Marian Bosch-Rekveldt

Different perspectives of public project managers on project success

Purpose The authors argue that public project managers do not consider the iron triangle (cost, quality and schedule) primary important in measuring the success of their projects. To investigate which success criteria are important to public project managers, the authors interviewed 26 Dutch project managers who are employed by the government and who are responsible for managing infrastructural projects. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach In this research the Q-methodology is applied. Q-methodology helps to find for correlations between subjects across a sample of variables. Q-factor analysis reduces the individual viewpoints down to a few factors. A factor can be seen as the mathematical representation of an “average” perspective shared by a group of people. Findings Findings are based on the individual rankings of 19 success criteria; the authors distinguished three common perspectives: the holistic and cooperative leader, the socially engaged, ambiguous manager and the executor of a top-down assignment. In none of the perspectives the iron triangle criteria formed the top three to measure project success. Research limitations/implications The research results may have a national character. The way project success is perceived by public project managers may be culture dependent. For this the authors expand the research to other countries in the near future. Practical implications This paper contributes to the understanding of the public project manager by their private collaboration partners, like consultants, engineers and contractors. This will help them to understand their client and contribute to better collaboration in projects. Originality/value This paper shows that the difference in work attitude and value frame in the public sector leads to a specific view on project success.

Drivers of Complexity in Engineering Projects

This chapter investigates drivers of complexity in engineering projects. Based upon literature and empirical data, the TOE (technical, organizational, external) framework is developed, which captures the drivers of complexity in engineering projects. The empirical data was gathered by means of case studies in which interviews were held with three persons of six different projects. The resulting TOE framework consists of elements related to technical aspects, organizational aspects and external aspects of the project, all potentially contributing to project complexity. This chapter shows that organizational aspects can be considered as the particular drivers of project complexity. The interviewees seem to be well educated to deal with technical aspects; external aspects seem harder to recognise.

Comparing Project Complexity across Different Industry Sectors

Increasing complexity of projects is mentioned as one of the reasons for project failure—still. This paper presents a comparative research to investigate how project complexity was perceived by project practitioners in different industry sectors. Five sectors were included: process industry, construction industry, ICT, high-tech product development, and food processing industry. In total, more than 140 projects were included in the research, hence providing a broad view on Dutch project practice. From the complexity assessments, it is concluded that only one complexity element was present in the top complexity elements of projects across the five sectors: the high project schedule drive. The variety of external stakeholders’ perspectives, a lack of resources and skills availability, and interference with existing site were found in the top lists of three sectors. It was concluded that a framework to grasp project complexity could support the management of complex projects by creating awareness for the (expected) complexities. Further research could be focused on the subjective character of complexity as well as on the application of cross-sector learning, since this research does show similarities between large technical projects in different sectors.

How flexible is project management in practice? An exploratory research into project management of infrastructure projects in construction industry

Nowadays, flexibility of project management attracts practitioners and scholars attention as a must-have quality to enable managing project complexity. Increased complexity of infrastructure projects needs such management approach which takes the (increasing) complexity into account. Literature sheds light on importance of flexibility in project management while practice of project management in construction industry seems to be less flexible. The gap between what literature advises and what practice does, triggered us to look into the practice and see whether it aligns with literature or not. Hence the objective of this research was to explore the flexibility of project management in practice in the frontend phase of infrastructure projects. By means of a semi-structured questionnaire we asked practitioners to rate their last-completed project based on its management flexibility. In order to do so, we gave the participants a list 26 identified flexibility enablers from literature and asked them first to pick (in general) the 5 most important and 5 least important flexibility enablers. Next we asked them to rate the project management of the selected project based on those 10 picked enablers. By qualitative analysis of data gathered from 43 respondents from The Netherlands it reveals that the practice of project management has some degree of flexibility which implicitly has taken into action. Our research results can help practitioners to take the full advantage of flexibility in project management by making (more) explicit what they do implicitly. For further research it is recommended to test the practical applicability of flexibility enablers in case studies, explicitly investigating the suggested links to project performance