European Journal of Information Systems (2002) 11, 86–97
2002 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/02 $15.00 www.palgrave-journals.com/ejis
Pre-project partnering impact on an information system project, project team and project manager JJ Jiang1, G Klein2* and R Discenza2 1
University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA; 2University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA Information system (IS) managers have long recognised the need to use project management approaches in the design and delivery of their system development projects. The result has been the widespread use of project teams headed by a project leader or manager. However, given the fact that there has been a low success rate for IS projects, there is a growing need to seek out new methods and controls for projects. One approach involves the practice of altering the project environment prior to the commencement of project tasks. To determine whether such pre-project activities may be effective, a model is proposed and tested relating the activities to the performance of the project manager and characteristics of an effective project team. Data from a sample of 186 project team members indicate that the pre-project activities lead to more effective teams and managers and eventually to project success. Thus, it is important that organisations begin work on projects at an earlier stage. European Journal of Information Systems (2002) 11, 86–97. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave/ejis/3000420
Introduction Projects are a major process structure for accomplishing many things in organisations (Peters, 1999). A project is a nonroutine, complex, one-time effort limited by budget, resources, time and performance specifications designed to meet customer needs (Gray & Larson, 2000, p. 4). Projects are accomplished by teams, where a project team is a group of individuals responsible for completing the project work. The project team is assigned to a project manager, or leader, for the duration of the IS development. Individuals on the team typically bring different expertise, priorities, agendas and standards to a project. While there are obvious challenges to the project management type of organisation, researchers and practitioners report that IS managers utilise this form of structure in their organisations extensively because this approach has been successfully used to organise the development of new software and hardware projects while satisfying customer needs (Schwalbe, 2000). The project team and the project manager are the two crucial components to implementing projects. Each component must be effective to promote the chances of the project being successful. However, the variety of views in the project team often leads to conflict in tasks and personalities (Chan, 1989). The project manager is often powerless to remove the conflict because s/he does not hold direct authority over all members of the project *Correspondence: G Klein, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, P.O. Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150, USA Email: gklein얀uccs.edu
team. Thus, building a cohesive, motivated project team is a key to the ultimate accomplishment of project goals and the project manager has the primary responsibility for providing leadership to meet these goals (Peters & Homer, 1996; Pinto & Kharbanda, 1995; Tippett & Peters, 1995). Effectiveness of both project managers and their project teams can make the difference between project success versus failure. Unfortunately, this effectiveness is often hard to achieve and is even harder to define because of the different perceptions of system success between IS staff team members and user/owner team members (Linberg, 1999; Posner, 1986). For example, the IS staff may declare a project outcome successful if the system abides by IS standards and policies for data security, accuracy, documentation and hardware and software compatibility (Jiang & Klein, 1999). By the same token, IS users may consider the project outcome in terms of content and currency of the information, the extent of the changes to their workloads, and impacts to their jobs (DeLone & McLean, 1992). These differing viewpoints can lead to conflict during the development of the system. Pre-project partnering, a collection of practices aimed at controlling conflict and system quality, has been proposed as a method for avoiding problems associated with the multiple interests involved with a project (Larson, 1997). The purpose of this study is to examine whether effective project team characteristics and project managers’ performance are affected by the conflict-minimising intent of pre-project partnering activities. This study extends the work of Larson (1997) who found that there is considerable support for project partnering within the
Pre-project partnering impact
construction industry. Larson reported that partnering requires a considerable up-front investment in time and resources to establish a foundation for teamwork during the project’s duration. This involves institutionalising procedures and provisions for continued commitment to teamwork, resolving disputes, attaining top management support and agreed upon approaches for collaborative problem solving. Overall, Larson found the activities of partnering were related to eventual project success. This study examines the frequency and extent to which IS project members are engaged in the pre-partnering process. Specifically, two primary research questions are examined: (1) Do pre-project partnering activities influence IS project manager performance?; and, (2) do pre-project partnering activities influence effective project team characteristics? Additionally, we also explore the impact of the relationship between project success and the performance of both the project team members and the project manager. We intend to demonstrate that when relationships are positive, there should be an attempt to start a project sooner, which includes the establishment of collaborative relationships among various team members.
Theoretical background Conflict is one potential threat to the effectiveness of both project managers and project teams (Chan, 1989; Thamhain & Wilemon, 1987). Conflict is any situation in which incompatible goals, attitudes, emotions or behaviours lead to a disagreement or opposition among two or more people. Causes include any division of abilities, perceptions, communication styles or values (Tjosvold, 1991). One study even found that individuals may have difficulty working together effectively despite the fact that they generally agree on goals and believe they should be working together (Kabanoff, 1985). IS projects are composed of a diversity of stakeholder groups, including users, owners and developers. Satisfying the requirements of one group does not necessarily imply that those of other groups will be met (Jiang & Klein, 1999). For example, Linberg (1999) reported that certain failed projects, defined as failures by management, were considered the most successful by IS staff. The success, in the staffs’ eyes, had to do with learning experience and eventual delivery. Effective project teams are characterised by good working relations with minimal interpersonal conflict (Schneider, 1987). Research on the effects of conflict in groups and on teams has shown that there is reduced productivity and satisfaction (Gladstein, 1984; Wall & Nolan, 1986). Even when group members are involved with a single project, have mutual interests in completing it and similar thoughts on how to finish the project, they may experience conflict. Conflict can hurt the team’s
JJ Jiang et al
87
ability to plan and can lower the shared trust, thereby degrading effectiveness (Goleman, 1995). Conflict leads to wasted resources, increased hostility, aggression, and to a diversion of energy from productive work. These consequences can impact the ability of the project manager and project team to conduct the needed activities and deliver a successful project. Good performance of the project manager requires the building of an effective team and environment for the accomplishment of the necessary tasks (Pinto & Kharbanda, 1995). Conflict can impede the project manager’s ability to seek the communication necessary among the highly-involved project team members. Not all conflict has negative consequences, however. There is ample evidence that controlled conflict within teams improves decision quality, financial performance, strategic planning and organizational growth (Bourgeois, 1985; Schweiger et al, 1989). More recently studies report that whether conflict was beneficial depended on the structure of the group in terms of task interdependence, task type, group norms and the type of conflict (Jehn, 1995, 1997). However, the conflict in the Jehn studies was controlled and was found to be beneficial only up to a point, and then damaging thereafter. To mitigate these problems, management researchers recommend building a collaborative environment (Tjosvold, 1991). A technique proposed in the project management field, called pre-project partnering, is directed at minimising conflict through collaborative steps (Cowen et al, 1992). Project pre-partnering consists of transforming a contractual relationship or taskfocused endeavor into a cohesive, cooperative, working group. Effective project teams in this environment have a single set of goals and procedures that are useful for carrying out project activities, implementation concerns and conclusions (Larson, 1997). Pre-project partnering consists of those activities between teams or firms prior to the actual partnering process. The purpose is to lay the groundwork for a successful partnering process. Under ideal conditions, preproject partners should be selected from those who have established a successful track record of partnering on previous projects. When this is not possible, or when project teams or groups have no experience with partnering, other strategies should be used. For example, Cowan et al (1992) report that pre-project activities normally focus first on getting top management’s commitment to the partnering process. This should involve an initial top management conference that sets the tone for the partnering process and establishes a dialog to control conflicting tasks and issues among those involved with the project. Second, building a collaborative relationship between the major players involved is essential. The project manager for each partner has a major role in this by facilitating the breakdown of barriers to collaboration and
88
Pre-project partnering impact
establishing trust and respect among team members. The team members bond through the development of a common set of project goals and objectives, a process which reduces potential conflict in attaining those goals. Here, the team establishes a set of procedures for resolving conflict during the course of the project’s completion. This facet reinforces the importance of the partnering process. The final phase of the pre-project procedure is to expand the commitment to other key individuals who will be working together on the project. This may involve an outside consultant, well-versed in team building skills, who facilitates a workshop. Top management’s support is essential to signal the significance of, and commitment to, the partnering process. The length of the workshop depends on the commitment, experience and skill level of the team members. The workshop consists of ice-breaking activities and mini-lectures on the principles of teamwork, synergy, approaches to continuous improvement, constructive feedback and problem solving. The pre-project partnering is complete when a charter or resolution is agreed upon, with each of the participants affirming allegiance to the principles of the partnership. Pre-project partnering is a formal attempt to institute processes and activities designed to alter working relationships between IS users and IS staff on a new project (Larson, 1997). It entails considerable up-front investment in time and resources to allow an IS project manager to sustain and expand collaboration among different stakeholders over the course of an IS project. The end intent of pre-project partnering is to build a collaborative foundation before the commencement of the software project that sets practices for resolution of differences and continual improvement (Cowen et al, 1992). Project process model The research model shown in Figure 1 shows expected relationships and represents a sequential practice of organisations. Expectations are also supported by earlier research, as explained below. As noted previously, preproject partnering activities are those that secure conflict resolution processes. Pre-project partnering calls for
Figure 1 Project process model.
JJ Jiang et al
more than the traditional stakeholder analysis, which normally is limited to the identification of stakeholders and the establishment of communication channels (Schwalbe, 2000). Pre-project partnering extends this practice greatly by establishing collaborative foundations to identify potential conflict, establishing policies for resolving disagreements, and developing processes for continual improvement. Project manager performance involves the completion of important tasks in the development of a project environment. A large number of expectations are unique to the management of projects and the success of the project manager depends to a large extent on how capably these expectations are met (Schwalbe, 2000). Effective team characteristics are traits of teams known to promote success (Ford & McLaughlin, 1992; White & Leifer, 1986). Here the project team is a group of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, approach, and set of performance goals for which the team is accountable. Project outcomes consist of meeting goals of budget, quality objectives, and usability (Henderson & Lee, 1992; Standish Group International, 1994). The intent of this study is to examine whether pre-project partnering activity provides an environment that is conducive to increasing the effectiveness of the project team and project manager in improving project outcomes. The background theories for these links are described in the discussion of the hypotheses. Hypotheses Conflict management theory allows for a variety of conditions and impacts on performance (Tjosvold, 1991). A more refined approach models the impact of interpersonal and task conflict as separate components (Jehn, 1997). Interpersonal conflict tends to be universally negative, while task conflict contributes to performance up to a point, then diminishes the effectiveness thereafter. Essentially, conflict management theory indicates that some types of conflict can enhance the performance of the project manager and the team, if it is appropriately controlled. The center of authority in a project is often unclear (Katz & Allen, 1985). According to the Project Management Institute (PMI), the goal of a project manager is to meet or exceed stakeholder needs and expectations from a project (Project Management Institute, 2000). Thus, project managers must identify, understand and manage relationships with project stakeholders—top management, functional managers, and IS users. This multiple stakeholder environment creates both interpersonal conflicts and goal-oriented, or task, conflicts. Project team activities are more effective after early recognition of opposing interests between groups or individuals on performance, calling for controls to be certain that conflict does not adversely impact project results (Cheng, 1983;
Pre-project partnering impact
Youngs, 1986). The parties themselves do not notice these conditions unless communications or interactions have occurred (Thomas, 1992). Pre-project partnering activities provide an early opportunity for parties involved to recognise the potential problems and conflicts and puts a process of resolution in place that is under the control of the project manager. These arguments, combined with empirical support (Larson, 1997), suggest the following: H1: Pre-project partnering activities improved project manager performance.
lead
to
Conflicts within groups are unavoidable due to the complexity of relationships in a group setting (Jehn, 1995). Although early conflict theory held that conflict was always detrimental (Brown, 1983; Brett, 1984), more recent theory has recognised conditions where task-related conflict can be beneficial (Tjosvold, 1991). However, beneficial impacts of conflict are limited and found to diminish after a certain level of conflict is reached (Jehn, 1997). Thus, effective team performance is focused more on minimising conflict during decisive decision making and implementation of the decisions (Tjosvold, 1986). Empirical research does support the harm of conflict. Studies found conflict associated with reduced productivity and satisfaction in groups, and the absence of disagreement in organisational groups leads to increased performance (Schwenk & Cosier, 1993; Wall & Nolan, 1986). Other researchers have found benefits from conflict (Jehn, 1995, 1997). Conditions where conflict seems to be beneficial are when conflict is controlled in order to better understand the issues, improve situational assessment, and generate new ideas (Baron, 1991; Fiol, 1994; Putnam, 1997). These are the conditions preproject partnering is designed to foster. This leads us to expect: H2: Pre-project partnering activities lead to more effective team characteristics. One primary responsibility of the project manager is to build and promote an effective project team (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). The project manager’s ability to plan, organise, and control significantly impacts project team effectiveness. A project manager increases the chances of achieving organisational goals through positively channeling project team behaviour (Flamholtz et al, 1985). The relationship between the project manager and team members is crucial to effective team performance and to building the necessary team traits for success (Mantei, 1981). Practice has long recognised the importance of the IS project leader in achieving the desired team environment (Schwalbe, 2000; Weinberg, 1971). Research by Tippett and Peters (1995) found a positive relationship between project manager performance and work atmospheres in
JJ Jiang et al
89
which respect and consideration are shared by all members of the team. Rossy and Archibald (1992) argued project managers who effectively reward, acknowledge and promote contributions gain a higher project member commitment. From the above, we state the following hypothesis: H3: Strong project manager performance improves effective project team characteristics. The leader has always occupied a strong and central role in achieving organisational success in traditional management theory (Drucker, 1954; Drucker, 1974). The project manager occupies a unique leadership position within an organisation, since s/he crosses functional boundaries in their agenda without direct line authority over the team members, making the leadership issue ever more critical (Pinto & Kharbanda, 1995). A project manger is responsible to both management and customers (users) within the organisation, taking a multitude of viewpoints into consideration. Project managers are under considerable pressure from superiors to achieve goals imposed by the organisation, making the position essential to achieving the objectives of the project (Schwalbe, 2000). Numerous researchers have argued the influence of project manager performance on the final project outcomes (Salisbury, 1994; Schwalbe, 2000). Various leadership styles and practices have been associated with project performance (Elmes & Wilemon, 1988). A project manager’s job can be viewed as clarifying project goals and objectives, developing integrated plans, schedules and budgets, achieving the best allocation of available resources, authorising and controlling the work, monitoring progress, identifying variances and instituting corrective actions. As a result, various guidelines and strategies for project managers to enhance their performance and project outcomes have been suggested (Ireland, 1991; Wideman & Dawson, 1998). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: H4: Strong project manager performance improves project outcomes. A project team can be defined as a group or an arrangement of two or more people working together to produce an identifiable good or service (Jones & Harrison, 1996). Groups have been studied in psychology and organisational behavior for some time, resulting in a number of theoretical models, yet each model considers success as the primary outcome (Guzzo & Waters, 1982; McGrath, 1982). Many researchers have examined project teams, mainly focusing on the personality characteristics of team members, the structure of group decisionmaking processes, prescriptions for effective team management and the relationship between IS staff and users. However, few studies have examined project perfor-
90
Pre-project partnering impact
mance in terms of project team effectiveness (Jones & Harrison, 1996). The results of project management research reports suggest that effective team characteristics are a key ingredient for accomplishing project goals (Jones & Harrison, 1996; Tippett & Peters, 1995). IS projects typically have high degrees of technical complexity, tight budgets, and challenging schedules. These projects characteristically require the integrated effort of many people from multiple disciplines to meet project objectives. To deal with these challenges, one must have a committed project team with a set of performance goals, mutual respect, effective communications and loyalty. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed: H5: Strong project team effectiveness improves project outcomes.
Research methodology Sample Questionnaires were mailed to randomly selected Project Management Institute (PMI) members in the US. PMI is the professional association for practitioners of project management with over 70 000 members worldwide. The sample was chosen because members of PMI represent a cross-section of managerial positions and should have the awareness to judge the presence of project characteristics. The membership is widely used in other project management research, yielding comparability across studies (Larson, 1997). In the first round, 500 instruments were mailed. A postage-paid, self-addressed envelope for each questionnaire was enclosed. Only subjects with recent experience on an IS project, in any capacity, were asked to complete the survey. All the respondents were assured that their responses would be kept confidential. Seventy-eight questionnaires were initially returned. In order to increase the sample size, a second-round mailing to the non-respondents of the first round was conducted. The responses from both samples totaled 186; t-tests on the means of all independent and dependent variables described below indicated no difference between the two rounds. Likewise, Chi-square tests on the demographic variables indicated no significant difference between the first and second mailings. The data of these two rounds were combined for further analysis. A summary of the demographic characteristics of the sample is shown in Table 1. About 65% of the respondents were either IS professionals or project leaders during a recent IS project. Over 85% had work experience of 11 years or more, and just under 91% worked in companies that had 100 employees or more. In addition, the subjects had been involved in different kinds and sizes of IS applications.
JJ Jiang et al
Table 1 Sample demographics 1 Gender Male Female No response Total
127 57 2 186
2 Managerial position Top management Department manager Project leader IS professional No response Total
17 47 73 45 4 186
3 Work experience 1–10 years 11–20 years 21 or above Total
23 72 91 186
4 No. of employees Less than 100 101–1000 1001–10 000 10 001 or above No response Total
16 99 40 29 2 186
5 Team size of the most recently completed IS project 10 people or less 82 11–20 60 21–50 26 51 or above 14 No response 4 Total 186
Metrics The pre-project partnering activity measure is constructed from pre-project partnering activities identified by other researchers as being crucial in establishing a collaborative environment (Cowan et al, 1992; Larson, 1997). The items are listed in Table 2. Table 2 also includes the descriptive statistics for each item and the overall value as determined by equal weighting of all items. The instrument asked participants to identify the extent to which each activity was conducted in their most recently completed IS project. Each item was scored using a five-point scale. All items were presented such that the greater the score, the greater the extent the pre-project partnering activity was conducted. Project manager performance is the extent of the project manager’s ability and effectiveness to plan, organise, staff, lead, coordinate, and control in order to drive the project toward success. These expectations have been enumerated in a number of sources and combined into a survey (Meredith & Mantel, 1989). The items used in this study are listed in Table 3 and are limited to those items found significant in previous
Pre-project partnering impact
JJ Jiang et al
91
Table 2 Properties of the pre-project partnering metric Construct and items
Mean
Std dev
Standardised loadings
t-statistics
Pre-project activities (overall) A1: Before the project began people met to build a collaborative relationship among the management/users and project team A2: Before the project began key people from both management/users and project team identified potential conflict/problem areas A3: Before the project began a documented process was in place for joint resolution of problems A4: Key parties involved formulated a formal charter/agreement that stated shared objectives and responsibilities A5: The project included provisions for continuous improvement
(2.96) 3.32
(1.03) 1.30
0.75
7.11*
2.93
1.22
0.70
6.54*
2.68
1.34
0.66
5.95*
2.92
1.35
0.71
6.56*
2.94
1.30
0.69
6.32*
Cronbach alpha (0.86)
*Significant at 0.05.
studies (Thamhain & Wilemon, 1987). The questionnaire has respondents identify the extent to which each project manager activity was conducted in their most recently completed IS project. Each item was scored using a five-point scale. Items were presented such that the greater the score, the greater the extent of the activities. Common characteristics are expected for effective teams (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; White & Leifer, 1986). These characteristics, listed in Table 4, were considered in the development of the items found significant in a previous study (Thamhain & Wilemon, 1987). Again, the respondents identified the extent to which each characteristic was present in their most recently completed IS project. Each item was scored using a fivepoint Likert-type scale, where the greater score indicated a greater extent usage of the item. To create a successful project, project managers and project teams must strive to meet specific scope, time, cost, and quality goals (The Project Management Institute, 2000). The outcome of an IS project is, therefore, defined as meeting or exceeding expectations along these four lines (Ford & McLaughlin, 1992). The specific project performance measures are those found significant in previous studies (Henderson & Lee, 1992; Jones & Harrison, 1996). The questionnaire asks respondents’ perceptions of each item in Table 5 for their most recently completed IS project. Each item was scored using a five-point scale. Items were presented such that the greater the score, the greater the satisfaction with the particular item. In order to examine the validity of these measures, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of all the items from all the measures together using the SAS CALIS procedure. When conducting a CFA, if the model provides a reasonably good approximation to reality, it
should provide a good fit to the data according to the more accepted measures of fit (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The CFA for the measurement model resulted in a Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) of 0.10 (ⱕ0.10 recommended), a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of 0.82 (ⱖ0.90 recommended), and a Chi-Square/Degree of Freedom ratio of 1.55 (ⱕ3 is recommended). The recommended values are derived from research traditions in IS and established authors in the field (Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Segars & Grover, 1993). The measures represent a reasonable fit for the measurement model (Bollen, 1989; Hatcher, 1994; Kline, 1998). Validity issues External validity refers to the extent to which the findings can be generalised across time, persons, and settings. The external validity of the findings is threatened if the sample is systematically biased—for example, if the responses were generally from more successful projects—or if the sample showed bias in terms of demographics. Table 6 shows the descriptive statistics for the project outcome and other constructs where the means are scaled to the 5-point response frame. The responses had a good distribution since the means and medians were similar, skewness was less than two, and kurtosis was less than five (Ghiselli et al, 1981). An ANOVA was conducted by using project outcome as the dependent variable against each demographic category (independent variables). Results did not indicate any significant relationship. Likewise, pre-project partnering, effective team characteristics and project manager performance were well distributed and showed no relation to the demographics collected. Convergent validity is demonstrated when different instruments are used to measure the same construct, and
92
Pre-project partnering impact
JJ Jiang et al
Table 3 Properties of the project manager performance metric Construct and items
Mean
Std dev
Project manager performance (overall) M1: Project manager understood the various barriers to team development and built a work environment conducive to the team’s motivational needs M2: Project manager continuously updated and involved management and users to refuel their interest and commitment to the project M3: Project leadership positions were carefully defined and staffed at the beginning of a new project M4: Project manager conducted effective planning early in the project life cycle M5: Project manager successfully involved key personnel at all organisational levels M6: Project manager communicated individually with each prospective team member about specific tasks, the outcomes, timing, responsibilities, report relations, potential rewards, and importance of the project to the company M7: Project manager defined the basic team structure and operating concepts early during the project formation phase. The project plan, task matrix, project charter, and policy are principal tools M8: The team building sessions were conducted by the project manager throughout the project lifecycle M9: Project manager determined lack of team member commitment early in the life of the project and attempted to change possible negative views toward the project M10: Project manager sought senior management support to provide a proper environment for the project team to function effectively M11: Project manger watched for changes in performance on an ongoing basis M12: Project manager focused his efforts on problem (conflicts) avoidance
(3.39) 3.58
(0.90) 1.20
0.70
6.75
3.54
1.09
0.66
6.31*
3.20
1.19
0.67
6.39*
3.41
1.24
0.84
8.78*
3.60
1.08
0.82
8.55*
3.28
1.16
0.73
7.19*
3.34
1.20
0.82
8.56*
2.82
1.25
0.64
6.01*
3.22
1.16
0.72
7.07*
3.87
1.13
0.67
6.44*
3.55
1.18
0.72
6.98*
3.35
1.20
0.46
4.06*
*
Standardised loadings
t-statistics
Cronbach alpha (0.94)
*
Significant at 0.05.
scores from these different instruments are strongly correlated. Convergent validity can be assessed by reviewing the t-tests for the factor loading (greater than twice their standard error). The t-test for each indicator loading is shown in Tables 2–5. The results showed that the overall constructs demonstrated high convergent validity since all t-values are significant at the 0.05 level. The internal validity of a model asks whether alternative explanations of the results can be provided, such as the effects of variables that are not included in the model. Random selection of respondents was a partial methodological control for some of these potential confounds such as demographic-based bias. However, project size, which was not included in the model, could have an impact on the variables of interest. For example, the relationships between pre-project partnering, effective team characteristics, project manager performance,
and project outcome in the model could have been more an artifact of their correlation with project size, rather than the presence of any true effects among them. Thus, we explicitly examined the effect of this potential confound, measured by the number of team members. The Wald test suggests that its effects on the dependent variables are not significant and should be dropped. Thus, project size does not appear to provide an alternative explanation of the effects, which leads to more confidence in the internal validity. In addition, the internal consistency of each construct is examined by utilising Cronbach’s alpha values. Alpha is high if the various items of the construct are strongly correlated with one another. The Cronbach alpha values for the pre-project partnering, project manager performance, effective team characteristics, and project outcome constructs were 0.86, 0.94, 0.89, and 0.90 respectively,
JJ Jiang et al
Pre-project partnering impact
93
Table 4 Properties of the effective team characteristics metric Construct and items
Effective project team characteristics (overall) T1: Professionally stimulating and challenging work T2: Professional growth potential T3: Freedom to choose, decision making T4: Good overall direction and leadership T5: Tangible rewards T6: Mutual trust, security, and open communication T7: Good interpersonal relations among team members and with management T8: Proper planning T9: Low interpersonal conflict
Mean
Std dev.
Standardised loadings
t-statistics
(3.61) 4.10 3.83 3.58 3.45 3.11 3.41 3.89
(0.95) 0.91 0.97 1.05 1.20 1.17 1.15 1.02
0.65 0.51 0.67 0.82 0.46 0.85 0.77
6.10 4.57* 6.38* 8.55* 4.03* 8.98* 7.77*
3.68 3.27
1.08 1.25
0.86 0.81
9.09* 8.33*
Construct and items
Mean
Std Dev
Standardised loadings
t-statistics
Project outcomes (overall) P1: Able to meet project goals P2: Innovative and creative P3: High quality of work produced P4: Significant amount of work produced P5: Adherence to budget P6: Adherence to schedule P7: Efficient operations
(3.47) 3.87 3.78 3.87 4.06 3.25 3.18 3.20
(0.76) 1.06 0.93 0.92 0.81 1.11 1.23 1.07
0.85 0.61 0.71 0.67 0.48 0.71 0.79
8.78* 5.57* 6.73* 6.25* 4.18* 6.78* 7.94*
*
Cronbach alpha (0.89)
*
Significant at 0.05.
Table 5 Properties of the project outcome metric
*
Cronbach alpha (0.90)
Significant at 0.05.
Table 6 Descriptive statistics
Mean SD Median Skewness Kurtosis Correlation with: Pre-project partnering Project manager performance Effective team characteristics Project outcomes *
Significant at 0.01.
Pre-project partnering
Project manager performance
Effective team characteristics
Project outcomes
2.96 1.03 3 −0.04 −0.76
3.39 0.9 3.58 −0.47 −0.43
3.61 0.95 3.67 −0.61 −0.25
3.47 0.76 3.48 −0.09 −0.42
1
0.68* 1
0.57* 0.68* 1
0.50* 0.61* 0.67* 1
94
Pre-project partnering impact
all of which exceed the recommended level of 0.70. (Nunnally, 1978).
Data analysis and results The research model and hypotheses were tested using path analysis, specifically structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques using SAS. Three important assumptions associated with path analysis are: 1) normal distribution of variables; 2) absence of multicollinearity; and 3) a maximum number of variables in the model. The mean scaled univariate kurtosis (−0.16) and multivariate kurtosis (1.29) tests of normality were conducted. No violation was found. The correlations, shown in Table 6, between variables were all less than 0.80; thus, no significant violation of multicollinearity was found (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The total number of variables in this model was four, which fell in the suggested range of four to six (Bentler & Chou, 1987). Overall, the theorized model in Figure 1 fit the data well. Fit indices exceeded recommended levels (CFI = 0.99, RMR = 0.01, and Chi-square/df = 0.71). Table 7 shows the results of the SEM model. The direct effect of all links was high and significant at the 0.01 level. This indicates strong relationships among the hypothesised links. Of particular interest are the links involving the direct impact of pre-project partnering. These hypotheses support the use of pre-project partnering by supporting H1: pre-project partnering activities lead to improved project manager performance and H2: pre-project partnering activities lead to more effective team characteristics. Conclusions similar to other works reviewed earlier are drawn from the strong relations supporting H3: strong project manager performance improves effective project team characteristics, H4: strong project manager performance improves project outcomes, and H5: strong project team effectiveness improves project outcomes. For the purposes of determining the more influential items involved with eventual project success, all possible regressions were run on the intermediary and final variables in the model. The results of these analyses are
JJ Jiang et al
shown in Table 8. For project performance, the regression analysis indicates that five items from team effectiveness and project manager performance had significant coefficients. Of large magnitude, the teams having low interpersonal conflict had the greatest influence. Open, trusted communications were also significant in a positive direction as should be expected from other studies (Harari, 1995; Tannen, 1986). It should be noted that the intent of pre-project partnering is to build channels for communication and procedures for conflict resolution. Perhaps noteworthy is the negative relationship to team freedom. This seems contradictory to advice promoting team autonomy (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), but too much autonomy could lead to conflict with other stakeholders (Cordery et al, 1991). From the project manager performance items, continual communication and senior management involvement are significant. Team effectiveness, an intermediate variable in the study, is impacted by similar items from the project manager performance rating. The development of an environment conducive to effectiveness, careful staffing of well-defined leadership positions, senior management support and close monitoring of progress all positively supported team effectiveness. Each of these speak to the importance of involvement, planning, open communication, and control critical to project success and team effectiveness as found by others (Burke, 1992; Harari, 1995; Schwalbe, 2000; Tannen, 1986). Of particular note from the items in the partnering rating are the significance of clear, documented objectives and provisions for improvement. These two items from partnering efforts put down a framework for common goals and the intent to change for the purpose of improvement. This strives toward the opportunity to make quality changes in a system within clearly articulated objectives, with less room for conflict. In a similar fashion, a process for continual improvement supports the project manager, as does a provision for resolving conflict.
Conclusion The focus of this study was to examine the impacts of pre-project partnering activities on project manager per-
Table 7 Path analysis results Independent variable
Pre-project partnering Pre-project partnering Project manager performance Project manager performance Effective team *
Indicates P ⬍ 0.05.
Corresponding dependent variable Project manager performance Effective team Effective team Project outcomes Project outcomes
Hypothesis
Path coefficient
Standard error
t-statistics
H1
0.68
0.05
12.56*
H2 H3 H4 H5
0.21 0.54 0.28 0.48
0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06
2.90* 7.39* 3.89* 6.66*
Pre-project partnering impact
JJ Jiang et al
95
Table 8 Regression results of individual activities to project and team performance Dependent variables
Project performance
Team effectiveness
Project managers’ performance *
Team
Independent variables
Coefficients
P value
T3 T6 T9
−0.11 0.13 0.25
0.03* 0.02* 0.00*
Manager
M2 M10
0.10 0.12
0.05* 0.03*
Manager
M1 M3 M10 M11
0.12 0.13 0.13 0.11
0.03* 0.02* 0.02* 0.05*
Parnering
A4 A5
0.10 0.14
0.04* 0.00*
Partnering
A3 A5
0.19 0.17
0.00* 0.00*
Significant at 0.05.
formance and effective project team characteristics, both of which are critical to project outcome. A research model was proposed from a synthesis of the IS and project management literature. Data were collected from a total of 186 IS project team members. The results confirm the importance of the project manager’s performance to effective project team characteristics and to the eventual outcome of the IS project. Effective team characteristics were also positively related to project outcome. Additionally, positive relationships among preproject partnering activities, project manager performance, and effective project team characteristics were supported. The results fit well with existing studies and theory. The relationship between effective team characteristics and project outcome had been established independently as had project manager performance to project outcome (Pinto & Kharbanda, 1995; Stuckenbruck, 1996; Zimmerer & Yasin, 1998). This study ties all three together and adds the relationship of pre-project partnering. Recognising the existence of multiple stakeholders entering a project with unique project objectives, project management literature had looked at pre-project partnering activity to reduce conflict (Larson, 1997). The importance of involvement is stressed, as is the importance of establishing common objectives and a desire for quality (Burke, 1992; Schwalbe, 2000). The primary theoretical basis for pre-project partnering activity is implementing conflict management (Tjosvold, 1991). Pre-project partnering activities attempt to create a foundation and atmosphere among IS users and IS project team members to control conflict, even when forced through rules and regulations that are not necessarily congruent with each member’s value system (Klein et al, 1999; Stuckenbruck, 1996). Positive relationships
between pre-project partnering activities and project manager performance have been demonstrated in construction projects (Larson, 1997). However, to date, the relationship between pre-project partnering activity, project manager performance, effective project team characteristics, and eventual project outcome in an IS context had never been explicitly studied. The implications for management are clear. Preproject partnering activities should be implemented to promote a collaborative framework for conflict avoidance and resolution. Organisations should work up-front to put a foundation for improving communications, resolving conflicts, and making process improvements. The steps for introducing pre-project partnering are summarised in the introduction and can be found in other sources (Larson, 1997). Specifically, the organisation must look at working with stakeholders to establish common goals for the system before any work begins on the system per se. Yet, even though these goals are documented and serve as a rallying point, partnering goes further. Partnering, as defined earlier, sets up frameworks to allow for conflict, differences, change, and the drive for continual quality improvement. This sets the stage to allow for changes to the system as the project moves towards completion. Changes should no longer drive conflict since there is an understanding that change will occur for the betterment of the system. For circumstances where conflict arises, procedures are in place to resolve the differences. This maintains a cooperative atmosphere and permits the benefits of differences to surface without causing destructive contention (Typerman & Spencer, 1983). Though the benefits to the project seem well-supported, the implementation of partnering may impact other stakeholders in ways not considered. Future
96
Pre-project partnering impact
research should look at this possibility by looking at the impact on the environment and management. This highlights one limitation of the study that restricts the performance measure to the project level. Further work on the techniques for such a major cultural change must be conducted, but the incorporation of pre-project activities has a positive effect on the project environment, and these items are under the control of the organisation.
JJ Jiang et al
Placing the burden on the organisation, rather than the individual project managers, will instill the benefits across all projects. Though software is developed almost exclusively in project fashion, other aggregate levels of success, such as the organisational, product or individual level, may not yield the same results. Samples of other stakeholder views also need to be examined for more generality of the proposed model.
References Anderson JC and Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103(3), 411– 423. Baron RA (1991) Positive effects of conflict: A cognitive perspective. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 4(1), 25–36. Bentler PM and Bonett DG (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin 88(3), 588–606. Bentler PM and Chou CP (1987) Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods and Research 16(August), 78–117. Bollen KA (1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Wiley, New York. Bourgeois LJ (1985) Strategic goals, environmental uncertainty, and economic performance in volatile environments. Academy of Management Journal 28(3), 548–573. Brett JM (1984) Managing organizational conflict. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 15, 644 –678. Brown LD (1983) Managing Conflict at Organizational Interfaces. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Burke R (1992) Project Management: Planning and Control. John Wiley, New York. Chan M (1989) Intergroup conflict and conflict management in the R&D divisions of four aerospace companies. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 36(2), 95–104. Cheng JL (1983) Interdependence and coordination in organizations: A role-system analysis. Academy of Management Journal 26(1), 156–162. Cordery JL, Mueller WS and Smith LM (1991) Attitudinal and behavioral effects on autonomous group working: a longitudinal field study. Academy of Management Journal 34(2), 464 –476. Cowan C, Gray C and Larson E (1992) Project partnering. Project Management Journal 22(4), 5–11. Delone WH and McLean E (1992) Information systems success: the quest for dependent variable. Information Systems Research 3(1), 60–95. Drucker, P (1954) The Practice of Management. Harper and Brothers, New York. Drucker, P (1974) Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. Harper and Row, New York. Elmes M and Wilemon D (1988) Organization culture and project leader effectiveness. Project Management Journal 19(4), 54 –63. Fiol CM (1994) Consensus, diversity, and learning in organizations. Organization Science 5(3), 403– 420. Flamholtz EG, Das TK and Tsui AS (1985) Toward an integrative framework of organizational control. Accounting Organizations and Society 10(1), 35–50. Ford RC and McLaughlin FS (1992) Successful project teams: A study of MIS managers. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 39(4), 312–317. Ghiselli EE, Campbell JP and Zedeck JP (1981) Measurement Theory for the Behavioral Sciences. Freeman, San Francisco. Gladstein, D (1984) A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 29(4), 499–517. Goleman D (1995) Emotional Intelligence. Bantam Books, New York. Gray CF and Larson EW (2000) Project Management: The Managerial Process. Irwin, McGraw-Hill, Boston. Guzzo RA and Waters JA (1982) The expression of affect and the
performance of decision-making groups. Journal of Applied Psychology 67(1), 67–74. Harari O (1995) Open the doors, tell the truth. Management Review 84(1), 33–35. Hatcher L (1994) A Step-By-Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. SAS Institute, Cary. Henderson JC and Lee S (1992) Managing I/S design teams: a control theory perspective. Management Science 38(6), 757–777. Ireland L (1991) Quality Management for Projects and Programs. Project Management Institute, Sylva, NC. Jehn KA (1995) A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(2), 256–282. Jehn KA (1997) A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(3), 530–557. Jiang JJ and Klein G (1999) User evaluation of information systems: by system topology. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 29(1), 111–116. Jones MC and Harrison AW (1996) IS project team performance: an empirical assessment. Information & Management 31(2), 57–65. Kabanoff B (1985) Potential influence structures as sources of interpersonal conflict in groups and organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 36(1), 113–141. Katzenbach JR and Smith DK (1993) The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization. McGraw Hill, New York. Katz R and Allen TJ (1985) Project performance and the locus of influence in the R&D matrix. Academy of Management Journal 28(1), 67–87. Klein G, Jiang JJ and Boyd M (1999) Building a case for consonance. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Business Information Systems, Springer-Verlag, London. Kline RB (1998) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press, New York. Larson E (1997) Partnering on construction projects: a study of the relationship between partnering activities and project success. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 44(2), 188–195. Linberg KR (1999) Software developer perceptions about software project failure: A case study. The Journal of Systems and Software 49(2/3), 177–192. Mantei M (1981) The effect of programming team structures on programming tasks. Communications of the ACM 24(3), 106–113. McGrath JE (1982) The Study of Groups: Task Performance, Social Interaction, and Member Change. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Meredith JR and Mantel SJ (1989) Project Management. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York. Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York. Peters T (1999) The WOW project. Fast Company 24, 118–134. Peters L and Homer J (1996) Learning to lead, to create quality, to influence change in projects. Project Management Journal 27(1), 5–11. Pinto JK and Kharbanda OP (1995) Successful Project Managers: Leading Your Team to Success. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Posner BZ (1986) What’s all the fighting about? Conflicts in project
Pre-project partnering impact
management. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM33(4), 207–211. Putnam LL (1997) Productive conflict: Negotiation as implicit coordination. In Using Conflict in Organizations (De Dreu CKW and Van de Vliert E, Eds.) pp 147–160, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California. The Project Management Institute Standards Committee (2000). Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). Project Management Institute, Sylva, NC. Rossy G and Archibald R (1992) Building commitment in project teams. Project Management Journal 23(2), 16–21. Salisbury F (1994) Developing Managers as Coaches: A Trainer’s Guide. McGraw Hill, New York. Schneider B (1987) The people make the place. Personnel Psychology 40(3), 437–453. Schwalbe K (2000) Information Technology Project Management. Course Technology, Cambridge, MA. Schweiger D, Sandberg, W and Rechner P (1989) Experiential effects of dialectical inquiry, devils advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal 32(3), 745–772. Schwenk C and Cosier R (1993) Effects of consensus and devil’s advocacy on strategic decision-making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23(2), 126–139. Segars AH and Grover V (1993) Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quarterly 17(3), 517–525. Standish Group International (1994) CHAOS: Project Failure and Success Research Report. Standish Group International, Inc., Dennis, MA. Stuckenbruck LC (Ed) (1996) The job of the project manager: systems integration. In The Implementation of Project Management: The Professional’s Handbook, pp 141–155. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., Reading, MA. Tannen D (1986) That’s Not What I Mean! How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Your Relations with Others. Morrow, New York.
JJ Jiang et al
97
Thomas KW (1992) Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Dunnette MD, Ed.) Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA. Thamhain HJ and Wilemon DL (1987) Building high performing engineering project teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 34(3), 130–137. Tippett DD and Peters JF (1995) Team building and project management: how are we doing? Project Management Journal 26(4), 29– 37. Tjosvold D (1986) Working Together to Get Things Done. Lexington Books, Lexington. Tjosvold D (1991) The Conflict-Positive Organization. AddisonWesley, Reading. Typerman A and Spencer C (1983) A critical text of the Sherrif’s Robber’s cave experiments: Intergroup competition and cooperation between groups of well-acquainted individuals. Small Group Behavior 14(3), 515–531. Wall V and Nolan L (1986) Perceptions of inequity, satisfaction, and conflict in task-oriented groups. Human Relations 39(11), 1033–1052. Weinberg G (1971) The Psychology of Computer Programming. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. White KB and Leifer R (1986) Information systems development success: Perspectives from project team participants. MIS Quarterly 10(3), 214 –223. Wideman RM and Dawson JD (1998) Project Program Risk Management: A Guide to Managing Project Risks and Opportunities. Project Management Institute, Sylva. Youngs GA, Jr (1986) Patterns of threat and punishment reciprocity in a conflict setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(3), 541–546. Zimmerer TW and Yasin MM (1998) A leadership profile of American project managers. Project Management Journal 29(1), 31–38.
About the authors Dr James Jiang is a professor of MIS at University of Central Florida. His PhD in MIS was awarded by the University of Cincinnati. His research interests include IS Project Management and Knowledge Management. He has published over 80 academic articles in these areas in journals such as, IEEE Engineering Management, Communication of the ACM, Decision Support Systems, IEEE SMC, Journal of Management Information Systems, Decision Sciences, and MIS Quarterly. Dr Gary Klein is the Couger Professor of Information Systems at the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs. He obtained his PhD in management science at Purdue University. He previously served as dean of the School of Business at the University of Texas of the Permian Basin. Before that time, he served with Arthur Andersen & Company in Kansas City and was director of the information systems department for a
regional financial institution. His interests include project management, knowledge management, system development, and mathematical modelling, with over 80 academic publications in these areas. He is a member of IEEE, ACM, INFORMS, SCIP, DSI, and the Project Management Institute. Richard Discenza is a professor of production management and information systems in the College of Business and Administration of Colorado at Colorado Springs. He received his BSF in forestry from Northern Arizona University, an MBA from Syracuse University, and a PhD in management from the University of Oklahoma. Dr Discenza was formerly dean of the college. His current research focuses on business process re-engineering, distance education, project management, and supply chain management. He has published numerous articles in professional and academic journals and is a member of APICS, the Academy of Management, and PMI.
