1er Congrès International en Management et Gestion des projets, Gatineau, (Québec), Canada, 2011

Value or Vise? – Project Management Implementation at a Canadian Research Institute

Thomas Mengel, PhD, PMP; Renaissance College, University of New Brunswick1

Résumé

Malgré le nombre grandissant de publications sur l’implémentation de la gestion de projet et sa

valeur pour les organisations, il y a peu d’études de cas explorant la valeur de l’implémentation

de la gestion de projet dans le contexte particulier des instituts de recherche. Cette étude de cas

explore la façon dont la mise en place d’une gestion de projet a évoluée dans un institut de

recherche fédéral Canadien en comparant les premières étapes de l’implémentation formelle

(2007) à l’état actuel (2010). Plus particulièrement, cet article présente l’approche sélectionnée

par l’institut pour faire face aux défis spécifiques et aux avantages qu’un institut de recherche

peut rencontrer lors de l’implémentation de la gestion de projet. En conclusion, cet article

contribuera à mieux comprendre la valeur de la gestion de projet pour les instituts de recherche.

Mots clés : Gestion de projet; recherche; implémentation; valeur; étude de cas; Canada

Abstract

While the number of publications about project management implementation and its value for

organizations in general has increased, there is a lack of case studies exploring the value of

project management implementation within the particular context of research institutions. This

case study investigates how the implementation of project management has evolved at a

Canadian Federal research institute by comparing the early stages of its first formal

implementation (2007) with the more recent status (2010). Particularly, the paper will discuss the 1 The author wishes to acknowledge the support of the case study organization to this project. Without the help of the

management and employees of this organization this study would not have been possible.

Institute’s approach to coping with the specific challenges and opportunities an organization

focusing on research might face when implementing project management. As a result, this paper

will contribute to better understanding the value of project management for research institutions.

Keywords: project management; research; implementation; value; case study; Canada

Introduction

Various publications have discussed researching and quantifying the value of project

management (Thomas & Mullaly, 2008; Ibbs & Reginato, 2002). Many case studies have been

published substantiating the claim that implementing project management does create value for

the organization (Aubry, Müller, Hobbs, & Blomquist, 2010; Cicmil, Ðorđević, & Zivanovic,

2009; Crawford & Helm, 2009; Eskerod & Riis, 2009; Mengel, Cowan-Sahadath, & Follert,

2009; Turner, Ledwith, & Kelly, 2010; Zhai, Xin, & Cheng, 2009). However, there is a lack of

studies in the specific context of research institutions exploring in depth and over time what

particular challenges this kind of organization may have faced and how the organization might

have responded to these challenges when implementing project management. This case study

investigates how a Canadian Federal research institution has adapted project management to

meet their specific needs and how the implementation of project management has evolved over

time by comparing the early stages of its first formal implementation (2007) with the current

status (2010). It will discuss the means and results of increasing the value of project management

for this research organization. Thus it will contribute to better understanding the evolving value

of project management for research organizations as well as the key determinants of this process.

Methodology

This case study – a Canadian Federal research institution – is a result of a research project that

the researcher has conducted at the Institute as guest researcher to assess the value of project

management to the organization (organizational benchmarking) and to also contribute the

collected data to the larger Researching the Value of Project Management project (Thomas &

Mullaly, 2008). To be consistent with the approach of this larger research project, this case study

has applied the same tools and approaches of quantitative and qualitative data collection that

have been developed for and used within the context of the Researching the Value of Project

Management project. In particular, all employees of the case study organization have been

invited to participate in surveys and interviews; furthermore, the researcher has engaged in

organizational data collection and observation of project management practices. This approach

has been applied twice to allow for a longitudinal study of the evolving project management

implementation and its value at this research institute. The first set data was collected between

April and August 2008; a follow-up study using the same approach was conducted between

September and November 2010.

The overall research approach was based on the understanding that details around the

implementation of project management in any given organization (rationale, timeline,

methodology, results) were paramount. Furthermore, in trying to explore what has actually

changed in that organization and why, the research methodology needs to include asking

individuals within the organization as well as observing what is and relating this to theories of

organization and organizational change. In particular, project management implementation

within an individual organization needs to be understood within the context of the organization’s

strategy and environment (Construct of Project Management Implementation). Furthermore, the

impact of project management implementation on the delivery of projects needs to be qualified

further (Construct of Organizational Context). Finally, the real benefit of project management

implementation to the overall organization needs to be identified and better understood (Value

Constructs) (Thomas & Mullaly, 2008).

Figure 1 from (Thomas & Mullaly, 2008, p. 25)

The results of the rich data collection approach in regard to the value of project management

(implementation) are being discussed within the framework of the following five levels (Thomas

& Mullaly, 2008, p. 37f.):

• perceived satisfaction of various stakeholders with the organization’s project management

implementation,

• aligned use of practices: the fit between what is being talked about, what is documented and

what is actually being done,

• process outcomes and improvements gained through project management implementation,

• depending on the nature of the organization various business outcomes can be identified and

qualified, and

• return on investment.

Furthermore this study investigates the connection and correlation between project and

organizational performance on one side, and the level of support for the discovery of meaning in

the various dimensions of working environments, as well as the level of meaning actually

discovered and actualized, on the other. Based on Frankl’s categories of meaning and the

actualization of values―creational, experiential, and attitudinal values (Frankl, 1988)―data

have been collected and interpreted in pursuit of the following questions:

• Which areas and elements of the project management context (e.g., infrastructure and tools,

practices, people, training) support the discovery and actualization of meaning, and in which

of the following manners do they do so?

• In the creative aspects of work in and around projects (e.g., creating products, services, and

processes that are perceived as being meaningful)?

• In the experiential aspects of project work (e.g., experiencing relationships with others that

are perceived as fulfilling)?

• In the attitudinal aspects within project environments (e.g., mastering challenges by

reframing one’s perspectives)?

• In which aspects of project work (creative, experiential, and attitudinal), and how and to what

extent do project stakeholders discover and actualize meaning in project environments?

• To what extent and how does a meaningful project management context (meaningful work,

experiences, and attitudes) contribute to increased project or organizational performance?

Finally, content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004; Weber, 1990) will be used to identify potential

additional themes and to triangulate the results within the context of value of project

management and meaningful work.

Description of the Case and Data Collection

Description of the Case

This Canadian research organization is mandated by the Federal government and has several

sites in various Canadian cities in different provinces. The institute employs several hundred

people (mostly highly educated researchers, technology relations officers, and other support

staff, administrational staff, and management). As a research institute, it is competing with other

research organizations across the globe as well as on a national level; federal funding is

distributed among the various research areas and organizations based on how well each institute

can demonstrate effective management in generating high economic and social impact on

Canadian society. Highly educated and well-experienced researchers consider their work to be

very meaningful (in terms of research work and results), and the majority of the people surveyed

and interviewed enjoy working for this organization; (research) projects are the bread and butter

of this organization. However, the increasingly competitive environment also requires a change

of culture from a more or less “free” research environment for “independent” researchers to an

organization that strategically focuses its efforts on areas of greatest impact.

A major trigger for the implementation of formal project management in 2007―the introduction

of a project proposal template as a first step of a more comprehensive project management and

portfolio process, as well as the hiring of a well-trained project manager―was the need to be

better able to align research projects with the institute’s business plan and to account for and

control research projects; this was particularly triggered by the Auditor General’s report in 2004.

One of the objectives was to successfully implement a system that would help the organization to

secure further funding successfully beyond 2010.

Between 2008 and 2010 various adjustments of and additions to the existing project management

system have been implemented. These include various changes to the project management

processes and structures as well as additional documentation describing these changes in the

context of the existing project management system. Basic project management training tailored

to the needs of the Institute has been delivered to 32 researchers and group leaders across the

Institute in November 2008 and March 2009. More and more projects are being managed based

on the new processes and procedures; 2010 appears to have been the first year that all projects

were following the Institute’s project management guidelines.

Early data collection: 2008

At the first data collection point, 10 semi-structured interviews have been conducted between

April and August 2008 with internal project sponsors, executive managers, and with project and

team leaders (including research officers and business development officers); furthermore, nine

comprehensive surveys have been completed. The interviews and surveys covered the various

locations of the Institute; they were conducted with employees who volunteered to participate in

response to the invitation sent to all employees. At the same time, the researcher has inspected

process and project documentation on-site, reviewed project management templates and

frameworks, and captured the results of project- and project management-related observations.

Finally, the researcher was able to attend the first project review meeting of the organization in

January 2008 that led to the prioritization of new project initiatives in regard to their scientific

and technical excellence, to their alignment with the organization’s business plan, and to their

external and internal impact. In addition, the Institute’s internal project management and project

initiation guidelines have been reviewed.

Recent data collection: 2010

Two years after the initial data collection point, the same data collection approach has again been

applied. As a result, 12 semi-structured interviews have been conducted between September and

November 2010 with representatives of various functions and hierarchical levels of the

organization; furthermore, 12 comprehensive surveys have been completed. Again, the

interviews and surveys covered all locations of the Institute. Project documentation, project

management templates and frameworks have been reviewed on-site, and the results of project

and project management-related observations have been captured. In particular, this review

included a new version of the Institute’s internal project management guideline, new project

change request and closing forms, as well as the latest project management office work plans.

Discussion

Results of early data collection: 2008

Review of existing project management documentation

The internal project management guideline consists of two parts - Part 1 Principles and Part 2

Operations - and introduces an institute wide project management approach. In part 1 it describes

the main rationale, objectives and guiding principles for this approach and describes the project

life cycle, the project review and evaluation criteria and the process of project portfolio analysis.

Finally, it identifies and describes in more detail elements of the project portfolio management

model (including in particular roles and responsibilities). In part 2 it presents a project

classification - large and small scale projects -, a timeline for implementation, and particular

templates (including the project proposal, project plan, and progress report).

An additional document provided the project review committee consisting of the research

directors, research and business development regional representatives, and the project manager

with the terms of reference in providing the Senior Management Committee with an overall

assessment of each project reviewed, with scores for the relevant criteria (Scientific and technical

excellence, alignment with the Institute’s business plan, and external and internal impact), and

with recommendations on strengthening the projects. It was initially applied at the first

respective project review meeting in Ottawa at the end of January 2008.

Finally, a project initiation document outlined steps for researchers to follow when initiating new

research projects depending on the type and size of projects as well as on the research area; it

suggested introducing principles of project management early on in the process of initiating

research projects while providing the researchers with substantial flexibility in the process.

Early stages of project management implementation

The primary objectives of implementing elements of formal project management were to

increase organizational credibility, to improve business case realization, and to gain a

competitive advantage (“internally” within the cluster of various federal research institutions, as

well as on a global level). On the other hand, accelerating project delivery and reducing project

costs were of very minor importance. Because the early steps were very fundamental and not yet

well understood nor consistently applied, the level of maturity was still rather low.

A common project (management) language was not yet spoken within the organization and the

role of projects was not yet clearly and consistently understood. There appeared to be a (cultural)

difference between various sites and their interpretation and application of the newly introduced

project management processes. In general, project management work was very much disliked

(particularly by researchers), while they took pride in their work as researchers. Researchers felt

that they spent an excessive amount of time clarifying project objectives with management staff

and obtaining their signatures. Yet, researchers also felt that all important aspects of projects

were monitored and controlled.

Due to the stepwise introduction of major project management elements, particularly around

project initiation, there was not yet a well-developed integration of various processes.

Particularly, the mismatch of annual budgeting as applied within the Institute and the needs of

major projects that require a multiple-year timeframe and financial commitment had been

mentioned as a shortcoming by project leaders repeatedly.

Management had already identified the need to revise the current level of project management

implementation and to adjust the level of required documentation based on a better balance

between the needs of external accountability and internal value. Furthermore, the need to explain

further and better the new approach of project management in general and of project initiation in

particular to researchers and group leaders had also been identified.

Levels of value

Satisfaction of stakeholders with management of projects and with project management

implementation was rated different depending on the site location and hierarchical level of the

people interviewed and surveyed; in general, managers in all locations and employees in the

‘younger’ locations demonstrated higher satisfaction (not high though!) than the researchers

overall and in the ‘older’ location in particular (high dissatisfaction). The project planning

template was perceived to have had the biggest impact on the organization within the overall

project management implementation. Managers indicated the increased linkage between business

strategy and projects as the major bonus of the first steps of project management implementation;

researchers could see the need for increased documentation based on the increased need for

external accountability, but they appeared to question the level of documentation required as

being meaningful in the organization’s context (research) and to perceive the increased planning

requirements to be distractive from their core work (research). Professional pride was clearly

linked to the research work rather than to the project management aspects of their work. Both,

management and researchers agreed on the need to balance the amount of planning and

documentation required with the expected and perceived value of this; however, the way to best

find and implement that balance has yet to be discovered:

There is a mismatch between that kind of reporting and … project management [and the

kind] of projects … we should be doing. We are supposed to come up with new ideas,

and I think that means the majority of our projects should be about innovation and should

have these characters: … poorly defined final product, very risky sub steps in project, and

that doesn't fit well with the reporting up to the Auditor General…. Some management

has to be done, but it's a different kind of management… we don't want to over

document, because there is a cost to the researchers if we over document. … So we have

these template forms that we are supposed to fill in. Many of the questions of the

templates aren't used for making any decisions, but we're still supposed to fill [them] in

…. An apparent assumption that this was an improvement and that by doing this we will

be a better research organization, … [however,] there is never any appeal to data or

evidence that doing this kind of project management is going to lead to a better research

performance. And there was the constant implication, sometimes explicitly mentioned,

that what we have been doing was wrong, even though we had good results (Interview

transcripts).

Aligned use of practices were reported and demonstrated on a very basic and inconsistent level;

however, alignment was reported to be gradually increasing. Again, the difference between

locations was significant. However, the early date of the first data collection may account for the

lack of alignment in regard to project management practices.

Significant Process and business outcomes could not yet be substantiated by conclusive evidence

based on the early stage or project management implementation; however, management

(including group leaders) and to some extend researchers reported higher alignment of projects

with the business strategy, better focus on strategically important projects and better access to

resources:

People are really starting to see the value in being able to say: this is what I want to do,

now we've seen the funnel of projects, it's much more concentrated, it's better aligned, we

have people from different groups working together now…. Just going through the

project review committee ..., it was a great exercise for different people to get to know

what's happening in other parts of the institute. And see opportunities and say: you know

maybe this component that this group is working on would be a great fit with us and now

we have tools to do ...cross location research projects…

Because we are earlier involved, we can better plan, we can better anticipate, as opposed

to being reactive. Reactive sometimes is not very conducive to success …. When you

react you tend to make the wrong decision because you don't have all the information.

But if we are doing it right from the start and we work with the researcher we can

anticipate what their needs are as they work… The project proposal template is just a

document, there is a process attached to it, there are steps and so on but it is certainly a

vehicle that helped to transit people … more toward a project management attitude

(Interview transcripts).

Return on investment was difficult to account for within this federal research organization.

Financial accounting for project management implementation has not been considered a high

priority. Hence, accurate and reliable financial numbers for both expenses and returns were

lacking. Furthermore, cost efficiency of projects was not a major concern at this point. However,

managers and project staff alike expected competitive advantages (internally and externally)

based on the better strategic alignment of projects as well as on the more effective and efficient

project reporting as integral part of organizational management.

Meaningful work

Creative Aspects―Producing Meaningful “Results”: As a research organization of high caliber

and recognition, the institute provides researchers and managers with ample opportunities to

engage in exciting and meaningful research projects that have a significant impact on the

Canadian people and society and beyond. The various awards that the organization has won on

different levels over the years clearly contributed to the pride of researchers and managers to be

part of this organization. However, this pride and excitement, particularly that of researchers,

was clearly attributed to the research (and business/customer) aspects of the institute rather than

to the (project) management side of the operation; to a large extent, researchers perceived the

level of project management requirements that they needed to follow to be fairly discouraging

and frustrating. Although managers appeared to thrive on the challenges of increased

competitiveness and market orientation, some researchers felt limited and restricted in pursuing

their research interests, and others were frustrated by the business strategy–based discontinuation

of their projects.

Experiential Aspects―Experiencing Meaningful Relationships and Sense-Making: Engaging in

exciting research projects with others as expressed by some researchers and all managers clearly

provides ample opportunities for meaningfully relating to others and experiencing the thrill of

research; however, based on the individualistic nature of some researchers and their research

projects, that satisfaction was sometimes based more on the fascination with the topic and related

challenges (and the thrill of respective problem solving) than on the collaboration with others.

Attitudinal Aspects―Sense-Making, Framing, and Reframing: At this point, the change of

culture from a free-floating research organization to a strategically oriented and publically

accountable research institute that has to face significantly increased internal and external

competition, was to many a challenge that had yet to be mastered and experienced in a

meaningful way. Some further explaining of what was happening and why and how it might

positively impact the work of all involved had yet to happen. Although the project management

implementation was reported particularly by management to potentially contribute to

successfully mastering the needed organizational change, the value of this management approach

in its implementation at the time was not (yet) obvious to many within the organization. While

management and more business-oriented employees could already detect the positive impact of

project management on making better sense of what the Institute was doing as well as on

creating a bigger and better impact in a more effective and efficient way (which is the reason

why management has driven the project management implementation in the first place), many

researchers had yet to be convinced of this value.

Comparison with results of recent data collection: 2010

Analysis of key documents

The version 2 of the PM Guideline has further emphasized the role of the Business Development

Office (BDO) particularly in the early phase of project management. Furthermore, this version

has increased the threshold of Large Scale (LS) projects from $ 250,000 to $ 750,000 (or $

250,000 annually) and the reporting requirements of LS projects from quarterly and annual to

quarterly, semi-annual and annual; at the same time reporting requirements for Small Scale (SS)

projects have been reduced from semi-annual to annual and from having to create both a project

proposal and a master project plan to requiring a project proposal only. Project review meetings

are required for LS projects only, but now twice a year (as opposed to once only in the previous

version). In addition, some project management processes have been expanded by updated forms

for promotional communication, change management and project closure. Finally, a Federal

agency external to the Institute has conducted an Organizational Project Management Capacity

Assessment (OPMCA) and produced a report for the Institute which has rated the Institute’s

project management capacity at a very high at level (3 out of 4 or 75%).

Analysis of interview data

The content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004; Weber, 1990) of the 12 interviews has resulted in the

identification of 4 overall themes based on 28 key words: 1) Project management

implementation (with the key words project management, project management office, LS/SS

projects, project management training, project management working group, documentation,

maturity level, pre-proposal, proposal, approval, accelerated projects, change request, closure,

project directory, and future), 2) business development and commercialization (with the key

words commercialization, business development office, competitive technological intelligence,

funding, human resources, and foundational research), 3) acceptance and benefits (with the key

words acceptance, benefits, improvement, progress, and feedback), and 4) culture (with the key

words culture and communication).

Analysis of survey data

Based on the data of the surveys conducted in 2008 (number of respondents: nine) and 2010

(number of respondents: twelve) the analysis compares the average (including standard

deviation) result for each survey question between the two surveys. While many responses to the

2010 survey have confirmed the results produced by the 2008 survey, there also clearly is a

significant change in several areas. Table 1 compares the respective data in regard to the

questions that resulted in a change of the average score of at least one point. The most significant

changes (increase of at least 1.5 average points) occurred within the following areas:

• We regularly look at how we can add more value to our customers.

• Projects have at least one face to face meeting.

• Projects are formally managed and delivered.

• A common project language is shared by all.

• PM knowledge can be easily acquired from experts and co- workers in my organization.

• The project management documentation in my organization is clearly documented.

• The project management documentation in my organization is easy to understand.

• Existing formal PM processes and procedures are used to manage projects.

• In case of project difficulties, project team members know exactly who to ask for support.

• Individuals/groups contributing to projects always receive feedback on the acceptance or

rejection of their inputs.

These results clearly indicated a significant improvement in regard to project management

practices and culture within the Institute.

Theme Average 2008

Standard Deviation 2008

Average 2010

Organizational Capabilities 15 bThere is complete satisfaction in the relationship between management and employees. 1.6 0.68 2.

eThere is complete trust between management and employees. 1.1 0.35 2.

17 c

Management are effective at developing a unified sense of direction and common purpose to which all members of the organization can relate. 2.0 0.67 3.

Organizational Culture 19 cIt is consistently important for the results of projects to be used as soon as possible 3.2 0.92 4.

21 a We regularly look at how we offer customers superior value. 2.7 0.67 3.

bWe regularly look at how we can add more value to our customers. 2.7 0.67 4.

cWe are encouraged to think in terms of what adds value to our customers. 3.2 0.79 4.

22 aWe assess business opportunities without being constrained by where we are right now. 2.0 0.82 3.

25 aThe organization provides channels to share best practices and knowledge between departments, teams and individuals. 1.9 0.74 3.

dWe find out how our projects deliver on our customers needs. 2.7 0.45 3.

Team/Project Culture 27 aThe organization plans, manages and develops its people resources. 2.6 0.50 3.

bPeople's knowledge and competencies are identified, developed and sustained. 2.7 0.94 3.

g Projects have at least one face to face meeting. 3.0 1.05 4.

h Regular project meetings are held with all team members. 3.1 1.20 4.28 a Partnerships among different projects are managed. 2.3 0.82 3.

29 aProject processes are systematically designed and managed. 2.4 0.68 3.

dProject processes are improved, as needed, to fully satisfy and generate increasing value for project stakeholders. 2.2 0.63 3.

f Projects are formally managed and delivered. 2.4 0.50 4.

Human Resources 32 aThere is a formal process linking training to career development. 1.7 0.67 2.

34 a I find ways to improve project management procedures. 3.2 0.79 4.h I consider myself an expert project manager. 2.1 0.57 3.

Project ManagementAttitudes 35 a

The role of projects is clearly understood within the organization. 1.9 0.57 3.

b The role of projects is clearly valued within the organization. 2.9 0.74 4.

c Project management is a valued skill within the organization. 2.6 0.68 3.d A common project language is shared by all. 1.7 0.47 3.

36

Please identify the degree to which each of the following attributes are viewed as key drivers of projects within the organization:

a Realization of the business case. 3.2 1.03 4.c Smoothness of handover. 2.1 0.60 3.m Minimizing operational impacts. 2.4 0.70 3.r Contribution to continuous improvement. 2.5 0.87 3.

37

Please identify the degree to which the following statements describe your perceptions of project management as a discipline:

d I am proud to be a project manager. 2.5 0.50 3.

fI feel fairly well satisfied with project management as a career. 1.7 0.94 2.

g I definitely dislike project management work. 3.5 1.00 2

hI will voluntarily leave project management within the next three years. 3.5 0.76 2

Project ManagementPractices 38 a

Project management practices, and policies are clearly documented. 2.1 0.87 3.

bProject management policies and procedures are followed diligently. 2.0 0.67 3.

dThis organization has superior project management practices. 1.4 0.50 2.

39 a The project managers are extremely competent. 2.1 0.78 3.

40 c Project managers are highly valued within the organization. 1.8 0.66 2.

dClients are consistently satisfied by the process by which projects are managed. 1.9 0.64 3.

eClients are consistently satisfied with project results of projects managed by the organization 2.6 0.90 3.

43 bPM Knowledge can be acquired easily through formal documents and manuals in my organization. 1.7 0.47 2.

dPM knowledge can be easily acquired from experts and co- workers in my organization. 1.8 0.43 3.

44 aThe project management documentation in my organization is clearly documented. 1.4 0.68 3.

bThe project management documentation in my organization is easy to understand. 2.0 1.00 3.

cThe project management documentation in my organization is easily applied to actual project situations. 1.8 0.66 2.

45 aFormal PM process and procedures are rigorously followed in this organization. 1.9 0.60 3.

bFollowing formal PM processes help us to better manage our projects. 1.8 0.66 3.

dExisting formal PM processes and procedures are not used to manage projects. 3.9 0.60 2

46 f Project roles and responsibilities are clear and unambiguous. 2.0 0.71 3.

47 dThe business case for projects is clearly defined and understood. 2.2 0.79 3.

49 bProject participants always know how to make the project manager aware of problems. 2.6 0.70 3.

cIn case of project difficulties, project team members know exactly who to ask for support. 1.8 0.43 3.

eAll project team members are sufficiently informed about their role in project teams. 2.8 0.97 3.

gIndividuals/groups contributing to projects always receive feedback on the acceptance or rejection of their inputs. 2.3 0.83 4.

50 b

Project team members know which activities have slack time or slack resources that can be utilized in other areas of projects. 2.0 0.53 3.

c Detailed budget plans are prepared for projects. 3.1 1.12 4.

f Project plans are monitored and changed when necessary. 3.1 0.93 4.

gActually progress on projects is regularly compared with the original schedule. 2.9 0.83 4.

Project Manager Role 54 cProject managers are fully responsible for the projects they manage. 2.1 0.33 3.

55 bProject control/steering committees are consistently comprised only of upper management representatives. 2.6 1.22 3.

QuestionStandard Deviation 2010

Delta Avg. 2008 - 2010

8 1.34 1.3

4 1.32 1.3

3 0.96 1.3

3 0.96 1.1

7 0.75 1.1

3 0.62 1.6

3 0.62 1.1

1 1.16 1.1

3 1.09 1.4

7 0.86 1.0

5 0.99 1.0

6 1.15 1.05 1.02 1.5

1 1.08 1.04 0.77 1.0

7 1.18 1.2

7 1.03 1.41 0.64 1.6

6 1.07 1.0

4 0.49 1.21 0.94 1.0

2 0.72 1.3

0 0.60 1.1

7 1.05 1.23 0.86 1.6

2 0.72 1.01 0.83 1.04 0.88 1.05 1.16 1.0

5 1.08 1.0

6 1.37 1.0.4 1.23 -1.1

.5 1.30 -1.0

2 0.99 1.1

1 0.95 1.1

7 1.18 1.25 0.99 1.3

8 1.21 1.1

0 1.13 1.1

6 0.64 1.1

8 0.99 1.2

4 0.92 1.7

4 1.11 2.0

5 0.99 1.5

8 1.30 1.0

3 1.14 1.4

2 0.99 1.4

.3 1.05 -1.6

2 1.14 1.2

5 0.87 1.3

8 0.83 1.2

7 0.86 2.0

8 1.14 1.1

0 0.95 1.8

4 1.23 1.42 1.03 1.0

4 0.64 1.2

1 0.90 1.2

3 1.62 1.2

7 1.18 1.0

Table 1: Comparing survey results (2008-2010) that changed more than 1 average point

Levels of value

Satisfaction of stakeholders with management of projects and with project management

implementation has increased significantly based on the value the Institute and its employees

place on projects, many of the project management processes and structures, and on the

increasingly shared project management language. However, satisfaction is still rated differently

depending on the site location and hierarchical level of the people interviewed and surveyed; in

general, managers in all locations and employees in the ‘younger’ locations demonstrate higher

satisfaction than the researchers overall and in the ‘older’ location in particular. Project

management has now become common practice and provides researchers and the Institute

overall with the necessary focus and resources. Managers, group leaders, and some researchers

indicate the increased linkage between business strategy and projects as the major bonus of

project management and its implementation. Researchers increasingly see the need for

documentation based on the need for external accountability, they appreciate the adjustments the

Institute has put in place regarding the different levels of required documentation for LS and SS

projects, but to some extent they still question the level of documentation required as being

meaningful in the organization’s context (research institution) and to perceive the increased

planning requirements to be distractive from what they perceive to be their core assignment

(engage in research activities).

I think there is a general acceptance of project management. There is a sense that things

are clearer now … We have gone from a phase of disruption to acceptance ... most people

now get a value back. [Those were the] key steps of pm implementation - training,

communication...holding the reviews...being flexible in terms of how to

implement...adjustments...[and]…to avoid redundant work … So there was some

adjustment on the numbers to make it more realistic as to what is a large scale project and

what is a small scale project. That has gone a long way to alleviate some of that pressure

that people were feeling because quarterly reports and the amount of information that is

required is onerous and you don’t want to do that for every single project…. But we

accomplished what we need to do as an institute in recording the data, managing the

process but not restrict or constrict the researchers (Interview transcripts).

Aligned use of practices are reported and demonstrated on an increased and more consistent

level, particularly in the newer locations that are mainly funded through renewable funding

around strategic clusters.

[The adjustment and alignment of processes] puts our budget in cycle with projects, it

puts our reporting in cycle with the governance side as well (Interview transcripts).

Process and business outcomes are starting to materialize in terms of an increased capacity to

commercialize and the associated confidence in being able to grow the external revenue stream.

Having a more formal process has increased our ability to commercialize (Interview

transcripts).

Return on investment is still not of great importance to this research institution of the Federal

government. However, accountability for the public money spent and for the impact of the

Institute’s activities in terms of strategic value for the Canadian government and people is of a

major concern. Clearly, the implementation and continuous improvement of project management

implementation has helped the Institute to be able to account for the use of its resources as well

as the respective impact.

[Non-renewable funding independent of strategic clusters] has been decreased by 40% in

the last 36 months; so the importance of project management to show your worth is very

important…and has probably enabled [the Institute] to ensure the sustainability

(Interview transcripts).

Meaningful work

Creative aspects – producing meaningful “results”: As already demonstrated in the earlier study

and as confirmed by the data collected recently, researchers first and foremost value exploring

new ideas and discovering new ways of doing things. However, they increasingly understand

that project management processes help them achieve that by providing them with the necessary

resources and a methodology to ensure satisfaction of internal or external customers. Project

management training and support has also increasingly been available to more stakeholders

within the Institute and thus created a common language and a set of shared practices. As a

consequence, the project management methodology increasingly contributes to the feeling of

professional pride and satisfaction on all levels. Furthermore, the focus on adding value to

customers within the context of research has significantly increased across the Institute.

However, for many the workload associated particularly with documentation and review

processes is considered a ‘necessary evil’, distracting from the main research mandate, or even

unnecessary.

Although as researchers we would like to have the freedom to work on what we want, we

realize that is not a sustainable model. The idea that we should be working on projects

that have a clear path to the outside, this management process, the criteria give us a focus

this way (Interview transcripts).

Experiential aspects – experiencing meaningful relationships and sense making: Project

management processes, structures, roles and responsibilities as well as the respective support

structures have clearly been further clarified and improved. Furthermore, a shared common

project management language and significantly improved project team culture within and across

particular projects have – in spite of the remaining frustrations around documentation and review

practices – made an important contribution to increased opportunities for experiencing the

cooperative project based research work as meaningful. Finally, the increased trust in and

satisfaction about the relationship between management and employees allow for more sense

making of researchers and managers of the Institute alike.

We have become more collaborative. A great deal of it does come from the project

management process but probably more so from the pressures we are facing... the

encouragement we have been given to collaborate and to work with particular clients ...

[The culture of collaboration] has improved a lot over the last 1.5 years especially

between Ottawa and [other locations] (Interview transcripts).

Attitudinal aspects – sense making, framing and reframing: Within the previous two years

(2008-2010) progress in changing the culture from a free floating research organization to a

strategically oriented and publically accountable research institute has been significant and is

acknowledged by various stakeholders at all levels; however, some researchers still resent and

resist the change. Increased information flow and feedback in conjunction with simply more and

improved project management practice have clearly contributed to that progress, while

particularly the top-down communication appears to have further potential for improvement.

Researchers have come along; there is still a gap… [With the information flow top down]

there is still a major problem, the amount of information and many reports flowing

upwards is not balanced by the information and feedback coming back ... Providing some

answers...that is what project management has brought to us (Interview transcripts).

Summary and conclusion

The evolving value of project management implementation in this Canadian Federal research

institute was investigated in a longitudinal study comparing the data collected in the fall of 2010

with the data collected early in 2008. The value of project management was captured on 5

different levels - satisfaction, alignment of practices, process outcomes, business outcomes, and

return on investment; a significant value increase could be demonstrated for the levels of

satisfaction and alignment, less so for the levels of outcomes and return on investment.

Furthermore, the significance of personal and organizational values as well as of a meaningful

work environment in regard to the value of project management was investigated. A strong

linkage between the value of project management and the perception of work in a project

environment to be meaningful could be demonstrated.

Summary of the early results (2008)

Major triggers for the implementation of formal project management in 2007 were the increased

requirements for accountability (in particular, the respective Auditor General’s reports in 2004

and 2006) and for strategic alignment of business objectives and research initiatives. First and

foremost, research initiatives had to be systematically identified and documented as projects and

prioritized and supported accordingly.

While the management and business development office of the Institute could already point to

more strategic alignment as well as better overview over and control of research projects,

researchers and group leaders to a large extend at this point perceived the increased documentary

requirements as inflexible and inappropriate limitation of innovative creativity within the

research environment. First successes in terms of more strategic control and alignment in

response to the requirements of greater accountability towards senior management and the

Canadian public seemed to not have yet been well balanced with the frustration of researchers

about the chosen project management approach and its implementation. At this point, the level of

maturity in regard to the project management system and the organizational fit of the project

management implementation at the Institute were rather low. As a consequence, the value of

project management implementation to the organization also still was at a low level and rather

intangible. However, the need for adaptation of the implemented approach, for more flexibility

depending on the type and size of research project, and for extensive communication and feed-

back processes between management and researchers of the Institute had been identified as

potential next steps.

Overall, the first snapshot of project management implementation was obviously influenced -

and to some extend limited - by the point in time of the investigation. First positive results in

terms of harvesting the value of project management given its objectives within the Institute

were overshadowed by the early stage of its implementation; resistance to change and the need to

focus on the control perspective given the major objectives for the project management

implementation may have accounted for a rough start. The very well educated workforce within

the Institute which demonstrated excellent motivation and pride in the institute’s research work

and achievements was a tremendous asset. Management and researchers alike saw the potential

value of project management in achieving a better focus, more strategic alignment, and

systematic progress control of research initiatives. Complementing the emphasis at the time on

top-down control and bottom-up reporting by more comprehensive and holistic feedback and

communication processes aimed at the joint development of a more broadly supported and

flexible project management approach was identified as a potential approach that could move the

implementation of project management at the Institute to the next level. In particular, the

following recommendations were presented as means to further increase the benefits of project

management implementation in the future:

• the communication and feedback between management and researchers around objectives

and means to achieve them and that are appropriate within the given research environment

can be intensified (e.g., through sharing successes as well as negative results with all levels

within the organization and developing better understanding for follow-up measures in

adapting the project management implementation; furthermore, the differential approach

towards foundational research initiatives, small scale and large scale projects needs to be

further and jointly developed and discussed),

• common language around project management elements and their implementation within

the research context can be developed and shared (e.g., through extensive training and

continued systematic support that will help develop ownership of various levels within the

Institute for the project management system as integral part of the institute’s

methodologies),

• a more flexible approach accommodating various types of research projects can be

integrated in the project and portfolio management processes (e.g., including agile project

management methods particularly for highly uncertain foundational research projects), and

• a more integrated approach between strategic, business development, financial, and project

management processes can be achieved (e.g., implementing one integrated approach for

status reporting rather than utilizing various tools and techniques depending on the

organizational unit and functional purpose).

Summary of the recent results (2010)

Major objectives for the changes and additions to the existing project management system from

August 2008 to August 2010 were to implement adjustments and improvements based on the

experiences made during the first year of project management implementation and on the

feedback received from various stakeholders during that phase. Clearly, these adjustments and

improvements have led to an increase in acceptance of the project management system across the

Institute and continue to produce the expected benefits.

Management and researchers alike now see the potential value of project management in

continuing to focus on strategic clusters and potential commercialization. While the initial

frustration of many researchers about the chosen project management approach and its

implementation has been significantly reduced, some still perceive the increased documentary

requirements as inflexible and inappropriate limitation of innovative creativity within the

research environment. The level of maturity of the project management system has clearly been

increased as also demonstrated by the assessment of the Institute’s project management capacity

at a high level (3 out of 4 or 75%). As a consequence, the value of project management

implementation to the organization has also substantially increased and could be tracked in terms

of continuous commercialization and revenue stream. Further adjustments of the existing project

management system, particularly in regard to ‘leaning’ the early phases and to increasing the

potential of harvesting the potential of commercialization, have been identified as potential next

steps.

While the progress achieved so far may suggest to keep doing what has been done to date –

completing the stepwise approach to project management implementation and adjusting the

system as needed –, even more benefits of project management implementation may be

harvested in the future, if the following recommendations that surfaced during the data collection

are considered and implemented:

• Broaden the basis for common language, understanding, and practice of project

management by

o offering more communication and feedback opportunities across projects and

between researchers and project related functions (particularly communications,

business development, project management office, and senior management), and

by

o providing more and customized training project management training

opportunities to all project related functions and individuals.

• Evaluate, prioritize, and implement suggestions presented by the project management office

and project management working group.

• Consider introducing stronger quality and risk management components compatible with

the project classification system and research mandate of the Institute.

• Strengthen the project closure process and practice particularly to ensure the

o capturing and utilization of lessons learned, and the

o implementation of a version management system that does allow the management

particularly of software and other product versions after completion of the project.

Conclusion

Implementing project management in this Canadian Federal research institute has added value to

the organization on various levels. The implementation was triggered by external pressure for

more transparency and accountability and motivated by the need for more strategic orientation.

Project management was implemented intentionally and persistently using a stepwise approach

led by senior management and supported by internal project management experts. The rough

start – some resistance by the researchers to the implementation of formal project management –

was compensated by increased strategic focus and operational transparency. As a result, project

management in this organization is increasingly becoming a “strategic asset” (Jugdev, 2010).

Furthermore, early frustrations and shortcomings were quickly responded to by adjustments that

further customized the project management structures and processes to the specific needs of this

research institution, including a more appropriate differentiation between project categories and

the adjustment of the respective project documentation and management requirements.

Persistently and consistently applying the new processes to all projects, offering customized

project management training to all stakeholders, and being able to support more key projects by a

growing project management office substantially increased acceptance of project management

particularly by researchers. It also significantly added to the existing value of project

management for the organization on most levels. Continuously communicating the rationale for

the chosen path of project management implementation on a project and organizational level

while continuing to adjust and to advance existing elements of project management has had a

major impact on the organization in terms of growing satisfaction and increasingly aligned

practices. At the same time, the work of researchers and other key stakeholders of the Institute

was increasingly perceived as meaningful in the context of this project oriented research

organization.

Yet, it also became clear that considering the specifics of the culture of the research Institute –

including personal and organizational values – and the respective expectations in regard to

meaningful work have been and continue to be a major challenge for this organization. This

longitudinal case indicates that growing and harvesting the value of project management depends

on the degree of recognition and consideration of – personal and organizational – values and

elements of a meaningful work environment when implementing formal project management.

Furthermore, this study suggests that similar research projects need to capture the particular

features of research organizations and their respective cultural and organizational requirements.

References

Aubry, M., Müller, R., Hobbs, B., & Blomquist, T. (2010). Project management offices in

transition. International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 766-778.

Cicmil, S., Ðorđević, Z., & Zivanovic, S. (2009). Understanding the adoption of project

management in Serbian organizations: Insights from an exploratory study. Project

Management Journal, 40(1), 88-98.

Crawford, L. H., & Helm, J. (2009). Government and governance: The value of project

management in the public sector. Project Management Journal, 40(1), 73-87.

Eskerod, P., & Riis, E. (2009). Project management models as value creators. Project

Management Journal, 40(1), 4-18.

Ibbs, C. W., & Reginato, J. (2002). Quantifying the value of project management: best practices

for improving project management processes, systems, and competencies. Newtown Square,

PA: Project Management Institute.

Jugdev, K. (2010). Project management: A strategic asset? In P. C. Dinsmore & J. Cabanis-

Brewin (Eds.), The AMA Handbook of Project Management (3rd ed. pp. 544). New York,

NY: AMACOM American Management Association.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis : an introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Mengel, T., Cowan-Sahadath, K., & Follert, F. (2009). The Value of Project Management to

Organizations in Canada and Germany, or Do Values Add Value? Five Case Studies. Journal

of PM, 40(1), 28-41.

Project Management Institute (2008a). A guide to the project management body of knowledge

(PMBOK guide) (Fourth ed.). Newtown Square, Penn.: Project Management Institute.

Thomas, J., & Mullaly, M. (2008). Researching the Value of Project Management. Newtown

Square, PA: Project Management Institute, Inc.

Turner, R., Ledwith, A., & Kelly, J. (2010). Project management in small to medium-sized

enterprises: Matching processes to the nature of the firm. International Journal of Project

Management, 28(8), 744-755.

Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Zhai, L., Xin, Y., & Cheng, C. (2009). Understanding the value of project management from a

stakeholder's perspective: Case study of mega-project management. Project Management

Journal, 40(1), 99-109.