Pergamon
Internattonal Journal of Project Management Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 21-26, 1998
~' 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
0263-7863/98 $19.00 + 0.00
PIh S0263-7863(97)00011-2
Effects of human resource
management on project effectiveness
and success: toward a new
conceptual framework
Adnane Belout
Universi O' of Montreal, School of Industrial Relations, Montreal, Canada
Project management strategy research has focused on the effects of structure and planning operations (such as budgets, date completion and quality) on project success. In the past, projects
have been managed as technical systems instead of behavioral systems. Relatively little attention
has been paid to human resource factor. However, the Project Management Institute in its official definition of Project Management Body of Knowledge (P.M.B.K.) included human resource
management as one of the six fundamental basic functions of project management. 1 In this
arena which lacks theoretical foundation, a relatively recent study made the situation even
worse. Pinto and Prescott (1988) concluded that the 'Personnel factor' (independent variable)
was the only factor in their research that was marginal for project success (dependent variable).
This paper takes a critical look at this research and attempts to respond to their controversial
findings. The main objective is to improve the thinking aspects and to highlight the validity of
the measures used. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd and I P M A
Organizations are facing a dynamic environment
where the survival conditions are becoming draconian.
Their success is tributary to their capacity to adapt
their structures and establish viable relations with their
surroundings. In this climate, administrators can no
longer ignore such influences and are obligated to
understand the factors which influence their activities,
objectives and effectiveness. 2
M a n y researchers agree that the human resource
function is one of the most crucial elements for an
organization's
success. 3'4 Undoubtedly,
today the
h u m a n resource management ( H R M ) is renewing itself
in the organizations 5-8 and affirming gradually its strategic role. However, in spite of this tendency, Pinto
and Prescott 9 found surprising results in a relatively
recent research. The authors conclude that the
Personnel factor, even if designated in theoretical literature as a crucial factor in project efficiency, is a
marginal variable for project success (at any of the
four project life cycles). These results contradict the
stream of H R M research in this topic.
This paper reexamines Pinto and Prescott's findings 9
in order to clarify their surprising results. By doing so,
we pay a particular attention to their theoretical
framework which still appear in a state of embryo. We
debate the flaws of their models which, we believe, led
to their controversial findings. Methodological inconsistencies are also discussed. We then present a concep-
tual
scheme
that
contributes
to
a
better
operationalization of the Project Implementation
Profile (P.I.P.) instrument used in their study. In line
with the research of Tsui, 7'8 the construct validity of
the human resources factor is examined and a model
proposed.
S u m m a r y and criticism o f Pinto and Prescott's
study (1988)
In the past, project management has gained increased
attention a m o n g researchers in the field of organization theory. ~°'54 According to some, project management is today one of the most researched and
theorized topics in management. ~1 ~3 Among the main
fields of interest, we can mention the training of the
project managers, ~4 the effectiveness of different project
structures, ~5'~6 the project life cycles, ~7 and the identification of project critical success factor. 18'9 Increased
attention has been paid to this last point in recent
years. In line with this stream, Baker et al. 56 conducted
empirical studies to synthesize a set of factors critical
to project success. They found seven factors related to
perception. Slevin and Pinto, ~9 in their efforts to build
a conceptual model, addressed the generability issue by
developing a framework of project implementation
and a diagnostic instrument for the project manager.
21
Project effectiveness and success: A Belout
Table 1
l-Project mission
2-Project schedule
3-Chent consultation
4 Technical tasks
5 Client acceptance
6-Momtoring and feed back
7-Communication
8-Trouble-shooting
9-Personnel (recrmtment,
selection and training).
10 Management support
This instrument, called Project Implementation Profile
(P.I.P.), was developed through field research. It
measures 10 critical factors related to project success
(Table 1). Two years later, Pinto and Prescott 9 conducted a study to investigate changes in the importance of project critical success in the project life cycle.
Their principal research question was:
Are project implementation critical success factors of
equal and stable importance over the life of a project,
or does their relative importance (weighting) change as
the project moves through different stages of completion
(page 6)?
The authors concluded that the 'Personnel factor'
was the only factor that was not significant at any of
the four life cycle stages. Based on the extensive literature stressing the importance of human factor in organizational success, we question these results.
More specifically, this study can be challenged on
the following grounds:
1. No theory,was advanced for the inclusion of H R M
in their model. Furthermore, no effort was deployed
to define the components of project human resource
management. Additionally, Pinto and Prescott, 9
tried to understand and to justify why 'Personnel'
had no effect on project success and concluded that
in this type of organizational structure, qualified
personnel is "usually the rule rather than the exception (pagel6)". This contradict other research in
this topic which point to the contrary. 2°'14
2. The dependent variable 'project's success' lacks rigorous definition and its measurement is not precise.
Furthermore, the authors present limited information about the validity of their measure. The latter is very critical since a debate exists about the
complexity of this construct.Is
3. From a methodological perspective, many aspects
appeared to lack rigour. Even if the Cronbach
alpha scores used in this study to assess raeasure reliabilities for 10 critical success factors ranged from
0.70 to 0.90, the authors recognized serious multicollinearity problems. The correlation matrix presented in page 11 of their article showed that the
independent variables were strongly intercorrelated
(Pinto and Prescottg). They tried to resolve this problem by 'Ridge Regression'; however they pointed
out that this procedure produces biased estimates
(Pinto and Prescott, 9 page 12). Thus, this methodological issue may have invalidated their findings.
*Note: In the first structure, we describe an orgamzation m which a
substantial proportion of the human and physical resources are
under the direct control of the project manager; the second structure
we describe an orgamzation m which the project manager must borrow the bulk of the resources that he needs from functional orgamzation.
22
In addition, as the authors mention in their discussion, the items "comprising the Personnel scale are not
useful from a construct validity standpoint for assessing the factor of personnel (page 16)". This may
explain the non effect of 'Personnel factor'. Finally,
the questionnaires were mailed to 586 members of the
Project Management Institute (PMI), which is essentially a national organization of project managers.
This means that essentially project managers have
evaluated the personnel factor. In this sense, the P.I.P.
instrument does not evaluate the training, the motivation, the experience, the commitment of the project
managers as independent variables. This is another
weakness in the research because the project managers
are considered in project management literature as a
central actors for success and effectiveness.
H u m a n resources and project management: toward
a conceptual framework
Projects usually involve attention to a variety of
human, budgetary and technical variables. Although
many definitions exist, most researchers agree that projects generally possess the following characteristics:
limited budget; date for completion; quality standards,
and a series of complex and interrelated activities (generally project structure or matrix structure)*. From a
review of the literature on project management, many
researchers and practitioners consider performance,
effectiveness and success as synonyms. 15'16 This confusion in the definitions of these concepts is widely
reported in organizational theoryfl ~
The concept o f project's success (dependent variable)
It appears that it is the different conceptualizations of
organizations and their roles that lead to various
models of effectiveness such as the "Goals models", z2
the "Legitimacy models", 23 the "Internal processes or
internal functioning approach", 24 the "System resource
models", 25 the "Strategic constituencies models". 26
Each of these perceptions leads to different definitions
of organizational effectiveness and criteria. As
Connoly et al. 27 reported, the central differentiation
among current effectiveness statements is in how they
specify the evaluative criteria used to define "how well
the entity is performing or could perform (page 211)".
Historically, projects have been managed as technical systems instead of behavioral systems. The focus
was concentrated on the results with a mechanistic
approach. 28 Thus, the main objective was in general to
attain target dates, to achieve financial plans and to control the quality of the final product. 16 Success, effectiveness and performance were related to these 3 principal
criteria. Gobeli and Larson, 15 in their study about the
effectiveness of different project structures, stress that
these criteria were each rated by respondents as the
most important one for assessing effectiveness. The
foundation of this tradition in project context correspond to a particular conception of organizations and
a whole management philosophy (a project culture
according to Elmes and Wilemon) 29 where effectiveness
is related to the achievement of the goals. This tradition and tendency is perfectly compatible with the
ProJect effectiveness and success: A Belout
Table 2
Success criterion
Technical performance
Effioency of project execution
Managerial and organizational implications
Personal growth
Project termination
Technical innovativeness
Manufacturability and business performance
Description
To what extend the technical requirements
specified at the commencement of the execuUon
phase were achieved
The degree to which targets of time and cost
were met
A mesure of client, parent and user satisfaction,
incorporatmg the degree to whtch the project
was carried out without disturbing corporate
culture or values
The satisfacuon of the project team, particularly
in terms of interest, challenge, and professional
development
The completeness of the termination, the
absence of post-project problems, and the
quahty of post-audit analysts
The success in identifying techmcal problems
during the project and solving them
The ease with which the product resulting from
the project can be manufactured, and its
commercial performance
conception of the "goals model which define effectiveness by the degree of achievement of their goals."
In this optic, 'success' is corresponding to the effectiveness and the efficiency of the project. According to
Brudney and England, 3° efficiency is broadly understood as the maximization of output for a given level
of input or resources while effectiveness is directed to
the achievement of goals or objectives. Usually, success
represents a level of satisfaction expressed by the project manager in reference to the three criteria mentioned above. This could be qualified as the traditional
and the mechanistic approach to effectiveness in project context. Today however, we note an evolution of
these concepts. Besides the traditional focus, concerns
for other criteria are analyzed. For instance, Freeman
and Beale 18 identified seven criteria for measuring the
success of projects (Table 2).
They revealed that the evaluation of the success
(effectiveness of the project) will vary with the type of
rater. The authors proposed also that project success
could be measured from three viewpoints: sponsor's
view, project manager's view and sponsor as project
manager's view. Therefore, success could be defined as
the level of satisfaction expressed by at least one of the
three actors mentioned by Freeman and Beale t8 on the
basis of the seven criteria identified in Table 2. As well,
users's satisfaction could be factored when necessary.
This is a more innovative definition of success and
effectiveness because it can provide (for instance from
the sponsors) information on the background, the experience and the abilities of the project manager. From
users's view, it can provide information about the
post-project problems and precise how much the project has filled the need of the clients (Table 2, see managerial and organizational implications).
The independent variables
Undoubtedly, effectiveness is the central aim of every
organization. The most productive companies in the
USA manage their human resources in ways that are
different from less productive organizations. 6 To be
effective in today's highly competitive environment,
project management activities needs to devote a signifi-
Frequency of mention (percentage of 14 papers
reviewed)
93%
93%
43%
29%
14%
14%
43%
cant amount of skill, knowledge and attention to
human resources. Managing people effectively influences many results of a project. For instance, the importance of training in project management context is
widely reported in the literature. 31'2°'~4 Hubbard 32
underlined that the major project failures are usually
sociological; these issues included unqualified staff, inadequate training, inexperienced management etc.
Some researchers as Todryk 33 reveal that the project
manager training is a key factor for increasing effectiveness because he/she could be a team builder and
create an effective team. Thornberry 34 and Rogers 35
argued that the organizational behavior, the lack of
training in the planning process and the misdirected
priorities affect directly the success in project context.
As a large organizational literature reveals, the success
in organizations can never be reached without a qualified and motivated personnel. 36.37,6 At another level,
Van de Ven and Koening 55 have proposed a qualitative model which integrates the competencies required
at any project stage. Afiesmama, 38 in his effort to
develop a quantitative framework, insists about the
crucial step in project context of assessing and forecasting human resources needs. Considering that
Prescott's study could be an embryo for future studies
and theoretical developments, we propose to retest the
impact of the ten independent variables (see Pinto and
Prescott 9) on the dependent variable of our model
(Figure 1). Our general proposition H I is : The
Personnel factor will affect significantly the project's
success.
To test this proposition, researchers should modify
the 'Personnel' factor and clarify its construct validity.
Some knowledge of the personnel construct is available
in standard personnel textbooks 39,4° or in a conceptual
models of human resources. 4~ However, because of
their validity, we propose to use and adapt the eight
dimensions identified by Tsui and Milkovich 42, 7 (see
Table 3, points 1 to 8).
The internal consistency reliability estimates (of
these dimensions) were high across all the samples (all
coefficients exceeded 0.75 with a median 0.87).
Further, their construct validity was demonstrated in
many empirical studies. 7' 4 2 - 4 4 This instrument could
23
Project effectiveness and success: A Belout
, Project life cycles
Project mission
Project
Client
schedule
|
~.~
consultation
Technical
tasks
L
_ ~
- ~
....
-
J_
Clientacceptance J I - . . . .
Monitor-inN
__IL .....
Communication
i
~l--
Trouble-shooting
] Management
The intervening variables
]
*
~
- _ -
_
_ ~ - ~ , ,
-
Dependent vanable
_ _ - ~ - f f r o j e c t succes
~-~fj~:~
~- _ ~
. -
- .
I st~p_~p_ort I-
personnel
J
[ ,,o ec,
T
I
Figure 1
eventually be completed by two items belonging to the
personnel factor in the P.I,P. (such as the commitment
of the project team and the job description
clearness, Table 3, points 9 and 10). Finally, as we
underlined in the precedent section, it is crucial to integrate the training of the project manager in order to
evaluate its influence on the success (Table 3, point
11). In case of multicollinearity (as noted by Pinto and
Prescott's study), we propose to conduct a factor
analysis in order to extract some factors. According to
2 recent Canadian studies using Tsui's dimensions to
evaluate the effectiveness of human resources management in large industries, it appears that these dimensions could be reduced into 2 principal components
based on a factor analysis. 43' 45 Factor 1 measured
more traditional human resources activities and was
labelled HR; factor 2 measured dimensions pertaining
to more traditional labour relations and was labelled
LR.
Table 3
merit7
Tsui's dimensions for assessing human resources manage-
(1) Staffing/human resource planning: recrmtment, selection,
forecasting human resource demands and supplies, career
planning...
(2) Organization/employee development (organizational needs
analysis, job needs analysis, person needs analysis, programs
and budgets for training
(3) Compensation/employee relations; efforts to implement
policy and equal pay, process salary acuons, commumcate to
management the strategy related to employee relatmns,
provide advice and counsel to management on employee
relations problems, try to avoid conflicts among
employees...
(4) Employee support: all actions conducted by the direction of
the project to help employees m their work to reform them
and assist them in case of need
(5) Legal requirement/comphance: efforts to treat employees
fairly according to their contracts, to legislation
(6) Labor/union: efforts in order to negotiate labor agreement
with union,administer labor contract.determine labor
strategy with union
(7) Policy adherence: assure proper administration and
disciplinary procedures, ensure equitable administration
(8) Administrative services
(9) Commitment of the project team
(10) Job descriptions clearness
(11) Training of project managers
24
M a n y academics argued that life cycles affect organizational effectiveness. 46,47 In project management, this
concept is also very popular and has catched the attention of m a n y researchers. As Pinto and Prescott 9 mention, one of the most accepted project life cycle has
been proposed by King and Cleland 48 and Adams and
Barndt. ~7 Four stages were identified: conceptualization, planning, execution and termination. Each project stage implies a different intensity of effort, a
different type of task and kind of actors. Thus, the
variations of these cycles could eventually have an influence on success. According to Adams and Barndt ~7
and Pinto and Prescott 9 the effect of the critical factors
on success vary when the project cycles change. That
explains why, for instance, technical tasks have an influence on success only in the execution and termination stages. Accordingly, these findings suppose that
'project life cycles" could be considered as an intervening variable. Indeed, Kervin 49 reports that " M o d e r a t o r
variables affect how a primary or a key independent
variable covaries with the dependent variable. A moderator variable (M) affects the degree or form of the
relationship between an independent (X) and dependent (Y) variable: M affects X - Y (page 167)". In this
sense, we expect that the independent variables derived
from the P.I.P. and discussed in the precedent section
are under a moderator influence when they affect project success (Figure 1). Due to the fact that the selection of human resources, the employee support and
the legal requirements are crucial at the beginning of
every project and because the training, the commitment and the policy adherence are so important at the
other stages of the project, our proposition H2 is: The
relation between the independent variables and the
project's success of the model will be positively affected
by the four project life cycles.
On the other hand, during the last decade, the study
of the structural impact of organizations has won
more and more attention on a theoretical base to
measure their effectiveness. 46'5° In project management,
one of the most interesting investigation was the
Gobeli and Larson study. Is The authors pointed out
that each organizational structure in project context
has its strengths and weakness. According to them, the
type of structure chosen will significantly affect the
success of the project (page 81). Their aim was to
assess the relative effectiveness of five structures:
Functional, Functional matrix, Balanced matrix,
Project matrix and Project team. In their findings, they
carried out that the project matrix and the project
team were rated as the most effective. These structures
affect the project manager roles 17"51 the coordination of
the activities, the intensity of the conflicts 52 and (by
this process) amplify or reduce indirectly the effectiveness of the project. At this level, our proposition H3 is:
The more the structure adopted in projects will be a
'project team' oriented, the more the relation among
the independent variable and the dependent variable
will be positively affected (intervening effect).
Conclusion
A central concern of project management is the
improvement of its conceptual foundations. As Fabi
Project effectiveness and success: A Belout
and Petersen revealed, 53 human resources management
in project context is still elementary. Publications are
relatively rare, the majority of the researchs is simply a
case study or expert's reports. The effort in future
research should concentrate on overcoming the gaps
that charaterizes the P.I.P. instrument and improve the
theoretical foundation in this topic. Researchers should
attempt to retest the conclusions of Pinto and
Prescott 9 that corroborate a non impact of the
'Personnel factor' on project success. Specifically, they
should emphasize two fundamental questions: (1) is
personnel a significant factor for project's success? and
(2): does the organizational structures and the project
life cycles have an intervening effect on the relation
among the independent variables and the project's success? Traditionally many key variables affecting the
project effectiveness have not been integrated in the
same studies. In this sense, the integration in the proposed model of the intervening impact (structures and
the life cycles), two fundamental variables in project
management, will be a first step for a real theoretical
improvements to this topic.
Acknowledgements
I wish to acknowlege the financial support of the
University of Montreal (CAFIR grants) and the comments of professor Gary Latham (Faculty of
Management,
University of Toronto,
Ontario,
Canada).
References
1. Stuckenbruck, L. C., Project management framework. Project
Management Journal, August 1986, pp. 25 29.
2. Dolan, S. L. and Schuler, R., Human Resource Management"
The Canadian Dynamw. Scarborough. Nelson Canada, 1994.
3. Fitz-Enz, J., How to Measure Human Resource Management.
McGraw Hill, New York, 1984.
4. Ulrich, D. Organizational capability as a competitwe advantage: Human resource professionals as strategic partners.
Human Resource Planning 10(4), 1987, 169-184.
5. Crozier, M., L'Entreprise a(c) l'Fcoute. Inter Editions (Semi),
Paris, 1994.
6. Schuler, R., Managing Human Resources, 5th edn. West
Publishing company, New York, 1994.
7. Tsui, A. Defining the activities and effectiveness of the human
resources department: A multiple constituency approach.
Human Resource Management 26(1), 1987, 35-69.
8. Tsui, A. A multiple-constituency model of effectiveness: An
empirical examination at the human resource subunit level.
Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 1990, 458-483.
9. Pinto, J. K. and Prescott, J. Variations m success factors over
the stages in the project life cycle. Journal of Management
14(1), 1988, 5-18.
10. Genest, B. A. and Nguyen, T., Princtpes et Techniques de la gestion de projets. Edit. Sigma Delta, 1990.
I1. Beck, D. R., Implementing top Management Plans through
Project Management. In Project Management Handbook, eds D.
I. Clelend and W. R. Kings. New York, 1983, pp. 166-184.
12. Katz, R. The effects of group longevity on project communication and performances. Administrative Science Quarterly 27,
1982, 81-104.
13. Nun, P. C. Implementation approaches to project planmng.
Academy of Management Review 8, 1983, 600-61 I.
14. Thamhain, H. J. Developping project management skills.
Project Management Journal 12(3), 1991, 39-44.
15. Gobeli, D. and Larson, W. Relative effectiveness of different
project structures. Project Management Journal 18(2), 1987, 8185.
16. McCollum, J. and Sherman, D The matrix structure: B a n e o r
benefit to high tech organizaUons. Project Management Journal
14(2), 1993, 23-26.
17. Adams, J. R. and Barndt, S. E., Behavioral Implications of the
Project Life Cycle. In Project Management Handbook, eds D. 1
Clelend and W. R. Kings, New York, 1983, pp. 183-204.
18. Freeman, M. and Beale, P. Measuring project success. Project
Mangement Journal 13(1), 1992, 9-16.
19. Slevin, D. P. and Pinto, J. K. The project implementation profile: New tool for project managers. Project Management
Journal 18, 1986, 57-71.
20. Kerzner, H., Formal education for project management. Project
Management Quarterly, 1979, 38-44.
21. Cameron, K. S. and Whetten, D., Organizational effectiveness.
A comparison of Multiple Models. Academic Press New York,
1983.
22. Cameron, K. S. Critical questions in assessing organizational
effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics 9, 1980, 66-80.
23. Miles, R. H. and Cameron, K. S., Co~n Nails and Corporate
Strategws. Englewood Cliffs New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1982.
24. Benms, W. G., The concept of organizational health. In
Changing Orgamzatlons, ed W. G. Bennis. McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1966.
25. Seashore, S. E. and Yuchtman, E. E., Factorial analysis of org a n i z a t i o n a l performance. Administrative Science Quarterly (12),
1967, 377-395.
26. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R., The External Control of
Organizations. Harper and Row, New York, 1978.
27. Connoly, T., Conlon, E. J. and Deutsh, S. J. Organizational
effectiveness: A multiple constituency approach. Academy of
Management Review 5(2), 1980, 211-217.
28. Murdick, R. G. and Shuster, F. E. Managing human resources
in project management. Project Management Quarterly 7(2),
1976, 21-25.
29. Elmes, M. and Wilemon, D. Organizational culture and project
leader effectiveness. Project Management Journal 19(4), 1988,
54-63.
30. Brudney, J. L. and England, R. E. Urban policy making and
subjevtive service evaluaUons: Are they compatible Public
Administration Review 42(2), 1982, 127 135.
31. Baker, J. T., Josvold, D. and Andrews, R., Conflicts
approaches of effective and ineffective project managers: a field
study in a matrix organization. Journal of Management Studies,
1988.
32. Hubbard, D. Successful utility project management from lessons learned. Project Management Journal 11(3), 1990, 19-23.
33. Todryk, L. The project manager as a team builder: Creatmg an
effective team. Project Management Journal 16(4), 1990, 17-21.
34 Thornberry, N. E. Training the engineers as project manager.
Training and Development Journal 10(4), 1987, 60 62.
35 Rogers, L. Project team training: A proven key to organizational teamwork and breakthrough in planning performance.
Project Management Journal It(2), 1990, 9-17.
36. Goldstein, 1. L. et Associ6s, Training and Development in
Organtzattons. J.C.L. Inc. Publishers, 1989.
37. Peters, J. M. and Waterman, R. H., Le Prix de l'Excellence.
Ga~tan Morro Edit., Paris, 1983.
38. Afiesmama, B. T., Aggregate manpower requirements for strategic project planning. Computers Ind. Eng. 4 (12), 249-262.
39. Heneman, H. G., Schwab, D., Fossum, J. and Dyer, L.,
Personnel/Human Resources Management, 2nd edn. Homewood
I11. Richard D. Irwin Inc., 1984.
40. Milkovich, G. T. and Glueck, W., Personnel: A Diagnostic
Approach. Dallas, Business Publications Inc., 1985.
41 Miles, R. E. and Snow, C. C., Designing strategic human
resources systems. Orgamzational Dynamtcs, 1984, 36-52.
42. Tsui, A. and Milkovich, G. T., Dimensions of personnel department activities: an empirical study, Working Paper, Duke
University, 1985.
43. Dolan, S. L., Gregoriades, C. and Belout, A., The effectweness
of human resources departments in the Quebec Pulp and Paper
Industry: a multiple constituency approach. Actes du
Congre(c)s de l'Association des Sciences Administratives
Canada (ASAC), Windsor, 1995.
du
44. Tsui, A. and Milkovlch, G. T. Personnel department activities:
Constituency
perspectives and
preferences.
Personnel
Psychology 40, 1987, 519-537.
45. Belout, A. and Dolan, S., L'6valuation des directions des
r e s s o u r c e s humaines par l'approche 'Multiple constituency': une
&ude empirique. Actes du lOe Congre(c)s de l'Instttut
25
Project effectiveness and success." A Belout
46.
47
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
26
International de l'Audit Social de Paris (I.A.S.), Universit6 d'6t&
France, 1994, pp. 57 66.
Cameron, K. S and Whetten, D Perceptions of organizational
effectiveness over organizational life cycles Admtmstrattve
Science Quarter O, 26, 1981, 525 544.
Chandler, A D., Strategy and Structure. Cambridge, MIT
Press, 1962
King, W. R. and Cleland, D 1., Life cycle management In
Prolect Management Handbook, eds D. 1. Cleland and W R.
Kings. New York, 1983, pp. 209 221.
Kervin, J. B , Methods Jbr Business Reasearch. Harper colhns
Publishers, 1992.
Mlntzberg, H , Structure et D.vnamique des Orgamsatlons
Edit. d'Organlsation, Pans, 1984.
Petersen, N. Selecting project managers: An integrated ll~t of
predictors. Project Management Journal 2(22), 1991, 21 26.
Thamhaln, H. J. and Wilemon, D. C., Conflict management in
Project Life Cycles, Sloan Management Review (17), 1975, 3150.
Fabi, B. and Petersen, N. H u m a n resource m a n a g e m e n t practices in project m a n a g e m e n t International Journal o[ PJolect
Management 10(2), 1992, 81-87
Gullet, R. Personnel m a n a g e m e n t m project organization.
Pubhc Personnel Review 1(3), 1972, 17 22.
Van de Ven, A. H. and Koemg, R. A process model for program planning and evaluation. Journal o/ Economics and
Business 28( 11 ), 1976, 161-170.
56
Baker, B. N., Murphy, D. C. and Fisher, D., Factors affectmg
project management. In Project Management Handbook, eds D.
I. Cleland and W. R. Kings. N.Y., 1983, 669 685.
Dr. Adnane Belout obtained in 1987
a Master o/" Sciences degree in
Project Management from the
Unlversi O' o[ Qu¢~hec at Montreal
and a Doctorate degree ( Ph.D ) in
hutastrtal Relations (theories ~!
management functions and human
resource management) /rom the
Unive~sl O' (~[ Montreal. Canada, in
1994. He is currently assistant pro/essor o/ management and human
resource management at the School
o[" Industrial Relatton~ ( UniverstO'
o[ Montreal). For the last 8 years,
he has been teachmg courses tn
human resource management, orgamzattonal behavtour and in prolect management. Hta research interests [ocus on prolect management and human resource managenlent issues. Dr. Be[out is
current O' revolved m several projecta financed by the World Bank
as an adviser, aucht agent attd trainer m the area o[ prolect management.