this company, the practices that
have evolved stay within each hierarchical level: Project team leaders share
knowledge with other project team leaders; members share with other members.
“You have to trust each other because
otherwise you cannot achieve anything. Then, you can stop working
together. You would need too much
time to control everything.” [project
team leader, Company 5]
“Project leaders have a high degree of
autonomy. We decide ourselves how
we conduct the work. Also regarding
working hours, we have a high degree
of autonomy. We can work in a flexible way. If there is a lot to do, we are
expected to work longer. But, we also
have a lot of autonomy.” [project team
leader, Company 2]
“Knowledge sharing takes place
regardless of the hierarchical level. I
often go to my project leader and ask
him who the expert in a certain area is.
You can easily approach them and you
get feedback and information.” [project
team member, Company 1]
Regarding the relationships among
employees, all interviewees said that
they regard employees outside the project teams as colleagues rather than as
competitors; this is mainly because
their positions in the project team are
not in jeopardy, because each employee
is the only specialist on that particular
team. All interviewed project members
said that they trust most employees and
do not fear that their colleagues will
“steal” their knowledge. Consequently,
employees take the risk of engaging in
knowledge sharing across team boundaries. Further, collegiality and solidarity among staff members decrease the
importance of friendship and sympathy for knowledge sharing and enhance
cohesion within the whole company,
regardless of whether or not they are
members of the same project team.
“We need trust. Otherwise we cannot
handle such complex projects. That’s
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
not possible. We trust each other. That
is a characteristic of our company.“
[project team member, Company 1]
“I think that you have to start from the
bottom. Knowledge sharing does not
work top-down, but bottom-up. If you
trust your employees, then it works.”
[project team leader, Company 1]
These shared values of trust in colleagues, collegiality, and solidarity relate
to the team orientation of each of the five
organizations and the importance they
assign to project work. All project-based
organizations studied put a high value
on teams. Individuals believe that no one
person can fulfill the tasks alone and that
only cooperation and teamwork lead to
success on the individual, project team,
and organizational levels. Conversely,
if organizations do not regard projects,
such as the flagship projects in Company
3, as important, the levels of collegiality
and intrinsic motivation decrease.
“Project teams have the highest priority. They come first. That’s because if
we do not have projects, we could not
conduct our work and we would not
have work at all.” [project team member, Company 1]
“Flagship projects do not have a high
priority. A flagship team leader does
not have the power to demand fast
results. In other projects (those with
an external customer), the tasks are
fulfilled on time. They have priority.”
[project team leader, Company 3]
An output and customer orientation
enhances the favorable effect of team
orientation and project work on knowledge sharing between project teams.
In the studied organizations, customer
demands can only be fulfilled by team
work. It is important to solve customers’
problems, regardless of who contributes
to the solution. The companies’ orientation toward output and customers’
needs is reflected in the high quality
standards and in the evaluation of project teams based on their team achievements and customer satisfaction.
“In the end, the output has to meet
the customer’s wishes. As long as the
results are ok, no one asks who has
made this suggestion or has found
the solution.” [project team member,
Company 1]
“We are responsible for minimizing
the impact on the environment. How
we achieve this aim is of secondary
priority. And if the project team leader
claims it was his achievement, it is ok.
The important thing is that we have
achieved the goal.” [project team member, Company 2]
Despite the output and customer
orientation, an employee and learning
orientation can be found in all five of
the organizations as well. Employees
need the feeling that they are cared for
and that top management is oriented
toward them, a need that can be satisfied by means of skill enhancement and
training opportunities. Training workshops have the additional benefit of
bringing people together so that they
can get to know one another and hear
about one another’s areas of expertise.
All of the organizations in the study
offer a large variety of seminars to their
employees, although some interviewees
(especially in Company 1) revealed that
this offer is too unspecific. The companies’ learning orientation is reflected in
the shared value that mistakes provide
a chance to improve. Project leaders
talk about mistakes in meetings, and
employees contact colleagues from the
same departments who might have had
similar experiences to their own. It is
customary to inform top management
only if serious mistakes have been committed, and even then the reaction is
not to find someone to blame for the
error, but rather to find solutions.
“First of all, we need to learn.
Continuously. If mistakes happen …
you need the motivation to contribute
to the success of the company. You
need to learn. And if mistakes happen,
it sometimes is bad luck. Otherwise,
we need to work harder.” [project team
member, Company 4]
Company 1 revealed that growth orientation might hinder knowledge sharing
between project teams. The company
has grown rapidly in recent years (from
about 1,300 employees in 2008 to more
than 1,600 employees in 2012) due to
the increased scales of the projects. The
interviewees in this company mentioned
that many employees do not know each
other personally, which hinders knowledge sharing between project teams. In
addition to this growth orientation, a high
turnover further adds to the unfamiliarity
between employees, thus failing to motivate employees to engage in knowledge
sharing between project teams.
“At the moment, we are so big that
the advantage of collocation decreases.
The departments begin to separate
themselves from the others. We do not
know what the others are doing or
who is new in the department. That is
disadvantages for sharing knowledge.”
[project team member, Company 1]
Discussion, Implications, and
Limitations
The empirical study described above
focused on how employees put specific
knowledge processes into practice and
the organizational cultural elements
enacted in these practices, and the
results provide interesting insights into
several fields.
On the one hand, these insights
include an understanding of formal and
informal practices of knowledge sharing between project teams, which are
essential for managing project-based
organizations and its enacted organizational cultural characteristics. On the
other hand, the insights can enhance
the discussion on overcoming the functional perspective in knowledge culture
research: If employees develop practices of knowledge processes and are
subjects to positive experiences, they
can modify organizational cultural
assumptions.
First, viewing the process of knowledge sharing between project teams
from the practice perspective provides
insights into how knowledge sharing
between project teams actually occurs.
The practices are based not only on
the functional, top-down and formal
ways of knowledge sharing between
project teams, but are also developed
informally by project team members
and leaders. Table 3 summarizes the
practice-relevant insights drawn from
the case study.
The only formal practice that
intentionally fosters knowledge sharing between project teams is flagship
projects. Previous literature has not
documented the use of formal flagship
projects to ensure knowledge sharing
between project teams in a projectbased organization. This form of work
organization adds a layer to the matrix
structure and deliberately aims at sharing knowledge between project teams.
Therefore, structural configurations can
be seen to have a high impact on knowledge sharing behavior (Willem & Buelens, 2009). However, whether employees
actually engage in knowledge sharing
activities depends on the level of priority and amount of resources that these
flagship projects receive.
Other formal practices of crossboundary knowledge sharing have been
discussed in the literature, such as project reports as “boundary objects” (Boh,
2007; Cacciatori et al., 2012; Carlile,
2002; Ewenstein & Whyte, 2009; Prencipe & Tell, 2001; Swan et al., 2007),
training workshops (Boh, 2007), itinerant members (Gruenfeld, Martorana,
& Fan, 2000), and cross-staffing (Boh,
2007) encourage cross-boundary knowledge sharing. These practices provide
employees with the opportunity to get
to know those who are not members of
the same project team, thereby enhancing “transactive knowledge” (Brauner
& Becker, 2006). In contrast to the literature, which suggests these practices
for cross-boundary knowledge sharing,
the study shows that these practices
were not intended by top management
to serve as the purpose for knowledge
sharing between project teams. These
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
61
PAPERS
Knowledge Sharing Between Project Teams
Practice: Sharing
Knowledge Between
Project Teams Using…
Formal
Informal
Examples for Activities
Companies Where
the Practices
Evolved
Relevance for the
Specific Process
of KSBPT*
… a project report database
•
•
•
•
Writing reports
Uploading reports
Accessing database
Searching for reports
Company 1
Partly NEW (side effect
is KSBPT)
… the same employees in
different projects
•
•
•
•
•
Working in previous projects
Assigning/choosing new project team members
Taking experience from previous projects
Establishing common ground for future work
Communicating easily on common ground
All companies
(especially Companies
2 and 4)
Partly NEW (side effect
is KSBPT)
… training programs and
workshops
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Being informed about trainings/workshop
Selecting workshops
Being advised to participate in workshop
Taking part in workshop
Talking to people in the workshop
Talking about learnings in workshop
Asking participants after the workshop
All companies
(especially Company 1)
Partly NEW (side effect
is KSBPT)
… flagship projects
•
•
•
•
Initiating flagship projects
Assigning/choosing flagship project members
Working in flagship project
Talking about flagship project work (with others)
Company 3
NEW (explicitly
intended for KSBPT)
… collocation (in forms of
e.g., coffee rooms, elevators)
• Going to the coffee room
• Talking with people in coffee room/elevator
• Meeting people by chance
All companies
(especially Company 1)
NEW (side effect is
KSBPT)
… the matrix structure of the • Being part of more than one group (project or
organization
department)
• Talking to colleagues or project team members
Companies 1, 2, and 5
Partly NEW (side effect
is KSBPT)
… informal meetings of
project team leaders
•
•
•
•
•
Companies 1 and 5
NEW
… hints of top management
regarding similar project
(problems)
• Knowing about projects in company
• Finding similarities
• Talking with project team leaders about their
projects (problems)
• Hinting to similarities
• Getting hints
• Contacting relevant project team leaders to talk
about problem
All companies
Confirmed
Contacting other project team leaders
Coming together
Talking about projects
Asking questions regarding specific problems
Learning from other’s experience
*KSBPT: Knowledge Sharing Between Project Teams.
Table 3: The process of knowledge sharing between project teams, its practices, and associated activities.
measures originally aimed at evaluating projects on the bases of project
reports, enhancing their employees’
knowledge by sending them to training,
and providing project teams with the
necessary expert knowledge in order
to achieve the goals. The interesting
62
February/March 2015
finding in this study is that the employees actively used the formally established processes for their own purposes,
in other words, knowledge sharing
between project teams. It is more of a
benefit that the employees decided to
take advantage of.
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Furthermore, the employees felt the
necessity to develop informal practices
of knowledge sharing between project
teams. Because employees have not
found the relevant information in the
databases or cannot only base their
project success on previous experience
within the team, they have established
additional practices on their own initiatives and based on their project needs.
However, the two different levels of
knowledge sharing between project
teams (i.e., members versus leaders)
differ according to the practice as well
as the type of knowledge that they share.
Project team leaders mainly share
knowledge about a project team’s organization, whereas project team members talk to their colleagues primarily
about technical matters. Project team
leaders call informal meetings to share
knowledge, whereas project team members either use ad-hoc opportunities
(e.g., the elevator) or contact experts
directly. At the highest hierarchical
level, top management occasionally
served as a knowledge source, because
they could be helpful for finding relevant knowledge from other project
teams. However, the companies in this
study have not formally integrated the
top managers as knowledge brokers to
foster organization-wide knowledge
sharing (Pemsel & Wiewiora, 2013).
That formal practices can serve as a
basis for developing informal practices,
contributes an interesting insight for
project managers. The results of this
study show that if employees have not
made contact with other project teams’
members (e.g., in training sessions),
they would not know whom to ask for a
specific problem or what to ask if they
meet (e.g., in the elevator). The concept
of “transactive knowledge” indicates
that knowing what others know or creating a web of knowledge about knowledge
Characteristic
is essential for organizations (Brauner
& Becker, 2006). Furthermore, if such
“transactive knowledge” and autonomy
exist in the project-based organization,
employees are able to develop informal
practices. Informality means that there
are no strict and detailed guidelines;
rather, activities are conducted ad-hoc,
depending on the situations’ needs
without consulting supervisors or managers (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Rooke
et al., 2009). This advantage of informal
practices has already been found in
other studies (Brown & Gray, 1995). For
example, the concept of communities
of practice shows how effective informal groups can be. Communities of
practice are informal groups that do not
exist within the functional boundaries
of the firm; they have their own agendas; are connected through common
work practices; and participate voluntarily (Duguid, 2005; Wenger & Snyder,
2000). These characteristics make the
management of informal groups a challenge; in contrast, in this study project
teams aren’t informal but some of their
practices are.
In this way, project-based organizations can benefit from both formally
established ways of knowledge sharing
within project teams, along with informal practices for knowledge sharing
between project teams, which project
teams can autonomously develop in
order to conduct their project tasks.
Second, this study also contributes
to the knowledge culture discussion. On
the one hand, focus is placed on a specific knowledge process instead of treat-
ing knowledge (sharing) processes in
general (see e.g., Bock et al., 2005; Levin
& Cross, 2004; Renzl, 2008; von Krogh,
1998; Wang & Noe, 2010; Wiewiora et al.,
2013; Zárraga & Bonache, 2005). Thus,
the organizational cultural characteristics embedded in knowledge sharing
between project teams that was found
in all five companies are new to knowledge culture research (Table 4).
The most important value of a
knowledge culture is trust in colleagues
(Al-Alawi, Al-Marzooqi, & Mohammed, 2007; Levin & Cross, 2004; Lin,
2006; Renzl, 2008; von Krogh, 1998).
This study also showed that this kind of
trust is essential for knowledge sharing
between project teams. The characteristics of a project-based organization,
however, create formal boundaries that
might hinder the establishment of longterm and strong relationships. So, these
kinds of organizations need to develop
a high level of trust. Surprisingly, collegiality and solidarity are not the only
decisive factors for knowledge sharing
activities as prior research discovered
(Goffee & Jones, 1996). In this study,
a culture of collegiality and solidarity resulted in decreased importance of
friendship and sympathy when it came
to the selection of partners in knowledge sharing activities.
This analysis discovered that in
addition to trust in colleagues, topmanagement’s trust in their employees
is a key factor. As a result of this trust,
individuals feel free to take action and
develop informal practices of knowledge
sharing between project teams. Further,
Effect on Knowledge Sharing Between Project Teams
Relevance
1. Trust (in colleagues), collegiality,
and solidarity
+
Decreases importance of friendship and sympathy for knowledge sharing and
enhances cohesion within the company
Partly NEW
2. Autonomy and trust (in employees)
+
Providing the freedom to engage in informal activities and trust employees that
knowledge sharing between teams helps organization
NEW
3. Team orientation and importance of
project work
+
Conviction that tasks can only be achieved jointly and that the tasks conducted
in project work are significant for the organization
Partly NEW
4. Growth orientation
−
Decreases transactive knowledge
5. Output and customer orientation
+
Customer satisfaction depends on team success
NEW
Table 4: Cultural characteristics influencing cross-boundary knowledge sharing.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
63
PAPERS
Knowledge Sharing Between Project Teams
shared leadership (Pearce, 2004), which
is a manifestation of top management’s
trust in employees, is favorable for these
practices. It increases the personal
responsibilities of team members to
engage in knowledge sharing activities
and therefore guarantees the autonomy
that is necessary for knowledge sharing.
For example, top management’s trust in
their employees enhances the employees’ personal responsibility to conduct
their work effectively, which in turn
positively influences their engagement
in informal practices. Although topmanagement does not officially demand
knowledge sharing, the employees said
that knowledge sharing is obligatory
for them. For this reason, all five of the
companies in this study undertook a
bottom-up initiative to share knowledge between project teams. This finding is in contrast with the results of
other studies, which have indicated that
the management support is positively
related to knowledge sharing behavior
(see e.g., Nesheim & Gressgard, 2014),
and that senior managers play the role
of “intermediaries” for cross-project
learning (Bresnen, Edelman, Newell,
Scarbrough, & Swan, 2003).
Team orientation is another feature of knowledge cultures (Alavi et al.,
2005; Chen & Huang, 2007; Jones et al.,
2006; Park et al., 2004). This includes
the conviction that tasks are so complex that employees can only cope with
them jointly; therefore, employees need
to share knowledge with other project
teams in order to accomplish their aims.
However, it is additionally necessary
that the project task has a high (strategic) priority for the whole organization.
If, as in Company 3, the status of the
flagship projects is low, a team orientation will not lead to more knowledge
sharing between project teams.
A growth orientation is a barrier
to knowledge sharing across organizational boundaries. If many new employees are hired, the employees do not
know each other anymore, therefore
limiting knowledge regarding who
knows what (see also the concept of
64
February/March 2015
“transactive knowledge”) (Brauner &
Becker, 2006).
Despite the common assumption
that employee and output orientation are two opposite characteristics
(O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991),
in this case study, both orientations
favor knowledge sharing between
project teams. The organizations are
convinced that they can only achieve
customer satisfaction if employees do
a good job and create valuable output. In addition, employees only show
commitment to their work if they are
satisfied. In this regard, employees are
the most valuable resources. Employing
skilled (knowledge) workers who need
a high degree of autonomy and flexibility might make it obsolete to treat
employee orientation and output orientation as opposites.
On the other hand, this study contributes to the knowledge culture discussion in a second way. What is well
developed in the corporate culture literature, has recently also started in the
knowledge culture literature: overcoming the functional perspective of culture (Mueller, 2012; Sackmann, 1991).
Taking a cultural approach that treats
cultural values enacted in practices can
stimulate this discussion. Enacted cultural values mean that not only practices are developed in a given cultural
setting that need to provide the opportunity to develop new practices, but by
developing new practices, the cultural
characteristics of an organization can
also change (Gherardi, 2000). We, thus,
see an interdependent relationship of
organizational cultural characteristics
and practices, reflected in the data:
Employees reported self-reinforcing
circles, such as the trust of management in the employees enables them to
develop new practices. If the new practices for knowledge sharing between
project teams turn out to be successful,
this in reverse enhances the trust of
management in their employees that
they will do the right things for the
organization. This shows for the first
time, what Mueller (2012) suggested in
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
the third view regarding the relationship
between knowledge processes and corporate culture: conducting knowledge
processes can modify organizational
cultural assumptions if employees are
subject to positive experiences.
Third, based on the data analysis with GABEK® , new insights were
gained into managing a project-based
organization. The results interpreted in
the light of the practice and cultural
perspectives show which formal and
informal practices of knowledge sharing
between project teams enhance organization-wide learning. The implications
are that the management of a projectbased organization can establish formal ways of knowledge sharing between
project teams, such as flagship projects.
Additionally, they can also provide the
organizational cultural prerequisites to
let employees establish informal ways
of knowledge sharing between project teams. Furthermore, managers of
project-based organizations can help to
establish favorable organizational cultural characteristics if they do not limit
employees’ ambitions to create informal practices. Cultural values, such as
trust in employees and autonomy, as
well as manifestations, such as shared
leadership, become especially important in such settings.
Although only five organizations
could be studied at this level of detail,
the results offer starting points for
future research. For example, as the
organizations under study are based
in the German-speaking area, it would
be interesting to evaluate whether the
newly identified characteristics are
based on differences in national culture or based on the process of knowledge sharing between project teams.
Existing studies on knowledge culture
mainly address Northern-American or
Asian countries (Alavi et al., 2005; Bock
et al., 2005; Lin, 2006), and most existing
knowledge culture studies do not distinguish between different knowledge
processes (Bock, Zmud, & Kim, 2005;
Renzl, 2008; von Krogh, 1998; Zárraga &
Bonache, 2005).
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by grants
received from the Anniversary Fund of
the Austrian National Bank (Jubiläumsfonds der Österreichischen Nationalbank). I want to thank the reviewers
for their valuable comments, which
improved this article. Thanks also go
to Carina Baumgartner, Barbara Klein,
Claudia Nuener, Kathrin Schröcker, and
Jörg Trogmann for their support in conducting the studies.
References
Adenfelt, M., & Lagerstrom, K. (2006).
Enabling knowledge creation and sharing
in transnational projects. International
Journal of Project Management, 24(3),
191–198.
Ajmal, M. M., Helo, P., & Kekäle, T. (2009).
Critical factors for knowledge management
in project business. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 14(1), 156–168.
Ajmal, M. M., & Koskinen, K. U. (2008).
Knowledge transfer in project-based
organizations: An organizational culture
perspective. Project Management Journal,
39(1), 7–15.
Al-Alawi, A. I., Al-Marzooqi, N. Y., &
Mohammed, Y. F. (2007). Organizational
culture and knowledge sharing: Critical
success factors. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 11(2), 22–42.
Alavi, M., Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner,
D. (2005). An empirical examination of
the influence of organizational culture
on knowledge management practices.
Journal of Management Information
Systems, 22(3), 191–224.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001).
Review: Knowledge management and
knowledge management systems:
Conceptual foundations and research
issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136.
Appleyard, M. M. (1996). How does
knowledge flow? Interfirm patterns in
the semiconductor industry. Strategic
Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special
Issue), 137–154.
Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J.M.,
& Moreland, R.L. (2000). Knowledge
transfer in organizations: Learning from
the expertise of others. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
82(1), 1–8.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001).
Knowledge and organization: A socialpractice perspective. Organization
Science, 12(2), 198–213.
Bechky, B. A. (2003). Sharing meaning
across occupational communities: The
transformation of understanding on a
production floor. Organization Science,
14(3), 312–330.
Brown, J. S., & Gray, E. S. (1995). The
people are the company. Fast Company,
1(November), 78.
Belk, R. W. (2010). Sharing. Journal of
Consumer Research, 36, 715–734.
Blackler, F. (1993). Knowledge and the
theory of organizations: Organizations
as activity systems and the reframing of
management. Journal of Management
Studies, 30(6), 863–884.
Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., & Kim, Y.-G.
(2005). Behavioral intention formation
in knowledge sharing: Examining the
roles of extrinsic motivators, socialpsychological forces and organizational
climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–11.
Boden, A., Avram, G., Bannon, L., &
Wulf, V. (2012). Knowledge sharing
practices and the impact of cultural
factors: Reflections on two case
studies of offshoring in SME. Journal of
Software: Evolution and Process, 24(2),
139–152.
Boh, W. F. (2007). Mechanisms for
sharing knowledge in project-based organizations. Information and Organization,
17(1), 27–58.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice.
Cambridge, UK: Policy Press.
Brachos, D., Kostopoulos, K.,
Soderquist, K. E., & Prastacos, G. (2007).
Knowledge effectiveness, social context
and innovation. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 11(5), 31–44.
Brauner, E., & Becker, A. (2006). Beyond
knowledge sharing: The management
of transactive knowledge systems.
Knowledge and Process Management,
13(1), 62–71.
Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell,
S., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2003).
Social practices and the management
of knowledge in project environments.
International Journal of Project
Management, 21(3), 157–166.
Buber, R., & Kraler, C. (2000). How
GABEK and WinRelan Support
Qualitative Research. In R. Buber & J.
Zelger (Eds.), GABEK II: Zur Qualitativen
Forschung (pp. 111–137). Innsbruck,
Austria: Studienverlag.
Cacciatori, E., Tamoschus, D., &
Grabher, G. (2012). Knowledge
transfer across projects: Codification
in creative, high-tech and engineering
industries. Management Learning, 43(3),
309–331.
Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of
knowledge and boundaries: Boundary
objects in new product development.
Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455.
Chan, P. W., & Räisänen, C. (2009).
Editorial: informality and emergence in
construction. Construction Management
and Economics, 27(10), 907–912.
Chen, C.-J., & Huang, J.-W. (2007).
How organizational climate and structure affect knowledge management:
The social interaction perspective.
International Journal of Information
Management, 27(2), 104–118.
Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. G. (2006).
Knowledge exchange and combination:
The role of human resource practices
in the performance of high-technology
firms. Academy of Management Journal,
49(3), 544–560.
Cook, S. D. N., & Yanow, D. (1993).
Culture and organizational learning.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 2(4),
373–390.
Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups,
structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management
Science, 50(3), 352–364.
Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W.,
& Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful
knowledge management project. Sloan
Management Review, 39(2), 43–57.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
65
PAPERS
Knowledge Sharing Between Project Teams
De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000).
Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. Academy of
Management Executive, 14(4), 113–127.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982).
Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals
of corporate life. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Demaid, A., & Quintas, P. (2006).
Knowledge across cultures in the
construction industry: Sustainability,
innovation and design. Technovation, 26,
603–610.
Duguid, P. (2005). “The art of knowing”:
Social and tacit dimensions of knowledge and the limits of the community
of practice. The Information Society, 21,
109–118.
landscape (pp. 3–4). Berlin, Germany: de
Gruyter.
Galbraith, C. S. (1990). Transferring core
manufacturing technologies in high technology firms. California Management
Review, 32(4), 56–70.
Galbraith, J. R. (1971). Matrix organization designs: How to combine functional
and project forms. Business Horizons,
14(1), 29–40.
Gherardi, S. (2000). Practice-based
theorizing on learning and knowledge
in organizations. Organization, 7(2),
211–223.
Gherardi, S., & Nicolini, D. (2000).
The organizational learning of safety
in communities of practice. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 9(1), 7–18.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case-study research. Academy
of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Goffee, R., & Jones, R. A. (1996). What
holds the modern company together?
Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 133–148.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Santos, F. M.
(2002). Knowledge-based view: A new
theory of strategy? In A. Pettigrew,
H. Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.),
Handbook of strategy and management
(pp. 139–164). London, UK: Sage.
Grant, R. M. (1997). The knowledgebased view of the firm: Implications
for management practice. Long Range
Planning, 30(3), 450–454.
Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009).
Knowledge practices in design: The role
of visual representations as ‘epistemic
objects.’ Organization Studies, 30(1),
7–30.
Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J.
(2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5),
1240–1253.
Fong, P. S. W. (2003). Knowledge
creation in multidisciplinary project
teams: An empirical study of the processes and their dynamic interrelationships. International Journal of Project
Management, 21(7), 479–486.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Martorana, P. V., &
Fan, E. T. (2000). What do groups learn
from their wordliest members? Direct
and indirect influence in dynamic teams.
Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 82(1), 45–59.
Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of
organizational culture. Academy of
Management Review, 18(4), 657–693.
Hazlett, S.-A., McAdam, R., & Gallagher,
S. (2005). Theory building in knowledge
management: In search of paradigms.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(1),
31–42.
Hobday, M. (1998). Product complexity,
innovation and industrial organization.
Research Policy, 26, 689–710.
Fong, P. S. W., & Yip, J. C. H. (2006). An
investigative study of the application of
lessons learned systems in construction
projects. Journal for Education in the
Built Environment, 1(2), 27–38.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture‘s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions, and organizations across
nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Gagliardi, P. (1990). Artifacts as pathways and remains of organizational
life. In P. Gagliardi (Ed.), Symbols
and artifacts: Views of the corporate
Jamrog, J., Vickers, M., & Bear, D.
(2006). Building and sustaining a culture that supports innovation. Human
Resource Planning, 29(3), 9–19.
66
February/March 2015
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as
practice: recursiveness, adaptation, and
practices-in-use. Organization Studies,
25(4), 529–560.
Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J., & Seidl, D.
(2007). Strategizing: The challenges of a
practice perspective. Human Relations,
60, 5–27.
Jones, M. C., Cline, M., & Ryan, S.
(2006). Exploring knowledge sharing in
ERP implementation: an organizational
culture framework. Decision Support
Systems, 41(2), 411–434.
Joshi, A., Pandey, N., & Han, G. H.
(2009). Bracketing team boundary spanning: An examination of task-based,
team-level, and contextual antecedents.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30,
731–759.
Julian, J. (2008). How project management office leaders facilitate
cross-project learning and continuous
improvement. Project Management
Journal, 39(3), 43–58.
Kale, S., & Karaman, E. A. (2011).
Evaluating the knowledge management
practices of construction firms using
importance-comparative performance
analysis maps. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 137(12),
1142–1153.
Kasvi, J. J. J., Vartiainen, M., & Hailikari,
M. (2003). Managing knowledge and
knowledge competences in projects
and project organisations. International
Journal of Project Management, 21(8),
571–582.
Kayworth, T., & Leidner, D. (2003).
Organizational culture as a knowledge resource. In C.W. Holsapple (Ed.),
Handbook on knowledge management: 1
knowledge matters (Vol. 1, pp. 233–252).
Berlin, Germany: Springer.
King, W. R. (2006). Maybe a “knowledge
culture” isn‘t so important after all!
Information Systems Research, Winter
2006, 88–89.
King, W. R. (2007). A research agenda
for the relationship between culture and
knowledge management. Knowledge and
Process Management, 14(3), 226–236.
Lakomski, G. (2004). On knowing in
context. British Journal of Management,
15, 89–95.
Lave, J. (1991). Situated learning in
communities of practice. In L.B. Resnick,
J.M. Levine & S.D. Teasley (Eds.),
Perspectives on socially shared cognition
(pp. 63–82). Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association.
Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The
strength of weak ties you can trust:
The mediating role of trust in effective
knowledge transfer. Management Science,
50(11), 1477–1490.
Lin, H.-F. (2006). Impact of organizational support on organizational
intention to facilitate knowledge sharing.
Knowledge Management Research &
Practice, 4, 26–35.
Maxwell, J. A. (2008). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman & D.J. Rog
(Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Applied
Social Research Methods (pp. 214–253).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McDermott, R., & O‘Dell, C. (2001).
Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 5(1), 76–85.
Miettinen, R., Samra-Fredericks, D., &
Yanow, D. (2010). Re-turn to practice: An
introductory essay. Organization Studies,
30, 1309–1327.
Mooradian, T. A., Renzl, B., & Matzler,
K. (2006). Who trusts? Personality, trust
and knowledge sharing. Management
Learning, 37(4), 523–540.
Mueller, J. (2012). The interactive relationship of corporate culture and knowledge management: A review. Review of
Managerial Science, 6(2), 183–201.
Mueller, J. (2014). A specific knowledge
culture: Cultural antecedents for knowledge sharing between project teams.
European Management Journal, 32(2),
190–202.
Nayak, A., & Chia, R. (2011). Thinking
becoming and emergence: Process
philosophy and organization theory. In
H. Tsoukas & R. Chia (Eds.), Philosophy
and organization theory. Series: Research
in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 32,
pp. 281–309). Bingley, UK: Emerald
Group Pub.
Nesheim, T., & Gressgard, L. J. (2014).
Knowledge sharing in a complex organization: Antecedents and safety effects.
Safety Science, 62, 28–36.
Newell, S., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L.,
Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2006).
Sharing knowledge across projects—
Limits to ICT-led project review practices. Management Learning, 37(2),
167–185.
Newell, S., Robertson, M., Scarbrough,
H., & Swan, J. (2002). Managing knowledge work. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., & Yanow, D.
(2003a). Introduction: Toward a practicebased view of knowing and learning in
organizations. In D. Nicolini, S. Gherardi,
& D. Yanow (Eds.), Knowing in organizations: A practice-based approach (pp.
3–31). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., & Yanow, D.
(Eds.). (2003b). Knowing in organizations: A practice-based approach. New
York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The
knowledge-creating company: How
Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
O‘Reilly, C. A. I., Chatman, J. A., &
Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison
approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal,
34(3), 487–516.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in
practice: Enacting a collective capability
in distributed organizing. Organization
Science, 13(3), 249–273.
Park, H., Ribiére, V., & Schulte, W. D. J.
(2004). Critical attributes of organizational culture that promote knowledge
management technology implementation success. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 8(3), 106–117.
Patriotta, G. (2003). Sensemaking on the
shop floor: Narratives of knowledge in
organizations. Journal of Management
Studies, 40(2), 349–375.
Pearce, C. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared
leadership to transform knowledge work.
Academy of Management Executive,
18(1), 47–57.
Pemsel, S., & Wiewiora, A. (2013).
Project management office as a knowledge broker in project-based organisations. International Journal of Project
Management, 31(1), 31–42.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension
(repr. ed.). London, UK: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Prencipe, A., & Tell, F. (2001). Interproject leaning: Processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in
project-based firms. Research Policy, 30,
1373–1394.
Probst, G. J. B., Raub, S., & Romhardt,
K. (2006). Wissen managen - wie
Unternehmen ihre wertvollste Ressource
optimal nutzen (5. überarbeitete ed.).
Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.
Raich, M., Abfalter, D., & Mueller, J.
(2014). Hybrid analysis of textual data:
Grounding managerial decisions on
intertwined qualitative and quantitative
analysis. Management Decision, 52(4),
737–754.
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory
of social practices: A development in
culturalist theorizing. European Journal
of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.
Renzl, B. (2007). Language as a vehicle
of knowing: The role of language and
meaning in constructing knowledge.
Knowledge Management Research &
Practice, 5, 44–53.
Renzl, B. (2008). Trust in management
and knowledge sharing: The mediating
effects of fear and knowledge documentation. Omega - International Journal of
Management Science, 36(2), 206–220.
Rooke, J. A., Koskela, L., & Kagioglou,
M. (2009). Informality in organization
and research: A review and a proposal. Construction Management and
Economics, 27(10), 913–922.
Ruuska, I., & Vartiainen, M. (2005).
Characteristics of knowledge sharing
communities in project organizations.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
67
PAPERS
Knowledge Sharing Between Project Teams
International Journal of Project
Management, 23(5), 374–379.
Sackmann, S. A. (1990). Möglichkeiten
der Gestaltung von Unternehmenskultur.
In C. Lattmann (Ed.), Die
Unternehmenskultur - Ihre Grundlagen
und ihre Bedeutung für die Führung
der Unternehmung (pp. 153–188).
Heidelberg, Germany: Physika-Verlag.
Sackmann, S. A. (1991). Cultural knowledge in organizations: Exploring the collective mind. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sackmann, S. A. (1992). Culture and
sub-cultures: An analysis of organizational knowledge. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 37(1), 140–161.
Sackmann, S. A. (2004). Erfolgsfaktor
Unternehmenskultur: Mit kulturbewusstem Management Unternehmensziele
erreichen und Identifikation schaffen.
Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.
Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., Laurent, S.,
Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., & Newell, S.
(2004). Project-based learning and the
role of learning boundaries. Organization
Studies, 25(9), 1579–1600.
Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K., &
Savigny, E.v. (2001). The practice turn
in contemporary theory. London, UK:
Routledge.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational
culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spee, A. P., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2011).
Strategic planning as a communicative
process. Organization Studies, 32(9),
1217–1245.
Swan, J., Bresnen, M., Newell, S., &
Robertson, M. (2007). The object
of knowledge: The role of objects
in biomedical innovation. Human
Relations, 60(12), 1809–1837.
Swan, J., Scarbrough, H., & Newell,
S. (2010). Why don‘t (or do) organizations learn from projects? Management
Learning, 41(3), 325–344.
68
February/March 2015
Sydow, J., Lindkvist, L., & DeFillippi,
R. J. (2004). Project-based organizations, embeddedness and repositories
of knowledge: Editorial. Organization
Studies, 25(9), 1475–1489.
Tagliaventi, M. R., Bertolotti, F., &
Macri, D. M. (2010). A perspective on
practice in interunit knowledge sharing.
European Management Journal, 28(5),
331–345.
Tagliaventi, M.R., & Mattarelli, E.
(2006). The role of networks of practice,
value sharing, and operational proximity
in knowledge flows between professional
groups. Human Relations, 59(3), 291–319.
von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in knowledge
creation. California Management Review,
40(3), 133–153.
Wang, D., Su, Z., & Yang, D. (2011).
Organizational culture and knowledge
creation capability. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 15(3), 363–373.
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge
sharing: A review and directions for future
research. Human Resource Management
Review, 20(2), 115–131.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why
should I share? Examining social capital
and knowledge contribution in electronic
networks of practice. MIS Quarterly,
29(1), 35–57.
Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000).
Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review,
78(1), 139–145.
Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsya, B., Murphy,
G., & Coffey, V. (2013). Organizational
culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in
Australian context. International Journal
of Project Management, 31, 1163–1174.
Willem, A., & Buelens, M. (2009).
Knowledge sharing in inter-unit
cooperative episodes: The impact of
organizational structure dimensions.
International Journal of Information
Management, 29, 151–160.
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Yanow, D. (2000). Seeing organizational
learning: A “cultural view.” Organization,
7(2), 247–268.
Yanow, D. (2006). Talking about
practices: On Julia Orr‘s talking about
machines. Organization Studies, 27(12),
1749–1756.
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research:
Design and methods (3rd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Zárraga, C., & Bonache, J. (2005). The
impact of team atmosphere on knowledge outcomes in self-managed teams.
Organization Studies, 26(5), 661–681.
Zelger, J. (2008). The Representation of
Verbal Data by GABEK®-Nets. In J. Zelger,
M. Raich & P. Schober (Eds.), GABEK
III (pp. 95–122). Innsbruck, Austria:
Studienverlag.
Zelger, J., & Oberprantacher, A. (2002).
Processing of verbal data and knowledge
representation by GABEK®-WinRelan®
Forum Qualitative Research, 3(2).
Zelger, J., Raich, M., Abfalter, D., &
Mueller, J. (2011, 01.-04 June). Gabek®:
Theory and application in management studies. Paper presented at the
10th Annual European Academy of
Management (EURAM) Conference,
Tallinn, Estonia.
Julia Mueller is Junior-Professor and chair of
the Department of Strategic Management at
the University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany.
Prior to that, she was Assistant Professor at
the Department of Strategic Management,
Marketing and Tourism at the University of
Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. Her research
focuses on strategic management, especially on micro foundations of management
processes, as well as qualitative research
methods. She has studied knowledge and
innovation processes in the online and
offline settings, and has published several
articles, and presented her work at international conferences. She can be contacted at
[email protected]
PAPERS
An Inquiry to Move an Underutilized
Best Practice Forward: Barriers
to Partnering in the Architecture,
Engineering, and Construction Industry
Sinem Mollaoglu, School of Planning, Design, and Construction, Associate Professor,
Construction Management Program,Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
Anthony Sparkling, School of Planning, Design, and Construction, Graduate Assistant,
Construction Management Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
Sean Thomas, Former Graduate Assistant, School of Planning, Design, and Construction,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
ABSTRACT ■
INTRODUCTION ■
There is an obvious need in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry for improved project team integration through project delivery to ensure
improved project outcomes. The literature reports that,
among other methods, project partnering, when followed
successfully, provides a great opportunity to improve
project performance via improved collaboration among
key project stakeholders (e.g., owner, designer, contractor) and reduce claims as a result while letting all project
members stay in their traditional roles and work under
any contractual framework, including design-bid-build.
Despite its potential and history in the United States since
the late 1980s and being classified as one of the best
practices by the Construction Industry Institute in 1996,
partnering continues to be underutilized. Existing research
on partnering is mostly limited to public projects such as
mega roadway and bridge projects. Guided by the literature, the aim of this research is to understand and report
barriers to project partnering in the United States from
both vertical/horizontal and public/private construction
sectors. Via a comprehensive literature review, followed
by a Delphi survey of partnering experts, this study
systematically classified barriers to project partnering. In
study results, implementation barriers to partnering during project delivery are more frequently pronounced than
the barriers to its adoption. Of the top reported barriers to
project partnering, the majority are cultural; project team
related barriers show the greatest area of potential for
improvement; and contrary to the literature, none is legislative. The study contributes to the body of knowledge
by drawing attention to project delivery and management
practices in the AEC industry to improve team collaboration and chances of successful implementation and adoption of integrative practices.
P
KEYWORDS: partnering; delphi method; barriers; trust;
cultural; organizational, project team.
Project Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 1, 69–83
© 2015 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21469
artnering can be of great value to owners, agencies, government,
private developers, and all other playmakers in today’s world where
the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry
suffers from fragmentation of disciplines during project delivery
processes (Fellows & Liu, 2012; Roehrich & Lewis, 2010). Unlike project
delivery methods that promote team collaboration, via relational contracts
(e.g., Integrated Project Delivery [IPD]), project partnering can be adopted
as a protocol to promote team integration under any type of project delivery
methods (Lahdenpera, 2012). Thus, it provides a great opportunity to facilitate
team integration in all projects, including public ones that require low-bid
procurement and are delivered using the design-bid-build arrangement.
Partnering in the AEC industry has been around since the late 1980s.
After seeing an unsettling rise in construction claims and its damaging effect
on business relationships, the Army Corps of Engineers took a major role in
developing project partnering (COE, 2010). After the Construction Industry
Institute’s (CII) first nationwide study (1996) on this concept, partnering has
consistently helped State Departments of Transportation (e.g., Texas DOT,
Caltrans, Maryland SHA) significantly reduce claims and improve project
schedule (CII, 1996).
Despite its benefits and being recognized as the Construction Industry
Institute’s (CII) “Best of Best Practices,” partnering remains the best practice
implemented by the fewest (20%) respondents as reported by a recent survey
conducted by the Engineering News Record (Tuchman, 2011).
Understanding barriers to partnering across public/private and horizontal (i.e., infrastructure projects such as bridges and roadways)/vertical (i.e.,
commercial office buildings, schools, and housing) sectors in the United
States is of key importance. With this motivation, this study conducted a
comprehensive literature review and a Delphi survey of partnering experts
across a variety of sectors and disciplines in the United States, to understand
and report the barriers to partnering. It is important to note that, despite valid
concerns to understanding partnering conceptually, this article does not aim
to address theoretical underpinnings in the relational aspects of partnering.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
69
PAPERS
Barriers to Partnering in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Industry
Rather it seeks to draw attention to
barriers to its adoption and successful
implementation through a comprehensive literature review followed by an
analysis of experts involved in procedural processes.
uncertainty in external environments
and can be carried out in single or multiple projects (Bennett & Peace, 2006).
Barlow, Cohen, Jashapara, and
Simpson (1997) further differentiate
between the two types of partnering
practices as follows:
Literature Review
There is an obvious need in the AEC
industry for improved communication
and efficient information exchange
among project team members through
all phases of delivery to ensure improved
project outcomes. Commonly, relationships within AEC teams are adversarial,
lacking collaboration and cooperation,
whereas in partnering, Drexler and Larson (2000) found that even though adversarial relationships may still persist,
partnering tends to foster trust over the
course of the project. Moreover, in this
environment a causal loop forms where
more time spent on problem solving
and effectively dealing with conflict or
project frustrations tends to build greater
trust between the project stakeholders,
adding to the character and credibility
of partnering team members (Drexler &
Larson, 2000). Many researchers have
displayed applicability of partnering on
any project, thus a consistent definition
on partnering must also exist to understand the reservations to its use (Eriksson, 2010). Interestingly, the body of
literature for partnering often falls short
in providing a clear description of the
practices followed. It is of vital importance that we provide distinct definitions
of the partnering types followed in the
construction industry and present this
study’s focus accordingly.
Partnering Types
Partnering is generally classified as
either “project partnering” or “strategic partnering” in the literature. Project
partnering is viewed as a protocol followed by team members in a single
project to improve team integration and
project performance, whereas strategic
partnering is considered as a contractual partnership established between
organizations to overcome high risk and
70
February/March 2015
• Strategic partnering (also called longterm partnering and strategic alliance)
is “a broad range of strategic cooperative relationships between organizations . . . and can involve highly
structured agreements providing for
a high level of cooperation between
partners,” whereas
• Project partnering is “a much narrower
range of cooperative arrangements
between organizations for the duration
of a specific project.”
Whether or not partnering creates
additional contractual obligations is
another debate observed in the literature. Project partnering mainly is considered a voluntary non-contractual
obligation (Lahdenpera, 2012; Manley,
2002). The aim with its use is to help
identify and clarify project risks more
thoroughly while providing a platform
to more carefully review and discuss
the terms and conditions of existing
contractual lines, rather than change
them (Keli, 2007). In many partnering projects, non-binding documents
called “partnering charters” are used.
A partnering charter is usually a brief
document explaining the agreed upon
values, goals, and priorities determined
by the parties involved in a partnered
project (Mosey, 2009), signed by all
team members to signify their commitment to the process.
Partnering contracts, however, do
also exist and have evolved significantly
in the past 10 years. In fact, there are a
number of variations to partnering contracts internationally, including; PPC
2000 (i.e., project partnering contracts),
GC/Works (i.e., general conditions contracts), Perform 21 (i.e., performance
contracts), and JCT (i.e., joint contract
tribunals) to name a few (Mosey, 2009).
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
All of these standard form contracts
have specific uses depending on the
project. The PPC 2000 is signed early
in the preconstruction phase by the client, consultant, main contractor, and
some subcontractors and suppliers.
This contract governs the following processes: joint design development; joint
selection of remaining member of the
main contractor’s supply chain; buildup of prices; joint risk management;
agreement of a construction phase program (Mosey, 2009). Despite its prevalence, this type of partnering contract
has not been featured in the literature
as often, mainly because most public
project owners cannot determine a general contractor without a bidding process, which requires much of the project
documents to be completed before the
bidding can take place (Bygballe, 2010).
Literature Streams on Partnering
Partnering, whether “strategic” or “project specific” is shown as beneficial to all
project stakeholders (Anderson & Polkinghorn, 2011; Polkinghorn , La Chance,
& La Chance, 2006; Chapin, 1994). In
fact, with the predominance of partnering on public projects, the competitive
bidding concern becomes less significant (Anderson & Polkinghorn, 2011;
Caltrans, 2011; Grajek, Gibson, & Tucker,
2000; Smith & Culp, 2000). Today there
is wide body of empirical evidence that
demonstrates the benefits of partnering. Many have found partnered projects
outperformed non-partnered projects
in the following categories: Lowering
cost overruns (Chapin, 1994); reducing cost growth as a percentage of the
total cost; cost growth per change order;
and lowering the number of change
orders (Gransberg, Reynolds, Boyd,
& Gokdogan, 1998). Additional benefits include: increased profitability to
contractors (Polkinghorn et al., 2006),
better communication and teamwork,
increased trust, stronger relationships,
and conflict resolution among project
participants (Anderson & Polkinghorn,
2011). Partnered projects also result in
higher satisfaction with project budgets
and construction schedules (Anderson
& Polkinghorn, 2011; Polkinghorn et al.,
2006).
The literature primarily examines
the benefits of partnering (Anderson &
Polkinghorn, 2011; Black, Akintoye, &
Fitzgerald, 2000; Bubshait, 2001), prescriptive problems, and success variables (Chen & Chen, 2007; Chan & Li,
2004; Chan, Chan, & Ho, 2003; Cheng,
Li, & Love, 2000) that result in improved
partnering outcomes. It is argued that
partnering success is not only measured
by subjective measures (e.g., perceptions
on improved collaboration and trust) or
objective measures (e.g., improved cost,
time, and quality controls) as Cheng
et al. (2000) and Yeung, Chan, and Chan
(2009a, 2009b) point out.
The second literature stream
focuses on the underlying willingness to
change ones’ approach to dynamic relationships formed during construction
projects. This area of research aims to
understand the conceptualization and
application of partnering over longer
durations (Gottlieb & Haugbolle, 2013;
Hartmann & Bresnen, 2011; Gadde &
Dubois, 2010; Drexler & Larson, 2000).
Similar studies focus on partnering
concerns stemming from individual or
organizational perspectives (Hartmann
& Bresnen, 2011) and subcontractor/
supplier concerns relating to company
profitability (Gadde & Dubois, 2010).
Study Focus: Project Partnering
The focus of this study, project partnering, when followed successfully,
provides an opportunity to improve
project performance via improved collaboration among key project stakeholders (i.e., owner, architect, engineer,
and contractor) under any contractual
framework. Project partnering is further defined as: the commitment of two
or more stakeholders sharing mutually
beneficial goals while working together
as a team (CII, 2011). In this format,
once organizations decide to pursue
partnering, a professional facilitator conducts a workshop. The workshop determines the foundation of the
partnering relationship. All teams influencing project outcomes are to attend
this workshop and discuss: mutual
objectives, decision-making processes,
and performance improvement criteria. Most importantly, feedback is to be
constantly provided to team members
throughout the project to ensure that
the benefits of partnering are realized
(Bennett & Peace 2006).
Other characteristics of project partnering include: team formation via bid
evaluation on soft parameters, optional
early involvement of contractors for
concurrent engineering; administrative consistency via joint subcontractor selection; compensation, including
incentives based on performance for
commercial unity; transparent financials; collaborative contractual clauses;
predetermined dispute resolution
methods; increased focus on the contractor’s self-control coupled with limited end inspections (Eriksson, 2010;
Nystrom, 2012; Manley et al., 2002;
Lahdenpera, 2012). Collaborative tools
of partnering are the key to improved
communication among project team
members and include: conflict resolution techniques, tools to help build
trust such as charters (i.e., documents
signed by the partnering parties stating
the agreed main principles of cooperation) and decision ladders (i.e., the
decision-making levels of the project
that help with unsolved issues), training, meetings, open information sharing and trust, joint risk management,
partnering questionnaires to be applied
continuously along delivery (i.e., also
called ‘Partnering health index’; Cheng
et al., 2000; Rogge, Griffith, & Hutchins,
2002; Cheung, Ng, Wong, & Suen, 2003),
and joint project office and information
technology tools (Eriksson, 2010; Nystrom, 2012; Lahdenpera, 2012).
Current research shows that project
partnering can be used in both the public and private sectors. Examples show
its use in: airports, public infrastructure,
aerospace, industrial plants, housing,
schools, and commercial office types
of projects (Anderson & Polkinghorn,
2011; Eriksson, 2010; Nystrom, 2012;
Keil, 2007; Bennett & Peace, 2006). Polkinghorn et al. (2006) argue that partnering is necessary and most beneficial in
complex construction projects involving multiple parties and long-range
completion timetables. In the private
sector, partnering is frequently pursued
via an agreement between the owner
and contractor early on in the project
planning stages; however, in public sector partnering it can only be deployed
after contract award (Grajek et al., 2000;
Gransberg et al., 1999; Gransberg et al.,
1998).
The literature on the success factors
critical for project partnering include
but are not limited to: project staffing stability, fundamental engineering
design and specification quality, incomplete prerequisite work, partnership
monitoring, management and quality,
utilizing third party neutrals, adequate
resources, commitment to partnering
concepts, respect and courtesy, project visibility and attention, effective
partnering training, workshops, and
facilitation (Rogge et al., 2002); adequate resources, management support;
mutual trust; long-term commitment,
coordination; clear understanding of
roles, and creativity (Black et al., 2000;
Cheng et al. 2000).
Drexler and Lawson (2000) list the
following for project partnering success:
• The scope of the partnering relationship needs to be clearly defined at the
start;
• A foundation of teamwork prior to the
beginning of the project is essential;
• Both parties need to develop a structure for managing unanticipated problems;
• Consideration should be given to providing interpersonal skills training to
personnel who have weaknesses in
these skills;
• Both parties need to be sensitive to
each other’s concerns during the project; and
• Regularly scheduled partnering meetings should take place.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
71
PAPERS
Barriers to Partnering in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Industry
Rogge et al. (2002) adds the following to the list of variables to consider
before deciding for partnering in any
project: project size (i.e., contract value
to exceed US$5 million [Gransberg et al.,
1998]); project complexity and work
type (e.g., work that includes structures
work, hazardous materials, “in-water”
work, or innovative designs); average
daily traffic on a highway construction
project, potential cost growth, project
schedule and duration (i.e., compressed
schedules with owner imposed finished
dates); community and transportation
system interest, number of stages with
the construction work (e.g., project
requiring traffic control plans with multiple stages); and coordination between
multiple parties (e.g., when different
utility districts are involved).
Despite its advantages, Gadde and
Dubois (2010) contend that the opportunity to build trust through high levels
of involvement remains limited due to
short-lived gains made during project
partnering. With this limitation in mind,
the necessity remains present to find
ways to move the construction industry
away from the adversarial tendencies
especially present in an environment
where business is conducted through
competitive bidding (Gadde & Dubois,
2010; Ingirige & Sexton, 2006). Motivated by this need, this study aims to
first understand and report the barriers
to project partnering.
Review of Partnering Barriers
and Study Metrics
To achieve its aims, this study first conducted a thorough literature review and
examined industry leaders’ lessonslearned documents (e.g., via personal
communication from the California
Department of Transportation [Caltrans, 2011]). This review resulted in
four main categories of barriers to partnering (Table 1):
Cultural Barriers
Cultural barriers to partnering are those
pertaining to traditional construction
silos where individuals’ project goals
72
February/March 2015
take precedence, creating an adversarial environment among the project
participants. Cultural barriers include
problems regarding trust, adversarial
mentalities (Eriksson, 2010; Bresnen
& Marshall, 2000; Carr, Hurtado,
Lancaster, Markert, & Tucker, 1999; Larson & Drexler, 1997; Ng, Rose, Mak, &
Chen, 2002), negative past experiences
(Chan et al., 2003; Cook & Hancher,
1990),
communication
struggles
(Chan et al., 2003; Larson & Drexler,
1997), overdependence of parties on
each other (Chan et al., 2003; Cook &
Hancher, 1990), and cultural differences
in negotiation styles (Larson & Drexler,
1997). These barriers are explained in
detail in the next section.
A major barrier of partnering is the
traditional adversarial nature of the
construction industry where win–lose
situations are promoted (Bresnen & Marshall, 2000; Ng et al., 2002). Companies
are accustomed to achieving individual
goals and objectives at the expense of
the other party. Construction is typically
a project-based industry, which creates
a focus on short-term profits (Eriksson,
2008). This type of attitude creates a
barrier because it may take a significant amount of time or projects before
cooperative relationships lead to significant improvements and increased profits
(Ingirige & Sexton, 2006).
Another barrier is low commitment of partners (Akintoye, McIntosh,
& Fitzgerald, 2000). Although subcontractors complete a large portion of the
work, they are commonly excluded,
which then leads to a decrease in commitment (Ng et al., 2002; Eriksson,
2008). Clients must be cognizant of this
fact and include subcontractors in the
partnering team whenever possible
(Eriksson, 2008).
Misunderstanding the partnering
concept also creates a critical barrier.
Due to limited experience in partnering,
team members may have trouble understanding the benefits and competitive
advantage that partnering attempts to
promote (Larson & Drexler, 1997; Cook
& Hancher, 1990).
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Since cooperation and communication are the key aspects of partnering,
another barrier arises with communication problems. In order for partnering
to operate as is expected, all team members must communicate issues or concerns clearly and effectively. However,
lack of trust can create team members
who are not willing to communicate and
exchange information freely (Larson &
Drexler, 1997).
Organizational/Program Level
Barriers
These barriers arise within an organization’s corporate culture offering resistance to partnering and preferring to
conduct business as usual rather than
working with the mindset of collaboration. Some of these barriers to partnering include: perception of unfair risk
sharing and added cost (Caltrans, 2011;
Bennett & Peace, 2006; Chan et al., 2003;
Bubshait, 2001; Larson & Drexler, 1997;
Cook & Hancher, 1990), management’s
personal inhibitions to the partnering
concept (Caltrans, 2011), and unwillingness to invest extra time in the process (Caltrans, 2011; Bubshait, 2001;
Chan et al., 2003; Akintoye et al., 2000;
Cook & Hancher, 1990).
Failure to share risks appropriately
is reported as a barrier to partnering
(Chan et al., 2003; Cook & Hancher,
1990): certain parties may attempt to
take advantage of the partnering concept by reducing their risks where possible, while not willingly taking other new
risks, which further destroys the trust
of the relationship (Larson & Drexler,
1997).
The corporate culture plays a major
role in partnering being accepted within
an organization. Managers are hesitant
about partnering because they must
give up some control and may have to
divulge information that has never been
discussed outside their organization
(Carr et al., 1999). These managers have
a hard time comprehending their company’s self-interest with the well-being
of another (Bubshait, 2001). Without a
strong commitment from management,
Question
Codes
Categories/Metrics
Leading to Survey Development
Sources in the Literature
(A) Cultural Barriers
A1
Misunderstanding of partnering for project teams members
Chan et al., 2003; Larson & Drexler, 1997; Cook &
Hancher, 1990.
A2
Adversarial mentality within the construction industry
Eriksson, 2010; Ng et al., 2002; Bresnen & Marshall, 2000;
Carr et al., 1999; Larson & Drexler, 1997.
A3
Past negative relationships with construction team members
Chan et al., 2003; Rogge et al., 2002.
A4
Lack of trust among partnering participants
Bennett & Peace, 2006; Chan et al., 2003; Naoum, 2003;
Larson & Drexler, 1997; Lazar, 1997.
A5
Concerns with over-dependency on others outside of immediate company/
organization
Chan et al., 2003; Cook & Hancher, 1990.
A6
Communication problems between partnering team members
Chan et al., 2003; Larson & Drexler, 1997.
A7
Cultural differences in negotiation styles between team members of
different parties
Larson & Drexler, 1997.
(B) Organizational-Program Level Barriers
B1
The perception of unfair risk sharing
Bennett & Peace, 2006; Chan et al., 2003; Bubshait, 2001;
Larson & Drexler, 1997; Cook & Hancher, 1990.
B2
Cost of partnering impedes its adoption among companies
Caltrans, 2011.
B3
People feel that partnering means giving up something
Caltrans, 2011.
B4
Not willing to invest the required time necessary within partnering
development
Caltrans, 2011; Chan et al., 2003; Bubshait, 2001;
Akintoye et al., 2000; Cook & Hancher, 1990.
(C) Project Team Related Barriers
C1
Lack of support from company management during project delivery
Rogge et al., 2002; Bubshait, 2001; Black et al., 2000;
Cheng et al., 2000; Carr et al., 1999.
C2
Resistance from project team members
Carr et al., 1999.
C3
Major partnering company influencing smaller dependent partners
decisions
Bennett & Peace, 2006.
C4
Misaligned goal and priorities among companies
Bubshait, 2001.
C5
Responsibilities tend to overlap for team members
Carr et al., 1999; Larson & Drexler, 1997.
C6
One party committing to the partnering process more than the other
Eriksson, 2010; Ng et al., 2002; Chan et al., 2003;
Akintoye, et al., 2000; Moore et al., 1992.
C7
Lack of partnering training programs and workshops early on in the project
Chan et al., 2003; Rogge et al., 2002.
C8
Pre-partnering training fades over the course of the project
Caltrans, 2011; Chan et al., 2003; Moore et al., 1992.
C9
Open exchange of information among partnering participants
Caltrans, 2011; Cheung et al., 2003; Rogge et al., 2002;
Cheng et al., 2000; Larson & Drexler, 1997.
C10
Parties fear they are sharing too much information outside of their
companies
Carr et al., 1999; Cook & Hancher, 1990.
C11
Companies’/managers’ inability to relinquish decision-making control to
project team
Bennett & Peace, 2006; Carr et al., 1999.
(D) Legislative-Governance Barriers
D1
Public project legislation that requires award to the lowest bidder
Eriksson, 2010.
D2
Competitive bidding creates an adversarial relationship
Bennett & Peace, 2006; Bayliss et al., 2004; Rooke et al.,
2004; Ng et al., 2002.
D3
Lowest bid organizations’ programs and policies provide inadequate
support
Bresnen & Marshall, 2000; Cook & Hancher, 1990.
Table 1: Study metrics and survey questions resulting from thorough review of partnering in construction literature.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
73
PAPERS
Barriers to Partnering in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Industry
partnering can’t be utilized the way it
is intended. It can be difficult to rapidly change a corporate culture that
has been operating the same way for
decades and this creates another tough
barrier to overcome.
Project Team Barriers
For partnering to be a success, interorganizational project teams consisting of owners, designers, contractors,
and subcontractors must share common goals and objectives illuminating
an environment of trust and commitment to the partnership. The project
team barriers impeding partnering
are: lack of company support (Fisher,
2012; Rogge et al., 2002; Bubshait,
2001; Cheng et al., 2000; Carr et al.,
1999), resistance from team members (Carr et al., 1999), and concerns
that dominate partnering parties may
influence the overall process (Bennett
2006). Other concerns among partnering project stakeholders are: misaligned project goals (Bubshait, 2001),
blurred lines of responsibilities (Carr
et al., 1999; Larson & Drexler, 1997),
unequal team commitment (Eriksson,
2010; Chan et al., 2003; Ng et al., 2002;
Akintoye, 2000; Moore et al., 1992),
lack of training programs and workshops earlier on in the process (Chan
et al., 2003; Rogge et al., 2002), and
ephemeral adoption and implementation during project delivery (Caltrans,
2011; Chan et al., 2003; Moore et al.,
1992).
Oftentimes in construction, one
party has more bargaining power than
the other. This creates a barrier because
the more powerful partner can dictate
more favorable terms and conditions
for themselves, which in turn hampers
cooperative teamwork. This can be
especially true when the weaker party
must depend on the other for future
work (Bennett & Peace, 2006).
Partnering is a continuous process
that involves workshops throughout the
project. However, once the initial partnering workshop has been completed it
can be difficult to keep team members
74
February/March 2015
from returning to normal daily activities
and ignoring the partnering process
(Chan et al., 2003; Moore et al., 1992).
Uneven
commitment
creates
another barrier that can be hard to overcome. Since the goals of each party may
differ significantly, an uneven level of
commitment is common (Moore et al.,
1992).
Legislative/Governance Barriers
Public project laws and regulations
requiring competitive bidding can
discourage ones commitment to partnering (Eriksson, 2010). Tangential
to partnering concept, low bid practice encourages contractors to rely
on change orders to increase profits.
Additionally, the lowest bidder does
not necessarily correlate with the best
partnering contractor possibly lacking
in technical competence, project organizational expertise, and cooperative
teamwork qualities (Bresnen & Marshall, 2000; Cook & Hancher, 1990).
The use of competitive bidding
creates another barrier because it can
decrease commitment and flexibility
(Bayliss et al., 2004; Ng et al., 2002).
The contractor bids low to win the project and then attempt to increase profits through change orders and extras
(Rooke et al., 2004). This constitutes a
significant barrier, because in order for
partnering to be successful companies
need to overcome these longstanding
negative tendencies that hamper cooperative trusting relationships.
Summary
The literature on partnering purports
varying identifiers initiating resistance
within the construction industry, yet
few studies sufficiently examine multiple partnering stakeholders, with
experience executing the concept on
both vertical and horizontal construction projects in the United States. A
critical investigation is necessary to
understanding the hesitancy to deploy
partnering on AEC projects while complementing traditional project delivery
methods.
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Delphi Study
To respond to the above-described need,
this paper purports a holistic view of projects varying in size, type, and location
in examining barriers to partnering, all
guided by expert feedback across diverse
roles within partnering projects in the
United States. Through collaboration
with the International Partnering Institute
(IPI), the researchers were able to learn
from partnering experts’ experiences.
Utilizing the Delphi survey method,
researchers gained valuable insight into
each stakeholder’s experience to explain
particular areas where resistance lies
among successful partnering projects.
Results pertain to both public/private and
horizontal/vertical AEC projects.
Methods
The Delphi method is a useful tool to
reach consensus on problems across
many disciplines (Kalaian & Kasim,
2012; McGeary, 2009; Skumolski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007; Linstone & Turoff,
2002; Hartman & Baldwin, 1995; Woundenberg, 1991; Pill, 1971). The Delphi
method has been used in previous studies to elicit subjective information from
a panel of experts to their perceptions
on methods that general contractors
undertake when selecting elements to
include within company safety programs (Hallowell & Gambatese, 2010).
Recently, the Delphi method was integrated into cross-impact analysis to gain
insight from experts on interdependencies among safety program variables
found to lower exposure to construction injuries and illnesses (Hallowell
& Calhoun, 2011). Yeung et al. (2009a)
in a similar application, utilized the
Delphi method in efforts to identify
key performance indicators informing
partnering projects. Key components
of a Delphi procedure are: anonymity,
iteration, controlled feedback, and statistical response to improve the validity
of study outcomes (Linstone & Turoff,
2002); and bias control (e.g., via reporting median values during feedback and
randomizing questions over survey iterations [Hallowell & Gambatese, 2010]).
Informed by the comprehensive literature review, the investigators developed a survey using the study metrics
presented in Table 1. A pilot test was
conducted with an expert panel assembled with the IPI. Feedback on the survey instrument provided validation for
questions and data collection protocol.
To successfully apply the Delphi
method, experts were carefully selected
based upon certain criteria (Adler &
Ziglio, 1996), which included: industry
experience, partnering project experience, and variety (e.g., from public/
private and vertical/horizontal sectors),
and types of project delivery methods experts used partnering under.
Researchers paid specific attention to
include major parties of the construction
industry in this list of experts representing owners, designers, and contractors.
Through collaboration with the IPI, a
list of partnering experts across all construction sectors and geographies in the
United States and their contact information was compiled.
Seventy-five potential partnering
experts, who met the above defined
criteria, were identified to participate
in the study. Researchers invited these
experts via telephone to participate.
Upon their agreement, participants
were sent emails containing links to the
web-based survey.
The researchers administered the
survey using a web-based survey management website. The survey instrument contained consent information
for the participants of the study, where
the participants were informed about
anonymity and voluntary participation
with this study. In addition, participants were made aware that questions
may be skipped within the survey if
so desired. The description of project
partnering, as the focus of this research,
was also provided to the participants
in the consent form to avoid response
bias. The survey allowed researchers to
gain an understanding of the participants’ backgrounds and project profiles
that they had experience with. Open
and closed-end questions were asked to
help develop a thorough understanding
to the participants’ experience.
The study was conducted over a
five-month period consisting of two
rounds: The current literature on the
Delphi method has concluded that
multiple rounds aid in bringing the
responses from the participants closer
in light of feedback from the expert
panel (Skumolski et al., 2007; Linstone
& Turoff, 2002). Two to eight rounds
are suggested (Kalaian & Kasim, 2012),
whereas some others find three rounds
or less to be adequate to reach consensus on a topic (Skulmoski et al., 2007).
Investigators maintained randomization of survey questions to reduce
situational and person specific biases
(Hallowell & Gambatese, 2010; Woudenberg, 1991; Pill, 1971). Controlled feedback reporting median responses of the
experts and their individual responses
were provided to the experts between
the rounds, as it minimizes the effects
of biases (e.g., myside bias, recency and
contrast effects) within the Delphi study
(Hallowell & Gambatese, 2010).
The questions provided in the
survey for round two focused on
closed-end questions from round one.
Additionally, researchers allowed the
participants to explain any decisions
made in responses that differ from
their round one response considering
the group findings. The largest proportion of the survey was allotted to
close-ended questions for respondents
to evaluate using a Likert scale (i.e.,
1—strongly agree, 2—agree, 3—neutral,
4—disagree, 5—strongly disagree, or 6—
no experience). Additionally, the participants were asked to rank the main
four survey categories according to their
importance.
Collected data were exported from
survey instrument into an Excel® spreadsheet. Several iterations of data coding and validation were performed to
eliminate errors. The researchers terminated the iteration of the survey upon
consensus of the experts. Variance of
responses on each close-ended question was determined via critical values
(rs) reported from Spearman’s rank correlation test (Kalaian & Kasim, 2012) as
illustrated below in Table 2. Number
of responses to each question varied
during the second round; therefore,
responses ranged from 12 (n) to 14 (n)
and were analyzed accordingly.
Results
Of the 75 experts identified as the sample population, 46 agreed to participate
in the study, representing a response
rate of 61%; however, only 20 of the 46
from this pool commenced the survey,
resulting with an overall response rate of
27%. During round one, 18 experts completed the survey in entirety, whereas
two of those provided too few responses
to the survey or enough sufficient information to allow feedback; therefore, the
overall sample population dropped to
24% for round one. Literature suggests
as few as 8 and up to 16 panelists are
sufficient to conduct an effective Delphi
study (Hallowell & Gambatese, 2010;
Skulmoski et al., 2007). In round two, 14
participants from the first round agreed
to continue participating into the second round of the Delphi survey. Despite
fewer participants during round two
of this study, researchers have continued to report valid results satisfying the
requirements of Delphi methodology
(Yeung et al., 2009b).
Table 3 displays respondents’
experiences with partnering projects,
including: their roles, projects’ sizes,
project delivery methods, construction types, and projects’ locations.
Experts in the study sample included
facilitators, owners, architects, general contractors, engineers, subcontractors, and construction managers,
respectively. Study experts mostly got
engaged with partnering projects as
facilitators (35%) and owner representatives, respectively (22.1%). The
construction costs of projects these
experts were engaged in ranged from
US$1 million to US$100 million,
whereas the majority of projects were
under US$25 million (44.1%). Designbid-build was the most adopted
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
75
PAPERS
Barriers to Partnering in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Industry
Question
Code: A1
Round 1*
Round 2*
Difference
Between Ratings
in Rounds 1 and
2 (di)
Expert 1
1
1
0
0
2
4
–2
4
Expert 2
4
4
0
0
5
5
0
0
Expert 3
4
4
0
0
4
4
0
0
Expert 4
2
2
0
0
1
2
–1
1
Expert 5
5
5
0
0
2
2
0
0
Expert 6
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
Expert 7
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
Expert 8
2
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
Expert 9
2
2
0
0
3
3
0
0
Expert 10
4
4
0
0
4
4
0
0
Expert 11
2
2
0
0
5
0
0
Expert 12
4
2
2
4
4
2
2
4
Expert 13
4
2
2
4
4
1
3
9
Expert 14
4
3
1
1
2
3
−1
1
Spearman’s Rank
Correlation Test
Question
Code: A2
di2
Round 1*
Round 2*
Difference
Between Ratings
in Rounds 1 and
2 (di)
di2
Expert (i)
di2
9
Count (i)
14
13
0.980
0.948
Sum
rs
19
Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient Table Critical Values
rs > 0.538, i = 14**
YES
rs > 0.560, i = 13**
YES
*Answers ranked using Likert scale: 1-Strongly Agree, 2-Agree, 3-Neutral, 4-Disagree, 5-Strongly Disagree, 6-No Experience.
**Level of significance α = 0.05 using two-tailed test critical values, where i = 13, and i = 14 are used to determine consensus.
Table 2: Example for analyzing responses across two rounds of surveys using the Delphi method to reach consensus in each close-ended
question.
project delivery method in their experience (59.4%). Horizontal and vertical
construction experiences with partnering projects were almost equally
represented in the sample. However,
the sample was skewed toward public
projects (93.4%) and projects located
on the west coast of the United States
(74.2%).
Barriers identified in Table 1 (i.e.,
cultural, organizational, project team
related, and legislative) are used to
report study findings in Tables 4 and 5.
Researchers were also able to report
a complete list of expert rankings for the
top barriers to partnering, as presented
in Table 5. The survey results shown in
Table 5 are sorted by median response
76
February/March 2015
values from second round results and
reported the category where each barrier is found.
According to the results, the respondents had consensus on the top twelve
barriers to partnering (i.e., median <
2.5 in Table 5). Examination of these
barriers led the investigators to further
classify these barriers. The resulting categories are:
1. Barriers to adoption of partnering:
These are the reasons that organizations have avoided using partnering on
construction projects.
2. Barriers to implementation/partnering success during project delivery:
These are the day-to-day barriers that
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
prevent teams from interacting in a
collaborative way on projects, thus
leading to less than optimal outcomes
in partnered projects. These barriers
potentially impede team members
from adopting partnering in future
projects.
Considering all categorizations, the
following results were compiled. Of the
top twelve barriers to partnering:
• Five are barriers to adoption of partnering; eight are barriers to successful
implementation of partnering during
project delivery (i.e., one of these barriers can affect both adoption and implementation of partnering);
(%)
134
44.1
122
87
5
59.4
16.5
0.9
Horizontal
Vertical
Large
Infrastructure
Other
Construction Type
Private
Project Type
23.1
Public
Northeast
6.9
313
3.0
Midwest
13.9
35
15
8.9
Southeast
74.2
70
45
17.6
Southwest
(%)
374
87
26.5
Mountain
*(n)
East
West
Project Location
Other
223
CM-At risk
0.8
Design-Build
4
1.2
Design-BidBuild
6
4.2
< $1M
21
16.6
> $100M
84
20.2
Project Delivery
> $50M – $100M
Subcontractor
102
22.1
> $25M – $50M
Engineer
112
35.0
> $1M – $25M
General
Contractor
177
Construction
Manager
Architect
Project Size
Owner
*(n)
Partnering Role
Other
(Facilitator)
Projects
12
5
5
3
470
33
248
202
42
12
1.0
1.0
0.6
2.4
93.4
6.6 49.2
40.1
8.3
2.4
*Study experts’ experience working on partnering projects by categories ranged from 503 to 527 (n) during first round survey (μ = 508).
Table 3: Study experts’ experience with partnering projects.
• Six are cultural; four are project team
related; two are organizational barriers; and
• None is a legislative barrier.
The most frequent category in the
top barriers to partnering list (i.e., six
out of twelve) is the cultural barriers,
which can impact both adoption and
implementation of partnering. These
barriers, listed starting from the highest
ranking, are: lack of trust among participants (Implementation Barrier [IB]);
misunderstanding of partnering among
project team members (Adoption barrier [AB]); past negative relationships
with construction team members (both
AB and IB); cultural differences in negotiation styles between team members
of different parties (IB); communication problems between partnering team
members (IB); and adversarial mentality
within the construction industry (AB).
Being the second most frequent category in the top barriers to partnering
list (i.e., four out of twelve), project team
related barriers are ranked higher in the
list. These barriers, which can affect
successful implementation of partnering
during project delivery, are: resistance
from project team members; lack of
partnering training programs and workshops early on in the project; lack of
support from company management
during project delivery; and companies’/managers’ inability to relinquish
decision-making control to the project
team.
The top organizational barriers,
which can impact adoption of partnering, are as follows: the perception of
unfair risk sharing, and people feel that
partnering is giving up something.
Discussions
The findings shed light on the literature
in a couple of areas. First, according to
the study experts, partnering is growing among vertical construction projects despite reports from the literature
(Phua, 2006). The available literature on
partnering has consistently examined
international construction projects or
has been particularly focused on public infrastructure; in other words, horizontal projects located in the United
States, explaining the disparate results
(Anderson & Polkinghorn, 2011; Chapin,
1994; Grajek et al., 2000; Gransberg
et al., 1998; Rogge et al, 2002). Although
the study’s sample is still dominated by
experts with public project experience
(i.e., 93.4% of the projects reported),
the study asserts expert experience in
partnering projects to be closely split
between the horizontal (49.2%) and vertical (40.1%) construction sectors.
Although a number of researchers
have cited significant legislative barriers to partnering, including required
low bid contracts (Eriksson, 2010)
and there being a risk that low bid
contractors have less expertise than a
contractor selected for organizational
expertise and cooperative teamwork
qualities (Bresnen & Marshall, 2000;
Cook & Hancher, 1990), in this study,
none of the top reported barriers to
partnering is legislative. According to
the experts, the delivery method (e.g.,
design-bid-build, design-build) has
little or no bearing on whether partnering is adopted or implemented effectively on a project. This shows that: (1)
experts familiar with partnering know
from experience that partnering can
work under any contracting method;
and (2) the way partnering is implemented during the delivery process can
be more influential on outcomes than
the cooperative capabilities of (or the
lack of thereof ) selected contractors at
the time of team procurement.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
77
PAPERS
Barriers to Partnering in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Industry
Question
Code
Median
Round
1**
Mean
Round
1**
*Median
Round
2**
Mean *Spearman’s
Round
Rank
2**
Correlation
(A) Cultural Barriers
A4
Lack of trust among partnering participants
1.00
1.39
1.50
1.69
0.993
A1
Misunderstanding of partnering among project teams members
2.50
2.78
2.00
2.50
0.980
A3
Past negative relationships with construction team members
2.00
2.22
2.00
2.22
0.975
A7
Cultural differences in negotiation styles between team members
of different parties
2.00
2.50
2.00
2.38
0.967
A6
Communication problems between partnering team members
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.29
0.952
A2
Adversarial mentality within the construction industry
2.00
2.83
2.00
2.77
0.948
A5
Concerns with over-dependency on others outside of the
immediate company/organization
4.00
4.17
4.00
3.69
0.940
(B) Organizational-Program Level Barriers
B1
The perception of unfair risk sharing
2.00
2.82
2.00
2.50
0.976
B3
People feel that partnering means giving up something
2.00
2.71
2.00
2.36
0.970
B2
Cost of partnering impedes its adoption among companies
4.00
3.71
3.00
2.93
0.912
B4
Not willing to invest the required time necessary within partnering
development
4.00
3.59
3.50
3.00
0.958
(C) Project Team Related Barriers
C2
Resistance from project team members
2.00
1.82
1.00
1.57
0.987
C7
Lack of partnering training programs and workshops early on in the
project
2.00
2.24
2.00
1.93
0.980
C1
Lack of support from company management during project delivery
2.00
2.12
2.00
2.14
0.971
C11
Companies’/managers’ inability to relinquish decision-making
control to project team
2.00
2.18
2.00
2.08
0.967
C10
Parties fear they are sharing too much information outside of their
companies
4.00
3.47
2.50
2.77
0.962
C4
Misaligned goals and priorities among companies
4.00
3.47
3.00
2.92
0.940
C6
One party committing to the partnering process more than the
other
3.00
3.24
3.00
2.86
0.936
C8
Pre-partnering training fades over the course of the project
3.00
3.18
3.00
2.93
0.921
C9
Open exchange of information among partnering participants
4.00
3.24
3.50
3.15
0.984
C3
Major partnering company/organization influencing smaller
dependent partners decisions
3.00
3.12
3.50
3.21
0.974
C5
Responsibilities tend to overlap among team members
4.00
3.94
4.00
3.64
0.967
(D) Legislative-Governance Barriers
D3
Lowest bid organizations’ programs and policies provide
inadequate support
4.00
3.29
3.00
3.23
0.978
D1
Public project legislation that requires award to the lowest bidder
3.00
2.71
3.00
2.86
0.937
D2
Competitive bidding creates an adversarial relationship
3.00
3.24
3.50
3.50
0.979
*Table sorted the barriers using the responses from round two of the survey by the median value and critical value of Spearman’s Ranking Correlation
Coefficient statistical analysis.
**Responses were ranked using Likert scale: 1-Strongly Agree, 2-Agree, 3-Neutral, 4-Disagree, 5-Strongly Disagree, 6-No Experience.
Table 4: Partnering barriers and expert consensus results on them.*
78
February/March 2015
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Ranked
Barriers
*Median
*Spearman’s Rank
Correlation
Survey Category
1
Resistance from project team members
1.0**
0.987
(C) Project Team
2
Lack of trust among partnering participants
1.5
0.993
(A) Cultural
3
Lack of partnering training programs and workshops early on in the
project
2.0
0.980
(C) Project Team
4
Misunderstanding of partnering among project teams members
2.0
0.980
(A) Cultural
5
The perception of unfair risk sharing
2.0
0.976
(B) Organizational
6
Past negative relationships with construction team members
2.0
0.975
(A) Cultural
7
Lack of support from company management during project delivery
2.0
0.971
(C) Project Team
8
People feel that partnering means giving up something
2.0
0.970
(B) Organizational
9
Companies’/managers’ inability to relinquish decision-making
control to project team
2.0
0.967
(C) Project Team
10
Cultural differences in negotiation styles between team members of
different parties
2.0
0.967
(A) Cultural
11
Communication problems between partnering team members
2.0
0.952
(A) Cultural
12
Adversarial mentality within the construction industry
2.0
0.948
(A) Cultural
13
Parties fear they are sharing too much information outside of their
companies
2.5
0.962
(C) Project Team
14
Lowest bid organizations’ programs and policies provide inadequate
support
3.0
0.978
(D) Legislative
15
Misaligned goals and priorities among companies
3.0
0.940
(C) Project Team
16
Public project legislation that requires award to the lowest bidder
3.0
0.937
(D) Legislative
17
One party committing to the partnering process more than the other
3.0
0.936
(A) Cultural
18
Pre-partnering training fades over the course of the project
3.0
0.921
(C) Project Team
19
Cost of partnering impedes its adoption among companies
3.0**
0.912
(B) Organizational
20
Open exchange of information among partnering participants
3.5
0.984
(C) Project Team
21
Competitive bidding creates an adversarial relationship
3.5
0.979
(D) Legislative
22
Major partnering company/organization influencing smaller dependent partners decisions
3.5
0.974
(C) Project Team
23
Not willing to invest the required time necessary within partnering
development
3.5
0.958
(B) Organizational
24
Responsibilities tend to overlap among team members
4.0
0.967
(C) Project Team
25
Concerns with over-dependency on others outside of the immediate
company/organization
4.0
0.940
(A) Cultural
*Table sorted using the responses from round two of the survey by the median value and critical value of Spearman’s Ranking Correlation Coefficient
statistical analysis.
**Responses were ranked using Likert scale: 1-Strongly Agree, 2-Agree, 3-Neutral, 4-Disagree, 5-Strongly Disagree, 6-No Experience.
Table 5: Expert consensus rankings on barriers to partnering.
Adversarial tendencies within partnering parties created through competitive bidding within projects appeared
among the least concerns from our
expert rankings. This evidence contradicts many ideas purported from the
literature, where past negative relation-
ships and traditional compartmentalized construction cultures are thought
to impede partnering (Eriksson, 2010;
Bresnen & Marshall, 2000; Carr et al.,
1999). Additionally, resistance and lack
of trust are reported as the likely culprits providing the greatest barriers
to partnering in construction in this
study, both, possibly stemming from
cultural or past project-related experiences. With trust being identified as
both a positive attribute of partnering
(Cheung et al., 2003; Rogge et al., 2002;
Cheng et al., 2000; Drexler & Larson,
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
79
PAPERS
Barriers to Partnering in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Industry
2000), while also recognized in the literature as an outcome resulting from
partnering (Eriksson, 2010), the partnering process itself can act as a catalyst
in trust building (Wong & Cheung, 2005;
Drexler & Larson, 2000). In addition,
partnering when facilitated on the
appropriate project (i.e., “complex and
custom projects with high uncertainty,
longer durations, and time constraints”
[Eriksson, 2010]) can provide sufficient
time for trust building to materialize
among partnering project participants.
This helps to explain contradictory
information on trust particularly as a
barrier to partnering on partnered projects, as similarly suggested by Wong and
Cheung (2005).
In summary, project team–related
barriers present the greatest area for
potential improvement with partnering.
During project delivery, management
must play a larger role in ensuring partnering can successfully occur by: providing partnering training, supporting
the team during the partnering process;
supporting teams to make decisions at
the lowest possible level; and educate,
motivate, or remove project team members who are resistant to collaborating.
The study results can help partnering facilitators understand critical factors providing the most resistance to
the concept of partnering, which they
can make the focal point during partnering workshops for improvement.
Even more, partnering intending to
boost team integration is likely to garner greater success coupled with other
delivery methods (i.e., design-build and
IPD), which bring the owner, design,
and contractor together earlier on in
the construction process, encouraging
cooperation (Lahdenpera, 2012; Chan
et al., 2001).
Our findings provide a focal point
for future studies where researchers can
explore specific barriers and how they
can be overcome through proper implementation of partnering. Researchers
continue to explore individuals’ behavioral patterns (Hartmann & Bresnen,
2011) occurring through the social
80
February/March 2015
interactions existing during construction processes, and still others aim to
learn how norms are challenged within
these dynamic teams (Gottlieb & Haugbolle, 2013). These two areas can be
further investigated for correlations
between established partnering inhibitions and social phenomena occurring
during partnering.
Conclusions
In the AEC industry, the concept of
partnering has not been fully adopted
despite significant improvements
provided in cost control, claims and
dispute mitigation, and scheduling
improvements (Anderson & Polkinghorn, 2011; Chapin, 1994; Grajek et al.,
2000; Polkinghorn et al., 2006). Beneficial objectives offered through partnering maintain uncultivated potential, yet,
construction teams are not able to fully
utilize this arrangement, which lacks
the defined implementation strategies
and wherewithal to propel this system
forward. Studies completed on partnering have determined critical success
factors; however, partnering participants fail to understand the specific
barriers that may thwart its use.
With the motivation to understand
and report barriers to project partnering
in the United State, from both the vertical/horizontal and public/private construction sectors, this study performed
a comprehensive literature review, followed by a Delphi survey of partnering
experts. The study systematically classified barriers to project partnering (i.e.,
cultural, project-team related, organizational, and legislative; adoption and
implementation barriers).
Findings showed partnering continues to be utilized in the public construction sector, yet have not been fully
adopted on private sector projects.
Additionally, partnering use is more
dominant among projects using the
design-bid-build construction project
delivery method. Implementation barriers to partnering during project delivery are more frequently pronounced
than the barriers to its adoption. Of the
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
top reported barriers to project partnering, the majority is cultural; project
team–related barriers show the greatest area of potential for improvement;
and contrary to the literature, none is
legislative.
The study intended to capture
experts across diverse geographical
regions of the United States; however,
results concluded the expert sample
population was primarily located on
the west coast of the United States.
This constraint resulted from identified sample populations found through
collaboration with the IPI, reflecting
expectations specific to this region;
therefore, future studies involving more
heterogeneous populations may offer
different outcomes. Additional studies
may further explore this limitation and
investigate whether other factors govern
partnering use within this region of the
United States.
The study provides significant contributions and insight into the literature on
partnering, despite its limitations. The
study drew attention to project delivery and management practices in the
AEC industry to improve team collaboration and chances of successful implementation and adoption of integrative
practices. Moreover, results offer explicit
areas where concentrated efforts can
provide guidance to owners and facilitators helping to eliminate apparent barriers to partnering in their project teams.
Acknowledgments
The writers would like to acknowledge
the anonymous partnering experts who
made this study possible. In addition,
the authors would like to thank the
International Partnering Institute for
their collaboration with this research.
References
Adler, M., & Ziglio, E. (Eds.). (1996).
Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi
method and its application to social policy and public health. London, England:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Akintoye, A., McIntosh, G., &
Fitzgerald, E. (2000). A survey of supply
chain collaboration and management in the UK construction industry.
European Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management, 6(3–4), 159–168.
Anderson, L., & Polkinghorn, B. (2011).
Efficacy of partnering on the Woodrow
Wilson Bridge project: Empirical evidence of collaborative problem-solving
benefits. Journal of Legal Affairs and
Dispute Resolution in Engineering and
Construction, 3(1),17–27.
Carr, F., Hurtado, K., Lancaster, C.,
Markert, C., & Tucker, P. (1999).
Partnering in construction: A practical guide to project success. Chicago, IL:
American Bar Association.
Chan, A., Chan, D., & Ho, K. (2003).
Partnering in construction: Critical
study of problems for implementation.
Journal of Management in Engineering,
19(3), 126.
Anvuur, A., & Kumaraswamy, M.
(2007). Conceptual model of partnering
and alliancing. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 133(3),
225–234.
Chan, A., Chan, D., Chiang, Y., Tang,
B., Chan, E., & Ho, K. (2004). Exploring
critical success factors for partnering in construction projects. Journal
of Construction Engineering and
Management, 130(2), 188–198.
Associated General Contractors. (AGC).
(2010). Integrated project delivery for
public and private owners. Arlington,
VA: Associated General Contractors of
America.
Chan, A., Ho, D., & Tam, C. (2001).
Design and build project success factors: Multivariate analysis. Journal
of Construction Engineering and
Management, 127(2), 93–100.
Bayliss, R., Cheung, S., Suen, H., &
Wong, S.-P. (2004). Effective partnering tools in construction: A case
study on MTRC TKE contract in Hong
Kong. International Journal of Project
Management, 22(3), 253–263.
Chapin, L. (1994, October). Evaluation
of partnering on Ohio Department
of Transportation projects. Report
FHWA/OH-94/022, Ohio Department of
Transportation. Columbus, Ohio.
Barlow, J., Cohen, M., Jashapara, A., &
Simpson, Y. (1997). Towards positive
partnering: Revealing the realities for the
construction industry. Bristol, UK: The
Policy Press.
Bennett, J., & Peace, S. (2006). Partnering
in the construction industry: A code of
practice for strategic collaborative working.
Waltham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Black, C., Akintoye, A., & Fitzgerald, E.
(2000). An analysis of success factors
and benefits of partnering in construction. International Journal of Project
Management, 18(2000) 423–434.
Bresnen, M., & Marshall, N. (2000).
Partnering in construction: A critical
review of issues, problems and dilemmas. Construction Management and
Economics, 18(2), 229–237.
Bubshait, A. (2001). Partnering: An innovative and effective project organization
concept. Cost Engineering, 43(4), 32–37.
Caltrans Subcommittee Meeting Report.
(2011, March). Personal communication.
Chen, W., & Chen, T. (2007). Critical
success factors for partnering in
Taiwan. International Journal of Project
Management, 25(5), 475–484.
Cheng, E., & Li, H. (2004). Development
of a practical model of partnering
for construction projects. Journal
of Construction Engineering and
Management, 130(6), 790–798.
Cheng, E., Li, H., & Love, P. (2000).
Establishment of Critical Success Factors
for Construction Partnering. Journal
of Management in Engineering, 16(2),
84–92.
Cheung, S., Ng, T., Wong, S., & Suen, H.
(2003). Behavioral aspects in construction partnering. International Journal of
Project Management, 21(5), 333–343.
Construction Industry Institute. (CII).
(1996). Model for partnering excellence. Austin, TX: Construction Industry
Institute.
CII (Construction Industry Institute)
(2011). IR102-2 – Partnering Toolkit.
Report overview accessed at in April
2014: https://www.construction
-HYPERLINK http://institute.org
/scriptcontent/more/ir102_2_more.cfm
Cook, E., & Hancher, D. (1990).
Partnering: Contracting for the future.
Journal of Management in Engineering,
6(4), 431–446.
Drexler, J., & Larson, E. (2000).
Partnering: Why project owner-contractor relationships change. Journal
of Construction Engineering and
Management, 126(4), 293–297.
Eriksson, P. E. (2008). Procurement
effects on cooperation in client-contractor relationships. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 134(2),
103–111.
Eriksson, P. (2010). Partnering:
What is it, when should it be used,
and how should it be Implemented.
Construction Management and
Economics, 28(9), 905.
Fellows, R., & Liu, A. (2012). Managing
organizational interfaces in engineering construction projects: Addressing
fragmentation and boundary issues
across multiple interfaces. Construction
Management and Economics, 30(8), 653.
Gadde, L., & Dubois, A. (2010).
Partnering in the construction industry:
Problems and opportunities. Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management, 16(4),
254–263.
Gottlieb, S., & Haugbolle, K.
(2013). Contradictions and collaboration: Partnering in-between
systems of production, values and
interests. Construction Management and
Economics, 31(2), 119–134.
Grajek, K., Gibson Jr., G., & Tucker, R.
(2000). Partnered project performance
in Texas Department of Transportation.
Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 6(2),
73–79.
Gransberg, D., Reynolds, H., Boyd,
J., & Gokdogan, G. (1998, October).
Evaluation of TxDOT Partnering
Plus Program. Final Report and
Implementation Plan, Research Study No.
0–1729, Report No. TX-97/0–1729-S, Texas
Tech University, Lubbock, TX.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
81
PAPERS
Barriers to Partnering in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Industry
Gransberg, D., Dillon, W., Reynolds, L.,
& Boyd, J. (1999). Quantitative analysis of partnered project performance.
Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 125(3), 161–166.
Hallowell, M., & Calhoun, M. (2011).
Interrelationships among highly effective
construction injury prevention strategies.
Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 137(11), 985–993.
Hallowell, M., & Gambatese, J. (2010).
Qualitative research: Application of
the Delphi method to CEM research.
Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 136(1), 99–107.
Hartman, F., & Baldwin, A. (1995).
Using technology to improve Delphi
method. Journal of Computing in Civil
Engineering, 9(4), 244–249.
Hartmann, A., & Bresnen, M. (2011).
The emergence of partnering in construction practice: An activity theory
perspective. The Engineering Project
Organization Journal, 1(1), 41–52.
Ingirige, B., & Sexton, M. (2006).
Alliances in construction. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural
Management. 13(5), 521–535.
Kalaian, S., & Kasim, R. (2012).
Terminating sequential Delphi survey
data collection. Practical Assessment,
Research & Evaluation, 17(5), 10.
Keil, J. (2007). How partnering benefits
the construction process. Pipeline & Gas
Journal, 234(12), 59–61.
Lahdenpera, P. (2012). Making sense
of the multi-party contractual arrangements of project partnering, project
alliancing and integrated project
delivery. Construction Management and
Economics, 30, 57–79.
Larson, E., & Drexler, J. A. (1997).
Barriers to project partnering: Report
for the firing line. Project Management
Journal, 28(1), 46–52.
applications. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley, Advanced Book Program.
Manley, K. (2002). Partnering and
alliancing on road projects in Australia
and internationally. Road and Transport
Research: A Journal of Australian and
New Zealand Research and Practice,
11(3), 46–60.
McGeary, J. (2009). A critique of using
the Delphi technique for assessing
evaluation capability-building needs.
Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 9(1),
31–39.
Moore, C., Mosley, D., & Slagle, M.
(1992). Partnering guidelines for
win-win project management. Project
Management Journal, 22(1), 18–21.
Mosey, D. (2009). Front matter: Early
contractor involvement in building procurement (pp. i–ix). Oxford, UK: WileyBlackwell.
Skumolski, G.J., Hartman, F.T., &
Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for
graduate research, Journal of Information
Technology Education, 6, 1–21.
Naoum, S. (2003). An overview into the
concept of partnering. International
Journal of Project Management, 21(1),
71–76.
Smith, A., & Culp, G. (2000). Continuous
partnering helps ensure project success. Journal (American Water Works
Association), 92(11), 74–81.
Ng, T., Rose, T., Mak, M., & Chen, S.
(2002). Problematic issues associated
with project partnering: The contractor perspective. International Journal of
Project Management, 20(6), 437–449.
Tuchman, J. (2011). National
Construction Forum Calls for BestPractices Database. Engineering
News Record (ENR). McGraw-Hill,
Washington, DC, November 2011.
Nystrom, J. (2012). A quasi-experimental
evaluation of partnering. Construction
Management and Economics, 26(5), 531.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
(2010). Partnering: A tool for USACE,
Engineering, Construction, and
Operations. Pamphlet #4- Alternative
Dispute Resolution Series. (Issued 1991,
Revised May 2010).
Phua, F. (2006). When is construction
partnering likely to happen? An empirical examination of the role of institutional norms. Construction Management
and Economics, 24, 615–624.
Pill, J. (1971). Delphi method—substance, context: Critique and an annotated bibliography. Socio-Economic
Planning Sciences, 5(1).
Lazar, F. (1997). Parenting: New benefits
from peering inside the black box.
Journal of Management Engineering,
13(6), 75–83.
Linstone, H., & Turoff, M. (2002).
The Delphi method: Techniques and
Roehrich, J., & Lewis, M. (2010).
Towards a model of governance in
February/March 2015
Rogge, D., Griffith, P.E., & Hutchins,
W. (2002). Improving the effectiveness of partnering. Final Report, State
Planning and Research Project #344, for
Oregon Department of Transportation
Research Group and Federal Highway
Administration Washington, D.C.,
November 2002.
Rooke, J., Seymour, D., & Fellows, R.
(2004). Planning for claims: An ethnography of industry culture. Construction
Management and Economics, 22(6),
655–662.
Polkinghorn, B., La Chance, R., & La
Chance, H. L. (2006). An analysis of the
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration’s partnering program and process. MDSHA
Internal Rep., Maryland DOT, State
Highway Administration, Baltimore.
82
complex (product–service) interorganizational systems. Construction
Management and Economics, 28(11),
1155–1164.
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Wong, P., & Cheung, S. (2005). Structural
equation model of trust and partnering success. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 21(2), 70–80.
Woudenberg, F. (1991). An evaluation
of Delphi. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 40(2), 131–150.
Yeung, J., Chan, A., & Chan, D. (2009a).
A computerized model for measuring and benchmarking the partnering
performance of construction projects.
Automation in Construction, 18(8),
1099–1113.
Yeung, J., Chan, A., & Chan, D. (2009b).
Developing a performance index for
relationship-based construction projects
in Australia: Delphi study. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 25(2),
59–68.
Sinem Mollaoglu (PhD, Pennsylvania
State University) is an Associate
Professor of Construction Management
at the School of Planning, Design, and
Construction at Michigan State University.
She is the recipient of the National
Association of Home Builders’ “National
Educator of the Year Award, 2013” in
outstanding junior faculty category; and
the Associated General Contractors of
America’s “2014 National Fellowship”
for faculty internship in the construction
industry (among the selected three across
the nation). Her leadership roles in academia include serving as a specialty editor
of sustainable construction on the editorial
board of ASCE’s Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management. Her vision
is to contribute to the improvement of
sustainable project delivery processes
through investigation of team integration
phenomenon and assessment systems
for green buildings at the national and
international levels. She can be contacted
at [email protected]
Anthony Sparkling earned his Bachelor
of Science degree in Construction
Management from Eastern Michigan
University in 2012. In 2014 he earned
his Master of Science in Construction
Management degree from Michigan State
University. He has since started working on his doctoral studies at Michigan
State University in Planning, Design, and
Construction. Anthony Sparkling has also
spent nearly 20 years working in the construction industry as an electrical supervisor and a construction project manager.
During his master’s graduate studies,
Anthony Sparkling worked as a graduate research assistant, under Dr. Sinem
Mollaoglu, helping to facilitate coursework
while also working on several research
projects. He has received several scholarships and fellowships over the course of
his studies which include a Michigan State
University School of Planning, Design, and
Construction Graduate Office Fellowship,
a Fredrich E. Schmid Scholarship, and
the Michigan Housing Research Center
Endowment Scholarship. Finally, he
received the prestigious honor becoming a National Science Foundation (NSF)
Graduate Fellow having been awarded a
NSF Graduate Research Fellowship in 2014.
He is currently a Michigan State University
NSF Graduate Research Fellowship
Program (GRFP) mentor.
Anthony Sparkling’s master’s thesis titled “A
Research Synthesis of Key Partnering Drivers
and Performance Outcomes in Architecture,
Engineering, and Construction Research”
combined 30 years of AEC partnering
research developing a taxonomy and establishing links among prominent variables.
He is working with Dr. Sinem Mollaoglu to
advance this research for publication. He can
be contacted at [email protected]
Sean Thomas completed his Bachelor of
Arts in Marketing from Michigan State
University in 2009. In 2013, he completed
his Masters of Science in Construction
Management from Michigan State
University. After graduating, Sean began
a career in the residential homebuilding
industry. He currently works as a Project
Manager for Toll Brothers, a national luxury
homebuilding company.
During his master’s graduate studies,
Sean Thomas worked as a graduate
research assistant, under Dr. Sinem
Mollaoglu. During the course of his studies he received the Thomas H. Burkhardt
Memorial Scholarship, the Albert A. White
Scholarship, and the Michigan Housing
Research Center Endowment Scholarship.
Sean Thomas’s master’s research report
titled “A Collaborative and Team-Oriented
Approach to Construction Project
Delivery—Barriers to Partnering in the
U.S. AEC Industry” reviewed dozens of
prior research to determine what factors were hindering the acceptance of a
valuable project delivery method called
Partnering. The Delphi research method
was used to compile the opinions of
experts in the industry to determine the
most important barriers to the utilization
of Partnering. He can be contacted at
[email protected]
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
83
PAPERS
Communication Behaviors to Implement
Innovations: How Do AEC Teams
Communicate in IPD Projects?
Weida (Aaron) Sun, Former Graduate Assistant, Construction Management Program, School of
Planning, Design, and Construction, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
Sinem Mollaoglu, Associate Professor, Construction Management Program, School of Planning,
Design, and Construction, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
Vernon Miller, Associate Professor, Department of Communication and Department of
Management, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
Brian Manata, PhD Candidate, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
ABSTRACT ■
Implementing any innovation successfully
is a challenge. In addition to commonly
reported climate and values-fit constructs,
this study proposes that communication
behaviors (i.e., monitoring, challenging,
managing, and negotiating) are also vital for
innovation implementation. Via an in-depth
literature review, the study first defines these
metrics. Second, a content analysis of an
integrated project delivery (IPD) case study
report enables the study to explore if these
communication behaviors exist in interorganizational architecture, engineering, and
construction (AEC) project teams. Results
provide four key communication metrics for
innovation implementation, supported by
evidence and examples that illustrate these
metrics in AEC teams implementing IPD as
an innovation.
KEYWORDS: Innovation; project teams;
integrated project delivery; communication; organizations
Project Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 1, 84–96
© 2015 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21478
84
February/March 2015
INTRODUCTION ■
I
nnovation broadly refers to ideas, processes, or products perceived to be
new by individuals or organizations (Rogers, 1995; Slaughter, 1998); it is
significant in the technology, organization, and economic development
of many industries. Process-type innovations are particularly valuable
for organizations in that they enhance existing workflow practices (Vakola &
Rezgui, 2000) and also lead to novel and breakthrough products. In a world of
rapid commoditization and fierce international competition, innovation is a
critical sustainable source of growth, competitive advantage, and new wealth
that can keep an organization vibrant (Harris, 2003).
Innovations have long been needed in the AEC industry, especially to
overcome problems arising from the adversarial nature of traditional contracting (Forbes & Ahmed, 2011) and to improve project performance via
team collaboration (Chinowsky, Diekmann, & Gallotti, 2008; Korkmaz, Riley,
& Horman, 2010; Pocock, Liu, & Tang, 1997; Swarup, 2010). Every participant
of a construction team contributes to a project with different skills; therefore,
it is essential to motivate them to adapt, integrate, learn, and accept innovative ideas (Chinowsky & Taylor, 2007). Technology innovations such as building information modeling (BIM) improve team collaboration by providing
advanced tools (Azhar, Nadeem, Mok, & Leung, 2008). Organizational and
contractual innovations can also foster team collaboration by diminishing
social obstacles such as cultural boundaries (Davis & Songer, 2009). Bossink
(2004) pointed out four drivers of innovation in the construction industry:
environmental pressure, technological capability, knowledge exchange, and
boundary spanning. Of those, boundary spanning in particular represents the
need for innovation to bridge the gap between organizations in project teams
and improve collaboration. Recently developed integrated project delivery
(IPD) aims to respond to this need for effective collaboration.
The IPD concept, presented by Metthews and Howell (2005) as a construction project contractual structure, promotes risk and profit sharing among
project participants to resolve systemic problems of traditional contractual
approach. The American Institute of Architects (AIA and AIA California
Council, 2007) defines IPD as “a project delivery approach that integrates people, systems, business structures and practices into a process that collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights of all participants to optimize project
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
results, increase value to the owner,
reduce waste, and maximize efficiency
through all phases of design, fabrication,
and construction.” This definition highlights the core value that IPD brings to
the AEC industry—team integration. A
briefer definition found on the AIA website identifies IPD as “a project delivery
method distinguished by a contractual
agreement between a minimum of the
owner, constructor and design professional that aligns business interests of
all parties” (AIA, n.d.). This definition
emphasizes the multi-party contract as a
unique feature of IPD. Although project
teams can still benefit from implementing IPD features without a multi-party
agreement (i.e., usually called IPDish in
the industry), the use of a multi-party
contract reduces the risk of major disputes. This study focuses on IPD projects with multi-party contracts and their
implementation in the AEC industry as
an innovation.
Although IPD can significantly benefit the way construction projects are
delivered in the AEC industry (AIA &
AIA California Council, 2007), it is challenging to implement this innovation
successfully to achieve all its benefits
(Klein & Knight, 2005). Therefore, it
is important to investigate the factors
influencing effective innovation implementation of IPD by contract as an
innovation so that: (1) AEC project
teams can harness the benefits of IPD
starting from its earliest use; and (2) further insights to innovation implementation phenomenon are gained within
inter-organizational project teams.
Point of Departure
Klein and Sorra (1996) posit that an
organization’s climate to implement an
innovation and the level of fit with the
organization’s values influence the implementation effectiveness and further affect
innovation effectiveness (Figure 1): (1) A
good climate for an innovation can be
created by improving members’ skill levels, offering incentives to adopt the innovation, and providing easy access to the
innovative approaches; (2) Innovation
values-fit within organizations and project teams is associated with levels of
individuals’ commitments to the innovation; (3) Implementation effectiveness
emphasizes team members’ behaviors
toward the innovation and excludes the
appropriateness of the innovation for a
certain problem in an organization; and
(4) Innovation effectiveness underlines
the improvements achieved in an organization through the adopted innovation
(Klein & Sorra, 1996).
Using Klein and Sorra’s innovation
implementation model (1996), focusing
on ‘IPD by contract’ as an innovation in
the AEC industry, Korkmaz, Miller, and
Sun (2014) studied a longitudinal ethnographic AEC case study of a failed IPD
implementation. The study defined the
metrics of the original model in the context of AEC project teams in detail. The
study also reported on weak climate and
neutral-to-negative innovation-values
fit among team member organizations
in the case study and supported the use
of Klein and Sorra’s model (1996) in
examining innovation implementation
in inter-organizational project teams.
Additional insights in this article showed
that team communication mechanisms
might have also contributed to innovation implementation failure. More
specifically, findings revealed that the
following factors all contributed to the
impediment of IPD implementation in
this case study: (1) the ambiguous role
assignment of the project steward who
was responsible for coordinating team
communication; (2) inactive performance of general contractor in email
and kick-off meeting communications;
and (3) owner trespassing communication boundaries across organizations
without informing other key parties.
Via a case study of successful IPD
implementation, Nofera, Korkmaz, and
Miller (2011) point out that active team
communication (i.e., promoted by a
series of tools and strategies) can foster this innovation’s implementation.
Successful communication practices
included an active project steward to
orchestrate information exchange and
resolve conflicts, and use of daily huddles. Building upon this work, Garcia,
Mollaoglu-Korkmaz, and Miller (2014)
point out that communication mechanisms relating to conflict management
and information-flow monitoring play
an important role in IPD implementation as an innovation.
Recent AEC literature also highlights the importance of communication mechanisms among team members
for effective innovation adoption and
implementation (Adler, 1995; Lewis,
2007; Lewis, Hamel, & Richardson,
2001), suggesting that the explication
of communication behaviors associated
with inter-organizational team implementation should be a high priority.
With this motivation, this article
aims to further elaborate on the communication constructs that play roles in
innovation implementation. More specifically, first, the paper aims to identify
and define communication behaviors
of inter-organizational teams that influence innovation implementation. An
in-depth literature review is key to
this aim. Second, the article verifies
the manifestation of those communication behaviors on IPD implementation
in the AEC industry. A content analysis of successful IPD cases assists this
study in search for evidence to further
explore and define the communication
behaviors, namely, monitoring, managing, challenging, and negotiating, for
innovation implementation. The results
provide a foundation for the revisions
to the well accepted Klein and Sorra
(1996) model in the context of interorganizational project teams.
Methods
To achieve its aims, the study first
conducted an extended review of
communication, organization, and
construction management literature
related to innovation implementation
based on approximately 30 journal articles and book sections. The researchers used academic indexes, including
Google Scholar, ProQuest, and EBSCO
Host to find the relevant literature in
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
85
PAPERS
How Do AEC Teams Communicate in IPD Projects?
main stream journals such as Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, Engineering Project Organization Journal, Journal of Management in
Engineering, Journal of Applied Communication, Journal of Management, and
Project Management Journal®. Through
the literature review, the researchers
aim to explore the four communication metrics by identifying the elements
existing under each metric that explicitly illustrate its features, and further
investigate how those behaviors foster
innovation implementation.
Second, the study presents constructs and metrics pertinent to the
revised Klein and Sorra (1996) model
as applied to AEC teams via a content
analysis. Archival analysis is an effective
approach to answer the “what” questions in research (Yin, 2003). Content
analysis as a way to examine archival
data has long been used in organizational studies and construction management research (Jordan & Javernick-Will,
2012; Yu, Shen, Kelly, & Hunter, 2006;
Gransberg & Molenaar, 2004).
Content analysis for this study was
conducted using the American Institute of Architects (AIA)’s case studies
report (AIA, AIA Minnesota, & School
of Architecture University of Minnesota, 2012), which includes 12 IPD case
study projects with varying project sizes
and locations across the United States.
This reported was developed collectively by AIA, AIA Minnesota, and the
University of Minnesota. In search for a
fitting documentation of IPD cases for
this study, the researchers looked for
detailed and authoritative studies from
industry or academic organizations.
Among the three recent case-study
reports identified in the literature, IPD
Case Studies (AIA et al., 2012) was the
most recent (i.e., published in March,
2012) and comprehensive one. For the
content analysis, this study focused on
cases within the selected report that
contractually followed IPD as an innovation. Due to the lack of a relational
contract, three case studies in the report
were eliminated from our analysis. The
86
February/March 2015
remaining nine IPD cases are located
in nine cities in seven states across the
United States. The project sizes range
from 7,000 square feet to 860,000 square
feet. The cases also cover different
building types—including healthcare
facilities and office buildings—within
the scope of new construction, building
extension, and interior renovation.
The researchers used ATLAS.ti
(2012)—qualitative data-analysis software—to code the data in the IPD Case
Studies (AIA et al., 2012) report. This
software allows users to extract quotes
from the report and analyze qualitative
data with a self-developed multi-level
metrics coding system. This process
contributed to the research rigor and
reliability. During the coding process,
the primary researcher:
1. Created a family—a data group—to
save content analysis data in ATLAS.ti
2. Established a coding system consisting of the communication metrics/
behaviors key to innovation implementation (i.e., monitoring, managing, challenging, and negotiating),
developed via the in-depth literature
review;
3. Selected related sentences/quotations from the case study report and
matched them with the developed
metrics; and
4. Categorized them according to the
appropriate levels/scale anchors (i.e.,
positive, neutral, negative). Table 1
presents an example to demonstrate
how quotations in the content analysis were coded and matched to one of
the communication metrics/behaviors. The quotations categorized
under the positive scale anchor of
each metric indicate the strategies
that contributed to successful IPD
implementation.
5. Interpreted outcomes to generate
findings related to Klein and Sorra’s
innovation implementation model
(1996) and communication behaviors
identified in the literature review in
the context of IPD implementation in
AEC industry.
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
In-Depth Review of Key
Concepts
Integrated Project Delivery, BIM, and
Lean Practices
IPD by contract, as an innovation, ties
major project party interests contractually to project success, enhances collaboration across project teams, and
optimizes project performance (Forbes
& Ahmed, 2011). The drivers for IPD
adoption in the construction industry
(Sive, 2009) are: (1) market demands of
predictable project outcomes relying on
reliable delivery practices; (2) industry desires of effective coordination;
(3) technology drivers that improve
information sharing (e.g., BIM); (4) sustainability features demanding interdisciplinary collaboration; and (5)
collaborative working culture as a rising
trend. In theory, the collaborative process via IPD can increase construction
productivity, facilitate project teams to
achieve higher goals of environmental
sustainability, and bring benefits to all
major project participants (AIA & AIA
California Council, 2007). As an innovative delivery method embracing team
integration, IPD performs efficiently
along with lean construction methods
and BIM to synergize project performance and optimize the interests of all
project participants.
BIM is a powerful tool to speed
project information flow and provide
visual models, which enhance the collaboration among project participants
and make the early involvement of
major contractors more efficient in IPD
(AIA & AIA California Council, 2007).
Reversely, the high level of team collaboration in IPD project makes BIM
implementation easier and more effective (AIA & AIA California Council, 2007)
by resolving boundary-transcending
issues, such as software interoperability and document ownership (Ashcraft,
2011). Recently, Alin, Maunula, Taylor,
and Smeds (2013) reported via a BIMfocused case study that alignments of
task sequence, knowledge-base, and
work allocation are important inter-firm
Communication
Metric/ Behavior
Managing
Definition
Project team members at the management level act cooperatively to resolve differences, communicate with other groups, and
seek to buffer project from external forces (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Morgeson et al., 2010; Redding, 1972).
Evaluation Standard
The extent of the organization’s effectiveness to encourage the project participants to work collaboratively in delivery processes.
Scale Anchors to
Categorize Practices
into One of the
Levels Below
Management strategies effectively encouraged team collaboration, with description or
example provided in the case study report.
Management strategies effectively encouraged
team collaboration, but there is no description or
example provided in the case study report or the
strategies were reported to be not very effective.
No management strategies were used to encourage collaboration or the
strategies were reported
to be not effective at all.
Categorization Level
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Example Quotes
from the Case Study
Report
‘Leadership was further distributed into
a series of cluster groups, which are interdisciplinary groups comprised of architects,
engineers, and trade partners. Cluster groups
were assigned to specific design areas,
for example, structural, exterior, interior,
and medical equipment. Each cluster was
responsible for designing their assigned
segment within the target value using whatever resources required’ (AIA et al., 2012;
Project 1, p. 17).
‘There were also several modifications that
redefined responsibility for particular contract
requirements from “parties” or “team,” in the
collective sense, to one party in particular, such
as the architect, contractor, or owner. These
modifications may seem to compromise the collaborative intent of the contract by putting in place
traditional, isolated decision-making; however,
interviews with the team indicate that these contractual definitions have not negatively affected
collaboration’ (AIA et al., 2012; Project 2, p. 28).
‘In this case, during
construction the
owner’s project manager
was distracted with
another, more
troublesome project and
the team felt that this
might have slowed decision making’ (AIA et al.,
2012; Project 7, p. 77).
Table 1: Sample illustrating the data coding process in the content analysis.
effects for systemic innovation implementation in project networks. IPD
provides a good climate for the interorganizational communication needed
in the alignment process.
Forbes and Ahmed (2011) highlight IPD as a critical project delivery
method that facilitates ‘lean project
delivery’ practices. The literature also
shows the added value of IPD in construction projects that use lean construction strategies (Forbes & Ahmed,
2011; Kim & Dossick, 2011; Matthews
& Howell, 2005). As an example, ‘target
value design’ is a unique tool of lean
construction, used to optimize project
scope and design within set budget
limits with the assistance of major constructors involved in the design phase
(AIA & AIA California Council, 2007).
Like many other lean tools and practices (e.g., daily huddle, pull scheduling), this tool is applicable and truly
valuable for IPD projects.
A healthcare project case study
presents that (a) relational contract
among project team members as used
in IPD, (b) BIM, and (c) lean principles—along with team culture and work
session organizations—are interrelated,
reinforce each other’s effectiveness, and
enhance team integration (Kim & Dossick, 2011). One of the three strategies
mentioned-above can take the leading
role with the support of the other two,
depending on the conditions and goals
in each project.
The Role of Communication in
Innovation Implementation
In an analysis of successful and failed
design/manufacturing relationship innovations, Adler (1995) finds it necessary to have intensive coordination
among inter-organizational team
members to develop effective alternative plans and to solve unforeseen
problems and disputes. Adler (1995)
also emphasizes that increased coordination is needed as the processes or
product results become more complicated. Lewis (2007) highlights that a
true “buy-in” of stakeholders requires
the communication skills of change
agents, who have to tailor messages
they send to each stakeholder to ensure
their effectiveness. Lewis, et al. (2001)
argue that to achieve the buy-in of
stakeholders in innovation implementation, consensus among the parties of
inter-organizational project teams is
needed and can be achieved through
meetings that emphasize equal participation. They also point out that imposing the idea on stakeholders through
a sales blitz is not an effective way
to achieve true consensus. Similarly,
Higgs and Rowland (2011) observe
that message-framing behaviors and
evidence of supportiveness by organization leaders are necessary to promote the inter-organizational teams
expected to collaborate but who hesitated to do so. During the collaboration
process, team performance is not satisfactory when it relates to coalitions,
informal status displays, respect by
representatives for each other’s goals
and processes, holding others accountable for failure to meet deadlines or
quality expectations, or obfuscation
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
87
PAPERS
How Do AEC Teams Communicate in IPD Projects?
during decision making (Lewis, Isbell,
& Koschmann, 2010).
Collaboration is also very important in the AEC industry due to the
interdisciplinary nature of building
projects; however, it is mostly a challenge, because project participants
rarely have previous connections, and
it is difficult to get to know one another
and cooperate closely in a short period
of time. In the AEC industry, project
team sizes vary depending on project
scales. As project scale and team size
increase, information exchange among
team members can become difficult
and complicated due to communication
problems related to: missing information, misunderstanding messages, and
confusion in responsibility distribution
(Poole, 2011). Chinowsky, Diekmann,
and Gallotti (2008) argue that project
success requires both management of
technical components (e.g., schedule,
task, and resource) and effective collaboration among project participants.
Particularly in the AEC industry, the
integration and communication of owners, designers, contractors, and suppliers at the inter-organizational level are
as important as for those at the intraorganizational level (Pekericli, Akinci, &
Karaesmen, 2003). Interaction manners
between members within an organization or among different organizations
of a team can impact the success or
failure of a project (Di Marco et al.,
2010). Dossick and Neff (2011) point out
that “messy talk,” an informal communication strategy among inter-organizational team members, promotes team
integration, communication effectiveness, and further contributes to project
success by optimizing complex-problem
solving.
Another problem impeding communication in construction teams is tier
boundaries that exist between different
levels of team members (Nofera et al.,
2011). Members on project teams from
different organizations can be categorized into three tiers. Tier 1 members
(including owner, designer, and contractor) form the core project team. Tier
88
February/March 2015
2 members represent these Tier 1 members’ home organizations. Together, Tier
1 and Tier 2 members of a project team
are responsible for contacting and managing Tier 3 members, such as consultants, suppliers, and subcontractors.
Three issues come to light when
examining tier boundaries. First, each
party’s responsibilities per tier placement and their unique experiences
create differences in the interpretation
and importance of events and actions,
creating difficulties at times in understanding. Furthermore, time, status, and
geographic differences between different tier members complicate coordination (Poole, 2011) and communication.
Second, Tiers 1 through 3 members
become project stakeholders due to the
values they create for the project (Lewis,
2007). In this case, all stakeholders need
to have their goals aligned and commit to them to make the project a success. Finally, a coordinator is needed
to keep members from different tiers
on the same page (Di Marco, Taylor,
& Alin, 2010; Likert, 1961; Singh, Verbeke, & Rhoads, 1996). Furthermore,
there are circumstances in which a
professional coordinator is not enough
to attain coordinated action; informal
integrators, such as those envisioned by
Likert’s (1961) idea of linking pins, are
needed from Tier 2 and Tier 3 members.
Consequently, close coordination and
communication appear essential across
organizational boundaries to implement IPD and any other innovation
effectively in such project-team organizations.
Several recent investigations and
research summaries (e.g., Druskat &
Wheeler, 2003; Johansson, Miller, &
Hamrin, 2011; Morgeson, DeRue,
& Karam, 2010; Yukl, 2012) of leader,
managerial, and team member behavior
emphasize the several sets of communication-based behaviors that are associated with effective work units. These
behaviors—monitoring,
managing,
challenging, and negotiating—appear
to apply to a variety of organizational
contexts. Monitoring behaviors refer to
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
team members examining internal and
external environments of the work unit
for information or events that might
influence a project and pointing out
problems (Morgeson et al., 2010). Managing behaviors refer to team members on the management level acting
cooperatively to resolve differences,
communicate with other groups, and
seeking to buffer project from external forces (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003;
Morgeson et al., 2010; Redding, 1972).
Challenging behaviors pertain to
team members suggesting new ways
of completing work and contributing
to new ideas (Morgeson et al., 2010;
Redding, 1972). Negotiating behaviors
refer to team members spending time
discussing issues and using tradeoffs/
concessions to devise workable solutions (Meiners & Miller, 2004). These
constructs are not explicitly addressed
in Klein and Sorra’s (1996) theoretical model of innovation implementation. Although they could arguably be
assumed in their model, it is critical to
specify these constructs so that communicative aspects of change, theorized
elsewhere as essential to organizational
innovation (Rogers, 1995; Poole, 2011),
can be formally examined. Therefore,
communication behaviors are proposed
as another influencing construct in this
framework, as shown in Figure 1.
Findings: Communication
Behavior Constructs, Metrics,
and IPD Examples
In this section, we first present findings
of the in-depth literature review related
to the communication behaviors construct and metrics (i.e., monitoring,
managing, challenging, and negotiating). Then, via a content analysis of
nine IPD case studies (AIA et al., 2012),
the examples from the cases are provided to manifest the validity of the
four constructs in AEC project teams.
A series of tables (Tables 2 through 5)
demonstrates the definition, key elements, and associated examples of each
metric.
Climate/Structure for
Implementation
Innovation-Value Fit
Communication Behavior
•
•
•
•
Strategic accuracy
of innovation
adoption
Monitoring
Managing
Challenging
Negotiating
Implementation
Effectiveness
Innovation Effectiveness
Constructs Sequence of Innovation Implementation Process
Reverse Influence on Previous Factors
Figure 1: Innovation implementation model adapted from Klein and Sorra’s (1996) model. (Italicized contents are the proposed additions to
the original model and the focus of this study.)
Definitions
Team members examine internal and external environments of the work unit for information or events that might influence a project
and pointing out problems (Morgeson et al., 2010). Monitoring behaviors consist of monitoring internal team performance and external
environment of an organization (Yukl, 2012).
Elements
Internal monitoring focuses on collecting information of and assessing the working progress and identifying problems emerging in the
task execution process; external monitoring emphases analyzing the peripheral climate and trend of an organization and identify risks it
needs to pay attention and the advantage it should take advantage of (Yukl, 2012).
Examples/
Codings for
the types of
monitoring
“Core group continued to engage the team to stay up to date of progress and to observe team performance, making adjustments and
improvements when needed. For example, leaders noticed that visual metrics were prevalent around the office, but metrics and formats
were not standard between cluster groups. In preparation for construction, leadership requested cluster group leaders coordinate one
set of graphic conventions so that a viewer could immediately comprehend the status of each team and the project as a whole, a rule
referred to as ‘30 seconds at 3 feet’ (AIA et al., 2012, p. 17).” > Internal monitoring
“Subcontractors also provided valuable feedback based on their expertise. For example, there was a condition where the mechanical engineer recommended the removal of a section of the ceiling. Sub-contractors pointed out that removal would require both an
inspection and upgrade of the area to bring it up to code. To avoid these additional costs and delays, an alternate solution was found
(AIA et al., 2012, p. 32).” > Internal monitoring
“The Last Planner System also helps to monitor the effectiveness of the team. According to the owner’s IPD consultant, a University of
Pennsylvania study reported that a traditional project delivery approach typically achieves 50% reliability of work completed and that
last measurement recorded for this IPD team was 80% (AIA et al., 2012, p. 32).” > Internal monitoring
“…target value design was used in conjunction with the budget flexibility provided by the Integrated Form of Agreement (IFOA)
agreement. Accordingly, cluster groups could make trade-offs between building systems ….. [that led to major savings in the budget]
(AIA et al., 2012, p. 20).” > Internal monitoring
Table 2: Examples for the monitoring metric based on the content analysis.
Monitoring
Monitoring internal team performance
(i.e., internal monitoring) and external
organization environment (i.e., external
monitoring) as a function of team leadership is important for a team to reach
its goals (Morgeson et al., 2010; Yukl,
2012). Monitoring is a process of collect-
ing and assessing information. Internal
monitoring provides leaders the chance
to know team members’ performance
on assigned tasks, identify the issues
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
89
PAPERS
How Do AEC Teams Communicate in IPD Projects?
Definitions
Team members at the management level act cooperatively to resolve differences, communicate with other groups, and seek to buffer
project from external forces (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Morgeson et al., 2010). Managing behaviors includes: managing team boundaries and team empowerment.
Elements
Managing team boundary refers to (1) representing the team’s interests and seek support from other organizations (Draskat & Wheeler,
2003; Johansson et al., 2011; Morgeson et al., 2010) and (2) coordinating with other teams to facilitate the improvement of the entire
inter-organizational team (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Morgeson et al., 2010). Empowering team pertains to (1) involving team member in
decision making, (2) delegating authorities to members, respecting members, (3) providing informal and flexible communication opportunities (Draskat & Wheeler, 2003; Johansson et al., 2011; Yukl, 2012).
Examples
“This project employed individuals at multiple leadership levels to manage the integrated team performance through education of the
team on information exchange and process management tools, planning of design and production sequencing, and supporting continuous improvement ideas (AIA et al., 2012, p. 19).” > Managing team boundary (1)
“Leadership was further distributed into a series of cluster groups, which are interdisciplinary groups comprised of architects, engineers,
and trade partners. Cluster groups were assigned to specific design areas, for example, structural, exterior, interior, and medical equipment. Each cluster was responsible for designing their assigned segment within the target value using whatever resources required (AIA
et al., 2012, p. 17).” > Managing team boundary (2)
“The design and [construction] team was held to an overall budget, but was completely free to move money among line items. Money
could be taken from carpeting and added to design fees, for example. The ability of the team to move money between line items also
meant that savings could be achieved by pooling resources. For example, one lift could be used by multiple trades. Clean-up could be
done by lower wage workers at night rather than by highly paid tradesmen during the work day. Savings from one line item could be
placed back into the project in another area (AIA et al., 2012, p. 70).” > Managing team boundary (2) & Empowering (2)
“Core team met weekly to resolve routine issues. The composition of this team varied, sometimes including one or two of the owner/
physicians, sometimes including administrators, but always with the owner, architect and builder represented. The core team [provided
direction to] specialized component teams including building enclosure, MEP, interior fit-out, and LEED compliance. The core team would
resolve issues that arose between the component teams on a continuing basis (AIA et al., 2012, p. 93).” > Empowering (1)
“The IPD consultant brought on board by the owner was experienced with fast track projects, lean construction techniques, and early involvement. The consultant became integral to the project, coordinating with the owner’s legal team through the contract negotiation as well as
facilitating the IPD process and eventually serving as the owner’s representative (AIA et al., 2012, p. 30).” > Managing team boundary (1)
“One major challenge that arose during construction was effectively managed by leveraging the flexibility provided by open, transparent, and cooperative management. After the first elevated floor deck was in place, the field crew discovered a serious conflict between
rebar in the flat slab and plumbing sleeves that needed to penetrate the slab to serve the NICU rooms. In the course of a “huddle”
aimed at finding a solution it was realized that the conflict could be avoided by shifting the entire plan 3½” with respect to the column
grid. ‘How likely are architects and engineers going to volunteer to make that kind of design change in the middle of construction?’ […].
But because the designers were incentivized to be part of the larger team, they were able to make the necessary design and coordination changes in just three days (AIA et al., 2012, p. 83).” > Managing team boundary (2) & Empowering (3)
“By contract, three levels of collaborative teams were established to manage the project. A Project Implementation Team (PIT) was set
up to handle the day-to-day issues of the project. The composition of the PIT included project participants whose work at any given time
could impact the project’s outcome. A Project Management Team (PMT) with representation of the owner, architect, and builder, was
established to manage the project and make decisions by consensus. If issues arose that could not be resolved by the PMT they were
taken to a higher level for final resolution: a Senior Management Team, (SMT) again with representation of the three principal parties
(AIA et al., 2012, p. 68).” > Managing team boundary (1) & Empowering (1)
“Formally, the team held a 2-hour weekly design meeting for the […] remodel project. Early on, meetings were formal with the […]
manager issuing an agenda and meeting minutes, but this quickly developed into a more casual structure with quick emails to notify the
team of topics for which to be prepared. Given the relatively small size of the design and construction community in [….], team members often interacted three or four times per week throughout the course of normal business, providing many opportunities to discuss
issues in-between the regular meeting time (AIA et al., 2012, p. 42).” > Empowering (3)
“The owner’s IPD consultant characterized the underlying values of an integrated team as, ‘everyone steps up when they need to step
up; whether it is a foreman, project manager, estimator, project engineer, or project architect.’ Essentially, the project management team
needs to set up an environment that allows team members to take leadership as needed and create a culture of distributed leadership
and ownership (AIA et al., 2012, p. 30).” > Managing team boundary (2)
“One of the most difficult cultural changes was to move away from a hierarchical structure to a distributed structure where experts are utilized
to lead the process as needed. There is no dictator, which has been a shift for team members accustomed to having a project manager (PM) in
design-build delivery. Normally, the PM would identify conflicts, address complaints, and dictate the course of action. In the integrated approach
[IPD], the team talks to each other and collectively identifies solutions (AIA et al., 2012, p. 41).” > Managing team boundary (1) & Empowering (1)
Table 3: Examples for the managing metric based on the content analysis.
90
February/March 2015
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Definitions
Team members suggest new ways of completing work and contribute to new ideas (Morgeson et al., 2010).
Elements
Challenging behaviors compose of supporting members who challenge existing approaches, known as intellectual stimulation and
encouraging members to challenge their performance by providing challenging tasks and mutual respect environment that promoting
innovative ideas (Morgeson et al., 2010; Yukl, 2012).
Examples
“One of the outcomes of the integrated, collaborative culture was a team that was willing to question almost anything. According to
the project architect, ‘you don’t have to listen to the people who say, you know we’ve never been able to do that so let’s not do it’ (AIA
et al., 2012, p. 22).” The open culture of the project team encouraged the members’ innovative thinking in the innovation implementation
process. > Encouraging members
“An example of benefit from the interdisciplinary cluster group approach was a new design for patient lifts. The owner decided late in
the project that they would like to have a patient lift in every room; however this was not feasible given the structural bracing, space
and coordination requirements of the standard system. A junior level project engineer from the contractor asked why they couldn’t
use the booms already required for the medical monitoring devices. The boom manufacturer agreed it might work and this solution is
currently under study, illustrating the team’s willingness to explore ideas from any member (AIA et al., 2012, p. 22).” In this example,
although the project engineer was not specialized in that area, he challenged the standard way and provided a potential solution for the
problem. > Supporting members
Table 4: Examples for the challenging metric based on the content analysis.
Definitions
Team members spend time discussing issues and use tradeoffs/concessions to devise workable solutions (Meiners & Miller, 2004).
Elements
Formal negotiation behaviors facilitate the information exchange and making mutual concessions in negotiation process. Personal
relational tones of participants make the negotiating process more direct.
Examples
“… after several months of contract negotiations, the owner acknowledged that their understanding of IPD, particularly with regard
to the legal terms, was not aligned with the architect and contractor. To facilitate resolving these differences, the owner brought in an
IPD consultant. The owner’s IPD consultant suggested using the recently released AIA C-191 Standard Form Multi-Party Agreement for
Integrated Project Delivery as the basis for agreement. All parties felt the AIA document represented the majority of what they were
trying to do with their custom agreement; however the contract continued to be negotiated for an additional 8 months (AIA et al., 2012,
p. 26).” > Negotiation
“There was a general consensus that a more precise method of distinguishing design refinements from scope changes from contingency items was needed. Participants reported several instances in which there was disagreement about which bucket should pay for
a particular item. But in the spirit of collaboration and feeling of trust that prevailed these were resolved with frank discussion and
give-and-take (AIA et al., 2012, p. 92).” > Negotiation
“An example of how this collaborative decision making process worked came up during concrete placement. The builder proposed that
concrete maturity testing (CMT) be used to measure strength as opposed to the traditional method of successively testing cylinder samples. With CMT, sensors are embedded in the concrete and data is read from the outside. The advantage is that forms can be stripped
earlier and time saved. Although this technique has long been used for pavement testing, it was a relatively new concept in structural
concrete. Owner, architect, structural engineer, and builder discussed it, weighed the benefits and risks and ultimately decided against
it. As ….. said: ‘With this process, it’s important to reach consensus. You just can’t push people beyond their comfort level’ (AIA et al.,
2012, p. 83).” > Negotiation
“Should any claim arise in connection with the agreement, the parties, including all consultants and subcontractors, are required to
follow the dispute resolution procedure defined in Article 41 of the Integrated Form of Agreement (IFOA) (AIA et al., 2012, p. 16).”
> Formal negotiation
Table 5: Examples for negotiating metric based on content analysis.
existing in the task execution process,
and investigate the root cause of the
issues, through which the leaders can
gain a good understanding of the teams
and explore approaches to resolving the
issues (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003). External monitoring enables leaders to pay
attention to the changes and the opportunities existing around their teams so
that they can act proactively to avoid
threats and take advantage of opportunities. Table 2 summarizes the key findings from the literature and example
quotes from our content analysis.
In most case studies, especially internal monitoring was reported to be used in
examining team performance and identifying design and construction issues;
however, it was not always just the traditional leaders’ responsibility. Monitoring
in some cases was executed by higherlevel management teams, members from
different disciplines and organizations
in others, and using monitoring tools
and mechanisms in many. For example,
in one case, higher-level ‘core group’
members attended some meetings of the
lower-level ‘cluster groups’ to keep up
with team progress and provide feedback
on team performance. In another case,
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
91
PAPERS
How Do AEC Teams Communicate in IPD Projects?
subcontractors got involved early on in
the design process and pointed out the
problems in design from their perspectives. In both situations, timely feedback
enabled by monitoring, contributed to
project success.
In a considerable number of the
cases, lean tools (AIA et al., 2012), such
as ‘Last Planner System’ and ‘Target
Value Design,’ were used to improve
team productivity. Last Planner System
(LPS) is a lean construction tool that
consists of four types of construction
schedules to provide reliable workflow
(Ballard, 2000). The weekly work plan
(i.e., the most detailed schedule) is created by construction trades and helps
monitor the commitment they made
on the amount of work they can finish. In addition to monitoring the team
internally, the influence of a series of
external factors, such as material delivery time, equipment availability, other
on-going projects, are also monitored
in LPS. Target value design is a strategy
that aims to perform the design based
on a certain estimate to control project
cost and meet owner’s requirements for
design (Forbes & Ahmed, 2011). Table
2 presents examples on how these systems enabled effective internal monitoring in some of the reported cases.
Managing
Managing boundaries refers to facilitate
information exchange and interaction
among teams (Morgeson et al., 2010)
within an organization and among organizations within an inter-organizational
project team; and empowering team
members to promote collaboration
(Draskat & Wheeler, 2003) enhance team
performance. Managing boundaries in a
project team is a two-way action. On
one hand, team leaders represent their
teams’ interests and seek resources/
support from outside of their team to
improve organizational performance.
On the other hand, team leaders guide
their organizations to make appropriate
decisions by which teams can coordinate with others and bring benefits to
the whole inter-organizational project
92
February/March 2015
team (Draskat & Wheeler, 2003; Morgeson et al., 2010).
Empowering, a critical element of
team management, enables team members to be deeply involved in team discussions and decision making (Yukl,
2012). Two types of empowering exist:
(1) consultation (i.e., team members are
consulted for suggestions and ideas in
decision making); and (2) delegation
(i.e., enables team members to make
their own decisions for the team) (Yukl,
2012). Empowering is considered as an
important leadership function in other
literature as well (Draskat & Wheeler,
2003; Johansson et al., 2011; Morgeson
et al., 2010). Authority delegation is a
stronger empowering approach and
requires leaders to give team members
the flexibility and know the appropriate
situations to delegate authorities (Draskat & Wheeler, 2003). Johansson et al.
(2011) posit that flexible and informal
communication opportunities also help
effective team management. Table 3 lists
the literature review findings and provides supporting examples gained from
the content analysis of the case study
report (AIA et al., 2012).
Content analysis shows that team
boundary management and empowering behaviors existed in IPD project
teams. Among the strategies used to
improve team management, the majority of the cases reflect aspects of team
boundary management (i.e., seeking
external support and coordinating with
other teams). In all cases, frequent faceto-face meetings provided opportunities
for team members from different backgrounds to collaborate, identify issues,
ask for support, and discuss solutions.
To make meetings more efficient, some
project teams involved relevant consultants to help with issue resolution when
they occurred. This was reported to
encourage team members to take leadership and have a sense of ownership.
A variety of team structures also
played critical roles in effective IPD
team management. Among those,
external leadership is manifested with
extensive examples. For example, in one
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
of the cases, a structure design consulting firm’s project managers and a
mechanical subcontractor’s leader represented the structural engineers and
the mechanical trades, respectively.
These external leaders acted as a bridge
to connect their own team with others
in the inter-organizational project team
to ask for resources and provide support. In some other cases, third-party
consultants were hired to act as project coordinators, promote information
exchange among team members, and
support team members on IPD training.
In one case, multi-level team structure
described earlier in the monitoring section supported management especially
when conflicts arose. Distributed leadership was reported in one of the cases:
In this project, team members were able
to discuss problems and make decisions
collectively without anyone holding the
authority. Finally, in cases that involved
large AEC projects, ‘cluster groups’ consisting of members from different fields
were created to work on certain design
areas. These ‘cluster groups’ reduce the
dependency on information exchange,
improved team interactions, and contributed to team collaboration.
Challenging
Challenging behavior includes supporting team members who challenge current systems (i.e., intellectual
stimulation) and encouraging them to
explore new approaches, is a significant
leadership function that contributes to
better team performance (Morgeson
et al., 2010; Yukl, 2012). Keller (1992)
reveals that intellectual stimulation can
improve project budget, schedule, and
quality; it further shows that intellectual
stimulation is positively related to profitability of research and development
team projects (Keller, 2006). Johansson
et al. (2011) highlight the fact that intellectual stimulation is a characteristic of
transformational leaders who respect
team members’ thoughts and value
team collaboration and commitment.
A broader form of team leaders’ challenging behavior proactively creates
a climate of ‘psychological safety and
mutual trust’; encourages team members to think outside the box and use
innovative approaches to solving problems (Yulk, 2012). Pratt and Jiambalvo
(1981) report that assigning challenging tasks to teams increase team satisfaction, motivation, and performance.
A brief summary of the literature review
findings and content analysis examples
are listed in Table 4.
Negotiating
Negotiating behaviors aim to resolve
conflicts or disputes and provide appropriate solutions via discussions and
mutual concessions (Meiners & Miller,
2004). Mutual concessions, elaboration,
and directness of discussions are considered the dimensions of negotiation
(Meiner & Miller, 2004). Meiners and
Miller (2004) investigate the effect of
formality and relational tone on supervisor–subordinate negotiation and they
posit that a formal setting is positively
related to negotiation elaboration and
concession, which means that a formal
environment leads to a deeper conversation and make it easier for participants to offer concessions. They
also conclude that a personalized and
friendly relational tone improves the
directness of negotiation and makes it
more efficient to identify the issues and
find effective solutions. In the innovation implementation process, effective
negotiation is essential considering that
more disagreement might emerge in a
relative unfamiliar system. Table 5 summarizes the key elements of negotiation
and supporting examples via IPD case
studies content analysis.
To ensure conflicts were resolved
effectively, a dispute resolution procedure with the involvement of multiple levels of leadership was commonly used and
reported in the analyzed cases. Although
very few disputes arose, formal negotiation procedures helped with dispute and
conflict resolution and protected teams
from falling apart. The content analysis
did not bring insights to relational tones
and negotiation directness.
Communication Behaviors in Relation
to Climate and Values-Fit Constructs
The integrated setting of IPD and effective tools provide a more flexible climate
for management and team interaction.
The example below shows how the content analysis in this study revealed the
relations among various constructs of
innovation implementation and communication behaviors. In one of the
cases reported (with materials in italics
inserted):
“… target value design [i.e., monitoring,
climate] was used in conjunction with
the budget flexibility provided by the
Integrated Form of Agreement (IFOA)
agreement [i.e., climate, negotiating].
Accordingly, cluster groups [i.e., managing] could make trade-offs between
building systems [i.e., value-fit/
commitment; managing-empowering;
implementation effectiveness]; they
spent an additional US$1 million on
electrical systems but saved US$5
million on mechanical [i.e., innovation
effectiveness]. A non-integrated contract
would require contract renegotiation,
reductions in scope, and other time
consuming obstacles [i.e., innovation
effectiveness] (AIA et al., 2012; p. 20).”
Because of the flexibility provided
by open, transparent, and cooperative
management in this case, the project
team was able to resolve a serious conflict quickly with the help of committed
designers in the middle of the construction phase.
Other observed relations among
the revised innovation implementation
model constructs (Figure 1) are as follows:
• In most of the reported cases, core
project teams hired contractors early
on in the process; selected those
committed to IPD; and provided
rewards for improved project success and teamwork. These characteristics, consistent with the climate
and values-fit constructs of Klein
and Sorra’s (1996) innovation implementation model, also contribute to
monitoring.
• Project leaders are key to successful
managing. With their key roles to easily access both sides of organizational
boundaries in inter-organizational
project teams and facilitate information exchange and coordination; team
leaders’ commitment to innovation
(i.e., values-fit [Klein & Sorra, 1996]) is
vital for the true and constant collaboration to happen (i.e., managing).
• Comparisons among Tables 2 through 5
show that effective ‘managing’ is a
potentially stronger influence on IPD
implementation. These tables illustrate
relatively higher numbers of managing
strategies among all four communication constructs.
• Providing a climate where team members have easy access to the innovation (Klein & Sorra, 1996) makes the
informal communication easier (i.e.,
managing-empowering).
• IPD aims to facilitate team integration, open goal sharing, and transparent team communication. Therefore,
strong climate and values-fit (Klein &
Sorra, 1996) for IPD in a project team
will provide good conditions for the
emerging of challenging behaviors.
• The content analysis results reflect that
in IPD projects, negotiating is important to resolving conflicts and disputes
and keeping a positive climate for innovation implementation. In this case, a
mutual-trust team climate (Korkmaz,
Miller & Sun, 2012) and team member’s commitment to IPD (Klein &
Sorra, 1996) ensure effective discussions, which leads to decisions for the
best interests of project success.
Discussions
Study results show that, the significance
of management to team collaboration and innovation implementation is
strongly supported by the literature. The
importance of intensive coordination to
inter-organizational team performance
(Adler, 1995), the positive relationship
between organizational leaders’ supportiveness and team collaboration (Higgs
& Rowland, 2011), and the function of
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
93
PAPERS
How Do AEC Teams Communicate in IPD Projects?
equal communication and participation
on enhancing team members’ commitment (Richardson, 2001) are all reflected
in the elements (i.e., managing team
boundary and empowering) of the ‘managing behaviors’ construct.
From the perspective of AEC project
teams, enhancing the team collaboration highlighted in the managing construct is consistent with the previous
literature. Theories indicate that effective inter-organizational collaboration
among AEC team members is critical for
project success (Chinowsky et al., 2008;
Di Marco et al., 2010; Pekericli et al.,
2003). Dossick and Neff ’s (2011) “messy
talk” theory point out the value of
informal team communication to team
integration. Overall, effective communication as a starting point improves
team collaboration, which furthers contribute to project success. Our content
analysis on IPD cases (AIA et al., 2012)
demonstrates that intensive team communication and interaction optimized
by the ‘integration’ theme of IPD make
the implementation of this innovative
project delivery method easier. The
content analysis also indicates that positive climate and innovation-values fit
facilitate all communication behaviors
(i.e., managing, monitoring, challenging, and negotiating). The managing
(Draskat & Wheeler, 2003; Morgeson
et al., 2010) and challenging (Yulk,
2012) theories support the importance
of climate and innovation-values fit to
these two behaviors.
Furthermore, as a contribution to
the innovation implementation theory,
this study clearly presents the four communication factors (i.e., monitoring,
managing, challenging, and negotiating) that promote innovation implementation in light of the innovative IPD
implementation in AEC projects, which
was lacking in previous research. The
article, continuing on the path of the
authors’ previous work (Korkmaz et
al., 2014; Nofera et al., 2011), further
revises Klein and Sorra’s (1996) innovation implementation model by detailing how communication constructs
94
February/March 2015
contribute to innovation effectiveness
and their potential relationships with
climate and innovation-values fit constructs. The findings are also valuable
for industry practitioners because they
provide insights with examples of successful practices to show how interorganizational team communication
can be improved to enhance IPD implementation as an innovation within AEC
teams.
Conclusions
This article aims to identify and define
the communication behaviors that
influence innovation implementation
in inter-organizational teams and manifest those behaviors in the context of
IPD implementation in the AEC industry. Via the in-depth review of communication and other relevant literature
and the content analysis of an IPD
report on case studies (AIA et al., 2012),
the researchers present the following
findings: (1) Monitoring, managing,
challenging, and negotiating behaviors
of team communication can improve
team performance and promote innovation implementation in inter-organizational teams; (2) In AEC projects,
these four behaviors are observed to
have a potentially positive relationship
with the effective implementation of the
innovative IPD method; (3) Among the
four behaviors, the managing behavior
shows a stronger potential in promoting
team collaboration and improved performance in IPD projects, exhibited via
a higher number of positive examples/
quotes in study cases; and (4) Climate
and innovation-values fit show a positive relationship potential with the four
communication behaviors.
Monitoring team performance and
innovation implementation progress
helps the team to understand the status of execution process, assess team
performance, and further identify
issues or potential improvement space.
Managing team boundaries brings the
resources teams need for innovation
implementation and enhance integration with other teams in the project.
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
This facilitates the innovation implementation at a wider range. Challenging existing mechanisms and/or leaders
and encouraging inventive ideas are
congruent with the activities of implementing innovation. This behavior also
cultivates the open culture of respecting
and accepting novel thinking. Effective
negotiation helps teams resolve conflicts and reach consensus, especially
during the innovation implementation
process when relatively more disagreements might appear, considering that
teams have less experience using the
new method.
This article is a theory-based qualitative study. The researchers identify
four communication behaviors and the
supporting key elements influencing
innovation implementation and provide
examples to manifest the proposed theories in the context of the implementation
of the innovative IPD method in the AEC
industry via a content analysis. There
are only nine IPD case studies included
in the report used for content analysis,
which limits the generalizability of the
theories. In addition, due to the use of
an existing report, the amount and type
of information available are limited as
well. For example, the researchers are
not able to know how formality and relational tones of negotiation and external
monitoring influence IPD implementation due to the lack of information on
hand. To investigate the generalizability
of the theories in IPD implementation,
future research should collect additional
data from larger samples. With the foundation set up in this study, future studies
will continue to shed light on communication behaviors’ impact on innovation
implementation.
Acknowledgment
This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. SES-1231206.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions
or recommendations expressed in this
material are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the
National Science Foundation.
References
Adler, P. (1995). Interdepartmental interdependence and coordination: The case
of the design/manufacturing interface.
Organization Science, 6(2), 147–167.
AIA and AIA California Council.
(2007). Integrated Project Delivery: A
Guide. Retrieved from The American
Institute of Archtects: http://info.aia.org/
SiteObjects/files/IPD_Guide_2007.pdf
AIA, AIA Minnesota, and School of
Architecture University of Minnesota.
(2012). IPD Case Studies. Retrieved from
The American Institute of Architects: http://
info.aia.org/aia/ipdcasestudies2011.cfm
Alin, P., Maunula, A. O., Taylor, J. E., &
Smeds, R. (2013). Aligning misaligned
systemic innovations: Probing inter-firm
effects development in project networks.
Project Management Journal, 44(1), 77–93.
Ashcraft Jr, H. W. (2011). Negotiating an
integrated project delivery agreement.
Construction Law, 31, 17.
ATLAS.ti. (2012, June). Features
Overview. Retrieved from Altas ti.: http://
www.atlasti.com/features.html
Azhar, S., Nadeem, A., Mok, J. Y. N.,
& Leung, B. H. Y. (2008 , August 4-5).
Building information modeling (bim):
A new paradigm for visual interactive
modeling and simulation for construction projects. In, First International
Conference on Construction in
Developing Countries (ICCIDC-I).
Ballard, G. (2000). “The last planner
system of production control.” A thesis
submitted to the Faculty of Engineering
of The University of Birmingham for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Bossink, B. A. G. (2004). Managing
drivers of innovation in construction networks. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 130(3), 337–345.
Chinowsky, P., Diekmann, J., &
Gallotti, V. (2008 , October). Social
network model for construction.
Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 804–812.
Chinowsky, P., & Taylor, J. E. (2007).
Project networks; leadership, learning
and development, CIB Working
Commission W065 Organisation and
Management of Construction.
Education. Department of Media and
Communication. Mid Sweden University.
Davis, K. A., & Songer, A. (2009).
Resistance to IT change in the AEC
industry: Are the stereotypes true?
Journal of Construction Engineering
Management, 135, 1324–1334.
Jordan, E., & Javernick-Will, J. (2012).
Measuring community resilience and
recovery: A content analysis of indicators. Construction Research Congress.
American Society of Civil Engineering.
Di Marco, M. K., Taylor, J. E., & Alin,
P. (2010, July). Emergence and role of
cultural boundary spanners in global
engineering project networks. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 123–132.
Keller, R. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of researchand-development project groups. Journal
of Management, 489–501.
Dossick, C. S., & Neff, G. (2011). Messy
talk and clean technology: communication,
problem-solving and collaboration using
Building Information Modeling. Engineering
Project Organization Journal, 1(2), 83–93.
Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003).
Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work
teams. Academy of Management Journal,
46, 435–457.
Forbes, L., & Ahmed, S. (2011). Modern
construction lean project delivery and
integrated practices. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press.
Garcia, A. J., Mollaoglu-Korkmaz, S.,
& Miller, V. D. (2014). Progress loops in
interorganizational project teams: An
IPD case. Construction Research Congress
2014, 2011–2020.
Gransberg, D., & Molenaar, K. (2004).
Analysis of owner’s design and construction quality management approaches
in design/build projects. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 162–169.
Harris, C. (2003). Building innovative
teams: Strategies and tools for developing
and integrating high performance innovative groups. Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2011). What
does it take to implement change successfully? A study of the behavior of successful
change leaders. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 47(3), 309–335.
Johansson, C., Miller, V., & Hamrin, S.
(2011). Communication leadership theories, concepts, and central communication
behaviors. Sundsvall, Sweden: CORE—
Communication, Organization, Research,
Keller, R. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study
of research and development project
team performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 202–210.
Klein, K., & Knight, A. (2005).
Innovation implementation: Overcoming
the challenge. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 243–246.
Klein, K. J. and Sorra, J. S. (1996). The
challenge of innovation implementation.
Academy of Management Review, 21,
1055–1080.
Korkmaz, S., Miller, V., & Sun, W.
(2012). Assessing key dimension to
effective innovation implementation in
inter-organizational teams: An IPD case.
Engineering Project Organization Journal.
Korkmaz, S., Miller, V. D., & Sun, W.
(2014). Assessing key dimensions to effective innovation implementation in interorganizational project teams: an Integrated
Project Delivery case. Engineering Project
Organization Journal, 4(1), 17–30.
Korkmaz, S., Riley, D., and Horman, M.
(2010). Piloting evaluation metrics for
sustainable high-performance building
project delivery. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 136(8),
877–885.
Lewis, L. K. (2007). An organizational
stakeholder model of change implementation communication. Communication
Theory, 17(2), 176–204.
Lewis, L. K., Isbell, M. G., & Koschmann,
M. (2010). Collaborative tensions:
Practitioners’ experiences of interorganizational relationships. Communication
Monographs, 77(4), 460–479.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
95
PAPERS
How Do AEC Teams Communicate in IPD Projects?
Lewis, L. R., Hamel, S. A., & Richardson,
B. R. (2001). Communicating change
to nonprofit stakeholders: Models and
predictors of implementers’ approaches.
Management Communication Quarterly,
15(1), 5–41.
Singh, J., Verbeke, W., & Rhoads, G. K.
(1996, July). Do organizational practices
matter in role stress processes? A study
of direct and moderating effects for
marketing-oriented boundary spanners.
Journal of Marketing, 60, 69–86.
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Sive, T. (2009). White Paper-Integrated
project delivery: Reality and promise, a strategist’s guide to understanding and marketing IPD, Society for Marketing Professional
Services Foundation, July 2009.
Matthews, O., & Howell, G. (2005,
April). Integrated project delivery: An
example of relational contracting. Lean
Construction Journal, 2(1), 46–61.
Meiners, E. B., & Miller, V. D. (2004).
Communcative and contextual
dimensions of superior/subordinate
negotiation episodes. Western Journal of
Communication, 68(3), 302–321.
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam,
E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A
functional approach to understanding structures and processes. Journal of
Management, 36, 5–39.
Slaughter, S. (1998). Models of construction innovation. ASCE Journal of
Construction Engineering & Management,
124(3), 226–231.
Swarup, L. (2010). Influence of project
delivery methods on achieving sustainable
high performance buildings (Master’s
thesis, Michigan State University).
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research:
Design and methods (third edition).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Nofera, W., Korkmaz, S., & Miller, V. D.
(2011, August 9-11). Innovative features
of integrated project delivery shaping
project team communication. The 2011
Engineering Project Organizations
Conference. Denver, CO.
Yu, A., Shen, Q., Kelly, J., & Hunter, K.
(2006). Investigation of critical success factors in construction project
briefing by way of content analysis.
Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 1178–1186.
Pocock, J., Liu, L. Y., & Tang, W. H. -I
(1997). Prediction of project performance
based on degree of interaction. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 13, 63.
Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership
behavior: What we know and what
questions need more attention. Academy
of Management Perspectives, 66–85.
Pekericli, M., Akinci, B., & Karaesmen,
I. (2003). Modeling information dependencies in construction project network
organizations. In, Proceedings, Towards a
Vision for Information Technology in Civil
Engineering, Nashville, TN: ASCE.
Vakola, M., & Rezgui, Y. (2000).
Organizational learning and innovation in the construction industry. The
Learning Organization, 7(4), 174–183.
Poole, M. S. (2011). Communication. In
S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol.
3, pp. 249–270). Washington, DC: APA.
Pratt, J., & Jiambalvo, J. (1981).
Relationships between leader behaviors
and audit team performance. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 133–142.
Redding, W. C. (1972). Communication
with organizations. New York, NY:
Industrial.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. New York, NY: Free Press.
96
February/March 2015
Weida (Aaron) Sun received a Master
of Science degree from Construction
Management Program of School of
Planning, Design, and Construction at
Michigan State University in 2013. His
thesis focused on factors influencing effective implementation of integrated project
delivery in project team organizations as
an innovation in the construction industry.
Upon graduation, he started working in
the residential construction industry at
Mayberry Homes, Lansing, MI. He can be
contacted at [email protected] or
[email protected]
■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Sinem Mollaoglu (PhD, Penn State) is
an Associate Professor of Construction
Management at School of Planning,
Design, and Construction at Michigan State
University. She is the recipient of National
Association of Home Builders’ ‘National
Educator of the Year Award, 2013’ in outstanding junior faculty category; and the
Associated General Contractors of America’s
‘2014 National Fellowship’ for faculty internship in the construction industry (among
the selected three across the nation). Her
leadership roles in academia include serving
as a specialty editor of sustainable construction at the editorial board of ASCE’s
Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management. Her vision is to contribute
to the improvement of sustainable project
delivery processes through investigation of
team integration phenomenon and assessment systems for green buildings at the
national and international levels. She can be
contacted at [email protected]
Vernon Miller (PhD, University of Texas
at Austin) is an Associate Professor in
the Departments of Communication and
Management at Michigan State University.
His research focuses on the communicative aspects of the employment interview,
organizational entry, and role negotiation
and appears in journals such as Journal
of Applied Communication Research,
Management Communication Quarterly,
Human Communication Research, and
Academy of Management Review. He is
the co-author of two books with Prof. Mike
Gordon of Rutgers University, Conversations
about Job Performance: A Communication
Perspective on the Appraisal Process and
Meeting the Challenges of Human Resource
Management: A Communication Perspective.
He can be contacted at [email protected]
Brian Manata is working towards his PhD in
Communication and is in the Department of
Communication at Michigan State University.
His interests include group dynamics and
communication, teams in organizations, and
newcomer socialization. He can be contacted
at [email protected] or [email protected]
Index of 2014
Project Management Journal ®
Papers and Authors
1. A Comprehensive Framework for Sustainable Project
Portfolio Selection Based on Structural Equation Modeling.
Kaveh Khalili-Damghani and Madjid Tavana. April/May, 83–97.
2. A Hybrid Approach to Quantitative Software Project
Scheduling Within Agile Frameworks. Michael Jahr. June/
July, 35–45.
3. A New Decision Making Model for Subcontractor
Selection and Its Order Allocation. Hamidreza Abbasianjahromi, Hossein Rajaie, Eghbal Shakeri, and Farzad Chokan.
February/March, 55–66.
4. Ambidexterity and Knowledge Strategy in Major
Projects: A Framework and Illustrative Case Study. Neil
Turner, Harvey Maylor, Liz Lee-Kelley, Tim Brady, Elmar
Kutsch, and Stephen Carver. October/November, 44–55.
5. Can Agile Project Management Be Adopted by Industries Other than Software Development? Edivandro C. Conforto, Fabian Salum, Daniel C. Amaral, Sérgio Luis da Silva,
and Luís Fernando Magnanini de Almeida. June/July, 21–34.
6. Corporate Innovation Culture and Dimensions of
Project Portfolio Success: The Moderating Role of National
Culture. Barbara N. Unger, Johannes Rank, and Hans Georg
Gemünden. December/January, 38–57.
7. Developing a Framework for Embedding Useful
Project Management Improvement Initiatives in Organizations. Gabriela Fernandes, Stephen Ward, and Madalena
Araújo. August/September, 81–104.
8. Does Project Management Affect Business
Productivity? Evidence From Australian Small to Medium
Enterprises. Julien Pollack and Daniel Adler. December/
January, 17–24.
9. Ethics, Trust, and Governance in Temporary Organizations. Ralf Müller, Rodney Turner, Erling S. Andersen,
Jingting Shao, and Øyvind Kvalnes. August/September, 39–54.
10. Evidence-Based Scope for Reducing “Fire-Fighting” in
Project Management. Stephen Wearne. February/March, 67–75.
11. Exploring Project Knowledge Acquisition and
Exchange Through Action Research. Chivonne Algeo. June/
July, 46–56.
12. Influence of Trade-Level Coordination Problems on
Project Productivity. Bon-Gang Hwang, Xianbo Zhao, and
Thi Hong Van Do. October/November, 5–14.
Project Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 1, 97–98
© 2015 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21467
13. Innovation Portfolio Management as a Subset of
Dynamic Capabilities: Measurement and Impact on
Innovative Performance. Hélène Sicotte, Nathalie Drouin,
and Hélène Delerue. December/January, 58–72.
14. Interactions Between Organizational Culture, Trustworthiness, and Mechanisms for Inter-Project Knowledge
Sharing. Anna Wiewiora, Glen Murphy, Bambang Trigunarsyah, and Kerry Brown. April/May, 48–65.
15. Linking Individual-Level Knowledge Sourcing to
Project-Level Contributions in Large R&D-Driven ProductDevelopment Projects. Erik Lundmark and Magnus Klofsten.
December/January, 73–82.
16. Main Determinations of Female Entrepreneurs in the
Construction Industry in Malaysia. Mastura Jaafar, Raihanah
Othman, and Alireza Jalali. February/March, 76–86.
17. Making Innovation Happen in a Megaproject:
London’s Crossrail Suburban Railway System. Andrew
Davies, Samuel MacAulay, Tim DeBarro, and Mark Thurston.
December/January, 25–37.
18. Management Control of Project Portfolio Uncertainty: A Managerial Role Perspective. Tuomas Korhonen,
Teemu Laine, and Miia Martinsuo. February/March, 21–37.
19. Managing Structural and Dynamic Complexity: A
Tale of Two Projects. Tim Brady and Andrew Davies. August/
September, 21–38.
20. Mutual Caring—Resolving Habituation Through
Awareness: Supporting Meaningful Learning From Projects.
Kam Jugdev and Paul Wishart. April/May, 66–82.
21. Perspectives on the Formal Authority Between
Project Managers and Change Managers. Julien Pollack and
Chivonne Algeo. October/November, 27–43.
22. Project Leadership in Becoming: A Process Study of
an Organizational Change Project. Johann Packendorff, Lucia
Crevani, and Monica Lindgren. June/July, 5–20.
23. Project Management–Related Software Systems and
Their Legal Protection: Emergence, Distribution, and Relevance
of Business Method Patents. Helen Niemann, Martin G.
Moehrle, and Mey Mark Meyer. February/March, 38–54.
24. Project Success and Executive Sponsor Behaviors:
Empirical Life Cycle Stage Investigations. Timothy J.
Kloppenborg, Debbie Tesch, and Chris Manolis. February/
March, 9–20.
25. Project System Vulnerability to Political Risks in
International Construction Projects: The Case of Chinese
Contractors. Xiaopeng Deng, Low Sui Pheng, and Xianbo
Zhao. April/May, 20–33.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
97
INDEX
Papers and Authors
26. Risk Management in Project Portfolios Is More Than
Managing Project Risks: A Contingency Perspective on Risk
Management. Juliane Teller, Alexander Kock, and Hans Georg
Gemünden. August/September, 67–79.
27. Stakeholder Management Strategies and Practices
During a Project Course. Pernille Eskerod and Anne Live
Vaagaasar. October/November, 71–85.
28. Stakeholders’ Attributes, Behaviors, and DecisionMaking Strategies in Construction Projects: Importance and
Correlations in Practice. Rebecca J. Yang, Yaowu Wang, and
Xiao-Hua Jin. June/July, 74–90.
29. Strategies for Improving Codes of Ethics
Implementation in Construction Organizations. T. Olugbenga
Oladinrin and Christabel Man-Fong Ho. October/November,
15–26.
30. Synchronization of Innovation and Vehicle Projects:
Proposal of a Management Tool at Renault SAS. Thierry Gidel,
Gael Buet, and Dominique Millet. June/July, 57–73.
Abbasianjahromi, Hamidreza (3)
Adler, Daniel (8)
Algeo, Chivonne (11, 21)
Amaral, Daniel C. (5)
Andersen, Erling S. (9)
Araújo, Madalena (7)
Brady, Tim (4, 19)
Brown, Kerry (14)
Buet, Gael (30)
Carver, Stephen (4)
Chiocchio, François (31)
Chokan, Farzad (3)
Conforto, Edivandro C. (5)
Crevani, Lucia (22)
da Silva, Sérgio Luis (5)
Davies, Andrew (17, 19)
DeBarro, Tim (17)
Delerue, Hélène (13)
Deng, Xiaopeng (25)
Drouin, Nathalie (13)
Eskerod, Pernille (27)
Fernandes, Gabriela (7)
Flyvbjerg, Bent (36)
Gemünden, Hans Georg (6, 26)
Gidel, Thierry (30)
Hobbs, Brian (31)
Hwang, Bon-Gang (12)
Jaafar, Mastura (16)
Jahr, Michael (2)
Jalali, Alireza (16)
Jin, Xiao-Hua (28)
98
31. The Difficult but Necessary Task of Developing a
Specific Project Team Research Agenda. François Chiocchio
and Brian Hobbs. December/January, 7–16.
32. The Effect of Optimism Bias on the Decision to
Terminate Failing Projects. Werner G. Meyer. August/
September, 7–20.
33. The Effects of Incentive Mechanism on Knowledge
Management Performance in China: The Moderating Role of
Knowledge Attributes. Lianying Zhang and Zhen Zhang. April/
May, 34–47.
34. Value Management for Exploration Projects. Rémi
Maniak, Christophe Midler, Sylvain Lenfle, and Marie Le PellecDairon. August/September, 55–66.
35. Value Management in Project Portfolios: Identifying
and Assessing Strategic Value. Miia Martinsuo and Catherine P.
Killen. October/November, 56–70.
36. What You Should Know About Megaprojects and Why:
An Overview. Bent Flyvbjerg. April/May, 6–19.
Jugdev, Kam (20)
Khalili-Damghani, Kaveh (1)
Killen, Catherine P. (35)
Klofsten, Magnus (15)
Kloppenborg, Timothy J. (24)
Kock, Alexander (26)
Korhonen, Tuomas (18)
Kutsch, Elmar (4)
Kvalnes, Øyvind (9)
Laine, Teemu (18)
Le Pellec-Dairon, Marie (34)
Lee-Kelley, Liz (4)
Lenfle, Sylvain (34)
Lindgren, Monica (22)
Low Sui Pheng (25)
Luís Fernando Magnanini de Almeida (5)
Lundmark, Erik (15)
MacAulay, Samuel (17)
Man-Fong Ho, Christabel (29)
Maniak, Rémi (34)
Manolis, Chris (24)
Martinsuo, Miia (18, 35)
Maylor, Harvey (4)
Meyer, Mey Mark (23)
Meyer, Werner G. (32)
Midler, Christophe (34)
Millet, Dominique (30)
Moehrle, Martin G. (23)
Müller, Ralf (9)
Murphy, Glen (14)
Niemann, Helen (23)
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Oladinrin, T. Olugbenga (29)
Othman, Raihanah (16)
Packendorff, Johann (22)
Pollack, Julien (8, 21)
Rajaie, Hossein (3)
Rank, Johannes (6)
Salum, Fabian (5)
Shakeri, Eghbal (3)
Shao, Jingting (9)
Sicotte, Hélène (13)
Tavana, Madjid (1)
Teller, Juliane (26)
Tesch, Debbie (24)
Thi Hong Van Do (12)
Thurston, Mark (17)
Trigunarsyah, Bambang (14)
Turner, Neil (4)
Turner, Rodney (9)
Unger, Barbara N. (6)
Vaagaasar, Anne Live (27)
Wang, Yaowu (28)
Ward, Stephen (7)
Wearne, Stephen (10)
Wiewiora, Anna (14)
Wishart, Paul (20)
Yang, Rebecca J. (28)
Zhang, Lianying (33)
Zhang, Zhen (33)
Zhao, Xianbo (12, 25)
March 2015
Calendar of Events
MARCH 2015
25–27 March
PMI Singapore Chapter. PMI Singapore Chapter Regional Symposium
2015. Singapore. Regional Symposium
is the premier conference for more
than 1,000 project management practitioners, executives, and scholars in the
management space. Symposium 2015
brings networking opportunities and
features industry leaders to inspire
and motivate you to lead. The program
theme is “Today to Tomorrow: Leading
Vision to Reality.” pmi.org.sg.
24 April
PMI Mile-Hi Chapter. 17th Annual
Rocky Mountain Project Management Symposium. Denver, Colorado,
USA. PMI Mile-Hi Chapter presents the
17th Annual Rocky Mountain Project
Management Symposium. Jim Collins,
author of Good to Great and Great by
Choice, will keynote, with career guru
Patty Azzarello closing. Topic is “The
Science of Success: Taking your career
to the top.” www.PMIMileHiSym.org.
MAY 2015
PMI®
APRIL 2015
17 April
PMI North Saskatchewan Chapter.
PMI North Saskatchewan Chapter
Professional Development Day 2015.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
“Beyond the Gantt . . . People, Process
and Performance.” Thomas Jarocki will
share the three-tier approach to managing the critical human, political, and
organizational change issues that affect
projects. Dr. James Brown will emphasize what it takes for common sense
effective portfolio management. Ron
Tite, branding and creativity expert,
will end the day with a keynote that is
packed with information and infused
with unique humor. Join us for this
event filled with learning, networking,
great professional development and
fun! www.pminorthsask.com.
Upcoming
Global
Congresses and Events
®
PMI Global Congress 2015—EMEA.
London, U.K., 11–13 May 2015. http://
congresses.pmi.org
SeminarsWorld® Events
Leading subject matter experts share
their experience and deep knowledge on a variety of emerging topics.
Whether you are looking to build your
leadership skills, work on soft skills
such as communications and collaboration, or delve deeper into agile,
these events provide unique opportunities to learn and connect with the
project management community.
Date
23–26 March
9–10 April
27–29 April
14–15 May
Project Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 1, 99
© 2015 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com)
DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21491
Location
Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
Rome, Italy
Seattle, Washington, USA
London, England
18–21 May
15–18 June
20–23 July
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Mega SeminarsWorld
2015 Orlando, Florida,
USA
®
®
Learn more about PMI SeminarsWorld
courses being held in these locations
and throughout the world. Use PMI’s
search tool for project management
training matched to your specific needs.
Visit http://learning.PMI.org.
Instructor-Led e-Learning
Build your project management
knowledge without leaving your
home or office with interactive online
courses. Current eSeminarsWorld
courses:
®
Advanced Risk Management—12–26
March; 16–30 April; 14–28 May; 2–16
July
Agile in the Program Management
Office—5–12 March; 9–16 April; 14–21
May; 16–23 July
Change Management—12–26 March;
16–30 April; 9–23 July; 13–27 August
Foundations of Agile Project
Management—12–26 March; 16–30
April; 7–21 May; 11–25 June
Project Integration Management—
Simulation—23 April–7 May; 21
May–4 June; 13–27 August
Requirements Management: Investigate Your Project—19–26 March;
23–30 April; 21–28 May; 6–13 August
Understanding
Organizational
Change—5–12 March; 16–23 April;
9–16 July; 20–27 August
Visit http://learning.PMI.org for more
information.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
99
Project Management Journal ®
Author Guidelines
100
Project Management Journal® publishes research relevant
to researchers, reflective practitioners, and organizations
from the project, program, and portfolio management
fields. Project Management Journal® seeks papers that are
of interest to a broad audience.
Due to the integrative and interdisciplinary nature of
these fields, Project Management Journal® publishes the
best papers from a number of other disciplines, including,
but not limited to, organizational behavior and theory,
strategic management, marketing, accounting, finance,
operations research, technology and innovation management, entrepreneurship, economics, political science, history, sociology, psychology, information science, decision
science, systems theory, and communication theory.
Project Management Journal ® publishes qualitative
papers as well as quantitative works and purely conceptual
or theoretical papers, including diverse research methods
and approaches. Our aim is to integrate the various types
of project, program, and portfolio management research.
Project Management Journal® neither approves nor
disapproves, nor does it guarantee the validity or accuracy of any data, claim, opinion, or conclusion presented
in either editorial content, articles, From the Editor, or
advertisements.
organization or project network. They should define any
specialized terms and analytic techniques used. Papers
should be well argued and well written, avoiding jargon
at all times. Project Management Journal® does not prefer
subjects of study, as long as they are in the project, program, or portfolio management field, or in the field of the
project-oriented organization or project network, nor do
we attach a greater significance to one methodological
style than another does.
Authors’ Guidelines
Manuscript Format/Style
Papers published in Project Management Journal® must
relate to research and provide new contributions to project
management theory and/or project management practices. Each paper should contain clear research questions,
which the author should be able to state in one paragraph. Authors are expected to describe the knowledge
and foundations underlying their research approach, and
theoretical concepts that give meaning to data or to proposed decision support methods, and to demonstrate how
they are relevant to organizations in the realm of project
management. Papers that speculate beyond current thinking are more desirable than papers that use tried-and-true
methods to study routine problems, or papers motivated
strictly by data collection and analysis.
Authors should strive to be original, insightful, and
theoretically bold; demonstration of a significant valueadded advance to the understanding of an issue or topic
is crucial to acceptance for publication. Multiple-study
papers that feature diverse methodological approaches
may be more likely to make such contributions.
Authors should make contributions of specialized
research to project, program, and portfolio management
theory and to the theory of the project-oriented
All manuscripts submitted for consideration should meet
the following guidelines:
Avoid Use of Commercialism
Papers should be balanced, objective assessments that
contribute to the project management profession or provide a constructive review of the methodology. Papers
that are commercial in nature (e.g., those that endorse or
disparage specific products) will not be published.
Editing the Paper
Make sure papers adhere to the theme or question to be
answered. Write in clear and concise English, using active
rather than passive voice. Manuscripts should not exceed
12,000 words, inclusive of figures, tables, and references.
Count each figure and table as 300 words.
• All papers must be written in the English language
(American spelling).
• Title page of the manuscript should only include the title
of the paper.
• To permit objective double blind reviews by two referees, the abstract, first page and text must not reveal the
author(s) and/or affiliation(s). When authors cite their
own work, they should refer to themselves in the third
person. Any papers not adhering to this will be returned.
Formatting the Paper
Papers must be formatted in an electronic format using
a current version Microsoft Word. For Mac users, convert
the file to a Windows format. If the conversion does not
work, Mac users should save files as Word (.doc) files.
Fonts
Use a 12-point Times or Times New Roman font for the
text. You may use bold and italics in the text, but do not
underline. Use 10-point Helvetica or Arial font for text
within tables and graphics.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Margins
Papers should be double-spaced and in a single-column format. All margins should be 1 inch.
Headings
Use 1st, 2nd, and 3rd-level headings only. Do not number
headings.
• Figures and tables should be cited and numbered
consecutively in the order in which they appear in the text.
• Tables with lines separating columns and rows are acceptable.
Use an appendix to provide more detailed information,
when necessary.
Submission Policy
References, Footnotes, Tables, Figures, and
Appendices
Always acknowledge the work of others used to advance a
point in your paper. For questions regarding reference format, refer to the current edition of Publication Manual of the
American Psychological Association. Identify text citations
with the author name and publication date in parentheses,
(e.g., Cleland & King, 1983), and listed in alphabetical order
as references at the end of the manuscript. Include page numbers for all quotations (page numbers should be separated by
an en dash, not a hyphen).
Follow the formats in the examples shown below:
Baker, B. (1993). The project manager and the media: Some
lessons from the stealth bomber program. Project Management Journal, 24(3), 11–14.
Cleland, D. I., & King, W. R. (1983). Systems analysis and
project management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hartley, J. R. (1992). Concurrent engineering. Cambridge,
MA: Productivity Press.
It is the author´s responsibility to obtain permission to
include (or quote) copyrighted material, unless the author
owns the copyright. Use the Wiley permission form, which is
available at the Manuscript Central site.
Graphics and Illustrations
Be sure to number tables and figures with Arabic numerals,
include titles for each, and group at the end of the manuscript. Indicate their preferred location within the body of
the text. In addition, provide artwork in 300-dpi jpg, tiff, or
PowerPoint formats.
Tips for creating graphics:
• Provide only the essential details (too much information can
be difficult to display).
• Color graphics are acceptable for submission, although
Project Management Journal® is published in grayscale.
• Helvetica or Arial font should be used for text within the
graphics and tables.
• Figure numbers and titles are centered and appear in boldface
type below the figure.
• Table numbers and titles are centered and appear in boldface
type above the table.
Submit manuscripts electronically using Project Management
Journal® ’s Manuscript Central site.
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pmj
Manuscript Central is a web-based peer review system
(a product of ScholarOne). Authors will be asked to create
an account (unless one already exists) prior to submitting
a paper. Step-by-step instructions are provided online. The
progress of the review process can be obtained via Manuscript
Central.
Manuscripts should include the following in the order
listed:
• Title page. Include only the title of the manuscript (do not
include authors’ names).
• Abstract. Outline the purpose, scope, and conclusions of the
manuscript in 100 words or less.
• Keywords. Select 4 to 8 keywords.
• Headings. Use 1st, 2nd, and 3rd-level, unnumbered headings.
• Text. To permit objective reviews by two referees, the abstract,
first page and the rest of the text should not reveal the authors
and/or affiliations.
• References. Use author-date format.
• Illustrations and tables. These should be titled, numbered (in
Arabic numerals), and placed on a separate sheet, with the
preferred location indicated within the body of the text.
• Biographical details for each author. Upon manuscript
acceptance, authors must also provide a signed copyright
agreement.
By submitting a manuscript, the author certifies that it is
not under consideration by any other publication; that neither the manuscript nor any portion of it is copyrighted; and
that it has not been published elsewhere. Exceptions must be
noted at the time of submission.
Authors using their own previously published or submitted material as the basis for a new submission are required
to cite the previous work and explain how the new submission differs from the previously published work. Any potential data overlap with previous studies should be noted and
described in the letter to the Editor. The editorial team makes
software-supported checks for identifying plagiarism and
self-plagiarism.
Accepted manuscripts become the property of PMI,
which holds the copyright for materials that it publishes.
Material published in Project Management Journal® may not
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
101
Author Guidelines
be reprinted or published elsewhere, in whole or part, without the written permission of PMI.
Accepted manuscripts may be subject to editorial changes
made by the Editor. The author is solely responsible for all
statements made in his or her work, including changes made
by the editor. Submitted manuscripts are not returned to the
author; however, reviewer comments will be furnished.
Review Process
The reputation of Project Management Journal® and contribution to the field depend upon our attracting and publishing
the best research. Project Management Journal® competes
for the best available manuscripts by having the largest and
widest readership among all project management journals.
Equally important, we also compete by offering high-quality
feedback. The timeliness and quality of our review process
reflect well upon all who participate in it.
Developmental Reviews
It is important that authors learn from the reviews and
feel that they have benefited from the Project Management
Journal® review process. Therefore, reviewers will strive to:
• Be Specific. Reviewers point out the positives about the paper,
possible problems, and how any problems can be addressed.
Specific comments, reactions, and suggestions are required.
• Be Constructive. In the event that problems cannot be fixed
in the current study, suggestions are made to authors on how
to improve the paper on their next attempt. Reviewers document as to whether the issue is with the underlying research,
the research conclusions, or the way the information is being
communicated in the submission.
• Identify Strengths. One of the most important tasks for a
reviewer is to identify the portions of the paper that can be
improved in a revision. Reviewers strive to help an author
shape a mediocre manuscript into an insightful contribution.
• Consider the Contribution of the Manuscript. Technical correctness and theoretical coherence are obvious issues for a
review, but the overall contribution that the paper offers is
also considered. Papers will not be accepted if the contribution it offers is not meaningful or interesting. Reviewers will
address uncertainties in the paper by checking facts; therefore, review comments will be as accurate as possible.
• Consider Submissions from Authors Whose Native Language
Is Not English. Reviewers will distinguish between the quality
of the writing, which may be fixable, and the quality of the
ideas that the writing conveys.
102
Respectful Reviews
PMI recognizes that authors have spent a great deal of time
and effort on every submission. Reviewers will always treat an
author’s work with respect, even when the reviewer disagrees
or finds fault with what has been written.
Double-Blind Reviews
Submissions are subjected to a double-blind review, whereby
the identity of the reviewer and the author are not disclosed.
In the event that a reviewer is unable to be objective about
a specific paper, another reviewer will be selected for that
paper. Reviewers will not discuss any manuscript with anyone (other than the Project Management Journal® Editor) at
any time.
Pointers on the Substance of the Review Theory
• Does the paper have a well-articulated theory that provides
conceptual insight and guides hypotheses formulation?
• Does the study inform or improve our understanding of that
theory?
• Are the concepts clearly defined?
• Does the paper cite appropriate literature and provide proper
credit to existing work on the topic? Has the author offered
critical references? Does the paper contain an appropriate
number of references?
• Do the sample, measures, methods, observations, procedures,
and statistical analyses ensure internal and external validity?
Are the statistical procedures used correctly and appropriately? Are the author’s major assumptions reasonable?
• Does the empirical study provide a good test of the theory
and hypotheses? Is the method chosen appropriate for the
research question and theory?
• Does the paper make a new and meaningful contribution
to the management literature in terms of theory, empirical
knowledge, and management practice?
• Has the author given proper citation to the original source of
all information given in the work or in others’ work that was
cited?
Adherence to the Spirit of the Guidelines
Papers that severely violate the spirit of the guidelines (e.g.,
papers that are single-spaced, papers that use footnotes
rather than conventional referencing formats, papers that
greatly exceed 40 pages), or which do not clearly fit the mission of the Journal will be returned to authors without being
reviewed.
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Publication Title: Project Management Journal
Publication Number: 8756-9728
Filing Date: 11/05/14
Issue Frequency: Bimonthly
Number of Issues Published Annually: 6
Annual Subscription Price: $14.00
Complete Mailing Address of Known Office of
Publication: Project Management Institute,
Global Operations Center, Publications
Department, 14 Campus Boulevard, Newtown
Square, Pennsylvania 19073-3299 USA
8. Complete Mailing Address of Headquarters or General
Business Office of the Publisher: Project Management
Institute, Global Operations Center, 14 Campus
Boulevard, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania
19073-3299 USA
9. Full Names and Complete Mailing Addresses of
Publisher: Donn Greenberg, 14 Campus Boulevard,
Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073-3299 USA
10. Owner: Project Management Institute, 14 Campus
Boulevard, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania
19073-3299 USA
11. Known Bondholders, Mortgages, and Other Security Holders
Owning or Holding 1 Percent or More of Total Amount of
Bonds, Mortgages, or Other Securities: None
12. For completion by nonprofit organizations authorized to
mail at special rates. The purpose, function, and nonprofit
status of this organization and the exempt status for federal
income tax purposes: Has Not Changed During Preceding
12 Months
13. Publication Name: Project Management Journal
14. Issue Date for Circulation Data Below: October 2014
15. Extent and Nature of Circulation
Average No. Copies Each Issue
During Preceding 12 Months
No. Copies Single Issue
Published Nearest to Filing Date
a.
b.
64,761
64,176
38,402
N/A
24,369
N/A
62,771
326
326
63,097
250
63,347
99.48%
38,431
N/A
24,369
N/A
62,800
326
326
63,126
250
63,376
99.48%
Total No. Copies (Net Press Run)
Paid Circulation
(1) Paid Subscriptions Stated on PS Form 3541
(2) Paid or Requested Mail Subscriptions (Include Advertisers’ Proof Copies/Exchange Copies)
(3) Sales Through Dealers and Carriers, other Paid Distribution
(4) Requested Copies Distributed by other Mail class
c. Total Paid Distribution (Sum of 15b (1), (2), (3) and (4))
d. Free or Nominal Rate Distribution (by Mail)
e. Free or Nominal Rate Distribution (Sum of 15d (1), (2), (3) and (4))
f. Total Free Distribution (Sum of 15c and 15e)
g. Copies not Distributed
h. Total (Sum of 15f and g)
i. Percent Paid (15c / 15f 3 100)
16. This Statement of Ownership will be printed in the February/March 2014 issue of this publication.
17. Name and Title of Editor, Publisher, Business Manager, or Owner: Donn Greenberg
Date: 11/05/14
February/March 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
103
Editor
Hans Georg Gemünden, Dr. rer. oec. habil.,
Dr. h.c. rer. oec. et soc.,
Chair for Technology and Innovation
Management, Technische Universität Berlin,
Berlin, Germany
■
MISSION
The mission of the Journal is to provide information advancing the state of the art of the
knowledge of project management. The Journal
is devoted to both theory and practice in the
field of project management. Authors are
encouraged to submit original manuscripts that
are derived from research-oriented studies as
well as practitioner case studies. All articles in
the Journal are the views of the authors and are
not necessarily those of PMI. Subscription rate
for members is $14 U.S. per year and is included
in the annual dues.
PMI is a nonprofit professional organization
whose mission is to serve the professional interests of its collective membership by: advancing the
state of the art in the leadership and practice of
managing projects and programs; fostering professionalism in the management of projects; and
advocating acceptance of project management as
a profession and discipline. Membership in PMI is
open to all at an annual dues of $129 U.S. For information on PMI programs and membership:
Project Management Institute, 14 Campus
Blvd, Newtown Square, PA 19073–3299 USA; Tel:
11-610-356-4600; Fax: 11-610-482-9971; E-mail:
customercare@ pmi.org; Website: www.PMI.org;
Toll-free: 1-855-746-7879 (United States), 1-855746-4849 (Canada), 1-800-563-0665 (Mexico)
PMI Asia Pacific Service Centre, Singapore;
Tel: 165 6496 5501; E-mail: [email protected]
PMI Europe-Middle East-Africa (EMEA)
Service Centre, Lelystad, The Netherlands; Tel:
131 320 239 539; E-mail: customercare.emea@
pmi.org; Toll-free Numbers: 00-800-7464-8490 for
Austria, Belgium*, Bulgaria*, Czech Republic*,
Denmark, Estonia*, Finland, France, Germany,
Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia*, Lithuania*,
Luxembourg, Malta*, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Russia*, Slovak Republic*,
Slovenia*, Spain, Sweden*, Switzerland, United
Kingdom, Vatican City; 00-800-4414-3100 for
Cyprus, Greece; 131 320 239 539 (toll number) for
Andorra, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Croatia, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Moldova,
Monaco, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro,
Ukraine.
*Use the toll number (131 320 239 539) from
mobile phones in these countries.
Publisher
Donn Greenberg; [email protected]
Wiley Executive Editor
Margaret Cummins;
[email protected]
Product Editor
Roberta Storer; [email protected]
Copy Editor
Linda R. Garber; [email protected]
Publications Production Associate
Kim Shinners; [email protected]
Publications Production Supervisor
Barbara Walsh; [email protected]
Book Review Editor
Kenneth H. Rose, PMP
■
PMI India Service Centre, New Delhi, India;
Tel: 191 124 4517140; E-mail: (membership-related queries): [email protected]
Other Locations: Beijing, China; Shenzhen,
China; Montevideo, Uruguay; Bengaluru, India;
Porto Alegre, Brazil; Mumbai, India; Washington,
DC, USA, Brussels, Belgium. See www.pmi.org/
AboutUS/Pages?Customer-Care.aspx for contact
details.
The Project Management Journal (Print ISSN
8756-9728); Online ISSN 1938-9507 at Wiley
Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) is published six times a year by Wiley Subscription
Services, Inc., a Wiley Company, 111 River Street,
Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774.
Copyright © 2015 Project Management
Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this
publication may be reproduced in any form or
by any means, except as permitted under
Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States
Copyright Act, without either the prior written
permission of the publisher, or authorization
through the Copyright Clearance Center, 222
Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; Tel: (978)
750-8400; Fax: (978) 646-8600.
The code and copyright notice appearing
on the first page of an item in the journal indicates the copyright holder's consent that copies
may be made for personal or internal use of
specific clients, on the condition that the copier
pay for copying beyond that permitted by
Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law.
The per-copy fee is to be paid through the
Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. This consent
does not extend to other kinds of copying, such
as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new
collective works, or for resale. Such permission
requests and other permission inquiries should
be addressed to the Permissions Department,
c/o John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 111 River Street,
Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774; Tel. (201) 748-6011;
please visit http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions for more information.
NONMEMBER SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
Personal rates: For print in the US, Canada, and
Mexico, $149.00, rest of world, $173.00; electronic, all regions, $149.00; and for print and
electronic, in US, Canada, and Mexico, $165.00,
rest of world, $189.00. Institutional rates: For
print in the US, $465.00, in Canada and Mexico,
$505.00, and rest of world, $539.00; electronic,
all regions, $465.00; and for print and electronic,
in the US, $558.00, Canada and Mexico, $598.00,
and rest of world, $632.00. Claims for undelivered copies will be accepted only after the following issue has been received. Please enclose a
copy of the mailing label or cite your subscriber
reference number in order to expedite handling.
Missing copies will be supplied when losses
have been sustained in transit and where
reserve stock permits. Please address all subscription inquiries to Subscription Manager,
Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint, One Montgomery
Street, Suite 1200, San Francisco, CA 941044594; Tel. (888) 378-2537, (415) 433-1767
(International); E-mail: [email protected].
Postmaster: Periodical postage paid at
Newtown Square, PA 19073 USA and at additional
mailing offices. Send address changes to Project
Management Journal, 14 Campus Blvd, Newtown
Square, PA 19073-3299 USA.
Reprints: Reprint sales and inquiries
should be directed to the Customer Service
Department, Gale Krouser, c/o John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 070305774; Tel: (201) 748-8789; Fax: (201) 748-6326;
E-mail: [email protected].
MANUSCRIPTS
All manuscripts must be submitted electronically
via the journal’s Manuscript Central site
(http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pmj). Questions
regarding submission guidelines and manuscript
status should be sent to Kim Shinners
([email protected])
All manuscripts submitted to the journal
via Manuscript Central are assumed for publication and become the copyright property of PMI
if published.
© 2015 Project Management Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
“PMI” the PMI logo, “Making project management indispensable for business results,” “PMI Today,” “PM Network,” “Project Management Journal,” “PMBOK,” “CAPM,” “Certified
Associate in Project Management (CAPM),” “PMP,” the PMP logo, “PgMP,” “Program Management Professional (PgMP),” “PMI-RMP,” “PMI Risk Management Professional (PMI-RMP),”
“PMISP,” “PMI Scheduling Professional (PMI-SP),” and “OPM3” are registered marks of Project Management Institute, Inc.
The PMI Educational Foundation logo and “Empowering the future of project management” are registered marks of The PMI Educational Foundation. For a comprehensive list of PMI
marks, contact the PMI Legal Department.
Project Management Journal ■ Volume 46, Number 1 ■ February / March 2015
February/March 2015
Volume 46
Number 1
12
The Impact of Company Resources and Capabilities on
Global New Product Program Performance
Ulrike de Brentani and Elko J. Kleinschmidt
30
The Relationship Between Project Success and
Project Efficiency
Pedro Serrador and Rodney Turner
40
Learning Through Interactions: Improving Project
Management Through Communities of Practice
Lorraine Lee, Bryan Reinicke, Robin Sarkar,
and Rita Anderson
53
Formal and Informal Practices of Knowledge Sharing Between
Project Teams and Enacted Cultural Characteristics
Julia Mueller
69
An Inquiry to Move an Underutilized Best Practice Forward:
Barriers to Partnering in the Architecture, Engineering, and
Construction Industry
Sinem Mollaoglu, Anthony Sparkling,
and Sean Thomas
84
Communication Behaviors to Implement Innovations:
How Do AEC Teams Communicate in IPD Projects?
Weida (Aaron) Sun, Sinem Mollaoglu, Vernon Miller,
and Brian Manata