Current practice in project management--An empirical study

Current practice in project management Ðan empirical studyDiana White,Joyce Fortune *Centre for Complexity and Change,The Open University,Walton Hall,Milton Keynes MK76AA,UKAbstractThis paper reports the ®ndings of a survey designed to capture the `real world'experiences of people active in project manage-ment.The survey took the form of a questionnaire that was sent to 995Project Managers and which achieved a response rate of 23.7%.Each respondent was asked to describe a recent project and identify factors that were regarded as critical to that project's outcome.The extent to which the project gave rise to side-e ects was explored and particular emphasis was placed on the use that had been made of any of the many project management methods,tools and techniques that are available.Respondents were also asked to judge the e ectiveness of the methods,tools and techniques they had used and to report any limitations or drawbacks they had encountered.The results showed that most respondents used only a small number of methods,tools and techniques with pro-ject management software and Gantt charts being the most widely used aids.Almost half of the respondents reported drawbacks to the methods,tools and techniques they had employed.The criteria for judging project success most cited in the project management literature (on time;to budget;and to speci®cation)were the criteria used by the respondents to judge their projects'success.How-ever,two further criteria were reported as being of particular relevance.These were both concerned with the consequences of the project on the organisation involve.In contrast to the ®nding of many surveys of project success rates,a remarkably high propor-tion (41%)of the projects reported upon here were judged to be completely successful,though it should be noted that the judge-ments were made by Project Managers who had worked on the projects being judged.#2001Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA.All rights reserved.Keywords:Survey;Project management;Project success criteria;Methods,tools and techniques1.IntroductionProject management is now well developed and well accepted as a domain for the exercise of professional expertise and as an area for academic research and dis-course.Numerous methods and techniques have been developed,covering all aspects of managing projects from their genesis to their completion,and these have been disseminated widely in books and journals and through the work of professional bodies.However,project management remains a highly problematical endeavour.A great many projects exceed their budgets,run late or fail to meet other objectives.Indeed,surveys [1±3]suggest that this applies to well over a half of IT projects.This paper aims to shed light on the reasons for the mismatch between the promise o ered by project man-agement methods and techniques and the outcomesdelivered.It reports on the results of a recently con-ducted survey designed to capture the `real world'experiences of project managers with a view to deter-mining the extent to which those involved in the man-agement of projects actually make use of the methods and techniques that are available and howe ective the methods and techniques used are felt to be.2.Research methodologyIn order to capture the experience of project man-agers,a questionnaire was designed that would:.identify any common criteria used for de®ning project success;.explore the extent to which projects give rise to unexpected side-e ects;.establish a common list of `critical success factors';.identify the methods,methodologies,tools and techniques in current use in the ®eld of project management;0263-7863/01/$20.00#2001Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA.All rights reserved.P I I :S 0263-7863(00)00029-6International Journal of Project Management 20(2002)1±11/locate/ijproman*Corresponding author.Tel.:+44-1908-652105;fax:+44-1908-653718..identify any limitations or drawbacks to the methods,methodologies,tools and techniques being used.First,a pilot survey was conducted with a questionnaire being sent to30project managers representing seven orga-nisations.20responses were received and used to generate revisions to the questionnaire which was then sent to995 project managers representing620organisations in both the public and private sectors.All of the recipients were asked to take part in the survey only if they had been actively involved in the management of a project and to base their responses on their most recently concluded pro-ject even if that project had been curtailed or abandoned. In order to maximise the chance of obtaining answers to sensitive questions the main survey was anonymous.2.1.Questionnaire designThe revised questionnaire comprised18questions with a mixture of yes/no,scale,multiple choice and open questions.It explored the following areas:.information about the respondent and the project upon which the replies were based;.the criteria used for judging the project's outcome; .any unexpected side-e ects arising from the project; .factors critical to the project's outcome;.the methods,tools and techniques used;.the limitations or drawbacks experienced with the methods,tools and techniques used.3.Analysis of data and discussion of results3.1.The respondents and their projectsOf the995questionnaires that were sent out in the main survey,236were returned(23.72%response rate). All of the questions were answered in nearly every case but two respondents failed to describe the part they played in managing their projects,one respondent failed to answer the question on limitations or drawbacks experienced with the methods,methodologies,tools or techniques and four failed to respond to the question on unexpected side-e ects.3.1.1.Project typeOn the basis of the responses received the projects described were classi®ed into16types(Fig.1).Just over 25%(60)of respondents were involved with informa-tion technology projects,whilst reorganisation in either the public or the private sector accounted for nearly 19%(44)of the projects.37.2%(88)of the projects were carried out for a client.62.7%(148)of projects were carried out within the respondent's organisation.3.1.2.Industry sectorsThe`Finance,Insurance and Banking'industry sector accounted for just over16%(38)of responses.The breakdown is shown in Fig.2.Where projects were carried out for a client the respondent was asked to indicate the client's industry sector.The breakdown is shown at Fig.3.The`Trans-portation and Communication'industry sector accounted for just over27%(24)of responses.3.1.3.Number of employeesThe number of employees in the respondents'and (where applicable)the clients'organisations,classi®ed into®ve groups,are shown in Fig.4.Nearly66%(155) of respondents worked for organisations that employed 1000or more employees.3.1.4.Numbers involvedRespondents were asked to indicate the number of people directly involved in the project from their own organisation and(where applicable)to indicate the numbers directly involved from the client's organisation and any supplier's organisation(s).Their responses, classi®ed into four groups,are shown in Fig.5.The mode number of people directly involved in a project (including client and supplier organisations,where applicable)was10.3.1.5.Role of respondentThe surveys were addressed to project managers but, as Fig.6(a)shows,only47%(113)of respondents identi®ed themselves by the title`Project Manager'. However,a higher proportion,63%(146),indicated that they had managed the project being considered(see Fig.6b).The other titles by which people identi®ed themselves and the parts they played in the projects can also be seen in Fig.6.3.1.6.Main decision makerRespondents were requested to indicate who was ultimately responsible for decisions concerning the pro-ject.43%(102)of respondents stated that they were the main decision makers.33%(77)were involved in the decision making process,but24%(57)of the respon-dents did not have any input into the main decision making processes.3.1.7.Project durationProject duration,broken down into seven categories, is shown in Fig.7.37%(87)of the projects lasted between6and12months and the mode duration of a project was6months.3.1.8.Project completion91%(215)of the projects were completed.9%(21)of the projects did not run through to completion.2 D.White,J.Fortune/International Journal of Project Management20(2002)1±113.2.Criteria used for judging project outcome3.2.1.Project outcomeProject outcome was measured using a bi-polar semantic di erential continuous line scale.For analysis the line was divided into seven equal sections and coded from 1(abandoned)to 7(complete success).In the opi-nion of the respondents,41%(97)of the projects were acomplete success (Fig.8).This success rate is far higher than that reported in the literature.3.2.2.Criteria used for judging successRespondents were asked to indicate and rank (from 1to 5)the criteria they used for judging success.The ranks were re-coded (1=5,2=4,3=3,4=2,5=1and criteria not chosen=0).The sum of there-codedFig.1.Project type Ðfrequency of mention.N=236.Fig.2.Industry sector breakdown Ðrespondent's organisation.N =236.D.White,J.Fortune /International Journal of Project Management 20(2002)1±113responses is displayed in Table 1where it can be seen that `Meets client's requirements'was the criteria most often ranked ®rst by respondents,followed by `Com-pleted within schedule'and `Completed within budget'.Much of the literature suggests that criteria against which the success of projects is judged are time taken,cost and the extent to which requirements are met.These criteria were important to the respondents to the survey but in addition to these standard measures a signi®cant number of respondents identi®ed another citerion as important.This was the ®t between the project and the organisation and the consequences of the pro-ject for the performance of the business.For instance,they talked about the need to meetorganisationalFig.3.Industry sector breakdown Ðclient's organisation.N=88.Fig.4.Number of peopleemployed.Fig.5.Numbers directly involved in project Ðfrequency of mention.4 D.White,J.Fortune /International Journal of Project Management 20(2002)1±11objectives and to minimise business disruption and about the project's yield in terms of business and other bene®ts.3.3.Unexpected side-e ectsUnexpected side-e ects was another area explored by the survey.46%(108)of respondents reported that their project gave rise to unexpected side-e ects or outputs,with many of them expressing surprise that these had arisen (see Table 2).Their descriptions of the unex-pected side-e ects,grouped into desirable side-e ects and undesirable side-e ects,are displayed in Table 3.Examination of this data suggests that nearly 70%(113)of the side-e ects could be attributed either directly or indirectly to lack of awareness of the environment.This may imply that many of the tools and techniques the respondents used were poor at modelling `real world'problems or that insu cient account was taken of pro-ject boundaries andenvironments.Fig.6.(a)Role of respondents.N =236;(b)respondent's part in project.N=234.Fig.7.Project duration Ðfrequency of mention.N=236.Fig.8.Project outcome.N =236.D.White,J.Fortune /International Journal of Project Management 20(2002)1±1153.4.Factors critical to the project's outcomeIn the section of the questionnaire exploring this area, respondents were presented with a list of19critical fac-tors culled from a study of the literature[4±17]identi-fying or examining factors believed to be critical to the outcome of a project.They were asked to indicate which of the factors they regarded as`critical'.Respondents were also encouraged to add any other factors they felt to be important[a further®ve(including`other')were added by the respondents].The count of factors indi-cated by the respondents is shown in Table4.`Clear goals and objectives'was the most mentioned factor, selected by87%(206)of respondents. Respondents were asked to indicate and rank the three factors they believed to be most critical to their project's outcome.Their responses are displayed in Table5.From this table,it is evident that the number of times a critical factor was mentioned by respondents does not correspond to the importance given to the factor in terms of ranking.For instance,`Realistic schedule'was the second most frequently mentioned factor(mentioned by78%(185)of respondents)how-ever only7%(17)of respondents ranked it®rst and 11%(27)ranked it second.As Table5shows,the three critical success factors mentioned most frequently by respondents to the survey were:.Clear goals/objectives.Support from senior management.Adequate funds/resourcesThese results are similar,in large part,to those found in the literature[5,13,18].However,there were some di erences of opinion between the respondents and the prevailing wisdom in this area.For example,alongside `project mission'and`top management support',Pinto and Slevin[13]emphasise`the provision of adequate communication channels and control mechanism'butTable1Criteria used for judging project successCriteria Sum of re-codedranking Sums rankedMeets client's requirements9701 Completed within schedule8502 Completed within budget7663 Meets organisational objectives1884 Yields business and other bene®ts865 Causes minimal business disruption716 Meets quality/safety standards487 Other criteria208Table2Unexpected side-e ectsSide-e ects Count Yes(desirable)40 Yes(undesirable)30 Yes(both desirable and undesirable)38No108 Don't know16 Did not respond4 Total236Table3Side-e ectsÐdescriptionsÐfrequency of mentionDesirable side-e ects Count Increased business/sales/opportunities34 Newunderstanding/know ledge gained25 Improved business/sta relations18 Greater consistency of working6 Total83 Undesirable side-e ects Count Undesirable organisational impact/con¯ict15 Problems with sta /client/contractors/suppliers13 Technical limitations came to light12 Lack of awareness of environment12 Underestimation of cost/time10 Changes to goal/objectives6 Poor IT awareness/knowledge6 Con¯icting priorities5 Total79Table4Factors critical the project's outcomeÐfrequency of mention Factors Count Clear goals/objectives206 Realistic schedule185 Support from senior management176 Adequate funds/resources164 End user commitment159 Clear communication channels144 E ective leadership/con¯ict resolution138 E ective monitoring and feedback135 Flexible approach to change133 Taking account of past experience121 Recognising complexity121 Taking account of external in¯uences120 E ective team building/motivation117 E ective management of risk117 Training provision98 Contextual awareness94 Provision of planning and control systems88 Appreciating the e ect of human error53 Considering multiple views of project47 Having access to innovative/talented people8 Other factor(s)7 Having relevant past experience3 Support from stakeholder(s)/champion(s)3 Having a clear project boundary26 D.White,J.Fortune/International Journal of Project Management20(2002)1±11only37%(88)respondents regarded the`Provision of planning and control systems'to be a critical factor. Cash and Fox[6]maintain that`successful projects always have a champion',but`Support from stake-holder(s)/champion(s)'was only considered critical by 1%(3)of respondents.Furthermore,although it is widely argued[3,11,16,19±23]that many projects fail due to inadequate management of risk,only49.5% (117)of respondents considered`E ective management of risk'to be critical.Therefore,although there was agreement between the literature and the survey®ndings over the top three factors there was disagreement about the extent to which other factors were important deter-minants of success.Interestingly,`Having a clear project boundary'was regarded as the least important factor in relation to the outcome of a project.This may add weight to the argu-ment put forward earlier when discussing unexpected side-e ects,that insu cient account was taken of pro-ject boundaries and environments.3.5.Methods,methodologies,tools and techniquesThe section on methods,methodologies,tools and techniques presented respondents with a list of44 options and were asked to indicate which had been used in the project being considered.The options chosen for inclusion in the list were those found in a selection of the standard text books on project management[24±38]. Again,respondents were encouraged to add to the list of options if necessary.The44options provided were grouped as follows:1.Methods/methodologies2.Project management tools3.Decision making techniques4.Risk assessment toolsputer models/databases/indexesputer simulationsTable6shows the mean,mode,range and count of the frequency of mention for the methods,methodologies, tools and techniques used.Between them respondents indicated use of a total of1210methods,methodologies, tools and techniques.The maximum number of methods, methodologies,tools or techniques used by any single respondent was23,the mode was3and the mean was5. 2%(5)of respondents stated that they did not use any methods,methodologies,tools or techniques whatsoever. Although28%(66)of respondents did not use any method or methodology over95%(225)of respondents used at least one project management tool.52%(123)of respondents did not use any decision making techniques. 54%(128)of respondents used their own`in house' project management method.The most commonly used project management tool(77%,182)was`o the shelf'Table5The three factors believed to be most critical to the project's outcomeCritical factors1st most criticalfactor count 2nd most criticalfactor count3rd most criticalfactor countSum ofcountsClear goals/objectives764018134 Support from senior management28252477 Adequate funds/resources14352372 Realistic schedule17272266 End user commitment23182364E ective leadership/con¯ict resolution982138 Flexible approach to change7151234 Clear communication channels4131633 Taking account of past experience155727E ective management of risk610925 Contextual awareness581124E ective monitoring and feedback381223 Recognising complexity83819 Provision of planning and control systems39719 Taking account of external in¯uences83617E ective team building/motivation34815 Training provision2338 Considering multiple views of project2024 Having access to innovative/talented people2024 Appreciating the e ect of human error0112 Support from stakeholder(s)/champion(s)1102 Having a clear project boundary0011 Total236236236708D.White,J.Fortune/International Journal of Project Management20(2002)1±1178 D.White,J.Fortune/International Journal of Project Management20(2002)1±11Table6Project management methods,methodologies,tools and techniquesÐfrequency of useProject management method/methodology/tool/technique Count of frequency of use Total used Mean Mode Range Project management methods/methodologies2060.8713 Projects in controlled environments(PRINCE)23Projects in controlled environments2(PRINCE2)14Structured systems analysis and design methodology(SSADM)17The European risk management methodology(RISKMAN)1The RIBA plan of work2Other project management methods/methodologies a16In house project management methods128In house similar to PRINCE5Project management tools617 2.6117 Critical path method(CPM)70Work breakdown structure(WBS)75Cash¯owanalysis(CFA)43Gantt bar charts152Graphical evaluation and reviewtechnique(GERT)4Programme evaluation and reviewtechnique(PERT)24Strengths weaknesses,opportunities and threats(SWOT)41Other project management tools b21Project management software182In house project management tools5Decision making techniques1720.7304 Cost bene®t analysis(CBA)88Decision analysis(DA)9Sensitivity analysis(SA)19Expressed preferences23Implied preferences11Revealed preferences11Other decision making techniques9In house decision making techniques2Risk assessment tools1470.62010 Life-cycle cost analysis(LCCA)25Event tree analysis(ETA)8Fault tree analysis(FTA)6Probability analysis(PA)34Reliability analysis13Uncertainty analysis3Failure mode and e ect analysis(FMEA)10Hazard analysis(HAZAN)9Hazard and operability studies(HAZOP)9Operation and maintenance risk analysis(OMRA)4Preliminary hazard analysis(PHA)5Other risk assessment tools7In house risk assessment tools14Computer models/databases/indexes400.1703 CRUNCH1Lessons learnt®les(LLF)23Expert systems4In house computer models/databases/indexes12Computer simulations110.0502 Hertz1Monte Carlo10Other techniques110.0502 Other techniques17All methods,tools and techniques1210 5.13323a Includes other methods used in Information Systems Development Projects.b Includes tools used in Information Systems Development Projects.software.64%(152)of respondents used Gantt charts, 37%(88)of respondents used Cost Bene®t Analysis. Looking at these®ndings in relation to those reported elsewhere it is worth noting the similarity between this study and that of Baldry[39].In his report of a survey of practitioners'use of risk analysis and management techniques,he commented on the large width of the range of techniques used.As can be seen from Table6, risk analysis was the area where the number of di erent tools used was highest.However,it is also worth noting Humphreys'submission[40]that only a small number of project managers use risk assessment tools because only a fewof the tools provide support for the man-agement of risk.This may provide an explanation as to why65%(154)of respondents to the survey did not use any risk assessment tools.3.6.Limitations and drawbacks of the methods, methodologies,tools and techniques used42%(99)of respondents said they had encountered limitations or drawbacks with the methods,methodolo-gies,tools or techniques they had used.Those they cited (23respondents cited two methods/tools/techniques each)are listed in Table7.In total,limitations were reported in connection with10%(122)of the1210 methods,methodologies,tools and techniques used. `Project Management Software'was reported the high-est number of times.Table8shows the methods and tools with the highest frequency of reported limitations as a percentage of their frequency of use.The respondents'descriptions of the limitations or drawbacks experienced have been grouped into twelve categories and are presented in Table9.A cross-tabulation of the methods,methodologies, tools and techniques with limitations and the descrip-tions of the limitations is given in Table10.It is worth noting that of the56respondents who experienced pro-blems with`Project Management Software',26found the software`Inadequate for complex projects'.It is also worth noting that`In House Project Management Methods',which was the fourth most frequently cited (expressed as a percentage of frequency of use)as pos-sessing limitations,was criticised for a wide variety of reasons.The most frequently described limitation was`Inade-quate for complex projects'(32cases).26of these cases referred to`Project Management Software'.One factor that may lie behind this®nding has been identi®ed by Cotterell[41].H e found that only a fewsoftw are packages included the facility to track shared resources. This must constrain the accurate modelling of complex projects.Table7Methods,methodologies,tools or techniques with limitationsÐfrequency of mentionMethod/methodology/tool/technique with limitations Count Project management software56 In house project management method18 Project management tool10 PRINCE7 Structured systems analysis and design methodology5 Method/tool used in software development projects5 Other techniques5 Project management methods4 Risk assessment tool4 PRINCE22 Decision making technique2 In house risk assessment tool2 In house project management tool1 In house computer model/database/index1 Total122Table8Methods and tools with the highest frequency of reported limitations Methods/tools with limitations Frequencyof useFrequencyof reportedlimitationsFrequency oflimitationsas a%offrequencyof use Project management software1825631 Structured systems analysis anddesign methodology17529PRINCE and PRINCE237924In house project managementmethods1281814Table9Description of limitations or drawbacksÐfrequency of mention Description of limitation/drawback to method/methodology/tool/techniqueCountInadequate for complex projects32 Di cult to model`real world'18 Too heavy in documentation,too time consuming12 Other11 Failed to predict problems9 Constrained activities,did not allowa holistic view9 Too unwieldy,not cost e ective9 Lack of training/expertise,etc.6 Not suitableÐno suitable tools available5 Too much emphasis on following the`standard'5 Not fully developed/immature4 Lessons learnt in past not carried forward2 Total122D.White,J.Fortune/International Journal of Project Management20(2002)1±1194.ConclusionThis paper reports on the results of a recently con-ducted survey that attempted to capture the `real world'experiences of project managers with a view to:.identifying any common criteria used for de®ning project success;.exploring the extent to which projects give rise to unexpected side-e ects;.establishing a common list of `critical success fac-tors';.identifying the methods,methodologies,tools and techniques in current use in the ®eld of project management;.identifying any limitations or drawbacks to the methods,methodologies,tools and techniques.The three criteria used for judging project success most cited in the literature (on time,to budget,to spe-ci®cation)were also the highest ranked success criteria identi®ed in the survey.However,they were not the sole criteria by which project outcome was judged;the ®t between the project and the organisation and the con-sequences of the project for the performance of the business were also reported as important criteria.A remarkably high proportion (41%)of projects were judged to be a complete success but 46%were described as giving rise to unexpected side-e ects but it should be noted that 14%(34)of the projects that gave rise to unexpected side-e ects were among those considered to be a complete success.Three of the four top ranking factors respondents identi®ed as critical to project success mirrored the suc-cess criteria (realistic schedule,adequate funds/resour-ces,clear goals/objectives).`Support from senior management'was the other most frequency mentioned critical factor.Between them,respondents used 1210methods tools and techniques.The most widely used were `Project Management Software'and `Gantt Charts'.The mode number of tools used was 3.66respondents did not use any method or methodology,123respondents did not use any decision making techniques and 154respon-dents did not use any risk assessment tools.128respondents used their own `in house'project manage-ment method.99respondent said they had encountered limitations or drawback with the methods,tools or techniques they had used.`Project Management Soft-ware'was reported as the tool with the most limitations and was identi®ed as being particularly unsuitable for use with complex projects.Following this survey,work is in hand to carry out a real-time study of two projects with a view gaining a greater understanding of the e ects of the various interacting processes and decisions that take placeT a b l e 10C r o s s t a b u l a t i o n Ðm e t h o d s ,m e t h o d o l o g i e s ,t o o l s a n d t e c h n i q u e s w i t h l i m i t a t i o n s a n d a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e l i m i t a t i o n sD e s c r i p t i o n o f l i m i t a t i o n t o m e t h o d /t o o l /t e c h n i q u eM e t h o d /t o o l /t e c h n i q u e w i t h l i m i t a t i o nD i c u l t t o m o d e l `r e a l w o r l d 'F a i l e d t o p r e d i c t p r o b l e m s I n a d e q u a t e f o r c o m p l e x p r o j e c t s L a c k o f t r a i n i n g /e x p e r t i s e ,e t c .L e s s o n s l e a r n t i n p a s t n o t c a r r i e d f o r w a r dN o t s u i t a b l e Ðn o s u i t a b l e t o o l s a v a i l a b l eN o t f u l l y d e v e l o p e d /i m m a t u r e T o o h e a v y i n d o c u m e n t a t i o n ,t o o t i m e c o n s u m i n gT o o m u c h e m p h a s i s o n f o l l o w i n g t h e s t a n d a r dC o n -s t r a i n e d a c t i v i t i e s ,d i d n o t a l l o w a h o l i s t i c v i e wT o o u n w i e l d y ,n o t c o s t e e c t i v e O t h e r T o t a l P R I N C E 23117P R I N C E 2112S S A D M 111115P r o j e c t m a n a g e m e n t m e t h o d 2114I n h o u s e p r o j e c t m a n a g e m e n t m e t h o d 121111334118P r o j e c t m a n a g e m e n t s o f t w a r e 112262536156P r o j e c t m a n a g e m e n t t o o l 3111410I n h o u s e p r o j e c t m a n a g e m e n t t o o l 11D e c i s i o n m a k i n g t e c h n i q u e 112R i s k a s s e s s m e n t t o o l 11114I n h o u s e r i s k a s s e s s m e n t t o o l 112I n h o u s e c o m p u t e r m o d e l /d a t a b a s e /i n d e x 11M e t h o d /t o o l u s e d i n s o f t w a r e d e v e l o p m e n t p r o j e c t s 325O t h e r t e c h n i q u e s 1315T o t a l 189********5991112210D.White,J.Fortune /International Journal of Project Management 20(2002)1±11。