No abstract

Project management maturity models are important assessment tools for the profession. Maturity models identify organizational strengths and weaknesses as well as provide benchmarking information. They capture explicit, codified practice (know-what), but do not include the intangible assets of project management (know-how). Some have made the claim that project management maturity models (MMs) can lead to a competitive advantage for firms. This paper uses four resource-based frameworks to assess whether or not maturity models lead to a sustained competitive advantage. In the context of the strategy domain, the authors conclude that MMs can result in a temporary competitive advantage but not a sustained competitive advantage. Clearly, a sustained competitive advantage is rooted in a combination of know-what and know-how.

Our views on project success have changed over the years from definitions that were limited to the implementation phase of the project life cycle to definitions that reflect an appreciation of success over the entire project and product life cycle. This paper assesses our evolving understanding of project success over the past 40 years and discusses conditions for success, critical success factors and success frameworks. The paper concludes with a holistic view of project success and its implications for practice. This is an important topic because projects are an increasingly common way of work, and the lines between project and process work are harder to discern. Increasingly, more project managers work in companies using program and portfolio management as a means to organize project-related work. The success of individual projects, therefore, impacts the wider organization in several dimensions and makes the concept of project and project management success that much more relevant. The topic is also important because it has a bearing on the future directions of project management in the strategic context.

No abstract

PurposeFew scholars have been cited as frequently as Pinto, Slevin, and Prescott for their contributions to project success and related critical success factors (CSF) in the 1980s. Studies since then built on their articles to broaden and refine our understanding of the topic. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the reasons for the impact of these seminal contributions and how the topic of project success continues to evolve.Design/methodology/approachThe paper analyses the popularity of Pinto and his colleagues' contributions to project success and reviews the development of this field of research since then.FindingsProject success remains a vibrant school of thought as do the earlier definitions, measurement scales and dimensions, and assessment techniques that Pinto and his colleagues developed. The authors view success more broadly and think of it strategically because they consider longer‐term business objectives. Some research is now based on managerial or organizational theories and reflects the multi‐dimensional and networked nature of project success.Practical implicationsPractically, the classic contributions in project success continue to be valid. The authors see diversity in how success is defined and measured. The CSFs vary by project types, life cycle phases, industries, nationalities, individuals, and organizations.Originality/valueThe paper relates earlier understandings of project success to subsequent research in the field and underscores the significant findings by Pinto, Slevin, and Prescott.

According to the Resource Based View of the firm, strategic assets contribute to a firm's competitive advantage. Strategic assets are characterized as Valuable, Rare, Inimitable, and they involve Organizational Support. These four characteristics have been theorized to result in competitive parity, temporary competitive advantage, or a sustainable competitive advantage for a company. This paper examines the relationships between key project management assets and these project management process characteristics using data from a survey of North American Project Management Institute Ò members. Findings from an analysis of the data suggest that intangible project management assets are a source of temporary competitive advantage while tangible project management assets are not. These findings highlight the importance of identifying and managing intangible project management assets for practitioners and scholars of project management.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to report the findings of a survey designed to: capture the “real world” experiences of people active in project management (PM) in Australia, Canada and the UK; determine the extent to which those involved in the management of projects make use of the methods and techniques that are available; and discover how effective the methods and techniques are felt to be. Design/methodology/approach – A questionnaire comprising 24 questions with a mixture of yes/no, Likert-scale, multiple choice and open questions was developed. These were designed so that the data gathered could be compared with the results of a similar survey conducted in the UK a decade ago. Professional networks and direct e-mails were used to distribute the survey electronically to potential respondents who were actively involved in PM in the three countries. A total of 150 responses are used in the analysis, 50 from each country. Findings – The results show that there are many areas where the experiences, practices and views are similar across all three countries and are comparable to the earlier UK survey. However, as is often the case, it is perhaps the differences that are of most interest and these are commented upon throughout the paper. Originality/value – This paper sheds light on current practice across three countries and presents a useful historical perspective on PM trends in practice and rates of credentialization of those surveyed. It also provides useful quantitative results that can be used to more broadly speculate and make sense of other qualitative studies

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to examine characteristics of project management assets and project management performance outcomes as a step towards exploring the link between assets being valuable, rare, inimitable, and having organizational support and the achievement of competitive advantage. Design/methodology/approach -This paper analyzes data from responses to an online survey by 198 North American Project Management Institute w members. Exploratory factor analysis is used to identify characteristics of project management assets and project management performance outcomes. Findings -In total, six factors that comprised the characteristics of project management assets, three factors that comprised organizational support for project management assets, and two factors that comprised the project management performance outcomes were extracted. Research limitations/implications -Limitations of this study include sample size, response rate, and self-report bias, calling for a larger sample in ongoing research. This study is a step towards making the link between project management assets and performance outcomes. Practical implications -This study draws managerial attention to project management assets as sources of competitive advantage, applying the resource based view of the firm that assets are sources of competitive advantage if they add economic value, are rare, are difficult to imitate, and have organizational support. Originality/value -Few papers have applied the resource based view of the firm to examine project management capabilities as a source of competitive advantage. This paper contributes to the literature on the resource based view of the firm and contributes to an improved understanding of project management as a source of competitive advantage.