Entrepreneurial Project Management

Description
In this Master's thesis the knowledge and theory of entrepreneurship is applied to the project management discipline. As a result, a wide range of the entrepreneurship literature is reviewed and the concept of entrepreneurial project management (EPM) is developed

chalmers uni versi ty of technology
se 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden
Phone: + 46 - (0)31 772 10 00
Web: www.chalmers.se
Entrepreneurial Project Management
Developing and Testing the Concept
Master of Science Thesis in the Master’s Programme International Project
Management
ANDRIUS GEDVILAS
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Division of Construction Management
CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Göteborg, Sweden 2012
Master’s Thesis 2012:43
MASTER’S THESIS 2012:43
Entrepreneurial Project Management
Developing and Testing the Concept
Master of Science Thesis in the Master’s Programme International Project
Management
ANDRIUS GEDVILAS
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Division of Construction Management Construction Management
CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Göteborg, Sweden 2012
Entrepreneurial Project Management
Developing and testing the concept
Master of Science Thesis in the Master’s Programme International Project
Management
ANDRIUS GEDVILAS
© ANDRIUS GEDVILAS, 2012
Examensarbete / Institutionen för bygg- och miljöteknik,
Chalmers tekniska högskola 2012:43
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Division of Construction Management
Chalmers University of Technology
SE-412 96 Göteborg
Sweden
Telephone: + 46 (0)31-772 1000
Cover:
A comic strip published by Scott Adams, Inc. Available at: www.dilbert.com
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Göteborg, Sweden 2012
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
V
Entrepreneurial Project Management
Developing and testing the concept
Master of Science Thesis in the Master’s Programme International Project
Management
ANDRIUS GEDVILAS
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Division of Construction Management
Chalmers University of Technology
ABSTRACT
In this Master’s thesis the knowledge and theory of entrepreneurship is applied to the
project management discipline. As a result, a wide range of the entrepreneurship
literature is reviewed and the concept of entrepreneurial project management (EPM) is
developed. The concept consist of three interrelated parts: (1) the antecedents of EPM,
(2) the elements of EPM and (3) the outcomes of EPM. The research part of the
dissertation analyses the relation between the antecendents and the elements of EPM.
The former is modelled along the four project type dimensions: (1) novelty, (2)
technology, (3) pace and (4) complexity of scope. The latter consists of three
elements: (1) entrepreneurial project governance, (2) entrepreneurial project
management architecture and (3) entrepreneurial project processes and behaviour. It is
hypothesized that the proclivity towards EPM is stronger when the novelty,
technology and pace is higher and the complexity of scope is lower. The research
results revealed that the novelty and pace factors have a small effect on the proclivity
towards EPM. It is conlcuded that technology is potentialy the determining factor
when embracing EPM. The effects of the complexity factor provided results that were
consistently against the hypothesized entrepreneurial direction, which was
subsequently reversed. The results of this dissertation research are by no means
generalized and apply only to the obtained sample of 83 responses by project
managers to the online questionnaire.
KEY WORDS:
Entrepreneurship, Project Management, Entrepreneurial Project Management.
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
VI
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
VII
Contents
List of Figures IX
List of Tables IX
Abbreviations XI
Glossary XI
1 Introduction 13
1.1 Purpose and Research Questions 14
1.2 Rationale of Research 14
1.3 Scope and Limitations 15
1.4 Structure of the Dissertation 15
2 Theory of Entrepreneurship 16
2.1 Entrepreneurship in Economic Theory 17
2.2 Anthropology of Entrepreneurship 19
2.3 Psychology of Entrepreneurship 20
2.4 Entrepreneurship in Organisational Management Theory 20
2.4.1 Entrepreneurial Orientation 21
2.4.2 Entrepreneurial Management 21
2.4.3 Corporate Venturing and Strategic Renewal 23
2.4.4 Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy 23
2.5 Considering Entrepreneurship in Project Management 25
3 The Concept of Entrepreneurial Project Management 27
3.1 Entrepreneurial Orientation in the EPM Concept 27
3.1.1 Innovativeness in the EPM Concept 27
3.1.2 Autonomy in the EPM Concept 28
3.1.3 Risk-Taking in the EPM Concept 28
3.1.4 Proactiveness in the EPM Concept 29
3.1.5 Aggressiveness in the EPM Concept 30
3.1.6 Entrepreneurial Orientation of the EPM Concept 30
3.2 Entrepreneurial Management in the EPM Concept 30
3.2.1 Strategic Orientation and Commitment to Opportunity 31
3.2.2 Commitment and Control of Resources 32
3.2.3 Management Structure and Reward Philosophy 33
3.2.4 Growth Orientation and Entrepreneurial Culture 34
3.2.5 Entrepreneurial Management in the EPM Concept 34
3.3 Entrepreneurship Strategy in the EPM Concept 34
3.3.1 The Antecedents of EPM: Environmental Conditions 35
3.3.2 The Antecedents of EPM: Entrepreneurial Cognitions 35
3.3.3 The Elements of EPM 36
3.3.4 The Outcomes of EPM 37
3.3.5 Definition of EPM and Concept Scheme 37
4 Project Classification, Entrepreneurship Scale and Research Hypotheses 39
4.1 Overview of Project Classification Frameworks 39
4.2 NTCP: Novelty 40
4.3 NTCP: Technology 41
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
VIII
4.4 NTCP: Complexity of Scope 42
4.5 NTCP: Pace 42
4.6 Project Entrepreneurship Scale 43
5 Research Method 45
5.1 Research Measures 45
5.2 Research Sample 46
5.3 Data Analysis Method 48
5.4 Transformation of Independent Factors 49
6 Research Results 51
6.1 Results for Project Manager’s Autonomy 52
6.2 Results for Project Governance 53
6.3 Results for Project Management Structure 54
6.4 Results for Project Resource Orientation 54
6.5 Results for Project Success Measures 54
7 Discussion and Conclusions 56
7.1 Discussing Hypotheses 56
7.1.1 Novelty Effect 56
7.1.2 Technology Effect 56
7.1.3 Pace Effect 57
7.1.4 Complexity Effect 58
7.2 Conclusions and Future Research 59
References 61
Appendixes 66
Appendix I 66
Appendix II 67
Appendix III 72
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
IX
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 The model of corporate entrepreneurship strategy 24
Figure 3.1 The EPM concept development strategy 27
Figure 3.2 The elements of EO in the EPM concept 30
Figure 3.3 The dimensions of EM in the EPM concept 34
Figure 3.4 The concept of entrepreneurial project management (EPM) 38
Figure 4.1 The NTCP model for project classification 40
Figure 4.2 Project entrepreneurship scale (red – most, blue – least entrepreneurial
projects). 43
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Disciplines of entrepreneurship research 16
Table 2.2 Categorization of entrepreneurial roles 17
Table 2.3 Conceptualization of entrepreneurial management 22
Table 5.1 Characteristics of research sample 47
Table 5.2 Level reduction of project type dimensions 50
Table 6.1 Summary of significant and potentially significant effects 51
Table 6.2 Main effects of independent factors on project manager’s autonomy 53
Table I.1 Comparison of creative-reflective and rational process-driven project
management professionals 66
Table III.1 Main effects of independent factors on project governance (I) 72
Table III.2 Main effects of independent factors on project governance (II) 72
Table III.3 Main effects of independent factors on project governance (III) 73
Table III.4 Main effects of independent factors on project governance (IV) 73
Table III.5 Main effects of independent factors on project governance (V) 74
Table III.6 Main effects of independent factors on project management structure 74
Table III.7 Main effects of independent factors on project resource orientation (I) 75
Table III.8 Main effects of independent factors on project resource orientation (II) 75
Table III.9 Main effects of independent factors on project resource orientation (III) 76
Table III.10 Main effects of independent factors on project success measures (I) 76
Table III.11 Main effects of independent factors on project success measures (II) 77
Table III.12 Main effects of independent factors on project success measures (III) 77
Table III.13 Main effects of independent factors on project success measures (IV) 78
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
X
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
XI
Abbreviations
EPM Entrepreneurial Project Management
EM Entrepreneurial Management
EO Entrepreneurial Orientation
CES Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy
Glossary
R Squared Denotes the fraction of variance explained by the model
F The ratio of variances in two independent samples
p Measures the significance of the difference between two independent
samples
??² Denotes the fraction of variance explained by the independent factor in the
model (read: partly eta squared)
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
XII
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
13
1 Introduction
The concept of entrepreneurial management emerged back in 1970s when
bureaucratic, command and control based organisations were no longer capable to
satisfy the growing ambitions of the new and well-educated workforce seeking for
challenge and self-actualization (Kanter, 1986). In addition, Kanter (1986) attributes
this organizational revolution to the growing competition and accelerated pace of
innovation and change in the business environment that required creativity and
flexibility, characteristics that most of the bureaucratic organisations lack so much.
Project and team-based organisation was at the forefront of entrepreneurial workplace
and was becoming a norm, providing significantly increased responsibilities, authority
and discretion to the workforce that was previously bounded by the neatly knit
bureaucratic traps (Kanter, 1986). With a growing interest in organising work around
projects, international institutions emerged that captured, standardized and spread
project management knowledge, best practices and tools to organisations attempting to
secure growing capital expenditure on these temporal endeavours. This growing body of
knowledge has yet again created bureaucratic type procedures of corporate control over
contemporary way of organising work around projects and those engaged in project
work (Hodgson, 2002, 2004). What once gave a leap away from bureaucratic towards
entrepreneurial organisation has come around as a tool for rebureaucratization of
modern institution, arguably, impeding creativity and innovation. Over 70% of project
managers are burdened by the bureaucracy of project management processes (Crawford
et al., 2005; in Geraldi, 2009), which makes them the ‘trustees’ of paper and form in a
bureaucracy, in contrast to being ‘promoters’ of creativity and innovation in an
entrepreneurial organisation (Stevenson, 1999).
It is now a common practice to start a research paper in business and
organisational management by referring to the ever increasing pace of change and
turbulence of an external environment, and as a consequence, growing unpredictability
and uncertainty, and the need to strike a balance between contradicting characteristics
of flexibility and efficiency, creativity and control. The ‘new competitive landscape’
created by the incredible technological achievements in the late twentieth century has
made entrepreneurial mindset a must-have characteristic for all managers in order to
sustain innovation and dynamic capabilities of an organisation (Bettis and Hitt, 1995;
Teece, 2007). Project management has established its presence as a tool for carrying out
organisational strategies and in many cases became the framework for operationalizing
core activities of a company, arguably, making it the process that either impedes or
facilitates dynamic capabilities. It is in the interest of this thesis paper to define the
concept of entrepreneurial project management that facilitates the dynamic capabilities
of an innovative and entrepreneurial organisation.
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
14
1.1 Purpose and Research Questions
The purpose of this Master’s thesis is to develop the concept of entrepreneurial
project management, henceforth EPM, and to research to what extent this concept
applies to various project types. To achieve this purpose the theory of entrepreneurship
is reviewed and aspects applicable for examining project management discipline are
identified. The following questions are raised to illustrate the goals of this research:
How can entrepreneurial project management be defined and conceptualized?
What type of projects exhibit the most entrepreneurial management of projects as
it is defined and conceptualized in this thesis?
In addition to the research questions, several hypotheses are raised in Chapter 4
regarding the level of EPM expected to be observed along various project type
dimensions.
1.2 Rationale of Research
The rationale of this research is twofold. First of all, as outlined in the
introduction, the surprising environment of today’s business necessitates the possession
of dynamic capabilities. As project management has become the core process in many
organisations and with the possibility to define this process with a step-by-step
bureaucratic precession, it is threatening to impede innovation process of an
organisation and further development of project management discipline itself. The
words of the world renowned scholar and researcher in corporate strategy and
innovation, David J. Teece, clearly illustrate this point:
The existence of layer upon layer of standard procedures, established capabilities,
complementary assets, and/or administrative routines can exacerbate decision-
making biases against innovation (Teece, 2007, p. 1327).
Opposite to the bureaucratic, control and efficiency seeking organisation is the
organic organisation capable of creativity and innovation (Aiken and Hage, 1971). In
today’s environment both of these contradicting characteristics, innovation and
efficiency, are highly desirable, which entrepreneurial management and organisation
addresses (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1998; Eisenhardt et al., 2000; Ireland et al. 2009).
Thus, it is a very interesting and valuable perspective for defining and examining
entrepreneurial capabilities of project management that are focused on fostering
innovation while at the same time seeking efficiency in execution. In addition, to the
current author’s knowledge, the perspective of entrepreneurship has not been used
directly to research project management.
Another rationale for this research addresses the needs of well-educated and
creative project managers, who are seeking for challenging projects with significant
discretion for action and decision making. The outlined typology of project
management entrepreneurship can guide project managers in making the right decisions
for choosing a career path, either focusing on an administrative project organisation for
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
15
efficiency and control or being a creative decision maker and promoter of innovation in
an entrepreneurial company or, ultimately, being able to balance the two extremes.
1.3 Scope and Limitations
The scope of this Master thesis includes a review of entrepreneurship theory in
various disciplines, applying this knowledge to develop the EPM concept and to partly
test how it applies to the obtained research sample. The concept is tested by analysing
interactions between project’s environmental conditions (see Chapter 4) and the
elements of the EPM concept (see Chapter 3). The analysis of other interactions in the
EPM concept is outside the scope of this research. In addition, the outcomes of the
concept are not analyzed and it is not the intention of this dissertation to analyse if
entrepreneurial approach to managing projects is actually superior compared to other
approaches. Also, the development and administration of a survey questionnaire is a
major part of the scope and a source of many limitations (see Chapter 5).
1.4 Structure of the Dissertation
Dissertation is structured as follows: Chapter 2 contains a review of the
entrepreneurship literature; in Chapter 3 the obtained knowledge is utilized to develop
the concept of EPM; in Chapter 4 a framework to define the environmental project
conditions is selected and adopted to the EPM concept by raising hypothesis; Chapter 5
discusses the research method and its limitations; the research results are presented in
Chapter 6; finally, the thesis results are discussed and conclusions are made in Chapter
7.
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
16
2 Theory of Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship is a scientific phenomenon of interest to a variety of research
fields. With its origins found in the economic literature in the early eighteenth century
(Hebert and Link, 1989), it later gained attention by scholars in anthropology (e.g.,
Stewart, 1991), psychology (e.g., Gartner, 1989), strategic (e.g., Ireland, Covin and
Kuratko, 2009) and organisational management (e.g., Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990).
Long history of research in entrepreneurship has provided a number of paradigms to
explain the existence of entrepreneurial activity, thus complicating the common
understanding of this phenomenon, since no generally acclaimed definition of
entrepreneurship has been reached (Ahmad and Saymour, 2008). However, there are
two prevailing definitions of entrepreneur and, as a result, of entrepreneurship used in
research and recognized well by general society. Baumol (1993, p. 198) presents these
definitions of an entrepreneur as someone “who creates and then, perhaps, organizes
and operates a new business firm” and “as the innovator – as the one who transforms
inventions and ideas into economically viable entities, whether or not, in the course of
doing so they create or operate a firm”. The definition that is of interest to the current
research is rather that of an innovating entrepreneur and less so of an enterprising. The
general questions of interest and contributions of various disciplines in researching
entrepreneurship are presented in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Disciplines of entrepreneurship research (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990)
Line of inquiry Causes Behaviour Effects
Main question Why How What
Basic discipline Psychology,
anthropology
Management, strategy Economics
Contributions Importance of
individual;
environmental
variables are
relevant
Entrepreneurship is a
feasible and necessary
concept for large
mature corporations;
entrepreneurship
management principles
Entrepreneurship is
the function by which
growth is achieved;
distinction between
entrepreneur and
manager
This section reviews the contributions of various scientific fields to the
knowledge of entrepreneurship. The economic theory of entrepreneurship is reviewed
from the perspective of the most prominent authors. The main contributions and
findings of entrepreneurship research in anthropology and psychology fields are
presented briefly to expand the understanding of main attributes of entrepreneurial
behaviour specific for this research. Strategic and organisational management concepts
surrounding entrepreneurship are presented in general from organizational perspective
and in later chapter is elaborated to fully construct the theoretical background of this
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
17
research. Lastly, after a review of entrepreneurship theory, a short philosophical
consideration of the research approach is made.
2.1 Entrepreneurship in Economic Theory
Aiming to conceptualize the common definition of entrepreneurship, Hebert and
Link (1989) review the most influential writers in the economic theory of
entrepreneurship: Richard Cantillon (c. 1680-1734), Joseph A. Schumpeter (c. 1883-
1950), Theodor W. Shultz (c. 1902-1998) and Israel M. Kirzner (c. 1930). The authors
also take a greater view on entrepreneurship and emphasize the prevailing heroic image
of an entrepreneur, who is a major source of innovation and economic growth in the
capitalist economy. In addition, they present various definitions and roles of an
entrepreneur that exist in economic literature by categorizing them into static and
dynamic (Table 2.2). In the authors’ view, static entrepreneurship theories are
inadequate and only represent “repetitions of past procedures and techniques already
learned and implemented” (p. 41). Thus, a manager performing his day-to-day duties or
following business-as-usual routines cannot be considered to be an entrepreneur.
Table 2.2 Categorization of entrepreneurial roles
Static Dynamic
Supplier of financial capital Person who takes risk in the context of
uncertainty
Manager or superintendent Innovator
Owner of a firm Decision maker
Employer of factors of production Industrial leader
Organiser and coordinator of economic
resources
Contractor
Arbitrageur
Allocator of resources among alternative uses
Richard Cantillon, the French economist, is generally accredited to be the first to
coin the term entrepreneurship that initiated academic research in this field (Ahmad and
Saymour, 2008). Around the 1730s he described three actors in then emerging market
economy: (1) a financially independent landowner, (2) an entrepreneur, as central actor
in the economy, who takes risk to make uncertain amount of future profit and (3) a
labourer who avoids risk by receiving stable income for his/her work (Hebert and Link,
1989). The three main variables of entrepreneurship as a function can be identified from
the description above: it is risk, uncertainty and profit. These variables are visible in the
most of theoretical discussions about entrepreneurship in economic context. In addition,
as Hebert and Link (1989) put it, Cantillon identified market supply-demand
disequilibrium as a driving force for entrepreneurship to exist. On the downturn,
Cantillon saw entrepreneur as a sole actor in economy dealing with uncertainty and thus
limits applicability of this theoretical concept, since nowadays uncertainty is
omnipresent and faced by many actors in economy (Hebert and Link, 1989).
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
18
One of the most influential writers on entrepreneurship in economic theory is
Joseph A. Schumpeter. First and foremost, he saw entrepreneur as a creative innovator
who disturbs the static and routine “economical status qua” or what he called “the
circular flow of economic life” (Hebert and Link, 1989, p. 43). As Hebert and Link
(1989, p. 45) describe it, to Schumpeter economic equilibrium is a “point of departure”
for economic development made possible by entrepreneur “carrying out new
combinations of production”. In other words, entrepreneur in Schumpeter’s taxonomy is
a creator of change or disequilibrium and not a result of it. The function of an
entrepreneur in this context is “to overcome these difficulties [uncertainties] incident to
change of practice” (Schumpeter, 1928; in Hebert and Link, 1989, p. 44). The success
of it depends in part from entrepreneur’s creative use of new knowledge and new
information that creates opportunities for change (Teece, 2007). The creative
component of an entrepreneurship was later criticized as insufficient alone to enable
entrepreneur to conduct the change successfully and additional components, e.g.,
cooperation by Hirschman (1958; in Hebert and Link, 1989), were proposed as
complementary perspectives. Cooperation stands for entrepreneur’s ability to come to
an agreement with all interested parties in delivering the change (Hebert and Link,
1989).
Nobel Prize Laureate in Economic Sciences Theodor W. Schultz (c. 1902-1998)
conceptualized entrepreneurship upon the theory of human capital and saw entrepreneur
as an individual who gains rewards working towards restoring economic equilibrium,
whether it is a relocation of services by labourers or relocation of resources (e.g. time)
by students or housewives (Hebert and Link, 1989). In Schultz’s words,
entrepreneurship is “the ability to deal with disequilibria” (Hebert and Link, 1989, p.
45) where “regaining equilibrium takes time, and how people proceed over time
depends on their efficiency in responding to any given disequilibrium and on the costs
and returns of the sequence of adjustments available to them” (Schultz, 1975; in Foss
and Klein, 2012, p. 36). In his taxonomy virtually everyone can be an entrepreneur if
he/she adjusts to changes for personal gain in all sorts of disequilibrium conditions.
Schultz saw entrepreneurial “ability to deal with disequilibria” as a scarce resource
which follows supply and demand functions given this ability provides a useful service
to create “identifiable marginal product” for a “differential return” (Hebert and Link,
1989, p. 45). Lastly, Schultz had an interesting position regarding risk, where it is not an
idiosyncratic attribute of his entrepreneur, since he argues that there are people who
assume risk but are not entrepreneurs (Hebert and Link, 1989). In contrast, uncertainty-
based definitions of entrepreneurship cannot diminish the importance of risk (Hebert
and Link, 1989).
The latest theory of entrepreneurship has been promoted by Israel Kirzner, where
the fundamental nature of his entrepreneur is “alertness to profit opportunities” (Hebert
and Link, 1989, p. 46). In contrast to Schumpeter’s entrepreneur as an autonomous
imaginative creator of disequilibrium, Kirzner’s (2009, p. 148) entrepreneur depends on
“ability to notice, earlier than others, the changes that have already occurred, rendering
existing relationships inconsistent with the conditions for equilibrium”. Therefore, skills
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
19
to explore and exploit opportunities by which economic markets move towards
equilibrium are essential to Kirzner’s entrepreneur. The theory is built on three
fundamental premises: (1) “vision of the market as an entrepreneurial process”, (2)
“marketplace engenders a learning process” and (3) belief that “entrepreneurial
activities are creative acts of discovery” (Hebert and Link, 1989, p. 46). The example
Kirzner uses to explain this is that of an arbitrageur, who learns past temporal or spatial
demand errors in markets and thus is able to purchase goods cheap and sell at high
prices (Hebert and Link, 1989). Critics attacked this “single-period-market” view as it
was downplaying the importance of uncertainty, without which one can not explain
entrepreneurial losses (Hebert and Link, 1989, p. 47). To embrace uncertainty as central
to the role of entrepreneurial activity Kirzner discusses multiperiod decisions where
“entrepreneurial alertness must include the entrepreneur’s perception of the way in
which creative and imaginative action may vitally shape the kind of transaction that will
be entered into in the future market periods” (Kirzner, 1985; in Hebert and Link, 1989,
p. 47).
Herbert and Link (1989) concluded the article by consolidating historical aspects
of entrepreneurship that include “risk, uncertainty, innovation, perception, and change”
into a single definition of the entrepreneur as an individual who “specializes in taking
responsibility for and making judgemental decisions that affect the location, form, and
the use of goods, resources, or institutions” (Herbert and Link, 1989, p. 47). They
explicitly contend that entrepreneur is an individual (as opposed to teams, organisations,
etc.) who makes counter-intuitive decisions because of different possession of
information or insight of events or opportunities at hand. In their view, everyone can be
an entrepreneur if his/her judgement is outside the norms and has courage to follow it
and assume responsibility regardless of the results achieved.
2.2 Anthropology of Entrepreneurship
An extensive overview of entrepreneurship in anthropological research is
presented by Stewart (1991). At the origins of this perspective in the mid-twentieth
century anthropologists embraced entrepreneurship as a possible way to explain
processes of social and cultural change and economic development. In anthropology
entrepreneurship is seen as a multidimensional social and cultural process that is not
connected to an individual or a role directly, but is rather an aspect of a role or function
focused towards actions and activities for exploitation of opportunities for expansion
and/or profit.
Entrepreneurship in anthropology is studied from several different perspectives.
First of all, anthropologists show the importance of knowledge and skill accumulation
in attaining high levels of entrepreneurship. Secondly, anthropologists study the crucial
role of informal methods, such as “personal networks” and “imitative
entrepreneurship”, in acquiring resources (skills, labour, etc.) necessary for conducting
entrepreneurial activities. Thirdly, anthropologists coined the term “opportunity
structure” to explain the extent of entrepreneurial activity and its outcomes. Simply put,
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
20
the more there are opportunities and participants capable to act upon these opportunities
in the economic system, the higher the degree of entrepreneurial activity and its
outcomes. In addition, terms related to opportunity structure and of interest to
anthropologists are “access to entrepreneurial activity” (i.e., by ethnic groups) and
“spatial clustering” of entrepreneurship (i.e., Silicon Valley) (Stewart, 1991).
2.3 Psychology of Entrepreneurship
Psychologists attempt to understand what distinguishes entrepreneurs from non-
entrepreneurs, where entrepreneurs are creators of new business ventures (Baron, 1998).
There are basically two different psychological aspects that researchers study to
differentiate entrepreneurs: (1) personality traits and characteristics (e.g., Gartner, 1989)
and (2) human cognition (e.g., Baron, 1998). The research approach for studying both
aspects is similar: compare entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs (e.g., managers) and
identify distinguishing factors.
Malach-Pines et al. (2002) compare entrepreneurs and managers against 14
different traits and characteristics. He finds that there is no significant difference
between the two in their commitment, involvement, energy, self-confidence, need for
control and love of management. What distinguishes entrepreneurs from managers in
this study is that entrepreneurs have significantly stronger love for challenge, are greater
risk takers, like to initiate things, prefer to be independent, are more realistic, creative,
optimistic and greater dreamers. Critics of this approach argue that there are people who
possess similar traits and characteristics to those of entrepreneur’s, but never become
ones, propose to study differences in human cognition to distinguish entrepreneurs
(Baron, 1998).
In one of the cognitive approach studies, Palich and Bagby (1995) find that risk
propensity of entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs is similar, but when presented with
identical business scenarios entrepreneurs perceive situations as having more
opportunities and strengths, significantly opposite to non-entrepreneurs who see more
threats and weaknesses. In another article by Kahneman and Lovallo (1994; in Baron,
1998), it is argued that some managers and entrepreneurs in particular tend to undertake
risky ventures because they do not accept or recognise risk as a result of decisions and
forecasts being made in isolation from relevant past experiences, with a blinding focus
on prosperous future only, what often leads to serious problems or the dark side of
entrepreneurship. Whether or not entrepreneurs are different from ordinary people
remains a great debate among researchers. Thus, the attention of scholars shift to
exploring conditions for stimulating entrepreneurship by observing how and under what
conditions entrepreneurial behaviour appears.
2.4 Entrepreneurship in Organisational Management Theory
Entrepreneurship in organisational management theory is consolidated under the
umbrella term of corporate entrepreneurship (or intrapreneurship), where most of the
research can be categorized into four areas: entrepreneurial orientation (e.g. Miller,
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
21
1983), entrepreneurial management (e.g. Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990), corporate
venturing (e.g. Guth and Ginsberg, 1990) and corporate entrepreneurship strategy (e.g.
Ireland, Covin and Kuratko, 2009). As a result, there is a lack of universally accepted
definition and confusion prevails as in the general theory of entrepreneurship (Sharma
and Chrisman, 1999). In the following sections these areas are briefly introduced.
2.4.1 Entrepreneurial Orientation
Studies of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) measure the firm’s entrepreneurial
posture on five dimensions. The initial three included in the study by Miller (1983) are
(1) risk-taking, (2) innovativeness and (3) proactiveness towards competition. Later,
this conceptualization was expanded by adding (4) aggressiveness towards competition
and (5) autonomy of workforce (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996).
Miller (1983) argued that truly entrepreneurial organisation will have a high score
when measuring its propensity to take risk, be innovative and proactive. He argued that
“[w]ith the growth and complexification of organizations, there is continually a need for
organizational renewal, innovation, constructive risk-taking, and the conceptualization
and pursuit of new opportunities” (p. 770). Risk-taking and innovativeness are probably
the two dimensions most associated with entrepreneurship (see Section 2.1).
Proactiveness dimension comes into play as an important aspect, since Miller (1983, p.
771) argues that “entrepreneurial firm [...] is first to come up with “proactive”
innovations, beating competitors to the punch”, whereas nonentrepreneurial firm is a
passive follower of a competitor that is leading the way.
Lumpkin and Dess (1996) argued that Miller’s (1983, p. 771) description of
proactiveness as “beating competitors to the punch” actually captures a very important
entrepreneurial posture of competitive aggressiveness that is needed to fight the
competition. They also proposed autonomy of action as an important measure, since
they argue, revisiting Kanter (1983), that “[l]ayers of bureaucracy and organizational
tradition rarely contribute to new-entry activities in existing firms” (p. 140), reinforcing
Teece’s (2007) position presented in Section 1.2. In contrast, “individuals who are
disengaged from organisational constraints” make entrepreneurship thrive in
organisational environment (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). Unfortunately, this position of
autonomy in EO was not truly accepted until its importance has been reinforced
recently (Lumpkin et al., 2009). As these studies measure the extent of organizational
entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial management scholars are focused on institutionalizing
processes that enable organisations to behave in an entrepreneurial manner.
2.4.2 Entrepreneurial Management
Stevenson and Jarillo (1990) were the first to conceptualize entrepreneurial
management. They defined entrepreneurship as an approach to management and
behaviour whereby “individuals – either on their own or inside organizations – pursue
opportunities without regard to the resources they currently control” (p. 23) and made
several propositions that constitute entrepreneurial management. They argued that
pursuit of opportunities depends on attitude and empowerment of individuals below the
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
22
top management and that traditional control and command management is incompatible
with entrepreneurial management. In a nutshell, they proposed roles to be created
specifically for exploiting opportunities by individuals who are specially trained for this
purpose and motivated by rewards regardless of the results. Also, organisations are
encouraged to facilitate networking and resource sharing to attain higher levels of
entrepreneurial behaviour which may result in new technological or managerial
innovations. These propositions imply a fundamental change of organisational culture
and shift of authority towards lower level management. In the subsequent articles,
Stevenson improved and expanded the concept of entrepreneurial management by
describing how six dimensions of business practice should be managed in order to
contribute to corporate entrepreneurship.
Stevenson (1999) uses two behavioural extremes to illustrate two distinct domains
of business conduct. At one extreme is the entrepreneurial behaviour presented by the
“promoter”. He/she is a confident pursuer of opportunity regardless of the resources
under possession. At the other extreme is the administrative behaviour presented by the
“trustee”, who is primarily concerned with the efficient use of resources under control.
The six business dimensions that are confronted by the different management approach
are (1) strategic orientation, (2) commitment to opportunity, (3) commitment of
resources, (4) control of resources, (5) management structure and (6) reward policy.
Later, when developing a measurement tool for analysing entrepreneurial management
of a firm, Brown Davidsson and Wiklund (2001) added two more business practice
dimension to compare at the extremes: (7) growth orientation and (8) entrepreneurial
culture. These dimensions and main characteristics of distinct management approaches
are presented in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 Conceptualization of entrepreneurial management (Brown et al., 2001)
Entrepreneurial focus
(promoter)
Conceptual dimension Administrative focus
(trustee)
Driven by perception of
opportunity
Strategic orientation Driven by controlled
resources
Revolutionary with short
duration
Commitment to opportunity Evolutionary with long
duration
Many stages with minimal
exposure at each stage
Commitment of resources A single stage with complete
commitment out of decision
Episodic use or rent of
required resources
Control of resources Ownership or employment of
required resources
Flat, with multiple informal
networks
Management structure Hierarchy
Based onvalue creation Reward policy Based on responsibility and
seniority
Rapid growth is top priority;
risk accepted to achieve
growth
Growth orientation Safe, slow, steady
Promoting broad search for
opportunities
Entrepreneurial culture Opportunity search restricted
by resources controlled;
failure punished
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
23
It is important to clarify what Stevenson (1999) actually understands as being
entrepreneurial management. Since promoter and trustee represent the extreme points of
the scale, he defines overlapping portions of the scale as entrepreneurial and
administrative behaviour, where “entrepreneurial management is not an extreme case,
but rather a range of behaviour that consistently falls at the end of the spectrum” (p. 10).
It is to imply that certain administrative behaviour is necessary for entrepreneurial
management to be effective as opposed to completely extreme case management only.
An interesting illustration of this aspect in high-tech product development can be found
in the book by Brown and Eisenhardt (1998).
2.4.3 Corporate Venturing and Strategic Renewal
Guth and Ginsberg (1990) proposed a new perspective on corporate
entrepreneurship, whereby suggesting that the true indicator of entrepreneurship within
established businesses is the development of new ventures and “renewal of key ideas on
which organisations are built” (p. 5). According to them, corporate venturing reflects
the true colours of entrepreneurship as presented by Kirzner and Schumpeter (see
Section 2.1), where it involves the exploration and identification of market
opportunities and the creation of new resource combinations in order to exploit these
opportunities and enhance firm’s performance. To indicate the importance of
continuous strategic renewal they quote Stevenson and Jarillo’s (1986) argument that
“if a company wishes to continue to be entrepreneurial, it must convince everyone that
change is the company’s overriding goal” (in Guth and Ginsberg, 1990, p. 5).
2.4.4 Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy
Ireland, Covin and Kuratko (2009) conceptualize major knowledge in corporate
entrepreneurship under corporate entrepreneurship strategy (CES) model that includes
(1) the antecedents, (2) the elements and (3) the outcomes of CES. After reviewing the
existing and somewhat conflicting concepts of CES, the authors redefine it as “a vision-
directed, organization-wide reliance on entrepreneurial behavior that purposefully and
continuously rejuvenates the organization and shapes the scope of its operations through
the recognition and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunity” (p. 21). The model of
CES is depicted in Figure 2.1.
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
24
Figure 2.1 The model of corporate entrepreneurship strategy (Ireland, Covin and
Kuratko, 2009)
One of the main reasons for firm’s to engage in CES is the condition of an
external environment. Researching various types of organisations Miller (1983) finds
that the more dynamic and hostile the environment, the more firms are entrepreneurial.
The second factor why some organisations appear to pursue CES, regardless if it is
intentional or not, is because of the people it employs. Ireland, Covin and Kuratko
(2009) include individuals’ beliefs, attitudes and values regarding entrepreneurship as
the second antecedent for CES. Probably the best known example of an individual
determination to pursue opportunity, regardless of resources under control and without
CES in place, is that of the Post-it note story in 3M Company (Pinchot, 1985).
Fortunately, there are means to support such entrepreneurial behavior.
First and foremost, CES is reinforced by the vision of corporate leadership. Once
in place it must be well communicated and appropriate organisational architecture must
be put in place for entrepreneurial behaviour to take place flawlessly and independently,
a task which is the most difficult (Ireland, Covin and Kuratko, 2009). The quality of
structural organicity (proclivity towards decentralized decision making, low formality,
wide spans of control, etc.), entrepreneurial culture (management support, work
autonomy, etc.), organisational resources, capabilities and reward systems very much
impact the successful execution of CES. These aspects contribute strongly to the main
entrepreneurial process of opportunity recognition and exploitation. As seen in Figure
2.1 the main components are highly interrelated which makes this strategy very
difficult, but on the other hand, very rewarding if it is executed properly. In a nutshell,
CES is associated with increased firm’s performance because of improved competitive
capabilities through capability development that occurs when organization and
individuals engage in entrepreneurial activities; and continuous strategic repositioning
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
25
or adaptation, since opportunities are constantly explored. These outcomes are of the
most importance to organisations working in today’s turbulent business environments
(Ireland, Covin and Kuratko, 2009).
This concludes the overview of entrepreneurship theory. In the next section an
appropriate approach to research entrepreneurship in project management is considered.
2.5 Considering Entrepreneurship in Project Management
There are many possible perspectives to put project management and especially
the project manager into the shoes of entrepreneurship. For example, consider highly
hypothetically, as if project management discipline would be a market and project
manager an actor in this market. Then, we could consider at least two options for a
project manager to behave in an entrepreneurial fashion. Firstly, the Schumpeterian
perspective of project management entrepreneurship (or an act of it) could be described
if a project manager develops new project management processes, tools, ways of
working, etc., thus being a creative innovator who assumes the uncertainty of
introducing change, hopefully for the profit in terms of improved project delivery
performance. The second perspective could be that of Kirzner’s entrepreneur, who is
alert to market opportunities. If a project manager is alert to our hypothetical external
project management market and recognises opportunities to improve the existing
organizational practices, tools, processes, etc., he/she is an entrepreneur in Kirzner’s
fashion. In addition, as presented in Chapter 2.1, everyone can be considered an
entrepreneur whose judgement is outside the norms, who has guts to pursue it and
assume the consequences regardless of the results. But the aim of this research is not to
discover if project managers act like entrepreneurs. Nor it is to discover if project
managers are entrepreneurs in their traits and characteristics. It is rather to discover if
they have freedom to act like entrepreneurs that is of interest to this research. Actually,
it is very important to distinguish entrepreneurial management from entrepreneur,
because the management style of an actual entrepreneur can be significantly different
from the concepts of entrepreneurial management.
It could be argued that the project manager’s work itself resembles
entrepreneurial process: examining feasibility, planning, obtaining resources and
executing the plan are often parts of the process when creating new business ventures. If
it would also include the recognition of the opportunity for the project, the decision to
execute it and persuade others to follow and not just plain delivery that project
managers are usually responsible for, it could then be an example of an
intrapreneurship. But yet again, the purpose of this research is not to discover if project
managers engage in intrapreneurship, but rather to measure how entrepreneurial their
project management approach is. Thus, this implies to measure the factors of
entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurial management and entrepreneurial strategy
concepts, which are considered carefully in Chapter 3 for conceptualizing EPM. These
concepts apply at organisational level. Can they be applied at project level? If projects
are seen as temporary organisations, an approach for project management research
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
26
proposed by Packendorff (1995), the same logic, in theory, should hold. In the next
chapter, the most prominent theories of organizational entrepreneurship are used to
develop the concept of EPM.
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
27
3 The Concept of Entrepreneurial Project Management
In this chapter the concept of entrepreneurial project management (EPM) is
developed by considering applicability of the concept elements of entrepreneurial
orientation (EO), entrepreneurial management (EM) and corporate entrepreneurship
strategy (CES) to the discipline of project management. Figure 3.1 illustrates the
concept development strategy and elements under discussion in this chapter with
respective section number in brackets. The chapter is concluded by presenting the
complete concept and definition of EPM.
Figure 3.1 The EPM concept development strategy
3.1 Entrepreneurial Orientation in the EPMConcept
The EO concept includes (1) innovativeness, (2) proactiveness, (3) risk-taking, (4)
autonomy and (5) competitive aggressiveness components as fundamental measures in
determining the entrepreneurial posture of an organisation. It is the most widely used
and established tool for researching organisational entrepreneurship (Brown, Davidsson
and Wiklund, 2001).
3.1.1 Innovativeness in the EPMConcept
In the EO concept an organisation is considered very innovative if it
continuously releases new and/or breakthrough products or services, opens new
markets, favours experimentation and original approaches to problem solving, designs
unique processes and methods of production, etc. (Lumpkin, 2009). Most of these
outcomes are achieved through projects themselves and thus are not directly applicable
measures for the EPM concept. It is not the innovativeness of an outcome that is of
interest, but rather how facilitating the project climate is for developing innovation.
Fortunately, there are means to measure climate in project team and its embeddedness
to external project environment that either foster or impede innovation.
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
28
Ekvall (1996) introduced ten organizational climate factors that foster creativity
and innovation: (1) challenge, (2) freedom or autonomy, (3) idea support, (4) trust and
openness, (5) dynamism and liveliness, (6) playfulness and humour, (7) debates, (8)
conflicts, (9) risk taking and (10) idea time. He argued that innovative organization,
which is defined as having the ability to “adapt itself and its operations to new demands
from its environment” (Ekvall, 1996, p. 113), will have higher scores on these factors as
compared to stagnant organization, except for conflict which should be lower, because
constant conflicts impede idea sharing. With some minor exceptions the conducted
study proved these arguments to be right: innovative organizations scored consistently
higher on these dimensions. In one case, the pushy management style of a top manager
in an innovative organization led to observe high level of conflict and low level of trust,
but other aspects were as predicted. Ireland, Kuratko and Morris (2006) use similar
climate factors to analyze organizational health for entrepreneurship and innovation.
In addition to the climate factors, innovation is also stipulated by the level of
networking and collaboration external to the project team (Wallin et al., 2011;
Cummings and Pletcher, 2011). Networking is also an important aspect for conducting
entrepreneurial activities (see Section 2.2). Cummings and Pletcher (2011) illustrate
how project team’s networking activities improve project innovation level by bringing
in ideas of individuals from outside the project team. Wallin et al. (2011) suggest
measuring innovation capabilities in product-service system development by the extent
of the project team’s collaboration on eight different aspects, including collaboration
within the company, group, with suppliers and others.
3.1.2 Autonomy in the EPMConcept
Autonomy in the EO concept is a measure of work discretion, authority and
decision making power provided to individuals and teams in an organization (Lumpkin,
2009). In other words, it is the level of organizational decentralization. In the project
management context autonomy factor can be applied directly from two perspectives: (1)
project manager’s job discretion and (2) autonomy provided to project teams and
individual members to make decisions and choose appropriate work methods. Hoegl
and Parboteeah (2006) prove that innovation project’s team autonomy over operational
project decisions is positively related to teamwork quality. It was argued that the project
manager’s entrepreneurial outcome is his/her changes made to project management
processes, tools, procedures in order to improve project delivery (see Section 2.5). This
would be impossible if a project manager had no freedom to choose what management
approach, tools, etc. to use.
3.1.3 Risk-Taking in the EPMConcept
Taking risks enables opportunities (Kwak and Laplace, 2005). Risk taking in the
EO concept measures organization’s proclivity towards making somewhat bold moves,
like borrowing heavily, venturing into unknown or undertaking risky projects
(Lumpkin, 2009). So it is rather organization’s likelihood to choose risky project over
more certain project. It does not directly imply proclivity towards risk taking during
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
29
project delivery itself. Wilemon and Cicero (1970; in Kwak and Laplace, 2005) define
two categories of risks that project manager’s are concerned with the most. Firstly, it is
the risk that goals of the project are not achieved in terms of time, cost and
performance. Secondly, they are concerned with risks related to professional career
advancement. Both types of risks influence how project managers approach their work.
Kwak and Laplace (2005) argue that when project’s time-to-market is important, taking
risks is imperative to ensure fast project delivery. In addition, a growing complexity of a
project and its environment pose risks that are hard to foresee despite planning and
evaluation efforts. In such cases, searching for opportunities to improve project delivery
becomes a major concern, rather then risk identification and mitigation (Jaafari, 2001).
Therefore, risk tolerance or proclivity towards calculated risk taking in order to keep
projects on track and opportunity search for project delivery improvement are elements
of the EPM concept.
3.1.4 Proactiveness in the EPMConcept
Proactiveness in the EO concept measures organization’s position towards being
market leader in introducing new products and services, anticipating future demands
and seeking new opportunities (Lumpkin, 2009). Obviously, this conceptualization of
proactiveness does not directly apply to project management context. Proactiveness in
general and at all levels, whether it is organization, team or individual, is characterized
as future-orientated and self-starting behaviour to change or take charge of the external
environment and it plays a major role in the process of innovation (Strauss, Griffin and
Rafferty, 2009; Williams, Parker and Turner, 2010). The antecedents of proactive
behaviour lie within individual characteristics towards proactiveness and contextual
factors that either impede or foster proactive behaviour (Strauss, Griffin and Rafferty,
2009). For the purpose of constructing the EPM concept, the contextual factors that can
be managed to foster proactive behaviour are of the most interest.
There is a handful of research that focuses on examining contextual factors of
proactive behaviour in the work environment. Parker, Turner and Williams (2006)
modelled and tested the antecedents of individual proactive behaviour. Their findings
suggest that proactive behaviour is fostered by the following contextual factors: (1)
flexible role definition, (2) job autonomy and (3) co-worker trust. In addition, Williams,
Parker and Turner (2010) when investigating team-level proactive behaviour found that
teams which had greater autonomy over day-to-day tasks were more likely to engage in
proactive problem solving and innovation. What is more, when the time span between
the proactive action and future condition that is to be affected by that particular action is
short, real-time communication focused on real-time project events is vital to enable
proactive and self-organizing behaviour (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1998). Another factor
that was included in the initial study by Parker, Turner and Williams (2006) but found
to be insignificant was supportive supervision. They concluded that supportive
supervision is mediated by job autonomy. Subsequent researches focused on
transformational leadership rather than supportive leadership as a significant factor for
stimulating proactive individual and team behaviour (Strauss, Griffin and Rafferty,
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
30
2009; Williams, Parker and Turner, 2010). Jaafari (2003) also emphasizes the
importance of transformational leadership when managing complex projects in
turbulent environments, further discussed in Section 3.3.2.
3.1.5 Aggressiveness in the EPMConcept
The last element of the EO concept is competitive aggressiveness, which was
separated from proactiveness by Lumpkin and Dess (1996) (see Section 2.4.1). It
measures firm’s aggressiveness towards competition. The aggressiveness components
that can be applied to project management context are willingness to try unconventional
methods for project delivery and setting and pursuing ambitious goals and/or deadlines.
3.1.6 Entrepreneurial Orientation of the EPMConcept
Figure 3.2 shows the adapted elements from the EO concept and their relation to
the EPM concept. It will later constitute an element of the full EPM concept.
Figure 3.2 The elements of EO in the EPM concept
3.2 Entrepreneurial Management in the EPMConcept
The EM concept is built around following dimensions: (1) strategic orientation,
(2) commitment to opportunity, (3) commitment of resources, (4) control of resources,
(5) management structure, (6) reward policy, (7) growth orientation and (8)
entrepreneurial culture (see Section 2.4.2). These dimensions are discussed by
comparing the management approach from entrepreneurial (promoter’s extreme) and
administrative (trustee’s extreme) perspectives. The possible use of these dimensions in
the EPM concept is considered. It is important to mention that innovation and risk are
not one of the focal points of this concept, whereas in the EPM concept fostering
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
31
innovation and taking risks are considered to be important aspects. Brown, Davidson
and Wiklund (2001) proved empirically that this concept only partly overlaps with the
EO concept. The same cannot be said about the model adapted to the project
management context.
3.2.1 Strategic Orientation and Commitment to Opportunity
Strategic orientation of an entrepreneurial organization is driven by its perception
of opportunity, regardless of resources under control, whereas administratively
managed firm is resource-driven and limits its search for opportunities in regards to
resources under control (Stevenson, 1999). The trustee’s commitment to opportunity is
based on rigid analysis and once the decision is made it involves large initial investment
with a long-term intention to remain in that business. In contrast, the promoter is action-
oriented and is able to commit to opportunity quickly, as well as leave it fast if
expectations are not met. These two dimensions are by nature strategic and would be
especially interesting for analysing entrepreneurial versus administrative project
portfolio management, since it could be applied directly. Nevertheless, parallels to
project management context can also be found.
Similar contrast exists in project management between planned and emergent
styles (Lewis et al., 2002). In this research, plan-driven project management, which is
concerned with productivity and efficiency, is argued to be an administrative approach
to project management. In contrast, emergent project management style, which is
focused on fostering creativity and innovation, is argued to be an entrepreneurial
management style. Lewis et al. (2002) provide a comparison of these styles by
contrasting their approach to monitoring, evaluation and control of projects.
Project progress is tracked by monitoring activities. Plan-based management style
emphasizes monitoring project milestones. Revisiting Jelinek and Schoonhoven (1990)
the authors argue that milestones “convert project strategy into analyzable technical,
budgetary, and time-related objectives” (Lewis et al., 2002, p. 550). In contrast, an
emergent style emphasizes tracking project progress by monitoring understandings,
which reflects team members’ experiential learning, skill and knowledge development.
It aids team’s sense making process, helps them innovate and elaborate on ideas,
translate ideas into goals or a vision, also benefits team’s relationship by building
common understanding.
Evaluation is a process by which project’s value is appraised. A planned approach
to project evaluation is carried out in a systematic way through formal reviews by senior
management or project governance board, which acts as a gatekeeper making go/no go
decisions and providing formal feedback. In an emergent management style, projects
are evaluated by teams gathering information from external sources. It is a team
boundary crossing networking activity that may help gain organizational support, shape
expectations or can lead teams to improvisation and breaking out of existing mind-sets.
Project control is a fundamental tool for decision making. A planned approach to
control is directive, where project and senior managers provide guidance and support
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
32
for the project to be finished on time, within budget and they make sure that it complies
with initial design requirements. An emergent style fosters participative control, which
offers the freedom to challenge existing ideas and solve problems in regards to product
design and work methods. It helps teams build trust and redefine their own roles, also
helps improvisation since teams are not guided by rigid adherence to plans.
Clearly, an emergent style represents characteristics strongly associated with
entrepreneurship, since it fosters creativity and innovation through team autonomy,
fluid role definitions, information sharing and gathering through networking, etc. On the
other hand, a plan-driven style is an administrative tool based on analytic and
systematic approach to project management. Lewis et al. (2002) research demonstrates
that successful project management in product development requires managers to use
both approaches concurrently and/or interchangeably, the fact which is in line with
Stevenson’s (1999) argument that entrepreneurial management is not an extreme case,
but management approach which consistently falls at the end of the spectrum, implying
a certain combination of entrepreneurial and administrative management styles.
In conclusion, the current author sees planned and emergent styles as representing
two contrasting strategic orientations towards project management and commitment to
opportunity delivery. An emergent style embodies entrepreneurial values, whereas
planned style is an administrative tool.
3.2.2 Commitment and Control of Resources
The entrepreneurial commitment of resources for the pursuit of opportunity is
multistaged with a minimum commitment at each stage or decision point, or as
Stevenson (1999, p. 13) puts it: “[e]ntrepreneurial management requires that you learn
to do a little more with a little less”. Entrepreneurial way of assigning resources is
beneficial in turbulent and unpredictable environmental conditions. The administrative
commitment of resources, on the other hand, is carefully analyzed and large
commitment is made after the decision in order to minimize risk of failure. Also,
entrepreneurially managed organization is concerned with ability to use, exploit and/or
extract value from resources, rather than owning and controlling them. Its resources are
likely to be borrowed, rented or outsourced. In contrast, administrative management is
concerned with complete ownership and control of resources.
The main characteristic of entrepreneurially managed resources is their flexibility.
Project budget is one of the main resources that project managers are in charge of. In
the strictly planned project management approach budget is constructed and frozen after
rigid analysis, with possible contingencies taken into consideration (PMBOK, 2008).
Meeting pre-planned budget is a major concern for project managers. In the emergent
style, on the other hand, project budget is difficult to determine with certainty before
hand, because of high uncertainty and emerging opportunities. In the entrepreneurial
approach, the value of emerging opportunities determines the need to increase the
budget or close the project (Cohen and Graham, 2000). Thus, project budget flexibility
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
33
is a variable of the EPM concept where more flexible budget denotes entrepreneurial
approach.
Outsourcing project activities to external organizations is not a new concept.
Consulting organizations exist that can provide specialized resources to projects. Some
larger organizations run internal resource markets, which enable quick acquisition of
resources when necessary. There are definitely means available for projects to rent,
borrow or use outsourced resources to ensure flexibility at all times. In addition,
flexibility of the resources can be measured by the adherence to meet projected
schedules. In the competitive environments project’s time-to-market is an advantage.
Eisenhardt and Tabrizi (1995) report on Vesey’s (1991) research of high-tech projects,
where he finds that being late to market by 6 months, but within budget, reduced
product’s profitability by 33 percent if compared with on time projects. On the other
hand, projects that entered market on time, even with 50 percent over budget, were only
4 percent less profitable. In addition, the authors argue that lengthy development
process wastes resources on changes, peripheral activities and mistakes. Thus, it is
important that aggressive project schedule controls the need for project resources as
opposed to project resources being in control of project schedule.
3.2.3 Management Structure and Reward Philosophy
The promoter’s organization is structured organically with multiple informal
networks (Stevenson, 1999; Brown, Davidsson and Wiklund, 2001). The purpose of this
structure is to manage resources that are not under direct control and have considerable
autonomy, also to increase flexibility and create an environment that facilitates
exploration and exploitation of emerging opportunities. It is not concerned with
following rules and procedures as much as it is concerned with getting things done. The
trustee’s organization, on the other hand, is structured in a formal way, with clear lines
of authority, highly routinized work, productivity measurement systems and so forth.
Promoters reward teams and individuals for the value they create to the firm, whereas
trustees compensate individually for seniority and the number of resources under
control.
The outlined management structures can be directly applied to the EPM concept
for determining the proclivity towards entrepreneurial or administrative management
style. Reward philosophy could also be applied directly to determine how project
members and teams are compensated for their work. However, in the current author’s
opinion, the more relevant topic to the project management discipline and related to
reward philosophy is how the success of a project is measured. Following the logic of
entrepreneurial management, the success of a project should be measured by the value it
creates to business, its customers, end-users, society, etc. On the other hand,
administrative approach should value the classical project success measures in terms of
meeting predetermined budget, time and requirement constraints.
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
34
3.2.4 Growth Orientation and Entrepreneurial Culture
When developing entrepreneurial management research tool Brown, Davidsson
and Wiklund (2001) identified different views on the pace of growth and culture
towards idea generation between entrepreneurial and administrative organizations. The
promoter’s organization is concerned with achieving rapid growth, whereas the trustee
keeps growth at slower and steady pace in order to sustain control and avoid risks. The
entrepreneurial culture emphasizes strongly the value of new ideas, which are always
sought out and shared. The administrative culture, on the other hand, limits the number
of ideas to consider in regards to resources under control and may even lack profitable
ideas. These two aspects of the EM concept can be regarded as being the outcomes of
different management approaches. The purpose of this research is not to measure the
outcomes of the EPM concept, thus, for the time being, these two aspects are neglected
in this conceptualization.
3.2.5 Entrepreneurial Management in the EPMConcept
Figure 3.3 illustrates the adapted dimensions of the EM concept to the EPM
concept and respective management approaches of entrepreneurial and administrative
extremes. The dimensions of ‘strategic orientation’ and ‘commitment to opportunity’
were merged together under ‘strategic orientation’ title, as well as ‘commitment of
resources’ and ‘control of resources’ were merged together under ‘resource orientation’
title.
Figure 3.3 The dimensions of EM in the EPM concept
3.3 Entrepreneurship Strategy in the EPMConcept
The purpose of this section is to put together the EPM concept following Ireland,
Covin and Kuratko’s (2009) approach when conceptualizing the knowledge of
corporate entrepreneurship into distinctive strategy. The proposed concept of EPM can
also be regarded as a distinctive strategic approach to managing innovation projects in
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
35
turbulent and unpredictable environments. As presented in Section 2.4.4, corporate
entrepreneurship strategy (CES) contains three main parts: (1) antecedents of CES, (2)
elements of CES and (3) outcomes or consequences of using CES. This chapter
discusses these parts in the EPM context.
3.3.1 The Antecedents of EPM: Environmental Conditions
Ireland, Covin and Kuratko (2009) emphasize the conditions of external
environment that push organizations to employ CES. In particular, they identify four
main attractors: competitive intensity, technological change, product-market
fragmentation and product-market emergence. In project management context, this
dissertation defines environmental conditions in terms of different project types, which
are further presented in Chapter 4. The four main dimensions denote environmental
conditions under which projects are delivered: (1) novelty of project outcome, (2) high-
tech vs. low-tech technology, (3) complexity of the scope and (4) pace of the project.
These dimensions, as is argued and hypothesized in Chapter 4, influence the level of
EPM observed in project organization.
3.3.2 The Antecedents of EPM: Entrepreneurial Cognitions
The second antecedent of CES is individual entrepreneurial cognitions, which are
defined as “the knowledge structure that people use to make assessments, judgements,
or decisions involving opportunity evaluation, venture creation, and growth” (Mitchell
et al., 2002; in Ireland, Covin and Kuratko, 2009, p. 26). The authors emphasize the
importance of individual’s beliefs, attitudes and values towards entrepreneurship in the
CES concept. However, these entrepreneurial cognitions are more significant to a
project portfolio manager when making project identification and selection decisions,
rather then to a project manager delivering entrepreneurial projects. Jaafari (2003)
presents cognitive characteristics necessary for a project manager running complex
projects in complex environments.
Jaafari (2003, p. 55) argues that project managers that undertake complex projects
in complex environments must embrace creative-reflective (as opposed to rational
process-driven) approach to managing projects through which they can “achieve
breakthrough solutions to optimally respond to both environmental and project
complexity”. According to him, these project managers are necessarily Type 1
personalities of Geyer’s (1998) categorization, where:
1. They will be fully aware that their models are observer-dependent, i.e. they are
open to new information from those with different models, and will engage in
sufficient amount of self-reference to be at least roughly aware how their own
models have originated;
2. They will be sufficiently flexible to realize that their models are not eternally
valid, but time-dependent, and therefore should be updated regularly as new
information becomes available, or is even proactively sought;
3. Realizing that their models are also problem-dependent, they will certainly not
strive to obtain a single, monolithic model of their world, but will develop a set
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
36
of different models to deal with different situations (Gayer, 1998; in Jaafari,
2003, p. 55).
A detailed comparison developed by Lester (1994; in Jaafari, 2003) of creative-
reflective and rational process-driven project management professionals can be found in
Appendix I. It could be used to develop a personality scale, instead of describing
extreme case for entrepreneurship as it was done in the developed concept (see Figure
3.4). Jaafari (2003, p. 55) also emphasizes that creative-reflective project managers do
not necessarily belong to professional project management associations, but rather
“engage in life-long learning and continuous personal development, act autonomously,
believe in shared values and follow strong personal ethics”. In addition, he argues that
project managers must develop transformational leadership style in order to “allow
individuals and organizations to strive on the edge of chaos, inspiring innovation and
creativity needed to develop new products and technologies, even new business models
that can lead to sustainable competitive advantage in the new economy. The context for
transformational leadership includes a kind of visionary acumen that can articulate
winning and success in a way that captures imagination of others. In doing so, like-
minded contributors can be invited to add their views of the company such that
everyone is inspired to do their best work and serve the greater needs of the enterprise
and its customers” (Robinson, 2000; in Jaafari, 2003, p. 56). The transformational
leadership style is also emphasized in Section 3.1.4, where the antecedents of proactive
behaviour are discussed.
3.3.3 The Elements of EPM
The elements of CES are entrepreneurial strategic vision, pro-entrepreneurship
organizational architecture and entrepreneurial processes and behaviour (see Section
2.4.4). The element of ‘entrepreneurial processes and behaviour’ is renamed to
‘Entrepreneurial project processes and behaviour’ in order to emphasize project
management context. The elements of the adapted EO concept constitute this element,
since they define behaviour and processes of an EPM (see Figure 3.4).
The element of ‘pro-entrepreneurship organizational architecture’ in project
management context is renamed to ‘Entrepreneurial project management architecture’
and components adapted from the EM concept constitute this particular element of the
EPM concept (see Figure 3.4). They represent the same characteristics as described by
the CES concept: structural organicity, entrepreneurial culture, reward systems,
resources and their capabilities, etc. (see Sections 2.4.4 and 3.2).
The element of ‘entrepreneurial strategic vision’, as presented in Section 2.4.4,
signifies the top-management efforts to foster entrepreneurial activities by developing
and communicating entrepreneurial strategic vision, creating appropriate organizational
structure so that individual entrepreneurial acts can take place and be supported. In
project management context this element is renamed to ‘Entrepreneurial project
governance’ to denote the appropriate support to the project by the upper management.
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
37
The traditional project governance is a tool for project control and decision
making by senior management at certain project phases (see Section 3.2.1; PMBOK,
2008). It is not to imply that directive control whereby senior managers provide
guidance and support is not important. However, following entrepreneurial fashion, it
must be lean and of a participative style in order to provide valuable advice and
insights, also be able to remove obstacles and roadblocks for project delivery (Brown
and Eisenhardt, 1998; Ireland, Kuratko and Morris, 2006). The metaphor for this
approach could be seen as an angel investor making an investment into a new venture
and making sure it succeeds by providing his/her own knowledge and experience,
support and/or network of contacts.
3.3.4 The Outcomes of EPM
Ireland, Kuratko and Morris (2009) distinguish two broad outcomes when
organizations employ the CES: (1) the ability to develop new capabilities and
knowledge when departing to the unknown and (2) possibility to revise strategy because
of the continuous flow of new opportunities. It is argued here, much the same as the
authors, that when project manager and project team act in an entrepreneurial fashion,
as described in the EPM concept, they are more likely to develop new skills and
knowledge, since they are motivated and eager to innovate and try new approaches to
problem solving, new ways of working, etc.
Continuous strategic repositioning enables organizational flexibility to adapt to
new demands. Much the same, an EPM approach makes project management flexible
and quick to respond to customer demands or even proactively seek changes that raise
the value of project deliverables. In addition, the other outcomes one may expect to
observe can be in terms of improved team work quality, improved project delivery
performance and self-organizing behaviour.
Following Teece (2007), these outcomes are titled as ‘Dynamic project
management capabilities’, since this approach to project management is a shift from “a
well-understood and replicable ‘best’ practices” (Winter, 2003; in Teece, 2007, p.
1321), which cannot possibly constitute competitive advantage of an organization. An
EPM approach emphasizes cross-functional project networking, new project
management and knowledge transfer routines that according to Eisenhardt and Martin
(2000; in Teece, 2007) are important elements of the dynamic capabilities. It is a shift
towards creating, deploying and protecting intangible project management capabilities
that support dynamic capabilities and competitive advantage of a business organization.
3.3.5 Definition of EPM and Concept Scheme
In this thesis, the EPM is defined by following contingency theories of
management whereby organizations that “see their environments as turbulent and
complex [...] respond with more complex, organic structures which reflect the variety in
the environment” (Ashmos, Duchon and McDaniel, 2000, p. 577). Hereby, the EPM is
defined as a distinctive management approach whereby project and environmental
complexity is absorbed by relying on complex entrepreneurial behaviour, processes,
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
38
structure and governance, as opposed to complexity reduction through simple
mechanistic and formal project management style. The concept scheme of EPM is
illustrated in Figure 3.4.
The current author followed Ireland, Kuratko and Morris (2009) to illustrate the
interrelations between different elements. However, the deeper analysis of these
interrelations is outside the scope of this research. The focus of this research is to
analyze empirically the relation between ‘Project Environmental Conditions’ and
elements of the EPM concept. The red line is drawn for the purpose of the thesis
research. It does not exist in the original CES model by Ireland, Kuratko and Morris
(2009). However, the direct relationship between environmental conditions and
management architecture is researched and analyzed in this dissertation.
Figure 3.4 The concept of entrepreneurial project management (EPM)
There are certain conditions that push organizations to adopt entrepreneurship
concepts to organizational management, for example, rapid change in technology or
consumer economics, need for fast decisions and flexibility, high uncertainty,
diminishing opportunities and others (Stevenson, 1999). Arguably, the EPM concept
does not apply equally to all projects. In the following chapter the existing project
classification frameworks are reviewed and the scale of project entrepreneurship level
expected in various project types is developed along the selected framework.
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
39
4 Project Classification, Entrepreneurship Scale and
Research Hypotheses
Projects are by definition unique endeavours and the prevailing assumption that
“a project is a project is a project” and that all projects can be managed using the same
management approach has been empirically proven to be wrong on many occasions
(Williams, 2005). It is also not to suggest that the EPM concept is equally applicable to
all types of projects. Entrepreneurship is usually associated with complexity, dynamism
and disequilibrium, concerns with innovation and adaptation, and how best to deal with
risk, uncertainty and ambiguity (Arend and Chen, 2011). Thus, a project classification
framework is necessary against which project entrepreneurship scale can be mapped,
indicating the extent of EPM applicability. The selection criteria for classification
framework are its ease of use and adequacy to classify projects against entrepreneurial
characteristics of innovation, complexity, uncertainty and flexibility.
4.1 Overview of Project Classification Frameworks
Williams (2005) provides short overview of research attempts to define project
classification frameworks in order to identify different project management approaches
for different types of projects. The following dimensions are used in different
classification frameworks to define project type and management style:
? Technological uncertainty and complexity of scope (Shenhar and Dvir, 1996);
? Project goals and delivery methods clarity matrix (Turner and Cochrane,
1993);
? Complexity, pace, novelty and technology (Shenhar and Dvir, 2004);
? Type of error and type of complexity matrix (Lindkvist et al., 1998);
? Complexity and uncertainty/ambiguity (Pich et al., 2002)
? Extent of activity variation and type of uncertainty (foreseen, unforeseen and
chaos) (De Meyer et al., 2002);
After closer investigation of the models above, the easiest to use when creating
project entrepreneurship scale and most appropriate for measuring entrepreneurial
characteristics is the model proposed by Shenhar and Dvir (2004). The foremost reasons
to select this model are its universal applicability and it uses the four dimensions to
classify projects that are closely related to entrepreneurship characteristics. The model
measures novelty of the project outcome (market innovation), sophistication of
technology (uncertainty level), complexity of scope and pace of project delivery, hence
the name NTCP model. Each of these dimensions has at least three well defined scale
steps (see Figure 4.1). Each of these dimensions are presented in the following sections
and linked to EPM through hypotheses.
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
40
Figure 4.1 The NTCP model for project classification (Shenhar and Dvir, 2004)
4.2 NTCP: Novelty
Dvir and Shenhar (2004) define novelty dimension by how familiar the outcome
of the project is to its user, in other words, the level of market innovation. The novelty
of the outcome affects the project management approach on the search for necessary
market data, product definition and marketing aspects. The three steps in the scale for
different novelty levels are: (1) derivative, (2) platform and (3) breakthrough.
Derivative. Extensions and improvements of existing product or service fall under
derivative projects. Market data and requirements for the outcome are mostly well
known and can be frozen early in the project. Marketing of the product emphasizes
improvements and advantages over previous products.
Platform. Projects that deliver new generation products or services to the existing
families of products and services are defined as platform projects. The product
requirements are not as clear as in derivative type, extensive market research is
necessary, thus requirements are completed well in the project execution phase.
Marketing focuses on creating brand image, its advantages over competition.
Breakthrough. A new-to-the-world products or services are delivered by
breakthrough projects. The project outcome is completely unfamiliar to its user, no
market data is available to define product requirements, and thus they remain flexible
until late in the project. Experimenting, trial and error, prototyping are common
approaches to manage such projects. The marketing of such products and services
focuses on attracting early adopters and educating customers of their needs for this new
product or service.
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
41
Developing innovative and novel products and introducing them to the market is a
fundamental aspect of entrepreneurship. Thus, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 1: The evidence of EPM is stronger when the level of project novelty
is higher.
Developing new means of production, creating new services and products,
opening new markets, etc., are elements that define entrepreneurship (Ahmad and
Seymour, 2008).
4.3 NTCP: Technology
The second dimension in the model is technology, which is the major source of
uncertainty. The technological uncertainty is determined by the level of new technology
used in the project, and whether it already exists or is yet to be developed. Higher
uncertainty at project initiation means longer development, later design freeze, more
prototyping and testing. Dvir and Shenhar (2004) use four steps to classify projects
under this dimension: (1) low-tech, (2) medium-tech, (3) high-tech and (4) super high-
tech.
Low-tech. These projects have no new technology involved, only mature and
known is used. Projects under this category are an example of ‘painting by numbers’
project type, where the outcome and processes are well known (Maylor, 2010).
Management style in these projects is plan driven, command and control, with “a no-
nonsense, no-changes, get-the-job-done attitude” (Dvir and Shenhar, 2004, p. 1272).
Medium-tech. Besides using existing technology, these projects also incorporate
some of the new previously unused technology. As a result, these projects need some
additional development and testing, but design and requirements are usually frozen
early in the project life-cycle. The management style is less strict at the beginning, with
more flexibility, but overall project management is to “limit changes to minimum and
freeze as early as possible” (Dvir and Shenhar, 2004, p. 1273).
High-tech. This type of projects includes new, but existing technology, which is
integrated together for the first time by the project. These projects require lengthy trial-
and-error-based design and development cycles, where design freeze requires at least
three development cycles. Management is characterized as relatively flexible, since
changes and rework are expected.
Super high-tech. These projects create the new technology, in other words, the
necessary technology does not exist at project’s initiation. Most of the efforts are
devoted to creating new technology, testing and selecting from the alternatives, requires
extensive development and very late design freeze. Management style is extremely
flexible since things change very fast, and extensive real-time informal communication
is at most importance to keep up with the rate of change.
The uncertainty increases along this dimension, and since it is one of the most
important ingredients for entrepreneurship to exist, it is hypothesized here that:
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
42
Hypothesis 2: The evidence of EPM is stronger when technological uncertainty is
higher.
4.4 NTCP: Complexity of Scope
Dvir and Shenhar (2004) relate project complexity to the scope of project
systemization, which is the number of components, modules, elements, subsystems, etc.
in the project that must operate as one system. System scope determines the way project
is coordinated, its communication style (formal vs. informal) and level of necessary
documentation. Authors define three system scope levels to distinguish different project
management approaches: (1) assembly, (2) system and (3) array.
Assembly. These projects combine a collection of elements into a single unit to
perform a single function (e.g., subsystem, coffee machine) and rarely include more
than 100 activities in the network. Project execution usually happens under single
functional unit or by a small cross-functional team with low formality and bureaucracy.
Project management activities are basic and simple.
System. These projects combine a complex collection of elements and interactive
subsystems, jointly performing a wide range of functions (aircraft, computer, building,
etc.). System-type projects are usually coordinated by a leading organization, with
multiple project deliverables outsourced to external organizations and suppliers. These
projects exhibit more formality than assembly, may need administrative personnel to
take care of the planning, budget maintenance, etc. The number of activities range from
a couple of hundreds to a few thousands.
Array. Array-type projects involve a widespread collection of systems functioning
together to achieve a common mission (a city’s highway system, a national
communication network, restructuring of a global corporation, etc.). These projects may
be subdivided into several programs coordinated by the central organization. It relies
heavily on proprietary bureaucratic procedures.
Literature on entrepreneurship emphasizes decentralization of large organizations
in order to achieve a sense of ‘smallness’ that arguably enables entrepreneurial
behaviour evident in small entrepreneurial ventures (Gibb, 2000). On this premise is it
hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 3: The evidence of EPM is stronger when scope complexity is lower.
4.5 NTCP: Pace
This scale differentiates projects by time pressure and consequences if time goals
are not met. Dvir and Shenhar (2004) distinguish three management styles typical to the
following levels of urgency: (1) regular, (2) fast-competitive and (3) critical-blitz.
Regular. The pace of these projects is not critical to organizational success. They
are mostly started to achieve long term goals and can be delayed to take care of urgent
matters. They are usually managed in a casual format.
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
43
Fast-competitive. Time-to-market is a competitive advantage for this type of
projects. Managing time and meeting deadlines is usually of the highest priority. In
addition, achieving profit goals and addressing market needs are important success
criteria.
Critical-blitz. For these projects time is of the most importance and failing to meet
time constraints usually means project failure. These projects are managed with very
tight schedules and work flow, real-time communication and decision making is
continuous, detailed documentation is neglected because of time constraints. Project
manager has almost full autonomy and top managers constantly show support and track
project progress.
Entrepreneurship caught interest of researchers and organizations that could
explain and help in the times of relentless change to adapt and succeed. The more
dynamic and hostile the conditions, the more firms will be entrepreneurial (Miller,
1983), thus it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 4: The evidence of EPM concept is stronger when time criticality or
pace of the project is larger.
4.6 Project Entrepreneurship Scale
Figure 4.2 illustrate the hypothesized project entrepreneurship scale. The
complexity scale is reversed to indicate the direction of the rising entrepreneurship
level, as compared to Figure 4.1. The most entrepreneurial combination of project
factors is denoted by the red line that is assembly, breakthrough, blitz and super-high
tech project. The least entrepreneurial project hypothesized is marked by the blue line.
Figure 4.2 Project entrepreneurship scale (red – most, blue – least entrepreneurial
projects).
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
44
This concludes the development of theoretical project entrepreneurship scale. The
next chapter presents the research method applied and its limitations when testing the
proposed concept.
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
45
5 Research Method
In order to answer the second research question and to test the related hypotheses
regarding the extent of EPM along the various project types, a web-based survey was
employed to collect results for various project types and measure the elements of the
EPM concept. There are several practical reasons to choose a web-based survey
approach for data collection (Archer, 2003). First of all, it provides an access to a
relatively large number of potential respondents and pool of data, which is necessary to
adequately test the hypotheses. Secondly, it is the least expensive and fastest method for
obtaining large primary data set. Thirdly, the administration of data is relatively easy
when compared to, for example, mail survey or interview data management. However,
it has a couple of limitations to consider. First of all, a web-based survey can have a low
response rate. Secondly, it is difficult to account for an adequate probability-based
sample, especially if access to a survey is difficult to control. These drawbacks make it
difficult to generalize the results.
This chapter presents measures used in this research, discusses the characteristics
of a research sample, its limitations to the research and presents briefly the data analysis
method. In addition, the last section of the chapter analyses and transforms the
independent factors used in the research in order to better meet the prerequisites of the
ANOVA analysis.
5.1 Research Measures
The questionnaire was designed following guidelines proposed by Malhotra
(1999; in Webb, 2000) and discussed by Webb (2000). The developed questionnaire
consists of three main parts (see Appendix II). The first seven single choice questions
obtain general information about the respondent’s organization (industry, size, etc.) and
basic project characteristics (budget, team size, etc.). These characteristics are presented
in the next section, when discussing research sample. Questions eight to eleven are
single choice questions used to determine the respondent’s typically managed project
type along the dimensions presented in Chapter 4. In addition, after a questionnaire
review, several new selection options were added when determining project type (like
‘Partnership building or sales related project’ and ‘None of the above’ to the Novelty
dimension, see Appendix II).
Questions twelve to sixteen consist of statements that measure the elements of the
EPM concept gathered under the following headlines: ‘Project Manager’s Autonomy’,
‘Entrepreneurial Project Governance’, ‘Project Management Structure’, ‘Project
Resource Orientation’ and ‘Project Success Measures’. Respondents were asked to
provide their opinion about the statements on the 7-point Likert scale, where 1 stands
for ‘strongly disagree’, 2 – ‘disagree’, 3 – ‘slightly disagree’, 4 – ‘not sure’, 5 – ‘slightly
agree’, 6 – ‘agree’ and 7 – ‘strongly agree’. In addition, Entrepreneurial Project
Governance included ‘Not Applicable’ selection for cases where stated project
governance practice was not performed at all. Also, several statements were reverse
coded (see Appendix II).
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
46
Project manager’s autonomy was measured by seven statements. These statements
were adapted from Ireland, Kuratko and Morris’s (2006) questionnaire, which was
proposed to be used as a tool to audit organizational climate for entrepreneurship and
innovation. Five statements were included to measure the proclivity of project
governance towards entrepreneurship. These items were created by the current author.
Some of the wording styles used to construct the items were also borrowed from
Ireland, Kuratko and Morris’s (2006) questionnaire.
The questionnaire item ‘Project Management Structure’ encompasses several
elements of the EPM concept. The first four statements measure the ‘Management
structure’ item of the ‘Entrepreneurial Project Management Structure’ element and were
adapted from Brown, Davidsson and Wiklund (2001). The remaining statements
measure the element of ‘Entrepreneurial Project Processes and Behaviour’. It is noted in
the Appendix II which item of this element is measured by the particular statement. In
order to keep the questionnaire as short as possible, some of the items were omitted
from the questionnaire.
The questionnaire section under ‘Project Resource Orientation’ consists of three
statements to determine budget flexibility, adherence to schedule and resource
ownership approach. It is the ‘Resource orientation’ item of the ‘Entrepreneurial Project
Management Structure’ element. The ‘Success philosophy’ item of the same element is
measured under ‘Project Success Measures’. The four different statements illustrating
possible success measures were constructed by the current author following Dvir, Sadeh
and Malach-Pines (2006). The ‘Strategic orientation’ item of the ‘Entrepreneurial
Project Management Structure’ element was not included in the questionnaire, since it
requires a large set of statements to be determined exactly and would complicate the
questionnaire and research significantly.
The questionnaire was tested for clarity by asking three known respondents to
provide the feedback about the questionnaire by following the approach suggested by
Webb (2000, p. 215):
? the meaning of the questions is clear,
? the questions are easy to answer,
? the questions flow logically from one another,
? the routing/branching instructions are clear,
? the questionnaire is too long,
? the questionnaire engages and retains the respondent’s interest.
Subsequently, the questionnaire was revised and dubious or misleading questions
were clarified.
5.2 Research Sample
The research sample consists of 83 responses to the online research questionnaire
by project managers, who were reached through several channels. First of all, invitation
letter to participate in the research was sent by e-mail to around one hundred
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
47
representatives of organizations listed in the event book of Chalmers University of
Technology career days. They were asked to forward the provided link to the
questionnaire to project managers of their organization. 17 answers were collected
through this channel. Secondly, the research was advertised on the
www.projectmanagers.net web page. It has over thirty two thousand registered
members. A series of blog posts were featured on the main page describing the EPM
concept and research. A link was provided to the questionnaire at the end of each post
inviting to take part in the research. 37 responses were received through this channel.
The last channel included sending out research invitations to project managers through
personal connections. 29 responses were obtained through this channel.
The diversity of sample collection methods, the low number of responses and the
lack of control of access to the questionnaire prevents the current author from making
any generalizations. All the conclusions made will be applicable to the accumulated
research sample only. Table 5.1 presents basic characteristics of the research sample.
Table 5.1 Characteristics of research sample
Frequency Percent
Industry Automotive & Aerospace 6 7.2
Banking & Finance 9 10.8
Telecommunications 5 6.0
IT Services/Software 23 27.7
Engineering& Construction 14 16.9
Manufacturing 8 9.6
Other/Missing Data 18 21.7
Age of
organization
Up to 5 years 9 10.8
6 to 20 years 31 37.3
21 to 50 years 15 18.1
Older than 51 years 28 33.7
Size of
organization
Less than 20 employees 11 13.3
20 to50 employees 5 6.0
51 to 250 employees 15 18.1
More than 250 employees 49 59.0
Missing data 3 3.6
Project
management
experience
Less than 1 year 4 4.8
1 to 3 years 10 12.0
4 to 7 years 19 22.9
More than 7 years 48 57.8
Not in project management 1 1.2
Missing data 1 1.2
Average project
budget
Less than 100 000 EU 16 19.3
100 000 to 500 000 EU 33 39.8
500 000 to 1 500 000 EU 18 21.7
More than 1 500 000 EU 15 18.1
Missing data 1 1.2
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
48
Average project
duration
1 to 3 months 7 8.4
3 to 9 months 30 36.1
9 to 18 months 35 42.2
More than 18 months 11 13.3
Size of core
team
1 to 5 persons 34 41.0
6 to 10 persons 29 34.9
11 to 20 persons 11 13.3
More than 20 persons 9 10.8
The research sample comes predominantly from the IT services and software
industry, accounting for almost 1/3 of the sample. 40 organizations are up to 20 years
old and 43 organizations are older than 21 years. Almost 2/3 of the sample consists of
large organizations with more than 250 employees.
Project managers of the sample are mostly very experienced with more than 7
years of project management experience (57.8%). 22.9% of the respondents have
experience lasting from 4 to 7 years, and 16.8% of respondents have less than 3 years of
project management experience. Most of the projects they run have a budget between
100 000 to 500 000 EU, but the sample represents other budget sizes well too. Most of
the sample projects are either 3 to 9 or 9 to 18 months long (36.1% and 42.2%
respectively). Small project teams with 1 to 5 persons account for 41.0% of the sample
gradually decreasing to 10.8% of core project teams having more than 20 members.
Overall, the collected sample represents a wide range of possible project contexts and
industries.
5.3 Data Analysis Method
The obtained research data was analyzed using SPSS v.19 software tool for
statistical analysis. In order to test the hypothesis, factorial ANOVA was conducted. It
allows extracting the effect that one of the several independent factors has on a single
dependant factor, while accounting for the effect of other independent factors (Field,
2005). The dependent factors are represented by the elements of EPM, whereas the
independent factors were played by the project’s environmental conditions defined by
novelty, technology, pace and complexity. In order to adequately use factorial ANOVA
analysis method, the data set has to meet several initial conditions (Field, 2005):
? Data is normally distributed;
? Variance in each experimental condition is fairly equal;
? Observations are independent;
? The dependent variable is measured on at least an interval scale;
Whether the data set meets the condition of normal distribution can be examined
by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and/or Shapiro-Wilk tests (Field, 2005). These tests
compare the collected data set with the data set which is normally distributed, has the
same mean and standard deviation as the collected data set. If the test is not significant
then it tells us that the collected data set is not significantly different from the normally
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
49
distributed data set and can be held to be normally distributed. This assumption is tested
for separate data analysis groups and is presented in the next chapter and Appendix III
when presenting research results. In this research, the Shapiro-Wilk test is used as a
decision reference, since it is better suited for small sample sizes (Razali and Wah,
2011). Throughout the analysis, the result is held significant if p < 0.5, as it is the most
common value used in the social science research (Field, 2005).
The equality of variance is measured by the Levene’s test (Field, 2005). It tests
the hypothesis that the data set for each experimental condition has equal variance.
Therefore, if the test is not significant (p > 0.5) the hypothesis cannot be dismissed and
the assumption of equal variances is held to be true. This test is performed for each data
analysis group in the next chapter.
The third assumption of the independence of observations cannot be guaranteed
with certainty because of data collection method employed in this research. It is
impossible to guarantee that the data collected is not from dependent sources, as the
access to the questionnaire was loosely controlled in order to gather as much data as
possible. In the case of correlated data between observations (dependent observations)
the Type I error rate may be larger than the excepted 0.05 (Field, 2005). Thus, the
reader of this thesis is cautioned to use his/her discretion when reading the research
results. In addition, as mentioned before, the results are by no means generalized.
In the case of this research, the dependent variables were measured on the 7-point
Likert scale, which is an interval scale and ANOVA analysis can be applied (Carifio
and Perla, 2008). The 7-point Likert scale was transformed to 6-point Likert scale by
excluding ‘Not sure’ selections in order to include only certain results, since ‘Not sure’
selection in reality may represent a totally different scenario. The same was done with
‘Not applicable’ selection in the case of “Project governance”.
When performing four-way ANOVA analysis it is possible to analyze higher
order interactions, like what is the combined effect of novelty and technology on project
manager’s autonomy. This kind of analysis is outside the scope of this research.
In the next section, due to a relatively small research sample, independent
variables of project’s novelty, technology, pace and complexity are analyzed and
transformed to meet the requirements of independent factorial ANOVA analysis.
5.4 Transformation of Independent Factors
The four independent factors used in the factorial ANOVA analysis require a
large research sample. The rule of thumb, recommended by Wilson Van Voorhis and
Morgan (2007), when performing ANOVA analysis is to have a cell size of 30 samples
and if reduction is necessary, no less than 7 samples per cell. The number of cells is
determined by the number of independent factors and the number of levels in each
factor. In this research, there are four independent factors (novelty, technology, pace
and complexity) and all together they have 3+4+3+3=13 levels (i.e., novelty =
[derivative, platform, breakthrough]). Thus, if the modest requirement of 7 samples per
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
50
cell is taken, the research sample needs to consist of at least 13x7=91 responses. It is
also assumed that the collected data is equally distributed over each cell, which can
hardly be true in reality. Therefore, effort to reduce the research sample is necessary and
performed as shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 Level reduction of project type dimensions
Dimension # Level Frequency # Frequency
Novelty 1 Derivative 35 1+5 40
2 Platform 28 2+3+4 43
3 Breakthrough 10
4 Partnership building
and sales related
5
5 Other 5
Technology 1 Low-tech 5
2 Medium-tech 34 2+1+5 41
3 High-tech 34 3+4 42
4 Super high-tech 8
5 Other 2
Pace 1 Regular 9
2 Fast/Competitive 37 2+1 46
3 Blitz/Critical 37 3 37
Complexity 1 Assembly 25 1 25
2 System 50 2+3 58
3 Array 8
In the novelty dimension, selection ‘other’ was merged with the ‘derivative’ level,
assuming a low level of market novelty for projects selected as ‘other’. ‘Breakthrough’
and ‘partnership building and sales related’ projects were merged with ‘platform’
projects, since they have higher levels of market novelty then ‘derivative’ projects.
‘Regular’ pace projects were added to ‘fast/competitive’ project type, since their pace is
lower than ‘blitz/critical’ type of projects. ‘Array’ level of complexity was combined
together with ‘system’ as they have higher complexity level than ‘assembly’.
With this kind of level reduction, the minimum sample size, if distribution over
cells is equal, is reduced to 4x2x7=56 samples. Therefore, probability is increased to
meet the required condition of at least 7 samples per cell when performing factorial
ANOVA analysis with the research sample of 83 responses.
Although reduction was performed, analysis of sample distribution between cells
for different experimental conditions revealed that there are cell sizes with less than 7
elements. In addition, due to the unbalanced model (unequal cell sizes) mean values
used by ANOVA analysis to compare different group means can be different from the
real means, because ANOVA analysis performed employs unweighted means (Field,
2008). This way, the cell sizes are artificially balanced out by discounting different
sample sizes per cell when calculating mean values. Due to the fact, that the analysis
model does not always meet the required conditions and is unbalanced, the effects of
factors are also compared by performing the independent t-test or Mann-Whitney test
(in case of not normally distributed data) to either support or deny the result of the
ANOVA analysis.
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
51
6 Research Results
In this chapter the research results are presented for five different dependent
variable groups: (1) project manager’s autonomy, (2) project governance, (3) project
management structure, (4) project resource orientation and (5) project success measures.
Items used to measure project manager’s autonomy and project management structure
were loaded on single factors respectively, since the analysis of the scale resulted in
Cronbach’s alpha larger than 0.7 (Field, 2005). Items of the other groups were analysed
separately (Cronbach’s alpha < 0.7). Table 6.1 presents the overview of significant (p <
0.5) and potentially significant (p < 0.2) results if a larger research sample could be
obtained in a better controlled research environment. The colour coding of the
independent factor signifies its adherence to the hypothesized entrepreneurial direction
(green – follows, orange – does not follow hypothesis). In order to make the report
reader friendly, full results of the main effects are presented only for project manager’s
autonomy (see Table 6.2) and other results for each dependent factor are presented in
Appendix III.
Overall, the analysis of the data resulted in six significant (bold coding) and ten
potentially significant effects out of the 56 possibilities. Seven results follow the
hypothesized directions, whereas nine results are against the hypothesis. The following
sections present and briefly discuss results for each dependent variable groups.
Discussion on how these results meet the hypotheses is carried out in the final chapter.
Table 6.1 Summary of significant and potentially significant effects
Mann-Whitney Factorial ANOVA
a,b,c
Independent
Factor
Level
Shap.-
Wilk p
Mean
Std.
Dev.
p (2-
tailed)
Marginal
Mean
Std.
Err.
F p ??²
Proj ect Governance
Dependent Variable: [EPG] Upper mgmt. makes pj. decisions by following simple rules and procedures
Technology Medium .001 3.667 1.628 .350 3.717 .291 2.206 .143 .034
High .000 3.368 1.618 3.173 .330
Complexity Assembly .002 3.000 1.842 .067 2.962 .353 5.586 .021 .083
System .000 3.755 1.466 3.902 .269
Dependent Variable:[EPG] Sr. mgrs. support my project by removing obstacles and roadblocks
Pace Fast .001 4.023 1.354 .308 3.938 .244 2.658 .108 .040
Blitz .000 3.667 1.309 3.384 .291
Dependent Variable:[EPG] Pj. gov. provides valuable insight and advice
Novelty Derivative .002 4.412 1.158 .099 4.145 .250 4.972 .030 .079
Platform .015 3.897 1.334 3.785 .239
Technology Medium .013 3.909 1.422 .264 3.676 .244 6.224 .015 .097
High .004 4.325 1.118 4.269 .243
Complexity Assembly .092 3.727 1.638 .157 3.479 .293 2.255 .139 .037
System .001 4.314 1.049 4.368 .198
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
52
Dependent Variable:[EPG] Pj. gov. imposes simple procedures to follow
Pace Fast .007 3.628 1.496 .050 3.837 .280 3.149 .081 .047
Blitz .005 2.972 1.424 2.904 .296
Dependent Variable: [EPG] Pj. mgr. and team decide how to report pj. achievements
Complexity Assembly .075 3.682 1.524 .045 3.607 .340 2.991 .089 .046
System .000 4.400 1.226 4.341 .218
Proj ect Management Structure
Dependent Variable:[PMS] Project management structure
Independent t-test Factorial ANOVA
Technology Medium .089 4.069 .649 .242 4.033 .126 1.790 .185 .026
High .207 4.246 .718 4.258 .139
Proj ect Resource Orientation
Dependent Variable: [PRO] Once pj. budget is finalized, it is easy to review
Mann-Whitney Factorial ANOVA
a,b,c
Pace Fast .008 3.272 1.500 .236 3.243 .243 2.018 .160 .032
Blitz .022 2.848 1.372 2.941 .290
Dependent Variable: [PRO] Pj. schedule controls pj. resources
Novelty Derivative .000 3.794 1.225 .071 3.835 .241 3.557 .064 .057
Platform .001 4.275 1.358 4.503 .264
Pace Fast .002 3.750 1.410 .041 3.711 .265 4.320 .042 .068
Blitz .001 4.412 1.104 4.612 .246
Dependent Variable: [PRO] Pj. resources are rented, borrowed or outsourced
Novelty Derivative .000 2.629 1.416 .024 2.714 .272 2.505 .119 .041
Platform .003 3.368 1.460 3.175 .287
Complexity Assembly .005 2.682 1.460 .183 2.707 .332 2.742 .103 .045
System .000 3.157 1.475 3.181 .233
Proj ect Success Measures
Dependent Variable: [PSM] Against business value added
Complexity Assembly .046 3.640 1.381 .030 3.733 .289 6.804 .011 .099
System .000 4.365 1.329 4.642 .236
6.1 Results for Project Manager’s Autonomy
Table 6.2 presents the results for project manager’s autonomy against each of the
independent factor. Overall, none of the main factors reached significant effect on
project manager’s autonomy (p > 0.05). The technology factor has the effect on
autonomy closest to significance (p = 0.248) and it is able to explain 2% of variance in
project manager’s autonomy (??² = 0.02), which is a relatively low level of explanation.
Project managers working on high-tech projects enjoy more autonomy (mean 4.108),
whereas medium-tech managers have it lower (mean 3.888). The independent t-test
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
53
analysis for the technology factor provides a similar result. It is partly significant at 0.1
level if considering 1-tailed significance for hypothesized values (p (1-tailed) = p (2-
tailed) / 2 = 0.112). Other main factors did not show strong effects on project manager’s
autonomy (p > 0.4). Overall, the full model employed, considering higher-level
interactions, accounts for 10% of variability in project manager’s autonomy (R Squared
= 0.1).
Table 6.2 Main effects of independent factors on project manager’s autonomy
Dependent Variable:[PMA] Project manager's autonomy
Independent t-test Factorial ANOVA
a,b,c
Independent
Factor
Level
Shap.-
Wilk p
Mean
Std.
Dev.
p (2-
tailed)
Marginal
Mean
Std.
Err.
F p ??²
Novelty Derivative .116 3.967 .913 .692 4.021 .157 .533 .468 .008
Platform .519 4.042 .789 3.964 .164
Technology Medium .809 3.891 .795 .224 3.888 .154 1.356 .248 .020
High .272 4.118 .889 4.108 .170
Pace Fast .384 4.067 .909 .467 4.026 .149 .211 .647 .003
Blitz .567 3.930 .768 3.960 .169
Complexity Assembly .609 4.007 .710 .995 4.056 .188 .619 .434 .009
System .415 4.005 .902 3.933 .136
a. R Squared = .100 (Adjusted R Squared = -.086)
b. Sum of Squares: Type III
c. Levene’s Test p = 0.134
Overall, the technology factor has a potential effect on project manager’s
autonomy. Obviously, other factors like project manager’s experience, organisational
structure may have stronger influence on project manager’s autonomy and should be
considered to better explain its variability. It seems that novelty, pace and complexity of
a project does not influence how project managers perceive their work discretion. The
following presentation of the results is less technical and readers of the thesis paper are
referred to Appendix III for the remaining result tables of the main effects.
6.2 Results for Project Governance
Project governance was measured by five items which are analyzed separately.
Analysis of the main factors resulted in seven significant and potentially significant
effects that shape project governance (see Table 6.1). Interestingly, it does not follow
the hypothesized entrepreneurial direction with the only exception of the technology
factor.
Firstly, the higher the technological complexity of the project the more likely it is
that project governance will provide valuable insights and advice. However, the higher-
tech project governance tends to follow more rigid rules and elaborate procedures when
making project decisions. The same exact behaviour can be observed for project scope
complexity factor. When project scope complexity grows, senior managers can provide
more valuable insights, probably, at the expense of more rigidly designed decision
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
54
making rules and procedures. In addition, governance provides significantly less
valuable insights and advice when higher novelty projects are carried out.
Pace has two potentially significant effects on how projects are governed. First of
all, when the pace of a project grows, project governance is less able to remove
obstacles and roadblocks. Secondly, the higher the pace the more elaborate procedures
are imposed to be followed by project teams. In addition, pace is the sole factor that has
any potential effect on these two dependent factor groups. What is more, complexity is
also the single factor having an effect on how project achievements can be reported to
project governing bodies. When the complexity of a project scope grows, teams have
more freedom to choose the reporting procedure.
6.3 Results for Project Management Structure
Project management structure was measured by thirteen items, which are
analyzed under the single factor of ‘project management structure’. Overall, only
project technology factor has a potentially significant effect (see Table 6.1), whereas
other factors do not have an effect on project management structure.
The growing technological complexity of a project pushes organisations to
embrace a more entrepreneurial approach to project management when compared to
less technologically advanced projects. It is important to observe that the factor explains
only 2.6% and the full model only 8.6% of variability in how project management is
structured. This suggests to include other factors, possibly, organisational structure,
individual cognitions of a project manager and teams among others to better explain this
variability. In addition, the direct relation between project governance and project
management structure could be analyzed. The EPM concept suggests only an indirect
relationship between environmental conditions and project management structure
mediated by project governance (see Figure 3.4).
6.4 Results for Project Resource Orientation
Project resource orientation was measured by three items, which are analyzed
separately. The analyses resulted in five significant and potentially significant effects
(see Table 6.1).
Firstly, the growing pace of a project makes it more challenging to revise project
budget. Secondly, the adherence to project schedule by controlling project resources is
stronger when project novelty and pace is higher. Finally, project resources tend to be
borrowed, rented or be outsourced when pace and complexity of a project grows.
6.5 Results for Project Success Measures
Project success was measured by four items, which are analyzed separately. The
analyses provided only one significant effect (see Table 6.1). The growing project scope
complexity pushes organizations to measure project success against business value
added to the project delivering organization. It explains almost 10% of variability,
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
55
which is a relatively large effect size. Overall, all of the factors have a weak effect on
how project success is measured.
This concludes the presentation of research results. In the final chapter of this
dissertation these results are discussed in the light of the hypothesis made in Chapter 4.
Also, the general conclusion of the dissertation is made and possibilities for future
research are proposed.
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
56
7 Discussion and Conclusions
7.1 Discussing Hypotheses
In Chapter 4 it was hypothesized that proclivity towards EPM as defined in this
thesis is stronger when project novelty, technology and pace are higher and when scope
complexity is lower. The following discussion is carried out for each of these
hypotheses separately.
7.1.1 Novelty Effect
The novelty factor has one significant and two partly significant effects out of
fourteen different test scenarios. For projects that have less market innovative outcomes
project governance is significantly more likely to provide valuable insight and advice. It
is opposite to the hypothesized entrepreneurial direction. This result can probably be
explained by assuming that project governance accumulates knowledge over time and
uses it when improving subsequent products. This knowledge is not available when
products are new to market and project teams are given responsibility to research
markets and gain insights on their own, as was also observed by Shenhar and Dvir
(2004).
Project resource orientation is partly impacted by the project’s novelty factor.
Projects that deliver novel outcomes are more rigidly adhering to projected schedules by
adjusting required resources when compared to less innovative projects. This result is in
line with the hypothesis. It is obviously important to push new products to market as
planned in order to gain highest profits, even if it requires additional resources.
Furthermore, as predicted by the hypothesis, innovative project outcomes are more
likely to be delivered by using outsourced, rented or borrowed resources. It is probably
safe to assume that innovative projects are larger in scope and require more resources,
which are more likely to be borrowed, rented or outsourced when compared to
improvement projects. What is more, the growing project scope complexity also has a
partly significant effect on project resource orientation, the fact, which supports the
assumption.
Overall, the novelty factor has a weak effect towards EPM in the collected
research sample. Eleven out of fourteen tests had no significant effect. One effect was
significant, but did not follow, whereas two partly significant effects followed the
hypothesis.
7.1.2 Technology Effect
The technology factor has one significant and one potentially significant effect.
Firstly, in contrast to the novelty effect, growing technological complexity engages
project governance to provide significantly more valuable insights and advices in order
to steer projects. This result follows the hypothesized direction of a stronger
entrepreneurial approach to managing projects as it is defined in this thesis. It could
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
57
probably be held a truly entrepreneurial way if project decisions were left to be made by
project teams that are properly utilizing those insights and advices, as it is meant to be
by the author of this thesis. It is important to observe that technology factor has the
strongest effect (though not significant) out of the four independent factors on project
management structure, which follows the hypothesized direction. One of the attributes
of theorized entrepreneurial project management structure is significant decision
making power delegated to project members and teams, increasing the probability of
entrepreneurial relations between project governance and team. Overall, in the current
author’s opinion, the project management structure factor, as it is designed in this
research, is most important when analysing EPM. The technology factor has a potential
to be a significant factor in determining how project management can be structured in
an organization. In addition, there are more elements, project governance for instance,
where technology can have a significant effect.
Secondly, in this research sample, though not significantly, technology factor has
an effect on project governance that follows the trade-off function. Senior management
is capable to provide insights and advices to technologically challenging projects, but
probably at the expense of adding established checklist type procedures to be followed
by project teams. What is more, senior management makes major project decisions by
following better established rules and procedures when compared to less technically
sophisticated projects. The proper balance point of this trade-off could possibly be
found by further research with project success measures included.
Also, the technology factor follows, though not significantly, the hypothesized
pattern when it comes to project success measures. Success measured as a value added
to business, end-user and community or infrastructure is less important to medium-tech
projects as compared to high tech-projects. On the other hand, project resource
orientation is immune to any significant effect by technology factor. In addition,
technology factor had the strongest and in line with the hypothesis effect on project
manager’s autonomy. Overall, it can be the determining factor when applying
entrepreneurial project management approach.
7.1.3 Pace Effect
Project pace has a significant effect on project resource orientation. The higher
pace projects adhere stronger to schedules by adjusting required resources as compared
to slower pace projects, which are more likely to adjust schedules to the resources at
hand. It follows the hypothesized entrepreneurial direction. In addition, project pace
can have three potentially significant effects if a larger research sample could be
accumulated.
First of all, it could be potentially more difficult to review project budgets as the
pace increases. As Shenhar and Dvir (2004) observed, blitz projects can occur in the
times of crisis. Secondly, a growing project pace can reduce the ability of senior
management to remove obstacles and roadblocks, though Shenhar and Dvir (2004)
emphasize senior management’s involvement in supporting and monitoring this type of
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
58
projects. These results do not follow the hypothesis. Possibly, the criticality of time
reduces the value of time consuming analysis and involvement by project governance,
but instead, it prepares teams for blitz projects by imposing more rigid rules and
procedures to be followed. It could be that these rules and procedures are sole
mechanisms for removing obstacles and roadblocks for certain projects (i.e., rescue
operations).
Shenhar and Dvir (2004) emphasize high levels of autonomy that blitz project
managers have, but in this research autonomy was not significantly different between
two pace levels. Also, the pace variable had no significant effect on how project
management is structured nor how project success is measured. Overall, the pace factor
has a weak effect on EPM. One of its effects follows significantly the hypothesized
entrepreneurial direction, whereas three potentially significant effects follow the
opposite direction. Therefore, the hypothesis of the pace effect can neither be rejected
nor accepted, but rather needs further research and tuning. It is possible, that pace factor
affects the emergence of EPM approach in both directions.
7.1.4 Complexity Effect
The complexity factor has two significant effects. Firstly, it effects how project
governance makes decisions. It follows less rigid rules and procedures when making
decisions for higher complexity projects. Secondly, project success as a value added to
business is a significantly stronger measure for higher complexity projects. These
results contradict the hypothesized values. In addition, opposite to the hypothesized
direction are other partly significant effects.
For system complexity projects governance provides more valuable insights and
advices than it does to assembly type projects. Also, project managers and teams have
more freedom to choose procedures for reporting project achievements to project
governing bodies. And as it was observed previously, larger scope complexity tends to
be dealt with by using more rented, borrowed or outsourced resources.
The hypothesized effect of complexity was based on the premise that ‘smallness’
encourages more entrepreneurial activities. The smallness in this sense is a human
interaction factor, like having small teams. Obviously, it does not apply to the smallness
of scope complexity. It is a gratifying fact that this hypothesis can be rejected and be
actually reversed: the evidence of EPM is stronger when scope complexity is higher.
The sense of smallness can be achieved by having small and dedicated teams with well
established multiple communication channels and delivering results that contribute to
the achievement of large scope project or program outcomes. In addition, project scope
complexity had no significant effect on project management structure and project
manager’s autonomy. This fact imposes that smallness or proclivity towards EPM can
be achieved regardless of the scope complexity and in some instances can even be
stronger for larger scope projects.
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
59
7.2 Conclusions and Future Research
The author of this dissertation endeavoured to apply the knowledge of
entrepreneurship to the project management discipline in a way that would embrace
innovation, autonomy, proactiveness, risk-taking and other characteristics associated
with entrepreneurship. As a result, the concept of EPM was developed. It consolidates
the theory and research of entrepreneurship and project management for delivering
innovative and complex projects and provides a contrast to the prevailing bureaucratic
project management procedures. The proposed concept of EPM has several important
implications.
Firstly, it has been shown by the conducted research that the concept only
moderately resembles the hypothesized nature of how projects are managed in the
collected research sample. The beauty of developing concept lies in the fact that, unlike
building a theory, it may not necessarily represent the nature of reality, but it rather
proposes the new order of things. The elements of EPM concept are certainly not new,
but they were assembled together in a way that constitutes a new approach to
researching, analysing and possibly configuring how projects are managed.
Secondly, the concept of EPM is still in its infancy stage and there is a huge
potential for its further development. For example, antecedents of EPM besides already
modelled project type and individual cognitions could also include other aspects, i.e.
organizational culture and structure, which may also have an effect on how projects are
managed. In addition, a further effort must be made to develop a proper research tool,
which in the case of this research had a relatively high level of abstraction of certain
elements, which may have been misunderstood by research participants. It must be
further developed and tested in order to gain the status of a legitimate research tool.
Thirdly, the concept has to be further researched by measuring project success in
order to prove its suggested advantages over bureaucratic project management
approaches in complex environmental conditions. Success measures could also be used
to fine-tune the concept. In addition, the theoretical outcomes of EPM must also be
empirically researched to be confirmed or reconsidered. What is more, higher level
interactions and interrelations of elements could also be researched to better understand
the combined effects.
Fourthly, due to the entrepreneurial origin of this thesis, the concept, titles and
certain subtitles of the constituent elements are named in a rather pro-entrepreneurship
style. This should not imply that the concept is only applicable to analyze
entrepreneurial projects per se, but could also be renamed and re-titled to emphasize a
general applicability to analyze projects and their characteristics on a scale representing
different approaches. This way, the concept could be used as a new benchmarking tool
with which organisational project management could be improved and configured by
applying characteristics most appropriate to the given project environment and
resources at hand.
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
60
Lastly, the EPM concept does not prescribe any rules or procedures for managing
projects, but rather shares characteristics that should be pursued in the given conditions.
The author of this thesis believes that this way the concept enables a huge range of
possible solutions to achieve the same characteristics for managing projects in a specific
organizational environment. In theory, it should help organizations develop proprietary
project management methods and improve dynamic capabilities and competitive
advantage. In addition, it would contribute to the further development of project
management discipline itself.
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
61
References
Ahmad, N. and Saymour, R.G. (2008), ‘Defining entrepreneurial activity: Definitions
supporting frameworks for data collection’, OECD Statistics Working Papers, 1.
[Online] DOI: 10.1787/243164686763 (Accessed: 13 May 2012).
Aiken, M. and Hage, J. (1971) ‘The organic organization and innovation’, Sociology, 5
(1), pp. 63-82. [Online] DOI: 10.1177/003803857100500105 (Accessed: 13 May 2012).
Arend, R.J. and Chen, Y. (2011) ‘Entrepreneurship as dynamic, complex,
disequilibrious: A focus that benefits strategic organization’, Strategic Organization, 10
(1), pp. 85-95. [Online] DOI: 10.1177/1476127011431340 (Accessed: 6 February
2012).
Archer, T.M. (2003) ‘Web-based surveys’, Journal of Extension, 41 (4), Tools of the
Trade [Online]. Available at:http://www.joe.org/joe/2003august/tt6.php (Accessed: 2
July 2012).
Ashmos, D.P., Duchon, D. and McDaniel, R.R., Jr (2000) ‘Organizational responses to
complexity: the effect on organizational performance’, Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 13 (6), pp. 577-594, ProQuest [Online]. Available at:http://www.proquest.co.uk/ (Accessed: 1 June 2012).
Baron, R.A. (1998) ‘Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when
entrepreneurs think differently than other people’, Journal of Business Venturing, 13
(4), pp. 275-294. [Online] DOI: 10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00031-1 (Accessed: 13 May
2012).
Bettis, R.A. and Hitt, M.A. (1995) ‘The new competitive landscape’, Strategic
Management Journal, 16, pp. 7-19, JSTOR [Online]. Available at:http://www.jstor.org/
(Accessed: 12 May 2012).
Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt, K.M., (1998) Competing on the edge: Strategy as
structured chaos. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
Brown, R.E., Davidsson, P. and Wiklund, J. (2001) ‘An operationalization of
Stevenson’s conceptualization of entrepreneurship as opportunity-based firm behavior’,
Strategic Management Journal, 22 (10), pp. 953-968. [Online] DOI: 10.1002/smj.190
(Accessed: 14 May 2012).
Carifio, J. and Perla, R. (2008) ‘Resolving the 50-year debate around using and
misusing Likert scales’, Medical Education, 42, pp. 1152-1154. [Online] DOI:
10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03173.x (Accessed: 3 August 2012).
Cohen, D.J. and Graham, R.J. (2000) The project manager’s MBA: how to translate
project decisions into business success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cummings, J. and Pletcher, C. (2011) ‘Why project networks beat project teams’, MIT
Sloan Management Review, 52 (3), pp. 75-82, ProQuest [Online]. Available at:http://www.proquest.co.uk/ (Accessed: 17 May 2012).
De Meyer, A., Loch, C.H. and Pich, M.T. (2002) ‘Managing project uncertainty: from
variation to chaos’, MIT Sloan Management Review, 43 (2), pp. 60-67, EBSCO
[Online]. Available at:http://www.ebscohost.com/ (Accessed: 20 May 2012).
Dvir, D., Sadeh, A., Malach-Pines, A. (2006) ‘Projects and project managers: the
relationship between project managers’ personality, project types, and project success’,
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
62
Project Management Journal, 37 (5), pp. 36-48, EBSCO [Online]. Available at:http://www.ebscohost.com/ (Accessed: 2 July 2012).
Eisenhardt, K.M., Brown, S.L. and Neck, H.M. (2000) ‘Competing on the
entrepreneurial edge’, in Meyer, G.D and Heppard, K.A (ed.) Entrepreneurship as
strategy: Competing on the entrepreneurial edge. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications,
Inc., pp. 49-62.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Tabrizi, B.N. (1995) ‘Accelerating adaptive processes: product
innovation in the global computer industry’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (1),
pp. 84-110, ProQuest [Online]. Available at:http://www.proquest.co.uk/ (Accessed: 1
June 2012).
Ekvall, G. (1996) ‘Organizational climate for creativity and innovation’, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5 (1), pp. 105-123. [Online] DOI:
10.1080/13594329608414845 (Accessed: 17 May 2012).
Field, A. (2005) Discovering statistics using SPSS. 2nd edn. London: SAGE
Publications
Foss, N.J. and Klein, P.G. (2012) Organizing entrepreneurial judgement: A new
approach to the firm. New York: Cambridge University Press
Gartner, W.B. (1989) ‘Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and
characteristics’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14 (1), pp. 27-37, EBSCO
[Online]. Available at:http://www.ebscohost.com/ (Accessed: 13 May 2012).
Geraldi, J.G. (2009) ‘Reconciling order and chaos in multi-project firms’, International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2 (1), pp. 149-158, ProQuest [Online].
Available at:http://www.proquest.co.uk/ (Accessed: 12 May 2012).
Gibb, A. (2000) ‘Corporate restructuring and entrepreneurship: what can large
organizations learn from small?’. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 1 (1),
pp. 19-35, EBSCO [Online]. Available at:http://www.ebscohost.com/ (Accessed: 20
May 2012).
Guth, W.D. and Ginsberg, A. (1990) ‘Guest editors’ introduction: Corporate
entrepreneurship’, Strategic Management Journal, 11 (5), pp. 5-15. [Online]. DOI:
10.1016/j.ymeth.2009.12.016 (Accessed: 14 May 2012).
Hebert, R.F. and Link, A.N. (1989) ‘In search of the meaning of entrepreneurship’,
Small Business Economics, 1 (1), pp. 39-49. [Online] DOI: 10.1007/BF00389915
(Accessed: 13 May 2012).
Hodgson, D. (2002) ‘Disciplining the professional: The case of project management’,
Journal of Management Studies, 39 (6), pp. 803-821. [Online] DOI: 10.1111/1467-
6486.00312 (Accessed: 12 May 2012).
Hodgson, D. (2004) ‘Project work: The legacy of bureaucratic control in the post-
bureaucratic organization’, Organisation, 11 (1), pp. 81-100, ProQuest [Online].
Available at:http://www.proquest.co.uk/ (Accessed: 12 May 2012).
Hoegl, M. and Parboteeah, K.P. (2006) ‘Autonomy and teamwork in innovative
projects’, Human Resource Management, 45 (1), pp. 67-79. [Online] DOI:
10.1002/hrm.20092 (Accessed: 20 May 2012).
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
63
Ireland, R.D., Covin, J.G. and Kuratko, D.F. (2009) ‘Conceptualizing corporate
entrepreneurship strategy’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33 (1), pp. 19-46.
[Online] DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00279.x (Accessed: 13 May 2012).
Ireland, R.D., Kuratko, D.F. and Morris, M.H. (2006) ‘A health audit for corporate
entrepreneurship: innovation at al levels: part II’, Journal of Business Strategy, 27 (2),
pp. 21-30. [Online] DOI: 10.1108/02756660610650019 (Accessed: 1 May 2012).
Jaafari, A. (2001) ‘Management of risks, uncertainties and opportunities on projects:
time for a fundamental shift’, International Journal of Project Management, 19 (2), pp.
89-101. [Online] DOI: 10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00047-2 (Accessed: 20 May 2012).
Jaafari, A. (2003) ‘Project management in the age of complexity and change’, Project
Management Journal, 34 (4), pp. 47-57, EBSCO [Online]. Available at:http://www.ebscohost.com/ (Accessed: 1 June 2012).
Kanter, R.M. (1986) ‘The new workforce meets the changing workplace: Strains,
dilemmas, and contradictions in attempts to implement participative and entrepreneurial
management’, Human Resource Management, 25 (4), pp. 515-537 ProQuest [Online].
Available at:http://www.proquest.co.uk/ (Accessed: 12 May 2012).
Kirzner, I.M. (2009) ‘The alert and creative entrepreneur: A clarification’, Small
Business Economics, 32 (2), pp. 145-152. [Online] DOI: 10.1007/s11187-008-9153-7
(Accessed: 13 May 2012).
Kwak, Y.H. and Laplace, K.S. (2005) ‘Examining risk tolerance in project-driven
organization’, Technovation, 25, pp. 691-695. [Online] DOI:
10.1016/j.technovation.2003.09.003 (Accessed: 14 February 2012).
Lewis, M.W., Welsh, M.A., Dehler, G.E. and Green, S.G. (2002) ‘Product development
tensions: exploring contrasting styles of project management’, Academy of Management
Journal, 45 (3), pp. 546-564, JSTOR [Online]. Available at:http://www.jstor.org/
(Accessed: 8 February 2012).
Lindkvist, L., Soderlund, J. and Tell, F. (1998) ‘Managing product development
projects: On the significance of fountains and deadlines’, Organization Studies, 19 (6),
pp. 931-951. [Online] DOI: 10.1177/017084069801900602 (Accessed: 18 May 2012).
Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996) ‘Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation
construct and linking it to performance’, Academy of Management Review, 21 (1), pp.
135-172, ProQuest [Online]. Available at:http://www.proquest.co.uk/ (Accessed: 14
May 2012).
Lumpkin, G.T., Cogliser, C.C. and Schneider, D.R. (2009) ‘Understanding and
measuring autonomy: An entrepreneurial orientation perspective’, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 33 (1), pp. 47-69. [Online] DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-
6520.2008.00280.x (Accessed: 14 May 2012).
Maylor, H. (2010) Project Management. 4th edn. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
Malach-Pines, A., Sadeh, A., Dvir, D. and Yafe-Yanai, O. (2002) ‘Entrepreneurs and
managers: Similar yet different’, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
10 (2), pp. 172-190, ProQuest [Online]. Available at:http://www.proquest.co.uk/
(Accessed: 13 May 2012).
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
64
Miller, D. (1983) ‘The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms’,
Management Science, 29 (7), pp. 770-791, ProQuest [Online]. Available at:http://www.proquest.co.uk/ (Accessed: 14 May 2012).
Packendorff, J. (1995) ‘Inquiring into the temporary organization: New direction for
project management research’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), pp. 319-
333, ScienceDirect [Online]. Available at:http://www.sciencedirect.com/ (Accessed: 17
May 2012).
Palich, L.E. and Bagby, D.R. (1995) ‘Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial
risk-taking: Challenging conventional wisdom’, Journal of Business Venturing, 10 (6),
pp. 425-438. [Online] DOI: 10.1016/0883-9026(95)00082-J (Accessed: 14 May 2012).
Parker, S.K., Turner, N. and Williams, H.M. (2006) ‘Modeling the antecedents of
proactive behavior at work’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (3), pp. 636-652.
[Online] DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636 (Accessed: 1 June 2012).
Pich, M.T., Loch, C.H. and De Meyer, A. (2002) ‘On uncertainty, ambiguity, and
complexity in project management’, Management Science, 48 (8), pp. 1008-1023,
JSTOR [Online]. Available at:http://www.jstor.org/ (Accessed: 2 February 2012).
Pinchot, G. (1985) Intrapreneuring: Why you don’t have to leave the corporation to
become an entrepreneur. New York: Harper & Row.
Project Management Body of Knowledge (2008) 4th edn. Newtown Square: Project
Management Institute, Inc.
Razali, N.M. and Wah, Y.B. (2011) ‘Power comparison of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorow-
Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests’, Journal of Statistical Modeling and
Analytics, 2 (1), pp. 21-33, [Online]. Available at:http://instatmy.org.my/downloads/e-
jurnal%202/3.pdf (Accessed: 3 August 2012).
Sharma, P. and Chrisman, J.J. (1999) ‘Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues
in the field of corporate entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23
(3), pp. 11-27, EBSCO [Online]. Available at:http://www.ebscohost.com/ (Accessed:
14 May 2012).
Shenhar, A.J. and Dvir, D. (1996) ‘Toward a typological theory of project
management’, Research Policy, 25 (4), pp. 607-632. [Online] DOI: 10.1016/0048-
7333(95)00877-2 (Accessed: 19 May 2012).
Shenhar, A.J. and Dvir, D. (2004) ‘How projects differ, and what to do about it’, in
Pinto, J.K. and Morris, P.W.G., The Wiley guide to managing projects. New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Stevenson, H.H. and Jarillo, J.C. (1990) ‘A paradigm of entrepreneurship:
Entrepreneurial management’, Strategic Management Journal, 11, pp. 17-27, JSTOR
[Online]. Available at:http://www.jstor.org/ (Accessed: 6 January 2012).
Stevenson, H.H. (1999) ‘A perspective on entrepreneurship’, in Sahlman, W.A. et al.
The entrepreneurial venture: readings selected. 2nd edn. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Stewart, A. (1991) ‘A prospectus on the anthropology of entrepreneurship’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16 (2), pp. 71-91, EBSCO [Online]. Available
at:http://www.ebscohost.com/ (Accessed: 13 May 2012).
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
65
Strauss, K., Griffin, M.A. and Rafferty, A.E. (2009) ‘Proactivity directed toward the
team and organization: the role of leadership, commitment and role-breadth self-
efficacy’, British Journal of Management, 20 (3), pp. 279-291. [Online] DOI:
10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00590.x (Accessed: 1 June 2012).
Teece, D.J. (2007) ‘Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations
of (sustainable) enterprise performance’, Strategic Management Journal, 28, pp. 1319-
1350. [Online] DOI: 10.1002/smj.640 (Accessed: 15 January 2012).
Turner, J.R. and Cochrane, R.A. (1993) ‘Goals-and-methods matrix: Coping with
projects with ill defined goals and/or methods of achieving them’, International Journal
of Project Management, 11 (2), pp. 93-102. [Online] DOI: 10.1016/0263-
7863(93)90017-H (Accessed: 19 May 2012).
Wallin, J., Larsson, A., Isaksson, O. and Larsson, T. (2011) ‘Measuring innovation
capability – assessing collaborative performance in product-service system innovation’,
3rd CIRP international conference on industrial product service systems.
Braunschweig, no date. Available at:http://pure.ltu.se/portal/files/33033016/WallinLarssonIsaksson_MeasuringInnovationCa
pabilityInProductServiceSystemFocusedDevelopment_2011.pdf (Accessed: 20 May
2012).
Webb, J. (2000) ‘Questionnaires and their design’, The Marketing Review, 1 (2), pp.
197-218, EBSCO [Online]. Available at:http://www.ebscohost.com/ (Accessed: 2 July
2012).
Williams, T. (2005) ‘Assessing and moving on from the dominant project management
discourse in the light of project overruns’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 52 (4). [Online] DOI: 10.1109/TEM.2005.856572 (Accessed: 19 May
2012).
Williams, H.M., Parker, S.K. and Turner, N. (2010) ‘Proactively performing teams: the
role of work design, transformational leadership, and team composition’, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83 (2), pp. 301-324. [Online] DOI:
10.1348/096317910X502494 (Accessed: 1 June 2012).
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
66
Appendixes
Appendix I
Table I.1 Comparison of creative-reflective and rational process-driven project
management professionals (Lester 1994; in Jaafari, 2003)
POINT Normative (process-driven) model Creative-reflective model
Character Technical, logical; problem solving Creative, interpretative; design
Capability Solvable, convergent problems Congruent futures; ‘messes’,
problematic situations, divergent
problems
Approach Solving problems; applying
knowledge competently and rationally
Understanding problematic
situations and resolving conflicts of
value; framing and creating desired
outcomes
Criteria Logic, efficiency, planned outcomes;
cause-effect, proof
Values, ethics, congruence of both
methods and outcomes; systemic
interrelationships, theory, faith
Epistemology Objectivism: knowledge is stable and
general; precedes and guides action
Constructivism: knowledge is
transient, situational, personal and
unique; both informs action and is
generated by it
Validation By reference to other’s expectations:
standards, accepted wisdom
By questioning fitness for purpose,
fitness of purpose and systemic
discourse; ‘truth’ validity; ‘value’
Thinking Primarily deductive/analytical;
sceptical of intuition
Inductive, deductive and abductive;
uses ‘intelligent intuition’
Profession A bounded, externally-defined role,
characterized by norms, values and a
knowledge-base common to the
profession
A portfolio of learningful activity
individual to the practitioner,
integrated by personal identity,
perspectives, values and capabilities
Professionalism Objectivity, rules, codes of practice Exploration of own and others’
values, personal ethics, mutual
inquiry, shared expectations
Professional
standards
Defined by the employer, professional
body or other external agency
according to its norms
Negotiated by the participants and
situation in accordance with their
and values other stakeholders in the
practice values, beliefs and desired
outcomes
Professional Initial development concerned with
acquiring development knowledge,
developing competence and
enculturation into the profession’s
value system; continuing
development concerned with
maintaining competence and updating
knowledge
Ongoing learning and practice
through reflective practice, critical
enquiry and creative synthesis and
action; continual questioning and
refinement of personal knowledge,
understanding, practice, values and
beliefs
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
67
Appendix II
Online questionnaire available at:
(R) – denotes reversed items.
Entrepreneurial Orientation of Project Management
Hello and welcome to the survey studying entrepreneurial orientation of project management
along various project types. This survey is part of the Master's thesis research in project
management. It was tested to take less than 15 minutes to complete. All your responses will be
kept strictly confidential.
The survey consists of 16 questions. Questions 1 to 7 are general questions regarding your
organisation and basic project characteristics. Your answers to questions 8 to 11 will be used to
identify the type of projects you typically manage. Questions 12 to 16 are a collection of
statements to determine entrepreneurial orientation towards project management in your
organisation. There is no right or wrong answer to these statements, it is only your opinion that
truly matters.
Thank you for your participation!
This poll results are private
1. What is the principal industry of your organisation?

2. How old is your organisation?
Up to 5 years
6 to 20 years
21 to 50 years
Older than 51 years
3. How many employees does your organisation have?
250
4. How many years of project management experience do you have?
7 years
I am not in project management
5. What is the average budget of proj ects you manage?
Less than 100 000 EU (~130 000 $)
100 000 - 500 000 EU (~130 000
500 000 - 1 500 000 EU (635 000
More than 1 500 000 EU (1 905 000 $)
6. What is the average duration of projects you manage?
1 to 3 months
3 to 9 months
9 to 18 months
more than 18 months
7. How many members are included in the core team of your average
project?
1-5 persons
6-10 persons
11-20 persons
More than 20 persons
8. Which statement best describes the typical outcome of your managed
project?
An extension or improvement of an existing product or service
A new generation in an existing product or service family
A new-to-the-world product or service
Partnership building or sales related project
None of the above
9. Which statement best describes the typical project you manage?
There is no new technology involved
There is some new technology involved
I am not in project management
What is the average budget of proj ects you manage?
Less than 100 000 EU (~130 000 $)
500 000 EU (~130 000 - 635 000 $)
1 500 000 EU (635 000 - 1 905 000 $)
than 1 500 000 EU (1 905 000 $)
What is the average duration of projects you manage?
How many members are included in the core team of your average
Which statement best describes the typical outcome of your managed
An extension or improvement of an existing product or service
A new generation in an existing product or service family
product or service
Partnership building or sales related project
Which statement best describes the typical project you manage?
There is no new technology involved
There is some new technology involved
How many members are included in the core team of your average
Which statement best describes the typical outcome of your managed
Which statement best describes the typical project you manage?
New, but existing technology
Key technologies for the project do not exist at its initiation
None of the above
10. Which statement applies best to the typical project you manage?
Time is not critical to organisational success
Time-to-market is a competitive advantage and
Time is critical for project success. Delays mean project failure
11. Which statement best describes the scope complexity of your typical
project?
Project involves a collection of elements, components, and modules combine
that is performing a single function; less than 150 activities in the network (e.g., a coffee machine,
subsystem of a system, restructuring functional unit)
Project involves a complex collection of interactive elements and subsystems,
to a wide range of functions; up to few thousand activities in the network (e.g., a computer, a large
software system, a business unit reorganization)
Project involves a widespread collection of systems functioning together to achieve a
mission; up to ten thousand activities in the network (e.g., a city's highway system, a national
communication network, restructuring of a global corporation)
12. Project Manager's Autonomy
I feel that I am my own boss and do not have to double check
This organization provides the chance to be creative and try my own project management methods and
processes
This organization provides freedom to use my own judgment
There are many written rules and procedures
It is basically my own responsibility to decide how my project is managed
I almost always get to decide what I do on my job
New project management processes are implemented without going through
approval procedures
13. Project Governance
Upper management makes major project decisions by following rigid rules and elaborate procedures
New, but existing technology is involved
Key technologies for the project do not exist at its initiation
Which statement appl ies best to the typical project you manage?
Time is not critical to organisational success
market is a competitive advantage and has an impact on business success
Time is critical for project success. Delays mean project failure
Which statement best describes the scope complexity of your typical
Project involves a collection of elements, components, and modules combine
that is performing a single function; less than 150 activities in the network (e.g., a coffee machine,
subsystem of a system, restructuring functional unit)
Project involves a complex collection of interactive elements and subsystems,
to a wide range of functions; up to few thousand activities in the network (e.g., a computer, a large
software system, a business unit reorganization)
Project involves a widespread collection of systems functioning together to achieve a
mission; up to ten thousand activities in the network (e.g., a city's highway system, a national
communication network, restructuring of a global corporation)
Project Manager's Autonomy
I feel that I am my own boss and do not have to double check all of my decisions with someone else
This organization provides the chance to be creative and try my own project management methods and
This organization provides freedom to use my own judgment
There are many written rules and procedures that define project management process to be followed
It is basically my own responsibility to decide how my project is managed
I almost always get to decide what I do on my job
New project management processes are implemented without going through elaborate justification and
Upper management makes major project decisions by following rigid rules and elaborate procedures
Which statement applies best to the typical project you manage?
has an impact on business success
Which statement best describes the scope complexity of your typical
Project involves a collection of elements, components, and modules combined into a single unit
that is performing a single function; less than 150 activities in the network (e.g., a coffee machine,
Project involves a complex collection of interactive elements and subsystems, jointly dedicated
to a wide range of functions; up to few thousand activities in the network (e.g., a computer, a large
Project involves a widespread collection of systems functioning together to achieve a common
mission; up to ten thousand activities in the network (e.g., a city's highway system, a national
all of my decisions with someone else
This organization provides the chance to be creative and try my own project management methods and
that define project management process to be followed (R)
elaborate justification and
Upper management makes major project decisions by following rigid rules and elaborate procedures (R)
Senior managers support my project by removing obstacles and roadblocks
Project governance often provides valuable insight and advice to steer my project
Project governance imposes rigid and well established checklist type procedures to follow
Project manager and team decide how to present project performance and achievements to
bodies
14. Project Management Structure
We prefer loose, informal project control. There is a dependence on informal relations
We strongly emphasize getting things done even if this means disregarding formal project procedures
(MS)
We strongly emphasize adapting freely to changing circumstances without much concern for past
project practices (MS)
Manager's operating style is allowed to range freely from very formal to very informal
Project roles tend to be broadly defined with
(proactiveness, autonomy)
We tend to take calculated risks in order to keep projects on track
Project decisions are made fast, without over detailed investigation and analysis
Project team members have considerable decision making power
Constructive discussions and debates are usual during project meetings
We often share a joke and laugh during project meetings
Project team relations are based on high trust and respect
Changes in the project are expected and made without much bureaucracy
Project team continuously engages in communication on project matters that cross team boundaries
(innovativeness)
15. Project Resource Orientation
Once project budget is finalized and accepted, it is difficult to revise
Project schedule controls the need for project resources (as opposed to project resources under control
determine project schedule)
Project resources are totally controlled and owned by the organization (as opposed to being rented or
borrowed) (R)
Senior managers support my project by removing obstacles and roadblocks
governance often provides valuable insight and advice to steer my project
Project governance imposes rigid and well established checklist type procedures to follow
Project manager and team decide how to present project performance and achievements to
Project Management Structure
We prefer loose, informal project control. There is a dependence on informal relations
We strongly emphasize getting things done even if this means disregarding formal project procedures
ngly emphasize adapting freely to changing circumstances without much concern for past
Manager's operating style is allowed to range freely from very formal to very informal
Project roles tend to be broadly defined with considerable freedom on how tasks are performed
We tend to take calculated risks in order to keep projects on track (risk-taking)
Project decisions are made fast, without over detailed investigation and analysis (innovativeness)
Project team members have considerable decision making power (autonomy)
Constructive discussions and debates are usual during project meetings (innovativeness)
We often share a joke and laugh during project meetings (innovativeness)
ions are based on high trust and respect (innovativeness)
Changes in the project are expected and made without much bureaucracy (innovativeness)
Project team continuously engages in communication on project matters that cross team boundaries
Project Resource Ori entation
Once project budget is finalized and accepted, it is difficult to revise (R)
Project schedule controls the need for project resources (as opposed to project resources under control
schedule)
Project resources are totally controlled and owned by the organization (as opposed to being rented or
Project governance imposes rigid and well established checklist type procedures to follow (R)
Project manager and team decide how to present project performance and achievements to governing
We prefer loose, informal project control. There is a dependence on informal relations (MS)
We strongly emphasize getting things done even if this means disregarding formal project procedures
ngly emphasize adapting freely to changing circumstances without much concern for past
Manager's operating style is allowed to range freely from very formal to very informal (MS)
considerable freedom on how tasks are performed
(innovativeness)
(innovativeness)
(innovativeness)
Project team continuously engages in communication on project matters that cross team boundaries
Project schedule controls the need for project resources (as opposed to project resources under control
Project resources are totally controlled and owned by the organization (as opposed to being rented or
16. Project Success Measures
Our project success is mainly measured against predetermined scope, time and budget
Business value added to the developing organisation is the success measure of our projects
Our project success is mainly measured by the benefit added to the end
Benefit added to the community and/or national infrastructure is what
success measure
Project Success Measures Orientation
Our project success is mainly measured against predetermined scope, time and budget
Business value added to the developing organisation is the success measure of our projects
Our project success is mainly measured by the benefit added to the end-user
Benefit added to the community and/or national infrastructure is what we consider our main project
Our project success is mainly measured against predetermined scope, time and budget constraints (R)
Business value added to the developing organisation is the success measure of our projects
we consider our main project
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
72
Appendix III
Table III.1 Main effects of independent factors on project governance (I)
Dependent Variable: [EPG] Upper mgmt. makes pj. decisions by following simple rules and procedures
Mann-Whitney Factorial ANOVA
a,b,c
Source Level
Shap.-
Wilk p
Mean
Std.
Dev.
p (2-
tailed)
Marginal
Mean
Std.
Err.
F p ??²
Novelty Derivative .003 3.526 1.428 .951 3.514 .299 .025 .875 .000
Platform .000 3.513 1.805 3.419 .316
Technology Medium .001 3.667 1.628 .350 3.717 .291 2.206 .143 .034
High .000 3.368 1.618 3.173 .330
Pace Fast .002 3.610 1.579 .631 3.529 .286 .000 .988 .000
Blitz .002 3.417 1.680 3.406 .324
Complexity Assembly .002 3.000 1.842 .067 2.962 .353 5.586 .021 .083
System .000 3.755 1.466 3.902 .269
a. R Squared = .167 (Adjusted R Squared = -.021)
b. Sum of Squares: Type III
c. Levene’s Test p = 0.200
Table III.2 Main effects of independent factors on project governance (II)
Dependent Variable:[EPG] Sr. mgrs. support my project by removing obstacles and roadblocks
Mann-Whitney Factorial ANOVA
a,b,c
Source Level
Shap.-
Wilk p
Mean
Std.
Dev.
p (2-
tailed)
Marginal
Mean
Std.
Err.
F p ??²
Novelty Derivative .001 3.846 1.226 .908 3.639 .282 .236 .629 .004
Platform .005 3.875 1.453 3.646 .263
Technology Medium .006 3.842 1.220 .796 3.597 .276 .515 .475 .008
High .001 3.878 1.452 3.695 .265
Pace Fast .001 4.023 1.354 .308 3.938 .244 2.658 .108 .040
Blitz .000 3.667 1.309 3.384 .291
Complexity Assembly .015 3.792 1.318 .711 3.507 .325 .078 .781 .001
System .001 3.891 1.356 3.762 .222
a. R Squared = .130 (Adjusted R Squared = -.061)
b. Sum of Squares: Type III
c. Levene’s Test p = 0.058
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
73
Table III.3 Main effects of independent factors on project governance (III)
Dependent Variable:[EPG] Pj. gov. provides valuable insight and advice
Mann-Whitney Factorial ANOVA
a,b,c
Source Level
Shap.-
Wilk p
Mean
Std.
Dev.
p (2-
tailed)
Marginal
Mean
Std.
Err.
F p ??²
Novelty Derivative .002 4.412 1.158 .099 4.145 .250 4.972 .030 .079
Platform .015 3.897 1.334 3.785 .239
Technology Medium .013 3.909 1.422 .264 3.676 .244 6.224 .015 .097
High .004 4.325 1.118 4.269 .243
Pace Fast .006 4.071 1.351 .705 4.042 .226 1.901 .173 .032
Blitz .015 4.226 1.175 3.875 .257
Complexity Assembly .092 3.727 1.638 .157 3.479 .293 2.255 .139 .037
System .001 4.314 1.049 4.368 .198
a. R Squared = .290 (Adjusted R Squared = .119)
b. Sum of Squares: Type III
c. Levene’s Test p = 0.246
Table III.4. Main effects of independent factors on project governance (IV)
Dependent Variable:[EPG] Pj. gov. imposes simple procedures to follow
Mann-Whitney Factorial ANOVA
a,b,c
Source Level
Shap.-
Wilk p
Mean
Std.
Dev.
p (2-
tailed)
Marginal
Mean
Std.
Err.
F p ??²
Novelty Derivative .009 3.135 1.398 .300 3.131 .285 .689 .410 .011
Platform .005 3.500 1.566 3.522 .292
Technology Medium .002 3.500 1.502 .348 3.581 .268 1.284 .261 .020
High .017 3.154 1.479 3.063 .315
Pace Fast .007 3.628 1.496 .050 3.837 .280 3.149 .081 .047
Blitz .005 2.972 1.424 2.904 .296
Complexity Assembly .094 3.455 1.654 .670 3.355 .345 .025 .875 .000
System .001 3.281 1.436 3.326 .238
a. R Squared = .150 (Adjusted R Squared = -.036)
b. Sum of Squares: Type III
c. Levene’s Test p = 0.910
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
74
Table III.5 Main effects of independent factors on project governance (V)
Dependent Variable: [EPG] Pj. mgr. and team decide how to report pj. achievements
Mann-Whitney Factorial ANOVA
a,b,c
Source Level
Shap.-
Wilk p
Mean
Std.
Dev.
p (2-
tailed)
Marginal
Mean
Std.
Err.
F p ??²
Novelty Derivative .004 4.389 1.178 .352 4.166 .293 .985 .325 .016
Platform .002 4.024 1.475 3.851 .265
Technology Medium .004 4.128 1.454 .774 3.939 .271 .284 .596 .005
High .002 4.263 1.245 4.066 .286
Pace Fast .002 4.190 1.435 .919 4.092 .253 .242 .625 .004
Blitz .003 4.200 1.256 3.916 .295
Complexity Assembly .075 3.682 1.524 .045 3.607 .340 2.991 .089 .046
System .000 4.400 1.226 4.341 .218
a. R Squared = .148 (Adjusted R Squared = -.044)
b. Sum of Squares: Type III
c. Levene’s Test p = 0.017
Table III.6 Main effects of independent factors on project management structure
Dependent Variable:[PMS] Project management structure
Independent t-test Factorial ANOVA
a,b,c
Source Level
Shap.-
Wilk p
Mean
Std.
Dev.
p (2-
tailed)
Marginal
Mean
Std.
Err.
F p ??²
Novelty Derivative .120 4.151 .712 .929 4.155 .128 .267 .607 .004
Platform .442 4.165 .451 4.123 .134
Technology Medium .089 4.069 .649 .242 4.033 .126 1.790 .185 .026
High .207 4.246 .718 4.258 .139
Pace Fast .279 4.165 .702 .917 4.124 .122 .009 .926 .000
Blitz .515 4.149 .676 4.149 .138
Complexity Assembly .254 4.125 .685 .771 4.146 .154 .054 .817 .001
System .361 4.173 .693 4.130 .111
a. R Squared = .086 (Adjusted R Squared = -.102)
b. Sum of Squares: Type III
c. Levene’s Test p = 0.260
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
75
Table III.7 Main effects of independent factors on project resource orientation (I)
Dependent Variable: [PRO] Once pj. budget is finalized, it is easy to review
Mann-Whitney Factorial ANOVA
a,b,c
Source Level
Shap.-
Wilk p
Mean
Std.
Dev.
p (2-
tailed)
Marginal
Mean
Std.
Err.
F p ??²
Novelty Derivative .020 3.000 1.354 .688 3.099 .263 .272 .604 .004
Platform .008 3.175 1.551 3.067 .276
Technology Medium .006 3.128 1.454 .883 3.063 .251 .327 .570 .005
High .013 3.053 1.469 3.104 .295
Pace Fast .008 3.272 1.500 .236 3.243 .243 2.018 .160 .032
Blitz .022 2.848 1.372 2.941 .290
Complexity Assembly .098 3.208 1.474 .629 3.060 .312 .123 .727 .002
System .002 3.038 1.454 3.102 .235
a. R Squared = .205 (Adjusted R Squared = .026)
b. Sum of Squares: Type III
c. Levene’s Test p = 0.231
Table III.8 Main effects of independent factors on project resource orientation (II)
Dependent Variable: [PRO] Pj. schedule controls pj. resources
Mann-Whitney Factorial ANOVA
a,b,c
Source Level
Shap.-
Wilk p
Mean
Std.
Dev.
p (2-
tailed)
Marginal
Mean
Std.
Err.
F p ??²
Novelty Derivative .000 3.794 1.225 .071 3.835 .241 3.557 .064 .057
Platform .001 4.275 1.358 4.503 .264
Technology Medium .011 3.974 1.345 .486 4.043 .224 .102 .750 .002
High .000 4.139 1.291 4.361 .289
Pace Fast .002 3.750 1.410 .041 3.711 .265 4.320 .042 .068
Blitz .001 4.412 1.104 4.612 .246
Complexity Assembly .015 3.905 1.375 .574 3.960 .310 1.391 .243 .023
System .000 4.113 1.296 4.394 .201
a. R Squared = .271 (Adjusted R Squared = .098)
b. Sum of Squares: Type III
c. Levene’s Test p = 0.412
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
76
Table III.9 Main effects of independent factors on project resource orientation (III)
Dependent Variable: [PRO] Pj. resources are rented, borrowed or outsourced
Mann-Whitney Factorial ANOVA
a,b,c
Source Level
Shap.-
Wilk p
Mean
Std.
Dev.
p (2-
tailed)
Marginal
Mean
Std.
Err.
F p ??²
Novelty Derivative .000 2.629 1.416 .024 2.714 .272 2.505 .119 .041
Platform .003 3.368 1.460 3.175 .287
Technology Medium .000 3.000 1.434 .949 3.152 .264 1.588 .213 .027
High .004 3.028 1.540 2.740 .300
Pace Fast .001 2.974 1.513 .725 2.648 .277 3.326 .073 .054
Blitz .002 3.059 1.455 3.233 .283
Complexity Assembly .005 2.682 1.460 .183 2.707 .332 2.742 .103 .045
System .000 3.157 1.475 3.181 .233
a. R Squared = .212 (Adjusted R Squared = .021)
b. Sum of Squares: Type III
c. Levene’s Test p = 0.188
Table III.10 Main effects of independent factors on project success measures (I)
Dependent Variable: [PSM] Against budget, time and quality constraints
Mann-Whitney Factorial ANOVA
a,b,c
Source Level
Shap.-
Wilk p
Mean
Std.
Dev.
p (2-
tailed)
Marginal
Mean
Std.
Err.
F p ??²
Novelty Derivative .000 4.744 .910 .695 4.789 .178 .000 .997 .000
Platform .000 4.625 1.005 4.675 .186
Technology Medium .000 4.725 .960 .672 4.796 .175 .680 .413 .011
High .000 4.641 .959 4.651 .193
Pace Fast .000 4.698 .887 .997 4.719 .170 .213 .646 .003
Blitz .000 4.667 1.042 4.736 .192
Complexity Assembly .000 4.840 .554 .546 4.852 .214 .143 .706 .002
System .000 4.611 1.089 4.620 .155
a. R Squared = .099 (Adjusted R Squared = -.098)
b. Sum of Squares: Type III
c. Levene’s Test p = 0.004
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
77
Table III.11 Main effects of independent factors on project success measures (II)
Dependent Variable: [PSM] Against business value added
Mann-Whitney Factorial ANOVA
a,b,c
Source Level
Shap.-
Wilk p
Mean
Std.
Dev.
p (2-
tailed)
Marginal
Mean
Std.
Err.
F p ??²
Novelty Derivative .007 4.179 1.233 .911 4.082 .243 1.178 .282 .019
Platform .001 4.079 1.531 4.337 .273
Technology Medium .006 4.026 1.345 .391 4.075 .251 .220 .641 .004
High .001 4.231 1.423 4.381 .273
Pace Fast .000 4.142 1.507 .625 4.128 .237 .553 .460 .009
Blitz .005 4.114 1.231 4.296 .277
Complexity Assembly .046 3.640 1.381 .030 3.733 .289 6.804 .011 .099
System .000 4.365 1.329 4.642 .236
a. R Squared = .214 (Adjusted R Squared = .037)
b. Sum of Squares: Type III
c. Levene’s Test p = 0.103
Table III.12 Main effects of independent factors on project success measures (III)
Dependent Variable: [PSM] Against benefit added to the end-user
Mann-Whitney Factorial ANOVA
a,b,c
Source Level
Shap.-
Wilk p
Mean
Std.
Dev.
p (2-
tailed)
Marginal
Mean
Std.
Err.
F p ??²
Novelty Derivative .007 4.025 1.250 .569 4.016 .253 2.097 .152 .031
Platform .001 3.750 1.548 3.601 .277
Technology Medium .000 3.769 1.366 .391 3.640 .261 1.249 .268 .019
High .001 4.000 1.449 3.972 .274
Pace Fast .004 3.818 1.498 .601 3.715 .245 .013 .909 .000
Blitz .000 3.972 1.298 3.864 .282
Complexity Assembly .008 3.640 1.497 .388 3.602 .303 .430 .514 .007
System .000 4.000 1.361 3.963 .234
a. R Squared = .159 (Adjusted R Squared = -.022)
b. Sum of Squares: Type III
c. Levene’s Test p = 0.566
CHALMERS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master’s Thesis 2012:43
78
Table III.13 Main effects of independent factors on project success measures (IV)
Dependent Variable: [PSM] Against benefit added to the community
Mann-Whitney Factorial ANOVA
a,b,c
Source Level
Shap.-
Wilk p
Mean
Std.
Dev.
p (2-
tailed)
Marginal
Mean
Std.
Err.
F p ??²
Novelty Derivative .005 3.057 1.413 .840 3.055 .291 .437 .511 .007
Platform .003 3.125 1.522 2.927 .327
Technology Medium .001 2.872 1.436 .192 2.831 .272 1.025 .315 .017
High .006 3.333 1.474 3.165 .357
Pace Fast .003 3.114 1.450 .862 3.015 .266 .210 .649 .003
Blitz .010 3.065 1.504 2.962 .343
Complexity Assembly .015 2.727 1.609 .143 2.693 .373 .791 .377 .013
System .001 3.245 1.385 3.244 .255
a. R Squared = .100 (Adjusted R Squared = -.110)
b. Sum of Squares: Type III
c. Levene’s Test p = 0.163
chalmers uni versi ty of technology
se 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden
Phone: + 46 - (0)31 772 10 00
Web: www.chalmers.se
Entrepreneurial Project Management
Developing and Testing the Concept
Master of Science Thesis in the Master’s Programme International Project
Management
ANDRIUS GEDVILAS
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Division of Construction Management
CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Göteborg, Sweden 2012
Master’s Thesis 2012:43

doc_842896146.pdf