International Construction Specialty Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering (ICSC) (5th : 2015)

Principles, characteristics, and methodology to develop a project management assessment tool at the construction… Sanjuan, Antonio G.; Froese, Thomas M. Jun 30, 2015

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52660-Sanjuan_A_et_al_ICSC15_316_Principles_Characteristics_And.pdf [ 839.03kB ]
52660-Sanjuan_A_et_al_ICSC15_316_Principles_Characteristics_And_slides.pdf [ 1.57MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52660-1.0076442.json
JSON-LD: 52660-1.0076442-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52660-1.0076442-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52660-1.0076442-rdf.json
Turtle: 52660-1.0076442-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52660-1.0076442-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52660-1.0076442-source.json
Full Text
52660-1.0076442-fulltext.txt
Citation
52660-1.0076442.ris

Full Text

5th International/11th Construction Specialty Conference 5e International/11e Conférence spécialisée sur la construction    Vancouver, British Columbia June 8 to June 10, 2015 / 8 juin au 10 juin 2015   PRINCIPLES, CHARACTERISTICS, AND METHODOLOGY TO DEVELOP A PROJECT MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT TOOL AT THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LEVEL Antonio G. Sanjuan1,3, Thomas Froese2 1 British Columbia Institute of Technology, Canada 2 University of British Columbia, Canada 3 antonio_sanjuan@bcit.ca  Abstract: This paper describes the principles, characteristics, and methodology to develop a conceptual approach and a preliminary project management assessment tool based on an integrated framework of international project management (PM) standards and construction projects success factors. Previous PM assessment tools have been designed to measure organizations’ PM practices, and individuals’ knowledge of PM. After completing these assessment tools, individuals or organizations would identify their strengths, weaknesses and training needs.  These tools, though powerful, do not assess what is actually implemented on a specific project.  The intention is to develop an assessment tool that diagnoses an organization and an individual project manager by what was actually implemented in a specific project.  By assessing what was actually implemented in a project and comparing this with the project results, it could be possible determine the strengths, weaknesses, and value of PM in a construction organization, as well as to benchmark PM best practices.  Three types of questions will be used: context questions, PM implementation questions, and project results questions. Each question will have a reference to one or more of the international PM standards. Each question will evaluate the quality or the frequency of the PM implementation, which could be a competence, knowledge, tool, technique, process, or practice. This paper discusses the question design methodology for developing the tool using the resource management knowledge area as an example. Finally, the assessment tool is tested with 18 construction projects executed by different organizations. INTRODUCTION Over several decades, project management (PM) communities of practice have put substantial effort into defining good project practice, and these practices are codified in a number of PM standards.  The ability to assess the PM practices of a project organization with respect to these best practices would provide a valuable tool for improving PM performance and benchmarking PM best practices. Furthermore, a comparison of the assessed PM levels with assessed project success can provide insight into the quantitative value that PM brings to construction projects. The goal of this research is to develop a PM assessment tool that can benchmark PM best practices, as well as to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of an organization’s PM implementation, assess levels of project success, and explore the relationship between PM practices and project success in order to evaluate the PM value.  A feature that differentiates this research from previous work is the focus on assessing PM practices at the level of individual projects, rather than assessing practices at the level of a company or of an individual manager.  This paper will focus on the principles, characteristics, and methodology to develop the PM assessment tool using the resource management area as an example. In 316-1 order to design the questions of the assessment tool, it is important to determine the methodological process, which includes a planning, preparation, and testing phase. The planning phase consists of developing an integrated framework of global standards and a ranking of critical construction success factors. The preparation phase consists of structuring and elaborating each question of the assessment tool.  The questions will be based on specific PM standards and/or project success factors. The questions are intended to determine the strengths, weaknesses, and value of PM implementation. Each of the PM implementations defined in the PM standards does not contribute equally to project success.  Therefore, some weighting technique should be applied to aggregate the PM assessment results into higher-level, overall PM scores.  The weighting scale will be based on an average of the number of citations of the success factors in management journals and the number of projects involved in the empirical data collected either from surveys or case studies in the literature review. Finally, this paper will test the questions included in the resource management area with 18 construction projects from different organizations and determine the correlation coefficients between the resource management implementation and project results. 1 EXISTING PROJECT MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT TOOLS Previous PM assessment tools have been designed to measure organizations’ PM practices, and individuals’ knowledge of PM.  The Boston University Corporate Education Center (BUCEC, bucec.com), the Atlantic Management Center Inc. (AMCI, amciweb.com), the Business Improvement Architects (BIA, bia.ca), the Enterprise Information (EII, eiicorp.com), Harold Kerzner’s PM maturity model, and  the PM/ROI Assessment by Ibbs Consulting are assessment tools designed to measure PM technical competencies, personal competencies, leadership and business competencies, or PM maturity levels. After completing these assessment tools, individuals or organizations would identify their strengths, weaknesses and training needs.  These tools, although very powerful and reputable sources of organizational PM and individual knowledge assessment, do not assess what is actually implemented on a specific project.   The intention is to develop an assessment tool that diagnoses an organization and an individual project manager by what was actually implemented in a specific project.  By assessing what was actually implemented on a specific project and comparing this with the project results, it may be possible to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the PM in a construction organization, as well as to explore the value of PM. 2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT STANDARDS There are many standards for PM practices:  A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge by the Project Management Institute, the Capability Maturity Model, Prince2, ISO 9000, the standards by the International Project Management Association (ICB), the Project and Program Management (P2M) by the Engineering Advancement Association of Japan, and the C-PMBOK by the Chinese project management conference among others.  This study will use an integrated framework from four international PM standards: A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) from the Project Management Institute, the International Project Management Association Competence Baseline Version 3.0 (ICB), PRINCE2 by the Government of UK, and the ISO 9000 family of standards.  It is important to note that PRINCE2 is a methodology but it has all the components of a standard. Mapping these four global standards gives validity to the process of developing the PM assessment tool. 316-2 3 PROJECT SUCCESS FACTORS Project success factors were identified to provide a source for the weighting scale of the questions of the assessment tool. Project success factors from previous research also give validity to the initial PM assessment tool questions.   Projects are considered successful when they meet stakeholders’ needs and expectations.  Most of the time, the stakeholder’s needs and expectations are met when the project is on time, on budget and within the scope and quality planned.  However, project success criteria are subjective, and most of the time, are determined by the stakeholders. There is a clear difference between project success and PM success (Wit, 1998).   In a recent study, a set of metrics were used to try to determine the link between PM practices and project success.  The outcome of this study was that the better the PM practices, the better the project results, “the results suggest that the PM practices that make a difference may not be the most frequently used” (Papke-Shields, Beise, & Quan, 2010). For the purpose of this study, critical success factors has been selected from construction projects only.  So far, there has been identified 60 research papers from different scientific journals stating the number of construction projects and the critical success factors identified. Table 1 provides an example of these success factors, listing just the top ten ranked factors, based on the number of reference that identified the factor and the total number of project cases studied in identifying the factor.  Each of these success factors, as well as the PM standards, will be related to one or more of the questions of the initial PM assessment tool. Table 1 Example of Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects. Rank  Critical Success Factor Identified in Construction Projects No. of Citations Case Studies 1 Multidisciplinary/competent project team 10 661 2 Clear objectives and scope 9 542 3 Time performance (project schedule/plans) 8 860 4 Formal & Structured Selection of Contractor/subcontractors 8 648 5 Competent project manager 7 565 6 Clear information and communications channels 6 619 7 Project team commitment 6 454 8 Power and Politics 5 932 9 Client's competencies 5 539 10 Continuous involvement of stakeholders in the project 5 528 4 ASSESSMENT TOOL METHODOLOGY In order to design the questions of the PM assessment tool, it is important to determine the methodological process, as well as some principles and assessment tool characteristics. The process of developing the PM assessment tool includes a planning phase, a preparation phase, and a testing phase. The planning phase consists of developing an integrated framework of global standards and the project success factors literature. The preparation phase consists of structuring and elaborating each question of the assessment tool.  The questions will be based on specific PM standards and/or project success factors. This link between the questions of the assessment tool and the PM standards and success factors will give face validity to the PM assessment tool.  The questions are intended to determine 316-3 strengths, weaknesses, and the value of PM, as well as to benchmark PM best practices. Thus, the questions are divided in three categories; one set of questions related to the project context, another set of questions related to the actual PM implementation in reference to one finished project, and a third set of questions related to the project results.  The testing phase consists of using a preliminary PM assessment tool to test the reliability and validity of the PM assessment tool on several pilot cases. After pilot testing and refinement, the PM assessment tool will be ready for a full scale survey. 5 DEVELOPING AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK OF INTERNATIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT STANDARDS This study developed an integrated framework from four international PM standards: A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) by the Project Management Institute (PMI), the International Project Management Association Competence Baseline Version 3.0 (ICB3), PRINCE2 by the Government of UK, and the ISO 9001:2008 standard.  This framework is organized around the same structure of the PMBOK, but it consists of 11 management areas and 5 process groups. All four international standards include the following PM knowledge areas in different forms or wording: integration, scope, time, cost, quality, human resources, communication and information, risk, and procurement.  For the purpose of this study and to adapt the framework to construction projects, the following two PM areas have been added: context, and safety and environmental management.  Project context, and safety and environmental management are missing in the PMBOK, or included in a different set of standards.  However, these management areas are specifically included in the ICB3 as contextual competences.  The five process groups are clearly identified in the PMBOK and PRINCE2: initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing.  The most comprehensive and elaborated standard is the PMBOK by the PMI, so some knowledge management areas such as cost, risk and procurement contain processes that are taken from the PMBOK as is. The other international standards mention these and other knowledge management areas and process groups in general term and definitions, so mappings to these standards have been made. For instance, project human resource management is also called Resources in ICB3 and Organization in PRINCE2, Table 2. 6 DESIGN OF QUESTIONS USING THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT KNOWLEDGE AREA The four global standards emphasize the process of planning, selecting, training, and managing the project team.  Table 2 shows a mapping of the four global standards for the resource management area.   Project human resource management for the PMBOK standard is the process of organizing, managing, and leading the project team to achieve a goal.  This process includes planning human resources, acquiring the project team, developing the project team, and managing the project team. The human resource plan includes the identification of roles and responsibilities, the required skills, reporting relationships and the creation of the staffing management plan. It is the most elaborated standard in the matter of human resource management, but also it misses other project resources, behavioural competences, the work environment, and the organization executing the project.  The PRINCE2 methodology defines roles and responsibilities as one of its principles, which relates directly to one of the PRINCE2 themes, the organization.  The organization is defined in different levels, from project level to corporate level. The definition of roles and responsibilities in item 5.4 of this standard are very broad and more toward the internal corporate organization, as well as the definitions on the PM team, PRINCE2, item 5.3.2. However, this standard states clearly the importance of training the project team if needed. In this standard or methodology, the team plans (section 7.2.6) is the closest parallel to the human resource plan and is also vaguely defined. 316-4 Table 1. Mapping of the Four PM Standards for the Management Area of “Project Human Resource Management” (or “Resources” in ICB and “Organization” in Prince2).  Each column represents on of the five PM process groups. Items marked “*” are from the ICB3 standard, those marked with a “+” are from PRINCE2, “#” from ISO9001, and the rest are from PMBOK. Initiating * Start up + Starting up & initiating Planning + Plans Executing + Directing Monitoring & controlling * Control + Progress # Measuring, analysis, & improvement Closing * Close-out + Closing   1. H.R plan + Responsibilities 1. Acquire project team     # 1. Ensuring availability of resources * 2. Project Organisation 2. Develop project team + Training Needs # 1.  Competence of personnel     * 3. Teamwork 3. Manage project team # 2. Work environment     + 4. Team Plans, Project Management Team * 3. Behavioural competences       # 5. Defining responsibility & authority # 4. Acquire, deploy, maintain, & dispose resources     The international standard ICB-3 states and defines resource management, resource competence (section 1.12), as the planning, allocation, optimization, and monitoring and controlling of humans, materials, and equipment resources.  In addition, project organization competence, teamwork, and project structures competence are considered part of this management area since they are related to the project environment. In terms of the latent variables of this study, project organization, teamwork, and project structures are part of the project context. Behavioural competences are considered in this area because they are relevant to PM and the project manager. However, the PM assessment tool will not include a question for each behavioral competence element, since the tool will be more focused on technical competences.  It will include leadership, creativity, consultation, and ethics as part of the leadership score. The global standard ISO 9001:2008 mentions the need to ensure the availability of resources and defining responsibilities and authority as part of the management commitment and responsibility.  However, it is item 6 of the standard that states clearly resource management, not only to continually improve the management system in place, but also to achieve the satisfaction of the stakeholders by reaching their project requirements. It is a general statement of the resource management process.  It does not state or mention a plan, but it includes important elements such as definitions of competence for people executing the work, the training needs, the infrastructure and equipment required, and the work environment.  The questions in the assessment tool and in the resource management knowledge area in particular are designed to address the PM implementation in one project, the context in which the project and the 316-5 organization performed during the project life cycle, and the project results.  These are called the latent variables.   In addition, there are different types of PM implementation: competence, knowledge, skills, tool, technique, process, and practice. Each question fits one or more than one of these PM implementation according to their definitions (see table 3). Each question has been elaborated based on the best PM practices according to four global PM standards and construction success factors. Each question has a reference to one or more standard (see table 3), or one or more construction success factors (see ranking of construction success factors in table 1).   Finally, each question is designed to evaluate the quality of the PM implementation or the frequency of the PM implementation during the project life cycle, or both of them.  One of the key questions to assess the quality of the resource management process is the presence of the human resource plan.  If the plan exists, there may be different levels of implementations from informal to a very formal process.  Thus, the question of the assessment tool would be formulated towards how well the human resource plan was implemented in terms of its component elements or processes. Table 2. Resource Management Area Questions, Latent Variables, Type of PM Implementation, Standard Reference, and Quality & Frequency Characteristics. 55 HR plan: identified roles/responsabilities/ski      Implementation Technical YES 9.1 to 9.41.06, 1.07   7.2.6, 5.34.1d, 6.2.   YES56 PM of client experience in years? Implementation Technical YES YES 9.1.3.1 1.2 2.2 6.257 Developer/owner organization experience? Implementation Technical YES YES 9.1.3.1 1.2 2.2 6.258 Constructor organization experience? Implementation Technical YES YES 9.1.3.1 1.2 2.2 6.259 PM of constructor experience in years? Implementation Technical YES YES 9.1.3.1 1.2 2.2 6.260 PM highest level of education? Implementation Technical YES 1.7.1, 9.1 1.2 6.2.161 How do you rate your leadership skills? Implementation Behavioural YES 9.4.2.4 2.01 to 2.07 6.2 YES62 Did you exploded into anger? Implementation Behavioural YES 9.4.2.4 2.01 to 2.07 6.2 YES YES63 Requested input from team member affectedImplementation Behavioural YES 9.4.2.4 2.01 to 2.07 6.2 YES YES64 Spent time thinking how to improve things Implementation Behavioural YES 9.4.2.4 2.01 to 2.07 6.2 YES YES65 Hypothetical situation/conflict of interest (Et  Implementation Behavioural YES 2.15 6.2 YES66 Extrovert or introvert?, Sensing or intuitive?,      Implementation YES 9.1.3.1, A.X3 5.3.3.167 Hours of work per day? Results YES 9.2.3.1 YES68 Managing more than one project? Results YES 9.2.3.1 YES69 Recognition and reward system? Implementation YES 9.3.2.6 YES70 How many project managers? Results Contextual YES 9.3.3.1 3.0871 Acquired the necessary project team? Implementation YES 9.2 5.3.2 6.2 YES YES72 Performance assessment during project life? Implementation YES 9.3.3 6.2.2c YESQuestion # Knowledge Tool PracticeTechnique ProcessSkillsPM Implementation"Latent Variable"CompetenceQuestionISO9001:PMBOK ICB-3 PRINCE2CharacteristicStandardHow Well/QFrequency The next four questions on the resource management area are related to construction experience (owner/client organization, developer manager, construction organization, and construction manager).  The PMBOK and ICB standard do not mention specifically this element within their standards.  PRINCE2 states it in the standard 5.3.2.1 which is referring more towards the PM team structure than to the experience itself. ISO 9001-2008 6.2.1 states the importance of experience in the general definition of human resources, table 3. However, experience is what makes a competent project manager, which is ranked at the top five on critical construction success factors by the number of citation in journal articles. Seven citations with a total of 565 project cases concluded that the project manager competence is key to project success. Table 1 shows the ranking of the construction success factors.  The type of answer for these questions are open ended.  The next question of the assessment tool in the resource management area is the level of education of the project manager of the construction organization. This question is related to the project manager knowledge. It is referred in the PMBOK standard on item 1.7.1 and 9.1.3.1 as knowledge and competence.   ICB3 refers to the knowledge and the professional PM in item 1.2.  The only standard that refers to the competence on the basis of the appropriate education is ISO 9001:2008, 6.2.1, see Table 3. In addition, the top construction success factor according to number of citations from journals and 661 case studies within those citations is multidisciplinary, competent project team, table 1.  316-6 The next nine questions in the resource management area are related to the leadership skills and personality types.  It is difficult to fully assess the leadership and personality type of a project manager.  These two interpersonal skills could easily be two separate assessment tools themselves.  The leadership skills is assessed based on five questions. One is a self-assessment of the leadership by the tool user, how would you rate your leadership skills from excellent to poor.  The other ones are based on the very definition of the leadership skills by the PMBOK “Leadership is the ability to get things done through others by establishing and maintaining the vision, strategy, and communication; fostering trust and team building; influencing, mentoring, and monitoring; and evaluating the performance of the team and the project.” Table 3 shows the references to their specific standards on questions 61 to 65. The personality type is based on the Myers and Briggs type indicator assessment.  It is a summary of the Myers and Briggs assessment.  The first question is related to the individual preference for energy (introvert or extrovert), the second is related to the individual preference for information gathering (sensing or intuitive), the third one is about the individual preference for decision making (thinking or feeling), and the last one is related to the individual preference for lifestyle (judging or perceiving). The PMBOK standard mentions personality types on the required skills as part of the human resource plan, 9.1.3.1 and appendix X3 (interpersonal skills).  PRINCE2 methodology states personality types in 5.3.3.1.  Research suggest that a large majority of all managers have personality either Introvert-Sensing-Thinking-Judging or Extrovert-Sensing-Thinking-Judging, Noe et al.2003. Table 3 shows the references to their specific standards on questions 66a to 66d. The last six questions in the resource management area are related to acquiring and developing the project team.  The questions are intended to triangulate or corroborate the existence of the necessary project team, question 71. So, if there is an adequate project team then the hours of work should be around the normal working hours (question 67), working in one project most of the time (question 68), with a performance, recognition and reward system (questions 69 and 72) that allows the organization to reduce the employees’ turnovers.  See table 3 for the questions with reference to their specific standards, their PM implementation types, and their quality of frequency characteristics. Acquiring the project team could also be extended to the proper selection of the subcontractors, which is ranked as the fourth construction success factor; formal and structured selection of subcontractors, table 1. 7 SCORING CRITERIA After elaborating the questions, the next step is the scoring criteria for each question.  There were several calibration processes in order to weight the score of each question; from assigning 1 point for each question to separating the questions according to the latent variables in the following groups: context questions, PM implementation questions, and project results questions. Finally, a scoring criteria based on the construction success factors was chosen. Questions within the top ranking of construction success factors were given more weight.  For instance, resource management questions related to roles and responsibilities, the staffing management plan, experience, leadership, knowledge related to construction, acquiring the necessary project team, performance assessment plan are being scored with 10 points, as these questions are closely related to the following construction success factors: multidisciplinary project team(1), formal structured selection of subcontractors (4), competent project manager (5), project team commitment (7), client competencies (9),  leadership (26), employee enhancement (38), and availability of resources (52). The total scoring for resource management area on the planning group is 132 points in PM implementation, for the executing process group is 13 points for PM implementation and 14 for project results, and finally the monitoring and controlling process group has a maximum score of 4 points for PM implementation.  In total, the resource management area account for 149 points out of 591 (25.2%) of the total possible PM implementation, as well as 14 points out of 220 (6.3%) of the total possible project results. The low percentage in project results in this area can be explained in the sense that this management area can be considered more of an input than a project result, and also because the project results are measured and located more in other management areas such as the project time, cost, scope, and quality.  316-7 8 TESTING PHASE AND ANALYSIS The assessment tool has been tested with 18 construction projects from different organizations, with different types of projects, sizes, and context. In order to test and analyze the results in the resource management area, the projects are separated according to these differences.  At the end, the results are compared among all projects to draw some general conclusions.  8.1 Residential Projects from the Same Organization The first selection are high-rise residential projects from the same organization. The projects range from $19 million to $70 million, with an average of $44 million canadian dollars. All these project are located and built in lower mainland BC. The project managers taking the assesment tool rated these project with complexity level 3 or 4, where 5 is very complex (e.g. demanding stakeholders, complex design, etc.) and 1 is very simple project (e.g. similar to previous type of project).  Table 4 shows the resource management implementation for the specific project in HR column, the total PM implementation in all management areas, and the total project results.   Table 4. High-Rise residential projects from the same organization Project ID Human Resource Management Score Overall PM Score Project Result Score CR1 128 452 180 CR2 87 348 157 CR3 85 297 136 CR4 99 442 149 The correlation coefficient is 0.878 between human resource management implementation and project results.  The correlation coefficient is 0.812 between human resource management implementation and total PM implementation. Finally, the correlation coefficient is 0.704 between PM implementation and total project results.  Although these coefficients are lower than the critical values of the Pearson correlation coefficient for n=4, r = 0.95, the results show that there is a strong association between the three data sets.  The better the resource management implementation, the better the project results in terms of time, cost, quality, and customer satisfaction. In addition, the better the resource management area implementation, the better the overall project PM implementation.  8.2 Institutional Projects from the Same Organization The second selection consists of 11 institutional projects from the same organization.  The projects range from $3 million to $20 million, with an average of $7 million. All project are located in different islands of British Columbia.  Most projects are new schools or additions to existing schools for different First Nation communities. The project level complexity range from 3 to 5.  For these projects, the correlation coefficient is 0.012 between resource management implementation and project results.  The correlation coefficient is -0.013 between resource management implementation and total PM implementation. These two correlation coefficients show that there is no correlation between the two data sets.  Interestingly, there is a statistical correlation between PM implementation and total project results for n= 11 and the Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.602.  The correlation coefficient is 0.739 between PM implementation and total project results.   8.3 All Projects Combined  The remaining three project are a $1.6 billion highway, a $32.5-million high-rise residential, and a $4.4-million institutional, all of them from different organizations. In this particular situation, n=18, the Pearson correlation coefficient is r = 0.468.  There is a coefficient correlation of 0.280 between reource management and total project results, so there is no statistical correlation. There is a coefficient correlation of 0.167 between resource management area and the total PM implementation including all 316-8 REFERENCES Akinci, B. & Fisher M. (1998). Factors affecting contractors’ risk of cost overburden. Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, Vol.14, No.1, January/February.  Bryde, D. & Robinson, L. (2005).  Client versus contractor perspectives on project success criteria, International Journal of Project Management, Vol.23, Issue 8, November 2005, 622-629. Chang, A. (2002).  Reasons for cost and schedule increase for engineering design projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, Vol.18, No.1, January. Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The “real” success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, Volume 20, Issue 3, April, 185-190. DeVellis, R.F. (1991).  Scale development. Theory and applications. London: Sage. Englund, R., & Graham, R. (1999). From experience: linking projects to strategy. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol.16, Issue 1, January 1999, 52-64. Fortune, J., & White, D. (2006). Framing of project critical success factors by a system model. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 53-65. Ibbs, W., & Kwak, Y. (2000). Calculating project management’s return on investment. Project Management Journal, PMI, June, Vol.31, No. 2, 38-47. Ibbs, W., and Kwak, Y. (2002). Project management process maturity model. Journal of Management in Engineering, July, Vol.18, No. 3, 150-155. Ibbs, W., and Reginato, J. (2002). Quantifying the value of project management. PMI. Karen E. Papke-Shields, K., Beise, K, & Quan, J. (2010). Do project managers practice what they preach, and does it matter to project success?   International Journal of Project Management, Vol.28, Issue 7, October, 650-662. Love, P., & Edwards, D. (2004). Forensic project Management: The underlying causes of rework in construction projects. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 21: 3, 207-228.  The Office of Government Commerce (OGC). (2009). Managing successful projects with Prince2, Edition Manual. Phillips, J. (2010). Project management professional study guide. Third edition, McGraw Hill. Pinto, J.K., & Slevin, D.P. (1987). Critical factors in successful project implementation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 34, 22-27. Pinto, J.K., & Prescott, J.E. (1988). Variations in critical success factors over the project life cycle. Journal of Management, 14: 5. Pinto, J.K., & Mantel, S.J. (1990). The causes of project failure. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 37, November. PMI, (2008). A Guide to the project management body of knowledge. Fourth Edition Shenhar, A.,Tishler, A., Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S., & Lechler, T. (2002). Refining the search for project success factors: a multivariate, typological approach. R & D Management, 32, 2.   316-10  5th International/11th Construction Specialty Conference 5e International/11e Conférence spécialisée sur la construction    Vancouver, British Columbia June 8 to June 10, 2015 / 8 juin au 10 juin 2015   PRINCIPLES, CHARACTERISTICS, AND METHODOLOGY TO DEVELOP A PROJECT MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT TOOL AT THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LEVEL Antonio G. Sanjuan1,3, Thomas Froese2 1 British Columbia Institute of Technology, Canada 2 University of British Columbia, Canada 3 antonio_sanjuan@bcit.ca  Abstract: This paper describes the principles, characteristics, and methodology to develop a conceptual approach and a preliminary project management assessment tool based on an integrated framework of international project management (PM) standards and construction projects success factors. Previous PM assessment tools have been designed to measure organizations’ PM practices, and individuals’ knowledge of PM. After completing these assessment tools, individuals or organizations would identify their strengths, weaknesses and training needs.  These tools, though powerful, do not assess what is actually implemented on a specific project.  The intention is to develop an assessment tool that diagnoses an organization and an individual project manager by what was actually implemented in a specific project.  By assessing what was actually implemented in a project and comparing this with the project results, it could be possible determine the strengths, weaknesses, and value of PM in a construction organization, as well as to benchmark PM best practices.  Three types of questions will be used: context questions, PM implementation questions, and project results questions. Each question will have a reference to one or more of the international PM standards. Each question will evaluate the quality or the frequency of the PM implementation, which could be a competence, knowledge, tool, technique, process, or practice. This paper discusses the question design methodology for developing the tool using the resource management knowledge area as an example. Finally, the assessment tool is tested with 18 construction projects executed by different organizations. INTRODUCTION Over several decades, project management (PM) communities of practice have put substantial effort into defining good project practice, and these practices are codified in a number of PM standards.  The ability to assess the PM practices of a project organization with respect to these best practices would provide a valuable tool for improving PM performance and benchmarking PM best practices. Furthermore, a comparison of the assessed PM levels with assessed project success can provide insight into the quantitative value that PM brings to construction projects. The goal of this research is to develop a PM assessment tool that can benchmark PM best practices, as well as to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of an organization’s PM implementation, assess levels of project success, and explore the relationship between PM practices and project success in order to evaluate the PM value.  A feature that differentiates this research from previous work is the focus on assessing PM practices at the level of individual projects, rather than assessing practices at the level of a company or of an individual manager.  This paper will focus on the principles, characteristics, and methodology to develop the PM assessment tool using the resource management area as an example. In 316-1 order to design the questions of the assessment tool, it is important to determine the methodological process, which includes a planning, preparation, and testing phase. The planning phase consists of developing an integrated framework of global standards and a ranking of critical construction success factors. The preparation phase consists of structuring and elaborating each question of the assessment tool.  The questions will be based on specific PM standards and/or project success factors. The questions are intended to determine the strengths, weaknesses, and value of PM implementation. Each of the PM implementations defined in the PM standards does not contribute equally to project success.  Therefore, some weighting technique should be applied to aggregate the PM assessment results into higher-level, overall PM scores.  The weighting scale will be based on an average of the number of citations of the success factors in management journals and the number of projects involved in the empirical data collected either from surveys or case studies in the literature review. Finally, this paper will test the questions included in the resource management area with 18 construction projects from different organizations and determine the correlation coefficients between the resource management implementation and project results. 1 EXISTING PROJECT MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT TOOLS Previous PM assessment tools have been designed to measure organizations’ PM practices, and individuals’ knowledge of PM.  The Boston University Corporate Education Center (BUCEC, bucec.com), the Atlantic Management Center Inc. (AMCI, amciweb.com), the Business Improvement Architects (BIA, bia.ca), the Enterprise Information (EII, eiicorp.com), Harold Kerzner’s PM maturity model, and  the PM/ROI Assessment by Ibbs Consulting are assessment tools designed to measure PM technical competencies, personal competencies, leadership and business competencies, or PM maturity levels. After completing these assessment tools, individuals or organizations would identify their strengths, weaknesses and training needs.  These tools, although very powerful and reputable sources of organizational PM and individual knowledge assessment, do not assess what is actually implemented on a specific project.   The intention is to develop an assessment tool that diagnoses an organization and an individual project manager by what was actually implemented in a specific project.  By assessing what was actually implemented on a specific project and comparing this with the project results, it may be possible to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the PM in a construction organization, as well as to explore the value of PM. 2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT STANDARDS There are many standards for PM practices:  A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge by the Project Management Institute, the Capability Maturity Model, Prince2, ISO 9000, the standards by the International Project Management Association (ICB), the Project and Program Management (P2M) by the Engineering Advancement Association of Japan, and the C-PMBOK by the Chinese project management conference among others.  This study will use an integrated framework from four international PM standards: A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) from the Project Management Institute, the International Project Management Association Competence Baseline Version 3.0 (ICB), PRINCE2 by the Government of UK, and the ISO 9000 family of standards.  It is important to note that PRINCE2 is a methodology but it has all the components of a standard. Mapping these four global standards gives validity to the process of developing the PM assessment tool. 316-2 3 PROJECT SUCCESS FACTORS Project success factors were identified to provide a source for the weighting scale of the questions of the assessment tool. Project success factors from previous research also give validity to the initial PM assessment tool questions.   Projects are considered successful when they meet stakeholders’ needs and expectations.  Most of the time, the stakeholder’s needs and expectations are met when the project is on time, on budget and within the scope and quality planned.  However, project success criteria are subjective, and most of the time, are determined by the stakeholders. There is a clear difference between project success and PM success (Wit, 1998).   In a recent study, a set of metrics were used to try to determine the link between PM practices and project success.  The outcome of this study was that the better the PM practices, the better the project results, “the results suggest that the PM practices that make a difference may not be the most frequently used” (Papke-Shields, Beise, & Quan, 2010). For the purpose of this study, critical success factors has been selected from construction projects only.  So far, there has been identified 60 research papers from different scientific journals stating the number of construction projects and the critical success factors identified. Table 1 provides an example of these success factors, listing just the top ten ranked factors, based on the number of reference that identified the factor and the total number of project cases studied in identifying the factor.  Each of these success factors, as well as the PM standards, will be related to one or more of the questions of the initial PM assessment tool. Table 1 Example of Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects. Rank  Critical Success Factor Identified in Construction Projects No. of Citations Case Studies 1 Multidisciplinary/competent project team 10 661 2 Clear objectives and scope 9 542 3 Time performance (project schedule/plans) 8 860 4 Formal & Structured Selection of Contractor/subcontractors 8 648 5 Competent project manager 7 565 6 Clear information and communications channels 6 619 7 Project team commitment 6 454 8 Power and Politics 5 932 9 Client's competencies 5 539 10 Continuous involvement of stakeholders in the project 5 528 4 ASSESSMENT TOOL METHODOLOGY In order to design the questions of the PM assessment tool, it is important to determine the methodological process, as well as some principles and assessment tool characteristics. The process of developing the PM assessment tool includes a planning phase, a preparation phase, and a testing phase. The planning phase consists of developing an integrated framework of global standards and the project success factors literature. The preparation phase consists of structuring and elaborating each question of the assessment tool.  The questions will be based on specific PM standards and/or project success factors. This link between the questions of the assessment tool and the PM standards and success factors will give face validity to the PM assessment tool.  The questions are intended to determine 316-3 strengths, weaknesses, and the value of PM, as well as to benchmark PM best practices. Thus, the questions are divided in three categories; one set of questions related to the project context, another set of questions related to the actual PM implementation in reference to one finished project, and a third set of questions related to the project results.  The testing phase consists of using a preliminary PM assessment tool to test the reliability and validity of the PM assessment tool on several pilot cases. After pilot testing and refinement, the PM assessment tool will be ready for a full scale survey. 5 DEVELOPING AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK OF INTERNATIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT STANDARDS This study developed an integrated framework from four international PM standards: A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) by the Project Management Institute (PMI), the International Project Management Association Competence Baseline Version 3.0 (ICB3), PRINCE2 by the Government of UK, and the ISO 9001:2008 standard.  This framework is organized around the same structure of the PMBOK, but it consists of 11 management areas and 5 process groups. All four international standards include the following PM knowledge areas in different forms or wording: integration, scope, time, cost, quality, human resources, communication and information, risk, and procurement.  For the purpose of this study and to adapt the framework to construction projects, the following two PM areas have been added: context, and safety and environmental management.  Project context, and safety and environmental management are missing in the PMBOK, or included in a different set of standards.  However, these management areas are specifically included in the ICB3 as contextual competences.  The five process groups are clearly identified in the PMBOK and PRINCE2: initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing.  The most comprehensive and elaborated standard is the PMBOK by the PMI, so some knowledge management areas such as cost, risk and procurement contain processes that are taken from the PMBOK as is. The other international standards mention these and other knowledge management areas and process groups in general term and definitions, so mappings to these standards have been made. For instance, project human resource management is also called Resources in ICB3 and Organization in PRINCE2, Table 2. 6 DESIGN OF QUESTIONS USING THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT KNOWLEDGE AREA The four global standards emphasize the process of planning, selecting, training, and managing the project team.  Table 2 shows a mapping of the four global standards for the resource management area.   Project human resource management for the PMBOK standard is the process of organizing, managing, and leading the project team to achieve a goal.  This process includes planning human resources, acquiring the project team, developing the project team, and managing the project team. The human resource plan includes the identification of roles and responsibilities, the required skills, reporting relationships and the creation of the staffing management plan. It is the most elaborated standard in the matter of human resource management, but also it misses other project resources, behavioural competences, the work environment, and the organization executing the project.  The PRINCE2 methodology defines roles and responsibilities as one of its principles, which relates directly to one of the PRINCE2 themes, the organization.  The organization is defined in different levels, from project level to corporate level. The definition of roles and responsibilities in item 5.4 of this standard are very broad and more toward the internal corporate organization, as well as the definitions on the PM team, PRINCE2, item 5.3.2. However, this standard states clearly the importance of training the project team if needed. In this standard or methodology, the team plans (section 7.2.6) is the closest parallel to the human resource plan and is also vaguely defined. 316-4 Table 1. Mapping of the Four PM Standards for the Management Area of “Project Human Resource Management” (or “Resources” in ICB and “Organization” in Prince2).  Each column represents on of the five PM process groups. Items marked “*” are from the ICB3 standard, those marked with a “+” are from PRINCE2, “#” from ISO9001, and the rest are from PMBOK. Initiating * Start up + Starting up & initiating Planning + Plans Executing + Directing Monitoring & controlling * Control + Progress # Measuring, analysis, & improvement Closing * Close-out + Closing   1. H.R plan + Responsibilities 1. Acquire project team     # 1. Ensuring availability of resources * 2. Project Organisation 2. Develop project team + Training Needs # 1.  Competence of personnel     * 3. Teamwork 3. Manage project team # 2. Work environment     + 4. Team Plans, Project Management Team * 3. Behavioural competences       # 5. Defining responsibility & authority # 4. Acquire, deploy, maintain, & dispose resources     The international standard ICB-3 states and defines resource management, resource competence (section 1.12), as the planning, allocation, optimization, and monitoring and controlling of humans, materials, and equipment resources.  In addition, project organization competence, teamwork, and project structures competence are considered part of this management area since they are related to the project environment. In terms of the latent variables of this study, project organization, teamwork, and project structures are part of the project context. Behavioural competences are considered in this area because they are relevant to PM and the project manager. However, the PM assessment tool will not include a question for each behavioral competence element, since the tool will be more focused on technical competences.  It will include leadership, creativity, consultation, and ethics as part of the leadership score. The global standard ISO 9001:2008 mentions the need to ensure the availability of resources and defining responsibilities and authority as part of the management commitment and responsibility.  However, it is item 6 of the standard that states clearly resource management, not only to continually improve the management system in place, but also to achieve the satisfaction of the stakeholders by reaching their project requirements. It is a general statement of the resource management process.  It does not state or mention a plan, but it includes important elements such as definitions of competence for people executing the work, the training needs, the infrastructure and equipment required, and the work environment.  The questions in the assessment tool and in the resource management knowledge area in particular are designed to address the PM implementation in one project, the context in which the project and the 316-5 organization performed during the project life cycle, and the project results.  These are called the latent variables.   In addition, there are different types of PM implementation: competence, knowledge, skills, tool, technique, process, and practice. Each question fits one or more than one of these PM implementation according to their definitions (see table 3). Each question has been elaborated based on the best PM practices according to four global PM standards and construction success factors. Each question has a reference to one or more standard (see table 3), or one or more construction success factors (see ranking of construction success factors in table 1).   Finally, each question is designed to evaluate the quality of the PM implementation or the frequency of the PM implementation during the project life cycle, or both of them.  One of the key questions to assess the quality of the resource management process is the presence of the human resource plan.  If the plan exists, there may be different levels of implementations from informal to a very formal process.  Thus, the question of the assessment tool would be formulated towards how well the human resource plan was implemented in terms of its component elements or processes. Table 2. Resource Management Area Questions, Latent Variables, Type of PM Implementation, Standard Reference, and Quality & Frequency Characteristics. 55 HR plan: identified roles/responsabilities/ski      Implementation Technical YES 9.1 to 9.41.06, 1.07   7.2.6, 5.34.1d, 6.2.   YES56 PM of client experience in years? Implementation Technical YES YES 9.1.3.1 1.2 2.2 6.257 Developer/owner organization experience? Implementation Technical YES YES 9.1.3.1 1.2 2.2 6.258 Constructor organization experience? Implementation Technical YES YES 9.1.3.1 1.2 2.2 6.259 PM of constructor experience in years? Implementation Technical YES YES 9.1.3.1 1.2 2.2 6.260 PM highest level of education? Implementation Technical YES 1.7.1, 9.1 1.2 6.2.161 How do you rate your leadership skills? Implementation Behavioural YES 9.4.2.4 2.01 to 2.07 6.2 YES62 Did you exploded into anger? Implementation Behavioural YES 9.4.2.4 2.01 to 2.07 6.2 YES YES63 Requested input from team member affectedImplementation Behavioural YES 9.4.2.4 2.01 to 2.07 6.2 YES YES64 Spent time thinking how to improve things Implementation Behavioural YES 9.4.2.4 2.01 to 2.07 6.2 YES YES65 Hypothetical situation/conflict of interest (Et  Implementation Behavioural YES 2.15 6.2 YES66 Extrovert or introvert?, Sensing or intuitive?,      Implementation YES 9.1.3.1, A.X3 5.3.3.167 Hours of work per day? Results YES 9.2.3.1 YES68 Managing more than one project? Results YES 9.2.3.1 YES69 Recognition and reward system? Implementation YES 9.3.2.6 YES70 How many project managers? Results Contextual YES 9.3.3.1 3.0871 Acquired the necessary project team? Implementation YES 9.2 5.3.2 6.2 YES YES72 Performance assessment during project life? Implementation YES 9.3.3 6.2.2c YESQuestion # Knowledge Tool PracticeTechnique ProcessSkillsPM Implementation"Latent Variable"CompetenceQuestionISO9001:PMBOK ICB-3 PRINCE2CharacteristicStandardHow Well/QFrequency The next four questions on the resource management area are related to construction experience (owner/client organization, developer manager, construction organization, and construction manager).  The PMBOK and ICB standard do not mention specifically this element within their standards.  PRINCE2 states it in the standard 5.3.2.1 which is referring more towards the PM team structure than to the experience itself. ISO 9001-2008 6.2.1 states the importance of experience in the general definition of human resources, table 3. However, experience is what makes a competent project manager, which is ranked at the top five on critical construction success factors by the number of citation in journal articles. Seven citations with a total of 565 project cases concluded that the project manager competence is key to project success. Table 1 shows the ranking of the construction success factors.  The type of answer for these questions are open ended.  The next question of the assessment tool in the resource management area is the level of education of the project manager of the construction organization. This question is related to the project manager knowledge. It is referred in the PMBOK standard on item 1.7.1 and 9.1.3.1 as knowledge and competence.   ICB3 refers to the knowledge and the professional PM in item 1.2.  The only standard that refers to the competence on the basis of the appropriate education is ISO 9001:2008, 6.2.1, see Table 3. In addition, the top construction success factor according to number of citations from journals and 661 case studies within those citations is multidisciplinary, competent project team, table 1.  316-6 The next nine questions in the resource management area are related to the leadership skills and personality types.  It is difficult to fully assess the leadership and personality type of a project manager.  These two interpersonal skills could easily be two separate assessment tools themselves.  The leadership skills is assessed based on five questions. One is a self-assessment of the leadership by the tool user, how would you rate your leadership skills from excellent to poor.  The other ones are based on the very definition of the leadership skills by the PMBOK “Leadership is the ability to get things done through others by establishing and maintaining the vision, strategy, and communication; fostering trust and team building; influencing, mentoring, and monitoring; and evaluating the performance of the team and the project.” Table 3 shows the references to their specific standards on questions 61 to 65. The personality type is based on the Myers and Briggs type indicator assessment.  It is a summary of the Myers and Briggs assessment.  The first question is related to the individual preference for energy (introvert or extrovert), the second is related to the individual preference for information gathering (sensing or intuitive), the third one is about the individual preference for decision making (thinking or feeling), and the last one is related to the individual preference for lifestyle (judging or perceiving). The PMBOK standard mentions personality types on the required skills as part of the human resource plan, 9.1.3.1 and appendix X3 (interpersonal skills).  PRINCE2 methodology states personality types in 5.3.3.1.  Research suggest that a large majority of all managers have personality either Introvert-Sensing-Thinking-Judging or Extrovert-Sensing-Thinking-Judging, Noe et al.2003. Table 3 shows the references to their specific standards on questions 66a to 66d. The last six questions in the resource management area are related to acquiring and developing the project team.  The questions are intended to triangulate or corroborate the existence of the necessary project team, question 71. So, if there is an adequate project team then the hours of work should be around the normal working hours (question 67), working in one project most of the time (question 68), with a performance, recognition and reward system (questions 69 and 72) that allows the organization to reduce the employees’ turnovers.  See table 3 for the questions with reference to their specific standards, their PM implementation types, and their quality of frequency characteristics. Acquiring the project team could also be extended to the proper selection of the subcontractors, which is ranked as the fourth construction success factor; formal and structured selection of subcontractors, table 1. 7 SCORING CRITERIA After elaborating the questions, the next step is the scoring criteria for each question.  There were several calibration processes in order to weight the score of each question; from assigning 1 point for each question to separating the questions according to the latent variables in the following groups: context questions, PM implementation questions, and project results questions. Finally, a scoring criteria based on the construction success factors was chosen. Questions within the top ranking of construction success factors were given more weight.  For instance, resource management questions related to roles and responsibilities, the staffing management plan, experience, leadership, knowledge related to construction, acquiring the necessary project team, performance assessment plan are being scored with 10 points, as these questions are closely related to the following construction success factors: multidisciplinary project team(1), formal structured selection of subcontractors (4), competent project manager (5), project team commitment (7), client competencies (9),  leadership (26), employee enhancement (38), and availability of resources (52). The total scoring for resource management area on the planning group is 132 points in PM implementation, for the executing process group is 13 points for PM implementation and 14 for project results, and finally the monitoring and controlling process group has a maximum score of 4 points for PM implementation.  In total, the resource management area account for 149 points out of 591 (25.2%) of the total possible PM implementation, as well as 14 points out of 220 (6.3%) of the total possible project results. The low percentage in project results in this area can be explained in the sense that this management area can be considered more of an input than a project result, and also because the project results are measured and located more in other management areas such as the project time, cost, scope, and quality.  316-7 8 TESTING PHASE AND ANALYSIS The assessment tool has been tested with 18 construction projects from different organizations, with different types of projects, sizes, and context. In order to test and analyze the results in the resource management area, the projects are separated according to these differences.  At the end, the results are compared among all projects to draw some general conclusions.  8.1 Residential Projects from the Same Organization The first selection are high-rise residential projects from the same organization. The projects range from $19 million to $70 million, with an average of $44 million canadian dollars. All these project are located and built in lower mainland BC. The project managers taking the assesment tool rated these project with complexity level 3 or 4, where 5 is very complex (e.g. demanding stakeholders, complex design, etc.) and 1 is very simple project (e.g. similar to previous type of project).  Table 4 shows the resource management implementation for the specific project in HR column, the total PM implementation in all management areas, and the total project results.   Table 4. High-Rise residential projects from the same organization Project ID Human Resource Management Score Overall PM Score Project Result Score CR1 128 452 180 CR2 87 348 157 CR3 85 297 136 CR4 99 442 149 The correlation coefficient is 0.878 between human resource management implementation and project results.  The correlation coefficient is 0.812 between human resource management implementation and total PM implementation. Finally, the correlation coefficient is 0.704 between PM implementation and total project results.  Although these coefficients are lower than the critical values of the Pearson correlation coefficient for n=4, r = 0.95, the results show that there is a strong association between the three data sets.  The better the resource management implementation, the better the project results in terms of time, cost, quality, and customer satisfaction. In addition, the better the resource management area implementation, the better the overall project PM implementation.  8.2 Institutional Projects from the Same Organization The second selection consists of 11 institutional projects from the same organization.  The projects range from $3 million to $20 million, with an average of $7 million. All project are located in different islands of British Columbia.  Most projects are new schools or additions to existing schools for different First Nation communities. The project level complexity range from 3 to 5.  For these projects, the correlation coefficient is 0.012 between resource management implementation and project results.  The correlation coefficient is -0.013 between resource management implementation and total PM implementation. These two correlation coefficients show that there is no correlation between the two data sets.  Interestingly, there is a statistical correlation between PM implementation and total project results for n= 11 and the Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.602.  The correlation coefficient is 0.739 between PM implementation and total project results.   8.3 All Projects Combined  The remaining three project are a $1.6 billion highway, a $32.5-million high-rise residential, and a $4.4-million institutional, all of them from different organizations. In this particular situation, n=18, the Pearson correlation coefficient is r = 0.468.  There is a coefficient correlation of 0.280 between reource management and total project results, so there is no statistical correlation. There is a coefficient correlation of 0.167 between resource management area and the total PM implementation including all 316-8 REFERENCES Akinci, B. & Fisher M. (1998). Factors affecting contractors’ risk of cost overburden. Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, Vol.14, No.1, January/February.  Bryde, D. & Robinson, L. (2005).  Client versus contractor perspectives on project success criteria, International Journal of Project Management, Vol.23, Issue 8, November 2005, 622-629. Chang, A. (2002).  Reasons for cost and schedule increase for engineering design projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, Vol.18, No.1, January. Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The “real” success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, Volume 20, Issue 3, April, 185-190. DeVellis, R.F. (1991).  Scale development. Theory and applications. London: Sage. Englund, R., & Graham, R. (1999). From experience: linking projects to strategy. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol.16, Issue 1, January 1999, 52-64. Fortune, J., & White, D. (2006). Framing of project critical success factors by a system model. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 53-65. Ibbs, W., & Kwak, Y. (2000). Calculating project management’s return on investment. Project Management Journal, PMI, June, Vol.31, No. 2, 38-47. Ibbs, W., and Kwak, Y. (2002). Project management process maturity model. Journal of Management in Engineering, July, Vol.18, No. 3, 150-155. Ibbs, W., and Reginato, J. (2002). Quantifying the value of project management. PMI. Karen E. Papke-Shields, K., Beise, K, & Quan, J. (2010). Do project managers practice what they preach, and does it matter to project success?   International Journal of Project Management, Vol.28, Issue 7, October, 650-662. Love, P., & Edwards, D. (2004). Forensic project Management: The underlying causes of rework in construction projects. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 21: 3, 207-228.  The Office of Government Commerce (OGC). (2009). Managing successful projects with Prince2, Edition Manual. Phillips, J. (2010). Project management professional study guide. Third edition, McGraw Hill. Pinto, J.K., & Slevin, D.P. (1987). Critical factors in successful project implementation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 34, 22-27. Pinto, J.K., & Prescott, J.E. (1988). Variations in critical success factors over the project life cycle. Journal of Management, 14: 5. Pinto, J.K., & Mantel, S.J. (1990). The causes of project failure. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 37, November. PMI, (2008). A Guide to the project management body of knowledge. Fourth Edition Shenhar, A.,Tishler, A., Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S., & Lechler, T. (2002). Refining the search for project success factors: a multivariate, typological approach. R & D Management, 32, 2.   316-10  a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA PRINCIPLES, CHARACTERISTICS, AND METHODOLOGY TO DEVELOP A PROJECT MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT TOOL AT THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LEVEL  Antonio Sanjuan, British Columbia Institute of Technology Thomas Froese, University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada  a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA q  In the Construction industry, weak PM practices are still  common  q  particularly among project owner organizations. q  Estimated cost of poorly managed projects: q  $150 billion per year in US (Larson & Gray, 2011). q  Project management profession: q  Management schools preparing well rounded PM professionals q  PM professional code and standards  Motivation a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA q  Two contributing factors 1.  Project organizations are unaware of how their PM practices compare with best practices,  2.  Project organizations are unaware and unconvinced about the value offered by various PM practices.   Observation a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA q  Develop a PM assessment tool that can: q  Assess the PM on individual projects to benchmark the PM performance relative to PM standards of best practice. q  Assess the success of construction projects and relate this to the assessed PM performance as a measure of PM value. q  Side Motivation: q  We see this as a starting point for longer-term interests in project assessment issues and tools. Approach a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 1. General Approach for Assessing Project Management and Measuring the Value of PM a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA q  Boston Corporate Education Center q  The Atlantic Management Center q  The Business Improvement Architects q  The Enterprise Information q  Harold Kerzner’s P.M. maturity model q  PM/ROI Assessment- Ibbs Consulting q  Mostly on-line questionnaire-style assessment tools q  These approaches focus on assessing either: q  Practices within a firm q  Practices/expertise of an individual Project Management Assessment Tools: Literature Review  a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA q  Generally similar approach q  On-line questionnaire-style self-assessment tool. q  Focus on assessing individual project rather than the company or the individual. q  Complementary to previous approaches. Project Management Assessment Tools: Approach  a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 1.  Maturity-Based ROI Metric 2.  Balance Scorecard-ROI 3.  Resource-Based View 4.  Implementation-Context-Fit based Measuring The Value Of P.M.: Literature Review a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA q  Examined correlation between Assessed PM maturity and cost and time variations from the original baselines q  Finding 1:  Companies with more mature project management practices have better project performance.  q  Less mature companies may miss their schedule targets by 40% and cost targets by 20% q  Finding 2:  Project management maturity is strongly correlated with more predictable project management schedule & cost performance.  q  Finding 3:  Good project management companies have lower direct costs than poor project management companies 1. Maturity-Based ROI Metric (Ibbs, Kwak, Reginato, Pennypacker, Crawford) 	  Measuring	  The	  Value	  Of	  P.M.:	  a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan, Norton) Financial	  Perspec7ve	  Goals/Measures	  Customer	  Perspec7ve	  Goals/Measures	  Internal	  Business	  Perspec7ve	  Goals/Measures	  Innova7on	  &	  Learning	  Perspec7ve	  Goals/Measures	  Measuring	  The	  Value	  Of	  P.M.:	  a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA q  Calculating the Return on Investment  q  The benefit/cost ratio:  q  BCR  = (​Project  Solution  Monetary  Bene4its/Project  Solution  Costs ) q  The Return on Investment:  q  ROI = (​Net  Project  Solution  Monetary  Bene4its/Project  Solution  Costs )×100% Balance Scorecard-ROI  (Phillips, Bothell) Measuring	  The	  Value	  Of	  P.M.:	  a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA q  Emphasizes the impact of superior resources and better organizational competencies in determining the long term, sustainable competitive advantage of firms q  PM relates to a firm’s abilities & specific skills q  Is it capable of generating long-term competitive advantage? Resource-Base View  (Wernefelt, Barney, Grant, Peteraf, Jugdev) Measuring	  The	  Value	  Of	  P.M.:	  a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA q  Identify what each organization is doing and calling project management.  q  Identify and documents evidence of all forms of value. q  Identify all relevant quotes from the interviews that commented on the value, then coding and sorting.  q  0 - not at all,  q  1 - very little,  q  2 - to some extent, or  q  3 - to a very great extent. Implementation-Context-Fit Based  (Thomas, Mullaly) Measuring	  The	  Value	  Of	  P.M.:	  a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA q  Half of the organizations realized tangible values:  q  cost savings,  q  revenue increases,  q  increase customer share,  q  customer retention,  q  reduce write-offs & rework. q  Most of the organizations demonstrate intangible values:  q  attainment of strategic objectives,  q  more effective human resources,  q  staff retention,  q  improved reputation,  q  corporate culture,  q  social good,  q  overall management,  q  quality of life,  q  regulatory compliance.  Implementation-Context-Fit based (Thomas, Mullaly) Measuring	  The	  Value	  Of	  P.M.:	  a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA q  Measure PM by assessing the degree to which projects are following best practices q  Measuring project success by assessing a set of success indicators q  E.g., on budget, on time, changes, customer satisfaction, etc. q  Explore correlation between assessed PM practices and assessed project success. q  PM assessment adds value as a best practices benchmarking approach even if no significant correlation can be shown. Measuring The Value Of P.M.: Approach Measuring	  The	  Value	  Of	  P.M.:	  a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 2. Assessment Targets a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA q  In order to assess PM quality and best practices, we must determine what PM best practices are. q  This is a substantial, open-ended issue that is beyond the scope of this work. q  We take established PM standards to be reasonable, consensus-based identifications of PM Best Practices Assessment Targets:  Assumptions a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  Assessment Targets Top Ten Critical Success Factors in Construction 	  	   Cri$cal	  Success	  Factor	  Iden$fied	  in	  Construc$on	  Projects	  No.	  of	  Cita$ons	   Case	  Studies	  1	   Mul-disciplinary/competent	  project	  team	   10	   661	  2	   Clear	  objec-ves	  and	  scope	   9	   542	  3	   Time	  performance	  (project	  schedule/plans)	   8	   860	  4	   Formal	  &	  Structured	  Selec-on	  of	  subcontractors	   8	   648	  5	   Competent	  project	  manager	   7	   565	  6	   Clear	  informa-on	  and	  communica-ons	  channels	   6	   619	  7	   Project	  team	  commitment	   6	   454	  8	   Power	  and	  Poli-cs	   5	   932	  9	   Client's	  competencies	   5	   539	  10	   Con-nuous	  involvement	  of	  stakeholders	  in	  the	  project	   5	   528	  a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA q PMBOK- PMI q IAPM-COMPETENCE BASELINE q PRINCE2 q ISO 9000 Assessment Targets Approach a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA PM Integrated Framework  	   MONITORING	  &	  CONTROLLING	  /	  CONTROL	  (ICB)/	  PROGRESS	  (PRINCE2)/	  MEASURING,	  ANALYSIS,	  &	  IMPROVEMENT	  (ISO	  9000,	  8.1)1.	  Develop	  project	  charter	  /	  Project	  Brief	  1.	  Develop	  project	  management	  planDirect/Manage	  project	  execution1.Monitor/Control	  project	  workClose	  project/phase2.	  CONTEXTUAL	  COMPETENCES2.	  Perform	  integrated	  change	  control3.	  BUSINESS	  CASE	  (PRINCE2)3.	  Problem	  Resolution4.	  Configuration	  Management	  Strategy4.	  Changes5.	  Change6.	  Product	  verification,	  validation,	  &	  monitoring	  (ISO	  9000,	  7.1c)7.	  	  Changes	  to	  product	  requirements	  ISO	  9000,	  7.2.2)1.	  Collect	  requirements1.	  Verify	  Scope2.	  Define	  scope 2.	  Control	  scope3.	  Create	  WBS4.	  Project	  Requirements	  &	  Objectives5.	  Project	  Structures	  (WBS)6.	  	  Product	  Breakdown	  Structure7.	  Determining	  customer/product	  requirements	  (ISO	  9000,	  5.2,	  7.2.1)1.	  	  Meeting	  customer	  requirements	  (ISO	  9000,	  5.2)1.	  Product	  Description1.	  Define	  Activities 1.	  	  Control	  schedule2.	  Sequence	  Activities3.	  Estimate	  activity	  resource4.	  Estimate	  activity	  duration5.	  Develop	  schedule1.	  Estimate	  cost 1.	  Control	  cost2.	  Determine	  budget1.	  Prepare	  the	  Quality	  Management	  Strategy1.	  Plan	  quality 1.	  Perform	  quality	  assurance1.	  Perform	  quality	  control2.	  Establishing	  quality	  policy/objectives	  (ISO	  9000,	  5.1b,c)	  2.	  Review	  quality	  management	  (ISO	  9000,	  5.6)1.	  H.R	  plan/	  Responsibilities	  (5.4)1.	  Acquire	  project	  team1.	  	  Ensuring	  availability	  of	  resources	  (ISO	  9000,	  5.1e)2.	  Project	  Organisation 2.	  Develop	  project	  team/	  Training	  Needs	  (5.3.3.2)1.	  	  Competence	  of	  personnel	  (ISO	  9000,	  6.2.1)3.	  Teamwork 3.	  Manage	  project	  team2.	  Work	  environment	  (ISO	  9000,	  6.4)4.	  Project	  Management	  Team	  (5.3.2)3.	  BEHAVIOURAL	  COMPETENCES5.	  Defining	  responsibility	  &	  authority	  (ISO	  9000,	  5.5.1)4.	  Acquire,	  deploy,	  maintain,	  &	  dispose	  resources	  (ISO	  9000,	  6)1.	  Identify	  Stakeholders/	  Working	  with	  Stakeholders	  (5.3.5)1.	  Plan	  Communication/	  Communication	  Strategy	  (5.3.5.3)	  1.	  Distribute	  Information1.	  Report	  Performance2.	  Interested	  Parties2.	  	  Communicating	  the	  importance	  of	  requirements	  (ISO	  9000,	  5.1a)2.	  Manage	  Stakeholder	  Expectations2.	  Reports3.	  Prepare	  the	  Communication	  Management	  Strategy3.	  	  Customer	  communication	  (ISO	  9000,	  7.2.3)1.	  Prepare	  Risk	  Management	  Strategy1.	  Plan	  Risk 1.	  Monitor/	  Control	  Risks2.	  Identify	  Risk3.	  Perform	  Qualitative	  Risk	  Analysis4.	  Perform	  Quantitative	  Risk	  Analysis5.	  Plan	  Risk	  ResponsesPROJECT	  PROCUREMENT	  MANAGEMENT	  /	  PROCUREMENT	  &	  CONTRACT	  (ICB)/PURSHASING	  (ISO	  9000,	  7.4)PROJECT	  MANAGEMENT	  PROCESS	  GROUPSPROJECT	  TIME	  MANAGEMENT/	  TIME	  &	  PROJECT	  PHASES	  (ICB)/	  PLANS	  (PRINCE2)PROJECT	  COST	  MANAGEMENT	  /	  COST	  &	  FINANCE	  (ICB)PROJECT	  QUALITY	  MANAGEMENT	  /	  QUALITY	  (ICB)/	  QUALITY	  (PRINCE2)PROJECT	  SCOPE	  MANAGEMENT	  /	  SCOPE	  &	  DELIVERABLES	  (ICB)2.	  Planning	  product	  realization	  process	  (ISO	  9000,	  7.1)5.	  Determing	  the	  criteria	  for	  product	  acceptance	  (ISO	  9000,	  7.1c)CLOSING	  /	  CLOSE-­‐OUT	  (ICB)/	  CLOSING	  (PRINCE2)PROJECT	  INTEGRATION	  MANAGEMENT1.	  Administer	  Procurements 1.	  	  Close	  ProcurementsINITIATING	  /	  START	  UP	  (ICB)/	  STARTING	  UP	  &	  INITIATING	  (PRINCE2)PLANNINGKNOWLEGE	  AREASEXECUTING/	  DIRECTING	  (PRINCE2)1.	  Plan	  Procurements 1.	  Conduct	  ProcurementsPROJECT	  COMMUNICATION	  MANAGEMENT	  /	  COMMUNICATION	  /	  INFORMATION	  MANAGEMENT	  (ICB)/	  ORGANIZATION	  (PRINCE2)PROJECT	  RISK	  MANAGEMENT	  /	  RISK	  &	  OPPORTUNITY	  (ICB)/	  RISK	  (PRINCE2)PROJECT	  HUMAN	  RESOURCES	  MANAGEMENT	  /	  RESOURCES	  (ICB)	  /ORGANIZATION	  (PRINCE2)PM	  Knowledge	  Areas:	  •  Scope	  Mgt.,	  •  Time	  Mgt.,	  	  •  Cost	  Mgt.,	  •  	  etc.	  PM	  Process	  Groups:	  	  	  •  Ini-a-ng	  •  Planning	  •  Execu-ng	  •  Monitoring	  •  Closing	  Specific	  PM	  Prac7ces	  from	  PMBOK,	  ICB,	  PRINCE2,	  etc.	  •  e.g.,	  Develop	  Communica-on	  Strategy	  Plan	  a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA PM Integrated Framework For HR Management Area MANAGEMENT	  AREAS	  PROJECT	  MANAGEMENT	  PROCESS	  GROUPS	  INITIATING	  /	  START	  UP	  (ICB3)/	  STARTING	  UP	  &	  INITIATING	  (PRINCE2)	  PLANNING/	  PLANS	  (PRINCE2)	  EXECUTING/	  DIRECTING	  (PRINCE2)	  MONITORING	  &	  CONTROLLING	  /	  CONTROL	  (ICB3)/	  PROGRESS	  (PRINCE2)/	  MEASURING,	  ANALYSIS,	  &	  IMPROVEMENT	  (ISO	  9000,	  8.1)	  CLOSING	  /	  CLOSE-­‐OUT	  (ICB3)/	  CLOSING	  (PRINCE2)	  PROJECT	  HUMAN	  RESOURCES	  MANAGEMENT	  /	  RESOURCES	  (ICB)	  /ORGANIZATION	  (PRINCE2)	  	   1.	  H.R	  plan/	  Responsibili7es	  (5.4)	  1.	  Acquire	  project	  team	   	   	  1.	  	  Ensuring	  availability	  of	  resources	  (ISO	  9001,	  5.1e)	  2.	  Project	  Organisa7on	  2.	  Develop	  project	  team/	  Training	  Needs	  (5.3.3.2)	  1.	  	  Competence	  of	  personnel	  (ISO	  9001,	  6.2.1)	  	  	   3.	  Teamwork	   3.	  Manage	  project	  team	   2.	  Work	  environment	  (ISO	  9001,	  6.4)	  	  	   4.	  Team	  Plans	  (7.2.6),	  Project	  Management	  Team	  (5.3.2)	  3.	  BEHAVIOURAL	  COMPETENCES	  	   	  	   5.	  Defining	  responsibility	  &	  authority	  (ISO	  9001,	  5.5.1)	  4.	  Acquire,	  deploy,	  maintain,	  &	  dispose	  resources	  (ISO	  9001,	  6)	  	   	  a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 3. Survey Questions a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Ques7on	  #	  Ques7on	   "Latent	  Variable"	  PM	  Implementa7on	   Standard	  Characteris7c	  Competence	  Knowledge	  Skills	  Tool	  Technique	  Process	  Prac7ce	  PMBOK	  ICB-­‐3	  PRINCE2	  ISO9001:2008	  How	  Well/Quality	  Frequency	  55	  HR	  plan:	  iden-fied	  roles/responsibili-es/skills,	  repor-ng	  rela-onships,	  staffing	  management	  plan?	  Implementa-on	  Technical	  	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   YES	   	  	   9.1	  to	  9.4	  1.06,	  1.07,	  1.09,	  1.12	  7.2.6,	  5.3.2	  4.1d,	  6.2.1,	  6.1,	  6.2	  YES	   	  56	  PM	  of	  client	  experience	  in	  years?	  Implementa-on	  Technical	  YES	   YES	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   9.1.3.1	   1.2	   2.2	   6.2	   	   	  57	  Developer/owner	  organiza-on	  experience?	  Implementa-on	  Technical	  YES	   YES	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   9.1.3.1	   1.2	   2.2	   6.2	   	   	  58	  Constructor	  organiza-on	  experience?	  Implementa-on	  Technical	  YES	   YES	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   9.1.3.1	   1.2	   2.2	   6.2	   	   	  59	  PM	  of	  constructor	  experience	  in	  years?	  Implementa-on	  Technical	  YES	   YES	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   9.1.3.1	   1.2	   2.2	   6.2	   	   	  60	  PM	  highest	  level	  of	  educa-on?	  Implementa-on	  Technical	  YES	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   1.7.1,	  9.1.3.1	  1.2	  	  	   6.2.1	   	   	  a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Scoring Criteria Based on Critical Success Factors 	  	   PLANNING	   EXECUTING	   MONITORING	  &	  CONTROLLING	  	  	   	  	   Yes	   No	  Don't	  Know	   	  	   	  	   	  	   Yes	   No	  Don't	  Know	   	  	   	  	   	  	  Always	  Ohen	  Some-mes	  Rarely	  Never	  	  	  Iden-fied	  &	  Documented:	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	  Exploded	  into	  anger	  during	  the	  project	  life	  cycle	   1	   2	   3	   4	   5	  Preference	  for	  energy:	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	  	  	   Roles	  &	  Responsibili-es	   10	  	  	   	  	   	  	   Requested	  input	  before	  changes	   5	   4	   3	   2	   1	   Extroverted	   	  	   	  	   1	   	  	  	  	   Required	  skills	   1	  	  	   	  	   	  	  Spent	  -me	  thinking	  about	  improvement	   5	   4	   3	   2	   1	   Introverted	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	  	  	   Repor-ng	  rela-onships	   1	  	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	  Preference	  for	  informa-on	  gathering:	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	  	  	  Staffing	  management	  plan	   10	  	  	   	  	   	  	   Would	  you	  hire	  your	  brother?	   	  	   1	  	  	   	  	   	  	   Sensing	   1	  	  	   	  	   	  	  PROJECT	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   Intui-ve	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	  HUMAN	  Project	  manager	  (developer)experience	   ______	   years	   10	  	  	   	  	   	  	  Prefence	  for	  decision	  making:	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	  RESOURCE	  Project	  manager	  (Constructor)experience	   ______	   years	   20	  	  	   	  	   	  	   Thinking	   1	  	  	   	  	   	  	  MANAGEMENT	  Organiza-on	  (developer)	  experience	   ______	   years	   10	  	  	   	  	   	  	   Feeling	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	  &	  BEHAVIOURAL	  Organiza-on	  (constructor)	  experience	   ______	   years	   20	  	  	   	  	   	  	   Preference	  for	  lifestyle:	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	  COMPETENCES	  PM(Constructor)	  highest	  level	  of	  educa-on	   ______	   years	   10	  	  	   	  	   	  	   Judging	   1	  	  	   	  	   	  	  	  	   Related	  to	  contruc-on	   10	  	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   Perceiving	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	  	  	   Leadership	  skills	  	   10	   5	   3	   2	   1	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	  	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   Average	  hours	  of	  work	  per	  day:	  ________	   hours	   5	  	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	  	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   Managing	  more	  than	  one	  project	  	  	   1	  	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	  	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   If	  yes,	  how	  many?	  _________	  projects	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	  	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   Recogni-on	  &	  Reward	  system	   1	  	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	  	  	  Acquire	  the	  necessary	  project	  team	   10	  	  	   	  	   0	   If	  yes,	  with	  clear	  criteria	   1	  	  	   	  	   14	  	  	   	  	   0	  	  	   Performance	  assessment	   10	  	  	   	  	   	  	   132	  Number	  of	  project	  managers	  for	  this	  specific	  project:	   	  	  project	  managers	   3	   13	  	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   	  	   4	  a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA q  Scores of individual PM Practices combined into an overall PM score q  Weighting Criteria: q  Initially one point was assigned to each question. q  Weighting adjusted based on evidence from success-factor literature sources. q  We expect to explore further refinements to this weighting system. Overall PM Score a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 4. Pilot Survey and Case Studies a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 18 Case Studies   184	  173	  96	  180	  157	  136	  149	  145	  151	  147	  144	   147	  139	  171	  171	  163	  145	  199	  y	  =	  0.4254x	  +	  116.32	  R²	  =	  0.07852	  0	  50	  100	  150	  200	  250	  60	   70	   80	   90	   100	   110	   120	   130	   140	  PROJECT	  RESULTS	  RESOURCE	  MANAGEMENT	  IMPLEMENTATION	  RESOURCE	  MANAGEMENT	  IMPLEMENTATION	  Vs.	  PROJECT	  RESULTS	  a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 18 Case Studies   184	  173	  96	  180	  157	  136	  149	  145	  151	   147	  144	  147	   139	  171	  171	  163	  145	  199	  50	  70	  90	  110	  130	  150	  170	  190	  210	  250	   300	   350	   400	   450	   500	  PM	  Results	  PM	  Implementa7on	  PM	  Implementa7on	  vs.	  PM	  Results	  a place of mind THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA q Developing a project management assessment tool at the project level. q Exploring the relationship between assessed PM practices and assessed project outcomes. q Developing an integrated framework of PM standards and critical success factors in construction. q Benchmarking PM best practices in the construction industry. Conclusions 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.52660.1-0076442/manifest

Comment

Related Items