Search results

There is growing recognition that effective project control systems (PCS) are critical to the success of projects. The relationship between the individual elements of PCS and successfully achieving project objectives has yet to be explored. This research investigates the enablers and barriers that influence the elements of PCS success and drive project objectives.

This study adopts a mixed approach of descriptive analysis and regression models to explore the impact of six PCS elements on project outcomes. Petroleum and chemical projects in Saudi Arabia were selected as a case study to validate the research model.

Data from a survey of 400 project managers in Saudi’s petroleum and chemical industry reveal that successful PCS are the key to achieving all project outcomes, but they are particularly critical for meeting project cost objectives. Project Governance was identified as the most important of the six PCS elements for meeting project objectives. A lack of standard processes emerged as the most significant barrier to achieving effective project governance, while having skilled and experienced project team members was the most significant enabler for implementing earned value.

The study offers a direction for implementing and developing PCS as a strategic tool and focuses on the PCS elements that can improve project outcomes.

This research contributes to project management knowledge and differs from previous attempts in two ways. Firstly, it investigates the elements of PCS that are critical to achieving project scope, schedule and cost objectives; secondly, enablers and barriers of PCS success are examined to see how they influence each element independently.

Product advantage is consistently identified as the most important product characteristic in explaining the adoption and success of a new product. In small- and medium-size enterprises (SMEs), in particular, improving new product performance is critical in supporting SME survival and growth. Given that SMEs are a vital component of most economies improving their ability to effectively launch new products is an essential activity for sustainability. However, although literature illustrates that developing products with high levels of product advantage and new product development is advantageous, few studies have explored product advantage activities in SMEs and consequently research on product advantage is over-reliant on large firm studies. Given the specific resource constraints which challenge SME new product development (i.e. financial, expertise, access to networks etc.) context-specific research is critical. The purpose of this paper is to address these gaps in literature by exploring the product advantage activities in four manufacturing SMEs actively engaged in product development.

The research question centres on exploring the antecedents of product advantage in SMEs (market uncertainties, competitive intensity, resource uncertainties and technological uncertainties) in the context of multi-dimensional perspective of product advantage (consisting of product innovativeness, product superiority and product meaningfulness). A qualitative interpretivist approach was used to explore the research question exploring the antecedents to, and nature of, product advantage in SMEs. Case studies were used to inductively and holistically view SMEs in their entirety, this approach facilitated in-depth understanding of the reality of the SME and allowed for the interpretation of the SMEs owner/managers perspectives on product advantage.

The empirical findings suggest that the most significant antecedent of product advantage in the case SMEs was competitive intensity followed by technology uncertainty and resource uncertainty and then market uncertainty. Product advantage was found to be strongly based on product meaningfulness with elements of product innovativeness and product superiority also defining their perspective of product advantage.

There are several implications for SME owner/managers arising from this study. In the context of these findings, SMEs need to carefully consider three issues in supporting their new product development: first, their dependence on letting existing customers drives their new product development; second, owner/manager perceptions of product advantage are focused on delivering guaranteed sales, this focus nurtures incremental continuous product development rather than radical discontinuous innovation. While this strategy is low risk and supports SME sustainability, it could lead to less ambitious innovation strategies and slower growth for SMEs; third, antecedents of product advantage such as competitive intensity, technology uncertainty and resource uncertainty and market uncertainty need to carefully managed.

This study illustrates the complex nature of the antecedents and nature of product advantage in SMEs. The study provides insight into the product advantage characteristics that SMEs consider important in the development of new products. Different elements of each of the three product advantage constructs (product meaningfulness, product superiority and customer meaningfulness) are considered important under different conditions. Throughout this analysis, market needs and wants, technology, competitors and resources emerged as the defining conditions upon which product advantage decisions are based. More specifically knowledge regarding the market, technology, competition and the availability of resources dictated the type and levels of advantages that were presented in new products.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the conversation activities of design teams to negotiate task conflict and reach consensus.

Four case studies were conducted to analyse the conversation activities that teams use in the course of design projects.

The conversation activities that teams used to negotiate conflict and bring about consensus were identified. These conversation activities are associated with collaboration, communication and social skills enabling teams to engage in the high level of information exchange and negotiation that is required to manage task conflict. How they were used to negotiate conflict and help reach consensus is also discussed.

The findings from this research are based on a small number of participants; hence, it cannot be generalised without further study with larger groups. However, the questions this paper has raised can be generalised to other design tasks and groups.

The findings have implications for the management of design teams and teams working on complex unstructured problems both in industry and education. They highlight how conflict can be constructively managed to bring about consensus that integrates the knowledge and perspective of all team members.

The benefits of task conflict have been disputed in the literature. This research has identified the conversation activities that facilitate the constructive management of task conflict to bring about consensus that integrates the perspectives and knowledge of a team.

The purpose of this paper is to presents a new modeling approach that provides a measurement tool for evaluating the effectiveness of Project Control Systems (PCS) and the improvement of the project control capability as a part of an organization's project management processes.

This study used a project management maturity approach to develop a measurement model of PCS success. The key elements in this model have been identified using the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) method to analyze data from a case study involving contractor companies in Saudi's petroleum and chemical industry.

The results identified six critical elements for PCS success: (1) Change Management, (2) Earned Value, (3) Baselined Plan, (4) Resource Loaded, (5) Progress Method and (6) Governance Program. In addition, Project Forecasting and Corrective Action Verification were identified as the main areas where clients and contractors need to focus for the effective deployment of a PCS.

The results of this study were used to create a PCS Maturity Model (PCSMM) and a PCS Success Index (PCSSI). The value of this index can help project managers to identify the maturity level of their PCS and improvement areas that lead to enhanced project performance.

This research presents an alternative maturity model for PCS assessment that provides a practical tool to identify areas for improving the critical elements of PCS success. The study draws a clear distinction between overall project success and the success of the PCS.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the interaction between the enablers and barriers to successful project control system (PCS) implementation in petroleum and chemical projects and to provide a knowledge-based foundation for the evaluation of the dominant factors of PCS success.

An integrated approach of interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and cross-impact matrix multiplication applied to classification (Matrice d’Impacts Croisés Multiplication Appliquée à un Classement) were used. An expert group of industry professionals and academics was consulted at the initial stage as an input for the ISM methodology to explore the contextual relationships among the critical factors to PCS implementation in petroleum and chemical projects.

This study identifies three dominants enablers of PCS success: the technical skills of the project controller; explicitly defined roles of project team members; and an accurate work breakdown structure. Additionally, six dominant barriers to successful PCS implementation have been identified: lack of standard processes, vague contract deliverables, unclear project goals, unclear project milestones, disparate control system between owner and contractor and lack of information communication. Organizations in the petroleum and chemical sectors should put more effort into the development of these factors to optimize the implementation of PCS.

A limitation of this current study is its focus on the petroleum and chemical sectors in Saudi Arabia. It is expected that the findings will have wider applicability, but further studies in different sectors and geographic regions should be undertaken to validate this assumption. In this study, a second validation expert group was used to ensure the reliability of the results as much as was possible. However, further studies could be completed to evaluate alternate classification schemes and to test the robustness of the expert consensus and techniques reported, in this study, including an increased number of experts.

The present study makes some practical contributions to the project delivery process. It provides different project stakeholders with a better understanding of the factors that improve PCS outcomes and helps project owners and contractors to evaluate the PCS used by both parties to understand how they might be aligned for successful project execution.

The successful implementation of PCS is a key contributor to the total project delivery process. Although there is growing attention on PCS as a critical project management tool in petroleum and chemical projects, the literature in project management shows that PCS implementation has not been taken up as much as originally anticipated. This paper will address this gap by focusing on improving the take-up of strategical PCS implementation through the identification of six dominant enablers and nine dominant barriers as driver factors of success.

This paper aims to extend previous studies on new product development (NPD) performance by identifying the product advantage, new product performance and organisational performance indicators that are considered by small and medium-sized firms (SMEs) to be most relevant to their performance.

A quantitative research approach was adopted, using a cross-sectional survey of a sample of 137 firms representing the industry sectors active within the Irish economy. The research instrument was based on existing recognised research measures.

The results suggest that: large firms consider that their products derive advantage through product quality and cost, while SMEs are more concerned with satisfying customer needs; larger firms concentrate on market measures in measuring new product performance, while SMEs focus on customer acceptance measures; and in measuring organisational performance larger firms focus on market share and profitability, while SMEs concentrate on profitability and sales growth.

This study identifies the aspects of product advantage, new product performance and organisational performance on which firms concentrate, thereby increasing our ability to redirect their focus from what they consider to be important, to what will have an impact on their firm's performance.

This study identifies the aspects of product advantage, new product performance and organisational performance on which firms concentrate, thereby increasing our ability to redirect their focus from what they consider to be important, to what will have an impact on their firm's performance.

Small to medium enterprises (SMEs) play an important role in the economy, in terms of employment and their contribution to national wealth. A significant proportion of that contribution comes from innovation. SMEs are also the engine for future growth in the economy. Project management has a role to play in managing that innovation and growth. The purpose of this paper is to find the extent to which SMEs use projects, project management and the tools of project management, and to determine what differences there are by size of company and industry.

A questionnaire was developed to examine the extent to which small firms carry out projects, the resources they employ, the way they measure project success and the tools and techniques that they use. The questionnaire was answered by 280 companies from a range of industries and sizes.

It is found that companies of all sizes spend roughly the same proportion of turnover on projects, but the smaller the company, the smaller their projects, the less they use project management and its tools. Surprisingly, hi‐tech companies spend less on projects than lo‐tech or service companies, but have larger projects and use project management to a greater extent. They also use the gadgets of project management to a greater extent.

It is concluded that SMEs do require less‐bureaucratic versions of project management, perhaps with different tool sets than the more traditional versions designed for medium‐sized or large projects, and with different versions for medium, small and micro projects. For all firms, the important success factors are client consultation; planning, monitoring and control; and resource allocation are also identified.

The findings suggest the need for further research into the nature of those “lite” versions of project management designed for SMEs.

The purpose of this paper is to explore new product development (NPD) best practice from a practitioner's perspective. A large body of research has been completed on best practices in NPD. However, there is a limited knowledge of the extent to which practitioners are aware of what constitutes a NPD best practice and are aware of the relative importance of different NPD best practices.

Using an established framework, this research investigates NPD practitioners' views of best practices. Data were collected through a survey using a combination of quantitative and qualitative questions from 70 SMEs and 74 large companies in Ireland and the UK.

The results show that practitioners assign different levels of importance to the various NPD best practices. Regardless of company size, strategy is viewed as the most importance best practice for NPD, while metrics and performance evaluation is seen as the least important. This does not support previous research, which has shown that excellence in NPD process is the primary driver of NPD success. Additionally, there were differences between the specific practices that NPD practitioners from SMEs and large companies considered to be best practice.

This paper identifies a gap between what researchers and practitioners understand to be NPD best practice. The results further our understanding of how NPD practitioners translate existing NPD knowledge into actual NPD practice. The results presented in this paper suggest that there is much to be gained by strengthening the links between researchers and NPD practitioners. There is limited value in developing theories and models about the “best” ways to manage NPD unless these model and theories are fully diffused and can be made useful to NPD practitioners.

The purpose of this research paper is to present a modified framework for the waves of change of new product development of McGrath.

A qualitative study of new product development (NPD) in four electronic firms (two small indigenous/two large multinational) was conducted. In‐depth interviews were held with employees, including the founding entrepreneur in each of the small firms.

Analysis of strategic, organisational and development factors shows that firms face different challenges during their NPD process – some related to size. Also, as firms grow, NPD learning may be lost.

The research findings are stated as a result of four cases studies – two in large firms and two in small firms. Further research will establish the generalisability of these findings.

The electronics industry is renowned for its aggressive competitive environment where successful entrepreneurs continuously innovate product and process development. The framework presented will be of use to entrepreneurs who focus on NPD.

A modified version of McGrath's framework, showing separate categories for small and large firms, is presented. These modifications recognise that there are differences between NPD in small and NPD in large firms.

The authors propose that small to medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) need simpler, more people‐focused forms of project management than traditionally used by larger organizations. The authors have undertaken this research to identify to what extent SMEs use project management and what are the key components used.

Based on the results of the two previous stages of their research the authors formulate the three propositions about the use of project management in SMEs, which they test through a web‐based questionnaire.

More than 40 per cent of the turnover of small and micro‐sized companies is undertaken as projects, and in the first two years of their lives more than 60 per cent. People in these companies multi‐task, so these projects are managed by people for whom project management is not their first discipline. At a key stage of their development, SMEs undertake many projects managed by amateurs. A simplified version of project management should have requirements definition at its core, and practices for managing the work, duration and resources used. People focused methods which seek team member commitment are preferred.

The results should aid in the development of project management approaches for use by the non‐specialist project managers in SMEs. The authors have shown that different versions of project management may be required for micro‐sized and small companies (a micro‐lite version), and for medium‐sized companies (a lite version).

Project management theoreticians need to recognise that different versions of project management are required in different circumstances.