- Email: [email protected]
The role of project management in university computing resource departments
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
PROJECT MANAGEMENT International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 640–649 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
The role of project management in university computing resource departments David Wierschem *, Chuck Johnston
1
Midwestern State University, 3410 Taft Blvd., Wichita Falls, TX 76308-2099, United States Received 25 January 2005; received in revised form 12 April 2005; accepted 17 May 2005
Abstract TodayÕs businesses have learned the value of incorporating formal project management practices and tools. However, the drivers that have pushed businesses to adopt them have not had as large an impact on institutions of higher education. This paper investigates the acceptance and usage of formal project management techniques by university information technology departments. Results of a mail survey determined that current university IT departments lag behind their business peers in the adoption and usage of project management practices and tools. Additionally, it was discovered that the most utilized project management function by the academic institutions was project planning. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved. Keywords: Information technology; Environmental; Value
1. Introduction Project management (PM) as a discipline is well established. Acknowledged to have conceptually begun with the World War II Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb [1], its evolution and acceptance has continued to expand. Structured around the everpresent concerns related to scheduling project tasks, Gantt charts have become its most commonly recognized communication tool. Manually constructed timescaled bar charts were first developed by Henry Gantt in 1917 to solve the problem of scheduling troops during World War I. As military and industry projects became more complex, methods such as the critical path method (CPM) and program evaluation and review technique *
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 940 397 6260; fax: +1 940 397 4280. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Wierschem), [email protected] (C. Johnston). 1 Tel.: +1 940 397 4361; fax: +1 940 397 4280. 0263-7863/$30.00 Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.05.005
(PERT) were developed to include the precedence relationships between tasks [2]. As projects increased in size and complexity, computerization became necessary to efficiently and effectively manage them. Currently, there are many PC compatible project management applications available, such as MicrosoftÕs Project. The acceptance of PM by industry, specifically the construction and manufacturing sectors, is well documented by the many case studies and trade journal articles that discuss it. However, the facilitating power of PM tools and techniques has only recently begun to be applied to Information Technology (IT) projects. While business acceptance of PM for IT projects is growing, the same may not be said of academic institutions. Somewhat removed from mainstream business practices, academia has historically lagged behind in the adoption of new developments and this is especially true in the area of IT. This paper explores the current status of acceptance and utilization of PM tools and techniques within university IT departments.
D. Wierschem, C. Johnston / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 640–649
2. Drivers of IT project management The need for organizations to gain better control of their IT projects was increasingly being discussed by the 1980s. It was generally recognized that many information technology projects failed. By the mid 1990s, more than $250 billion was being spent each year on approximately 175,000 IT application development projects. Many of these projects were delivered late and over budget, or not delivered at all. These statistics were included in a study published in 1995 by The Standish Group in which 365 US IT executive managers were surveyed to assess the success rate of over 8000 projects (success being defined as projects completed on-time, within the budget, and having all initially specified features and functions). After determining the success rate to be only 16.2%, the study was titled ‘‘CHAOS,’’ to reflect the then current state of IT projects in the US. In addition to the dismal success rate, over 31% of the projects were cancelled before being completed, or $81 billion of the aggregate $250 billion IT project investment for the year. Given that the average cost of a development project for a large company was $2.3 million, for a medium company $1.3 million, and for a small company $434,000, the organizational risk of failure associated with IT projects was not insignificant. One conclusion of the study was the need to improve project management practices in the IT industry [3]. In 1997, a study by KPMG surveyed 1450 Canadian institutions (public and private) to determine the reasons for unsuccessful IT project development. 61% of the responding companies reported having a failed project. The top three reasons were poor project planning, a weak business case, and lack of top management involvement and support [4]. Project planning is one of the cornerstones of proper PM practices. The assertions of the Standish report and other research resulted in an increased focus on IT project management. The Standish Group published follow up studies in 1998 [5] and 2001 [6]. The reported success rates of IT projects increased to 26% and 28%, respectively, while cost overruns and failures declined. Much of the improvement was attributed to better project management practices in the IT industry. Part of the emphasis on project management during the period leading up to January 1, 2000 can be attributed to the number of projects and the urgency associated with the Y2K problem. During this same period, another event occurred that had a significant impact on the IT industry. The bursting of the e-commerce bubble resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of investment. Despite the misconceptions by many that businessto-consumer (B2C) e-commerce was dead and traditional brick-and-mortar companies would no longer invest in e-business, the projections for growth in 2001 were for
641
a 10-fold growth in B2C e-commerce during the next four years and a 25% increase in investment for ebusiness technology during the next year [7]. With the convergence of the Standish reports on project success and the continuing need to develop ebusiness capabilities, business management began to take a closer look at how they invested their IT dollars and the resulting management of the projects. New projects have come under increased scrutiny. Because of the ease of measurement and historical usage financial analysis has become the norm for selecting and prioritizing IT projects. Some of the techniques utilized include return on investment, payback period, and other forms of future profitability analysis. Financial accountability during development requires monitoring all aspects of the project, while tracking the progress of tasks towards schedule milestones, makes the adoption and implementation of formal PM techniques necessary. The recent emphasis on PM certifications and training are also evidence of the dramatic increase of the employment of formalized PM principles. The Project Management Institute (PMI) is the primary professional society for project managers. It offers certification as a Project Management Professional (PMP) for those passing an exam, agreeing to follow a code of ethics, and having sufficient experience to qualify. While statistics breaking out the certifications of IT project managers are not available, overall PMP certifications have grown to over 75,000 today [8]. There are also many other project management certification and training accreditation programs currently being offered. In the United Kingdom, Cranfield University and the University of Manchester support advanced degrees in project management, while the APM Group maintains a list of accredited project management training organizations. Throughout the world in other countries such as Denmark, Canada, France, and the United States, universities have established project management courses in undergraduate and graduate programs, as well as formal degree designations in project management at both levels.
3. IT project management in business PM has become a staple of the business community becoming a standard part of most organizational planning processes. White and Fortune [9] performed a survey to identify the current practices of project management in business. Their survey covered both private and public sector project managers. They identified 6 groups of PM tools: methods, tools, decision techniques, risk assessment tools, computer models, database, etc., and simulations. Only 2% of the respondents did not use any formal PM methodology. The most popular methodologies used, at 54%, were
642
D. Wierschem, C. Johnston / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 640–649
those developed in house. Over 95% of respondents used some type of PM tool with the most popular tool being ‘‘off-the-shelf’’ PM software. In a study of project management software use directed at the construction industry, Liberatore et al. [10] surveyed 688 project managers. The complexity of projects was found to be the most influential factor affecting software use. The study also found that 97% of the construction industry respondents used some type of PM software with 83% having used it for control as well as for planning. Within the IT business environment, utilizing PM techniques has taken on increased importance, especially with the high costs of IT investment. It has been stated that part of the reason for IT project failure is the subjective nature of project status reporting [11]. In terms of project management, it is the lack of formal PM planning and tracking that permits the coloring of factual data. That is to say, without standardized formal processes, negative project monitoring results can be skewed, if not completely hidden. Aladwani [12] evaluated the mediating effects of project planning with project size, project diversity and technical complexity as they relate to IT project success in Kuwait. The results of his analysis confirmed that project planning is a major contributor to IT project success. Improved project planning is an outcome of applying formal PM techniques. According to Pulk [13], another contributor to the need for PM in the IT field is that the complexity of software is resulting in an increase in development costs. To reverse this trend he supports the increased use of PM techniques to improve leadership, planning, and control skills of software project managers. However, given the increased attention being paid to PM needs, the supply of trained and qualified individuals who can apply project management power to IT projects is limited. Clark [14] identified a gap existing between the perceptions of organizational administrators and technology practitioners. Carole McPherson, the lead author of the Meta GroupÕs report on Best Practices in Project Estimation and Performance Management says, ‘‘Nearly 80% of the CIOÕs we interviewed said the lack of project management skills was going to rear up and bite them, but the project managers say, ÔNo, weÕre cool’’. Additionally, in a survey of 219 IT executives performed by Meta Group, Inc., 75% of respondents indicated a lack of in house PM skills, but few of their organizations offer any formal project management training [15].
4. Project management in academia The forces that have driven the business environment to adopt formal PM techniques have not had the same
effect within the academic environment. While the Standish GroupÕs conclusions with regard to the need for improved IT project management practices are likely just as applicable to the academic environment as to the business environment, the lack of marketplace forces reduces the impetus to implement them. A growing amount of literature on the advantages and efficiencies that can be achieved through the use of formal PM techniques within the academic environment is beginning to surface. Bickers [16] discusses the use of informal PM techniques in the operations of admissions programs. His analysis of a fictional admissions process provides the basis for illustrating how an informal development process can be mapped to a more formal PM structure. He also states that applying such formal structure to the development process can lead to improved efficiencies and success. Others have provided anecdotal evidence in support of PM practices in academia providing measurable improvements. Murphy [17] presents an argument for the application of formal PM techniques to the design and development of instructional materials. Conway [18] discusses the impact of using formal PM techniques on the success of developing a client/server fundraising system. Henry [19] shows that the use of formal PM techniques can help contain costs in school district construction projects. The use of formal PM techniques supported the implementation of a new campus wide information system at Lafayette College [20]. The majority of the literature addressing academiaÕs involvement with project management has been anecdotal or application based. However, there is evidence of a growing realization that PM techniques need to be adopted for IT projects as well. As part of approval and funding requirements for IT projects, several states have legislation that requires public funded universities to use some formal PM analysis and tracking processes [21,22]. While business and academia appear to have taken different paths to adoption of PM techniques, they are both traveling to the same destination. The business environment has shifted into high gear and is rapidly implementing the PM techniques that will allow them to react to the driving forces they face. Academia has only recently begun to move down their path.
5. Research objective As the funding situations at most public universities continue to tighten, increased accountability measures are being imposed. IT projects vary in size from small to those large enough to warrant substantial cost and schedule monitoring. Utilizing PM tools and techniques for IT projects is one way of addressing this concern.
D. Wierschem, C. Johnston / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 640–649
643
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the current status of project management adoption and utilization within the university IT environment. Based on the results of this initial evaluation, recommendations can be made for further research in specific areas of potential benefit to university IT departments.
6. Methodology To evaluate the acceptance and usage of formal project management techniques in academic institutions, an anonymous survey was distributed to 500 randomly selected US university information technology departments. The sample was obtained from the university population as defined by the Higher Education Directory and consisted of the following Carnegie classifications: Doctoral/Research Universities – Extensive and Intensive; MasterÕs Colleges and Universities I and II; Baccalaureate Colleges – Liberal Arts and General, and Baccalaureate/AssociateÕs Colleges. The total population set included 1469 universities. The survey instrument contained 13 questions printed on the front and back of a single sheet of paper. Demographic information collected consisted of the number of employees in the IT department, number of students enrolled at the university, and whether the institution was public or private. Other questions looked at factors affecting the priority of IT projects, the importance of organizational sponsors for IT projects, and designating someone as a project manager on new development efforts. The remainder of the survey focused on the university IT departments identifying themselves as using ‘‘formal’’ PM tools and techniques. All questions are explained in more detail when presented with the survey results. A pilot test of the survey instrument was conducted to evaluate the usability of the survey instrument. Based upon feedback from the pilot test, modifications to the instrument were made. The updated survey was then distributed to the sample set of 500 universities. The surveys were addressed to the Director of IT services at each university. Four weeks later a second mailing of the survey was made. Because the survey was anonymous, a second complete mailing of the sample set was delivered. It requested that if the recipient had already completed the survey previously they were not to respond to the second mailing. A total of 101 usable surveys were returned for a response rate of 20%. Figs. 1 and 2 describe the overall demographics of the sample respondentsÕ universities. Figs. 3 and 4 describe the individual descriptive statistics for the sub-categories of public and private universities. As previously noted, the study population consisted of 1469 institutions listed in the Higher Education Directory. Of those universities listed, 36% (530) were
Fig. 1. Survey respondentsÕ demographics - students.
Fig. 2. Survey respondentsÕ demographics – IT departments.
Fig. 3. Descriptive statistics – students – public versus private.
public and 64% (939) private. The sample set consisted of 500 randomly selected institutions from the population set. Of the sample universities, 42% (210) were
644
D. Wierschem, C. Johnston / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 640–649
Fig. 4. Descriptive statistics – IT departments – public versus private.
Table 1 Public and private population, sample, and respondent set CIs Public universities
Private universities
Population, n = 1496
36% (530)
64% (939)
Sample set, n = 500 Sample set 95% CI
42% (210) 50.1–31.4%
58% (290) 48–68%
Respondent set, n = 101 Respondent set 95% CI
41% (41) 46.3–37.7%
59% (60) 49–69%
public and 58% (290) private. The respondent set of 101 institutions consisted of 41% (41) public and 59% (60) private. The validity of the sampling was tested using standard confidence interval analysis. The proportion of public versus private university participation in the survey for the representative sample was within the 95% confidence interval relative to the population set. The proportion of public versus private university responses to the survey was within the 95% confidence interval relative to the sample set but not to the population set. See Table 1 for the confidence intervals (CIs).
7. Results Some project management techniques are utilized whenever a project is identified. This is true regardless of the scope or complexity of the project, or the organization responsible for it. The issue under study however, is the identification and application of ‘‘formal’’ project management tools/techniques in university IT departments. The continued development of technology advances and new technology-based products results in a never
ending string of projects for university IT departments. Whether it is upgrades, extensions to existing infrastructure, development of new systems or processes to meet regulatory mandates such as the Patriot Act, there are always more projects to do than there are resources to develop them. With this in mind, three questions were asked of all respondents relative to their utilization of project management concepts, irrespective of whether they were formal or informal. IT directors were given a list of factors that affect the priority of projects in their departments and asked to rank their top five (5) from most to least important. These factors were identified through a careful search of current project management texts. The factors listed were, in no particular order: regulatory requirement, administrative request, resource availability, ROI justification, competitive necessity, operational necessity, and strategic objective. Table 2 provides the resulting descriptive data. Operational necessity was the most important influencing factor for project priority with 77 respondents, or 76%, ranking it as either first or second. Another way to interpret the results is to evaluate the strength of each influence based on the overall number of times it was selected, regardless of its assigned rank. This serves to further identify a factor as having an influence, even if it may not be the most influential. Based on this analysis, operational necessity was identified as having the most important influence with all but one respondent identifying it as a top five factor. It was closely followed by strategic objective with 95 respondents, or 94%, selecting it in their top five ranking. Of special interest is the observation that ROI justification ranked last with only 29% of the respondents identifying it as a top five factor affecting project priority. This can perhaps be explained by the non-profit nature of academia. However, this bodes the question of whether private institutions, which rely solely on tuition and are therefore more subject to marketplace influences as well as financial pressures, rank the influences differently than their public sector counterparts. Table 3 provides public university versus private university comparisons. An analysis of public versus private universitiesÕ results shows that both identify operational necessity as the most important influencing factor in terms of both total number of responses and top two ranking. It is also closely followed for both by strategic objective. Additionally, both public and private institutions ranked ROI justification as having the least impact on IT project priority. A Wilcoxon rank sum test identified no statistical difference between the rankings of the public institutions and the private institutions. This indicates that there exists a general mindset relative to the criteria used to prioritize projects in the academic IT environment.
D. Wierschem, C. Johnston / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 640–649
645
Table 2 Project priority factors Project priority influence factors
Total count
% of Responses (n = 101)
Count identified as 1st or 2nd
% of Responses (n = 101)
Regulatory requirement Administrative request Resource availability ROI Justification Competitive necessity Operational necessity Strategic objective
60 82 65 29 72 100 95
59 81 64 29 71 99 94
31 18 16 4 8 77 48
31 18 16 4 8 76 48
Table 3 Project priority factors – public versus private universities Priority influence factors
Public universities
Private universities
Total count
% of Responses (n = 41)
Count as 1st or 2nd
% of Responses (n = 41)
Total count
% of Responses (n = 60)
Count as 1st or 2nd
% of Responses (n = 60)
Regulatory requirement Administrative request Resource availability ROI Justification Competitive necessity Operational necessity Strategic objective
28 31 26 10 28 41 39
68 76 63 24 68 100 95
14 7 5 1 2 31 22
34 17 12 2 5 76 54
32 51 39 19 44 59 56
53 85 65 32 73 98 93
17 11 11 3 6 46 26
28 18 18 5 10 77 43
Survey respondents were then asked the importance of a project having an organizational sponsor relative to project selection and ultimate completion. The response utilized a Likert scale ranging from 1 (absolutely necessary) to 5 (not at all necessary). The average response was 2.33 with a standard deviation of 1.1. This indicates that in academia opinions vary widely as to the importance of IT project sponsorship for projects to be selected and completed. Analysis performed on the public and private university data separately yielded similar results. Public institutions had an average score of 2.24 with a standard deviation of .99 and private institutions had an average score of 2.38 with a standard deviation of 1.17. Performing a Kruskal–Wallis and a Wilcoxon comparison of means yielded no statistically significant difference between them. Next, respondents were asked if they designate a ‘‘project manager’’ for new projects. Of the 101 respondents, 88% said they did. 93% of public universities assigned project managers while 83% of private universities did. The reason private universities may not utilize designated project managers to the same extent as public universities is that the IT staffs of private universities are not as large, and therefore they have developed specialists that assume the duties of project management. IT directors were then asked specifically if their departments utilized ÔformalÕ project management tools/techniques. Of the 101 respondents, 75% said they did utilize formal project management tools/techniques, resulting in 25% indicating they did not. However, based
on the previous questions, it is obvious that many of those IT departments not acknowledging formal usage do in fact practice some project management techniques. The remainder of the survey was completed by only those IT directors who indicated they did utilize formal project management tools/techniques. This resulted in a total of 76 remaining respondent data sets. These respondents were first asked to rank in order of importance, from most important to least important, up to 10 formal project management tools/techniques used by their departments. The list of tools/techniques from which to choose was developed by a careful analysis of various project management texts. The list consisted of: work breakdown structure; cost analysis for project selection; formal organization PM methodology; Gantt charts for scheduling; PERT diagrams; project plan; risk monitoring/management; critical path analysis; resource loading/allocation; resource leveling; project monitoring; status/budget reporting; review meetings with stakeholders; scope/other change control system. Summary statistics are provided in Table 4.
646
D. Wierschem, C. Johnston / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 640–649
Table 4 Formal PM tools/techniques Formal PM tools/techniques used
Total count
% of Responses (n = 76)
Count identified as 1st or 2nd
% of Responses (n = 76)
Work breakdown structure Cost analysis for project selection Formal organization PM methodology Gantt charts for scheduling PERT diagrams Project plan Risk monitoring/management Critical path analysis Resource loading/allocation Resource leveling Project monitoring Status/budget reporting Review meetings with stakeholders Scope/other change control system
32 31 30 33 5 66 33 21 33 14 60 56 55 39
42 41 39 43 7 87 43 28 43 18 79 74 72 51
9 12 15 7 0 49 2 1 3 0 15 8 17 5
12 16 20 9 0 64 3 1 4 0 20 11 22 7
It is clear to see that the most used tool or technique is project planning with 64% of the respondents identifying it as either their first or second most important tool. It was ranked in the top 10 by 87% of the respondents. While project monitoring, status/budget reporting and reviews with stakeholders were also ranked high by the number of respondents who identified them as a top 10 tool (79%, 74% and 72%, respectively), the number who identified them as a top one or two were significantly less (20%, 11% and 22%, respectively). The results for comparing public and private sectors are provided in Table 5. The response patterns for the public and private universities generally reflected those of the whole. However, while the overall percentage of public universities ranking project planning in their top 10 (82%) is less than private universities (91%), the percentages are essentially the same for 1st or 2nd in importance (64% and 65%,
respectively). This may be a reflection of the increased scrutiny that public institutions are under from their governing bodies. By utilizing formal project planning tools, they provide a higher degree of confidence to their financial overseers. Another observation is that public institutions included project monitoring (82%) in their top 10 lists as much as project planning (82%), but only ranked it 1st or 2nd in importance 18% of the time. One explanation for this may be legislative accountability. Utilizing formal project monitoring tools allows the institutions to primarily meet regulatory mandates for accountability. Beyond that purpose, monitoring the project is not considered more important than a number of other PM tools/techniques. The Kruskal–Wallis test identified risk monitoring/ management and resource leveling as having statistically significant deviations at the 10% level (p = .0621 and
Table 5 Formal PM tools/techniques – public versus private universities Formal PM tools/techniques used
Public universities Total count
% of Responses (n = 33)
Count as 1st or 2nd
% of Responses (n = 33)
Private universities Total count
% of Responses (n = 43)
Count as 1st or 2nd
% of Responses (n = 43)
Work breakdown structure Cost analysis for project selection Formal organization PM methodology Gantt charts for scheduling PERT diagrams Project plan Risk monitoring/management Critical path analysis Resource loading/allocation Resource leveling Project monitoring Status/budget reporting Review meetings with stakeholders Scope/other change control system
18 16 16 15 2 27 19 9 13 3 27 26 24 14
55 49 49 46 6 82 58 27 39 9 82 79 73 42
6 5 7 3 0 21 1 1 0 0 6 3 6 1
18 15 21 9 0 64 3 3 0 0 18 9 18 3
14 15 14 18 3 39 14 12 20 11 33 30 31 25
33 35 33 42 7 91 33 28 47 26 77 70 72 58
3 7 8 4 0 28 1 0 3 0 9 5 11 4
7 16 19 9 0 65 2 0 7 0 21 12 26 9
D. Wierschem, C. Johnston / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 640–649
647
to answer less than the total number of responses. Of the responses, the majority of respondents ranked at most three criteria with only 25 ranking all five. The responses of the public and private universities were in line with the overall statistics and each other. The Kruskal–Wallis test identified no significant differences. The results for comparing public and private sectors are provided in Table 7. Several other project characteristics were also presented by respondents as drivers for the use of formal PM tools/techniques on their IT projects. These included the number of departments involved, the experience of the assigned project manager, and political aspects such as visibility, risk level, strategic value and executive oversight. Of these, the political aspects of strategic value, risk level and executive oversight were identified as most important. While Regulatory Requirements was the project characteristic least ranked, it was nonetheless identified as one of the drivers for use of formal PM tools/techniques by 25 of the respondents. Of those, 10 respondents indicated that sometimes regulatory mandates dictate the PM techniques and tools used. As would perhaps be expected, 8 of the 10 came from public institutions and only 2 from private. Regulatory mandates included the Graham–Leach–Bliley Act at the federal level, but most of them were attributable to state mandates. For example, one respondent identified that the ‘‘Virginia IT Agency (VITA) requires formal reporting and approval for projects that cost $1 M or more. Projects costing $100,000 to $1 M require internal documentation which can be audited’’. Of the tools utilized by the responding institutions, by far the most popular is Microsoft Project. Only four of the
p = .0585, respectively). Public universities appear to be more aware of IT project risks (perhaps also due to financial accountability concerns) than private universities, and private universities place Resource Leveling in their top 10 list significantly more often than public universities. Several respondents identified other tools outside of the specified list. These included change orders, organizational structure, process mapping and the use of a project charter. Of these, the use of the project charter and process mapping were identified as a top one or two priority. A significant amount of IT activity does not rate project status. Resetting of passwords, re-imaging labs, and isolated code maintenance are a few such activities. However, formal PM techniques can be utilized at various levels of activity scope. We therefore asked the respondents to rank in order of importance (1 being the most important and 5 being the least important) up to five project characteristics utilized to identify when a proposed project will require the application of formal project management tools/techniques. 12, or 16%, responded that all projects are treated the same regardless of these characteristics. Of the 12, 2 are public institutions and the other 10 are private. The characteristics listed were, in no particular order: project duration, project cost, project scope, number of people involved, and regulatory requirement. Table 6 provides the resulting descriptive data. Project scope was identified as the most important driver for using project management techniques by 64% of the respondents. Project scope was followed by project cost and then project duration as the top three drivers for PM. This question permitted respondents
Table 6 PM drivers – all survey respondents Formal PM drivers
Total count
% of Responses (n = 64)
Count Identified as 1st or 2nd
% of Responses (n = 64)
Project duration Project cost Project scope Number of people involved Regulatory requirement
52 52 55 46 25
81 81 86 72 39
25 32 41 14 3
39 50 64 22 5
Table 7 PM drivers – public versus private universities Formal PM drivers
Project duration Project cost Project scope Number of people involved Regulatory requirement
Public universities
Private universities
Total count
% of Responses (n = 31)
Count as 1st or 2nd
% of Responses (n = 31)
Total count
% of Responses (n = 33)
Count as 1st or 2nd
% of Responses (n = 33)
25 26 28 21 12
81 84 90 68 39
12 16 20 7 2
39 52 65 23 7
27 26 27 25 13
82 79 82 76 39
13 16 21 7 1
39 49 64 21 3
648
D. Wierschem, C. Johnston / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 640–649
Fig. 5. RespondentsÕ PM tools usage.
76 respondents used no form of PM tool. Forty one institutions relied on only one tool, with MS Project being that tool for 38 of them. The other tools used were Microsoft Access, Microsoft Excel and Primavera. Fig. 5 shows all the tools utilized by the respondents. When asked for comments about the current effectiveness or improvement of the PM practices of their departments, many respondents indicated they have seen improvements. Several stated they had just recently started implementing formal PM techniques. This is an indication of the acknowledgement of the advantages that PM techniques can offer to university IT departments. Other comments included the implementation of ERP systems, which necessarily require PM. Several admitted there was room for improvement in their implementation of existing PM processes. For example, one respondent stated, ‘‘Project planning is critical to staying on-time with projects, but I stress that one should not spend more time planning/managing than doing the actual project. Balance is required with a small staff’’. Another theme that permeated the comments was that of communication. The need for a common framework and PM training, such as that offered by the Project Management Institute and its associated certification, was cited. One respondent talking about the importance of training stated, ‘‘Conducting in-house and outside vendor provided training on project start up, cost estimating, use of MS Project, IT project management, specialized PM training in methodology. All of this in an effort to improve PM for new and seasoned PMs’’.
8. Conclusions and recommendations for further research The role of IT in the university environment has received much attention. Whether it is integrated into
teaching, or course materials, or as part of the operational infrastructure, university IT departments are being called upon to do more with less. Industry IT departments which are facing the same demands are increasingly adopting project management tools and techniques to better plan, monitor and control their IT activities. Similarly, university IT departments are beginning to realize the value that PM provides. The purpose of this study was to identify the degree to which project management practices are being utilized in university IT departments, and if so, which ones. Several aspects of the utilization of project management techniques and tools by United States university IT departments were identified. The study results provide a glimpse of how US academic IT departments currently practice project management and suggest directions for meaningful additional research. While the following discussion must necessarily be recognized as being based on survey results within the United States, it would certainly be beneficial to generally extend the research to university IT departments around the world. In general, university IT departments are far removed from their industry counterparts. While they may utilize many of the same tools and technologies, their adoption of PM tools/techniques and justification for their use, are limited at this time. Academic IT departments are primarily driven by operational issues and not cost cutting efficiencies or strategic initiatives. Therefore, they have not been under the same competitive pressures to adopt improved PM practices as their business counterparts. Study results verified operational necessity as by far the most influential factor affecting project priority with strategic objective not too far behind. Regulatory requirement finishing in third place may indicate an increasingly important influence in the university environment. Ongoing research could certainly explore the relative importance of these factors and then track changes for trends and the emergence of new factors affecting project priority in university IT departments. The need for top management support has been consistently found to be a critical factor in IT project success. The results of this study indicated a wide variance of opinion as to its importance for university IT projects. This finding definitely warrants further investigation. Establishing the relationship between this factor and others, such as those determining the use of formal PM tools/techniques (Project Duration, Project Cost, Project Scope, Number of People Involved, Regulatory Requirement), could provide valuable insights into how to execute particular university IT projects successfully. The fact that most public (93%) and private (83%) universities designate a ‘‘project manager’’ for new IT projects begs for a clarification of what the title project manager means in terms of what they do in university IT
D. Wierschem, C. Johnston / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 640–649
departments, just as in the IT business sector. Further research to evaluate the level of sophistication of PM practices within university IT departments would help to put the results of this study in perspective. The importance of project planning is recognized by university IT departments. The use of a Project Plan was ranked first or second in importance approximately three times as often as use of a formal organization PM methodology, project monitoring, and review meetings with stakeholders. However, further research is necessary to establish the true nature of the relative importance of these factors in the university IT department environment. It would also be valuable to explore the consistency of the definition of a project plan among university IT departments. Additional issues worth future efforts were also mentioned in Section 7 with respect to project monitoring, risk monitoring/management and resource leveling. Not unexpectedly, project scope and project cost were cited most frequently as the first or second most important factors determining whether or not formal PM tools/techniques would be employed on a project. Determining the relationship between these factors and the important tools/techniques actually used (as identified above) would be very worthwhile as well. Noticeably absent from the identified important tools utilized by academic institutions for IT project management were many of the control tools. In essence, it appears that university IT departments currently utilize PM techniques primarily to justify and document the development of their projects. This is further supported by the fact that project scope was the principal project characteristic determining whether PM tools would be used or not. Project management practices in university IT departments do indeed appear to be generally limited at this time. The study also compared the responses between public and private universities. Private institutions, it could be argued, are more susceptible to market forces due to their lack of, or significantly decreased, governmental support. However, with the exception of the use of risk monitoring/management and resource leveling techniques, no statistical significance between them was identified. Being able to treat them the same in future
649
research efforts is a valuable, simplifying result of this study.
References [1] Schwalbe K. Information technology project management. 2nd ed. Boston (MA): Course Technology; 2002. p. 11. [2] Rolstadas A. Visualization of production plans. Editorial, Product Plan Control 1997;8(1):1. [3] http://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research/chaos_1994_1.php. [4] Whittaker B. What went wrong? Unsuccessful information technology projects. Inform Manage Comput Security 1999;7(1): 23. [5] 1998 Chaos Report Standish Group. [6] 2001 Chaos Report Standish Group. [7] Gantz J. E-Marketplaces are down, but not for long. Computer World 2001;35(23):28. 1/2 p. [8] PMI Institute. http://www.pmi.org/prod/groups/public/documents/info/pdc_pmp.asp 1/10/2005. [9] White D, Fortune J. Current practice in project management – an empirical study. Int J Project Manage 2002;20:1–11. [10] Liberatore M, Pollack-Johnaosn B, Smith C. Project management in construction: Software use and research directions. J Construct Eng Manage 2001;127(2):101–7. [11] Young Sue. Why IT projects fail. Computer World 2003;37(34):44. 1 p. [12] Aladwani A. IT project uncertainty, planning and success. An empirical investigation from Kuwait. Inform Technol People 2002;15(3):210–25. [13] Pulk B. Improving software project management. J Syst Software 1990;13(3):231. 5 p. [14] Clark A. Short on skills. Computing Canada 2003;29(18):18. [15] Hoffman T. IT Departments face a lack of project management know-how. Computer World 2003;37(32):16. 1 p. [16] Bickers D. The application of project management techniques to college and university admissions activities. C & U Feature, Spring/Summer 1993:86–92. [17] Murphy D. Utilizing project management techniques in the design of instructional materials. Perform Instruct 1994;33(3):9–11. [18] Conway J. Evolution of SOLAR, HarvardÕs client/server-based fundraising management system. Cause/Effect, Spring 1995;18(1): 46–52. [19] Henry R. Under control – Careful planning and monitoring can help to contain costs in your next school construction project. Am School University 2001(November):365–6. [20] Yerk-Zwickl S. Project implementation using a team approach. Campus – Wide Inform Syst 1995;12(2):27. [21] Rider 9 in the General Appropriations Act, 77th Texas Legislature. p. 1–67. [22] http://www.vita.virginia.gov/docs/psg.cfm 1/11/2005.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 640–649 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
The role of project management in university computing resource departments David Wierschem *, Chuck Johnston
1
Midwestern State University, 3410 Taft Blvd., Wichita Falls, TX 76308-2099, United States Received 25 January 2005; received in revised form 12 April 2005; accepted 17 May 2005
Abstract TodayÕs businesses have learned the value of incorporating formal project management practices and tools. However, the drivers that have pushed businesses to adopt them have not had as large an impact on institutions of higher education. This paper investigates the acceptance and usage of formal project management techniques by university information technology departments. Results of a mail survey determined that current university IT departments lag behind their business peers in the adoption and usage of project management practices and tools. Additionally, it was discovered that the most utilized project management function by the academic institutions was project planning. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved. Keywords: Information technology; Environmental; Value
1. Introduction Project management (PM) as a discipline is well established. Acknowledged to have conceptually begun with the World War II Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb [1], its evolution and acceptance has continued to expand. Structured around the everpresent concerns related to scheduling project tasks, Gantt charts have become its most commonly recognized communication tool. Manually constructed timescaled bar charts were first developed by Henry Gantt in 1917 to solve the problem of scheduling troops during World War I. As military and industry projects became more complex, methods such as the critical path method (CPM) and program evaluation and review technique *
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 940 397 6260; fax: +1 940 397 4280. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Wierschem), [email protected] (C. Johnston). 1 Tel.: +1 940 397 4361; fax: +1 940 397 4280. 0263-7863/$30.00 Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.05.005
(PERT) were developed to include the precedence relationships between tasks [2]. As projects increased in size and complexity, computerization became necessary to efficiently and effectively manage them. Currently, there are many PC compatible project management applications available, such as MicrosoftÕs Project. The acceptance of PM by industry, specifically the construction and manufacturing sectors, is well documented by the many case studies and trade journal articles that discuss it. However, the facilitating power of PM tools and techniques has only recently begun to be applied to Information Technology (IT) projects. While business acceptance of PM for IT projects is growing, the same may not be said of academic institutions. Somewhat removed from mainstream business practices, academia has historically lagged behind in the adoption of new developments and this is especially true in the area of IT. This paper explores the current status of acceptance and utilization of PM tools and techniques within university IT departments.
D. Wierschem, C. Johnston / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 640–649
2. Drivers of IT project management The need for organizations to gain better control of their IT projects was increasingly being discussed by the 1980s. It was generally recognized that many information technology projects failed. By the mid 1990s, more than $250 billion was being spent each year on approximately 175,000 IT application development projects. Many of these projects were delivered late and over budget, or not delivered at all. These statistics were included in a study published in 1995 by The Standish Group in which 365 US IT executive managers were surveyed to assess the success rate of over 8000 projects (success being defined as projects completed on-time, within the budget, and having all initially specified features and functions). After determining the success rate to be only 16.2%, the study was titled ‘‘CHAOS,’’ to reflect the then current state of IT projects in the US. In addition to the dismal success rate, over 31% of the projects were cancelled before being completed, or $81 billion of the aggregate $250 billion IT project investment for the year. Given that the average cost of a development project for a large company was $2.3 million, for a medium company $1.3 million, and for a small company $434,000, the organizational risk of failure associated with IT projects was not insignificant. One conclusion of the study was the need to improve project management practices in the IT industry [3]. In 1997, a study by KPMG surveyed 1450 Canadian institutions (public and private) to determine the reasons for unsuccessful IT project development. 61% of the responding companies reported having a failed project. The top three reasons were poor project planning, a weak business case, and lack of top management involvement and support [4]. Project planning is one of the cornerstones of proper PM practices. The assertions of the Standish report and other research resulted in an increased focus on IT project management. The Standish Group published follow up studies in 1998 [5] and 2001 [6]. The reported success rates of IT projects increased to 26% and 28%, respectively, while cost overruns and failures declined. Much of the improvement was attributed to better project management practices in the IT industry. Part of the emphasis on project management during the period leading up to January 1, 2000 can be attributed to the number of projects and the urgency associated with the Y2K problem. During this same period, another event occurred that had a significant impact on the IT industry. The bursting of the e-commerce bubble resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of investment. Despite the misconceptions by many that businessto-consumer (B2C) e-commerce was dead and traditional brick-and-mortar companies would no longer invest in e-business, the projections for growth in 2001 were for
641
a 10-fold growth in B2C e-commerce during the next four years and a 25% increase in investment for ebusiness technology during the next year [7]. With the convergence of the Standish reports on project success and the continuing need to develop ebusiness capabilities, business management began to take a closer look at how they invested their IT dollars and the resulting management of the projects. New projects have come under increased scrutiny. Because of the ease of measurement and historical usage financial analysis has become the norm for selecting and prioritizing IT projects. Some of the techniques utilized include return on investment, payback period, and other forms of future profitability analysis. Financial accountability during development requires monitoring all aspects of the project, while tracking the progress of tasks towards schedule milestones, makes the adoption and implementation of formal PM techniques necessary. The recent emphasis on PM certifications and training are also evidence of the dramatic increase of the employment of formalized PM principles. The Project Management Institute (PMI) is the primary professional society for project managers. It offers certification as a Project Management Professional (PMP) for those passing an exam, agreeing to follow a code of ethics, and having sufficient experience to qualify. While statistics breaking out the certifications of IT project managers are not available, overall PMP certifications have grown to over 75,000 today [8]. There are also many other project management certification and training accreditation programs currently being offered. In the United Kingdom, Cranfield University and the University of Manchester support advanced degrees in project management, while the APM Group maintains a list of accredited project management training organizations. Throughout the world in other countries such as Denmark, Canada, France, and the United States, universities have established project management courses in undergraduate and graduate programs, as well as formal degree designations in project management at both levels.
3. IT project management in business PM has become a staple of the business community becoming a standard part of most organizational planning processes. White and Fortune [9] performed a survey to identify the current practices of project management in business. Their survey covered both private and public sector project managers. They identified 6 groups of PM tools: methods, tools, decision techniques, risk assessment tools, computer models, database, etc., and simulations. Only 2% of the respondents did not use any formal PM methodology. The most popular methodologies used, at 54%, were
642
D. Wierschem, C. Johnston / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 640–649
those developed in house. Over 95% of respondents used some type of PM tool with the most popular tool being ‘‘off-the-shelf’’ PM software. In a study of project management software use directed at the construction industry, Liberatore et al. [10] surveyed 688 project managers. The complexity of projects was found to be the most influential factor affecting software use. The study also found that 97% of the construction industry respondents used some type of PM software with 83% having used it for control as well as for planning. Within the IT business environment, utilizing PM techniques has taken on increased importance, especially with the high costs of IT investment. It has been stated that part of the reason for IT project failure is the subjective nature of project status reporting [11]. In terms of project management, it is the lack of formal PM planning and tracking that permits the coloring of factual data. That is to say, without standardized formal processes, negative project monitoring results can be skewed, if not completely hidden. Aladwani [12] evaluated the mediating effects of project planning with project size, project diversity and technical complexity as they relate to IT project success in Kuwait. The results of his analysis confirmed that project planning is a major contributor to IT project success. Improved project planning is an outcome of applying formal PM techniques. According to Pulk [13], another contributor to the need for PM in the IT field is that the complexity of software is resulting in an increase in development costs. To reverse this trend he supports the increased use of PM techniques to improve leadership, planning, and control skills of software project managers. However, given the increased attention being paid to PM needs, the supply of trained and qualified individuals who can apply project management power to IT projects is limited. Clark [14] identified a gap existing between the perceptions of organizational administrators and technology practitioners. Carole McPherson, the lead author of the Meta GroupÕs report on Best Practices in Project Estimation and Performance Management says, ‘‘Nearly 80% of the CIOÕs we interviewed said the lack of project management skills was going to rear up and bite them, but the project managers say, ÔNo, weÕre cool’’. Additionally, in a survey of 219 IT executives performed by Meta Group, Inc., 75% of respondents indicated a lack of in house PM skills, but few of their organizations offer any formal project management training [15].
4. Project management in academia The forces that have driven the business environment to adopt formal PM techniques have not had the same
effect within the academic environment. While the Standish GroupÕs conclusions with regard to the need for improved IT project management practices are likely just as applicable to the academic environment as to the business environment, the lack of marketplace forces reduces the impetus to implement them. A growing amount of literature on the advantages and efficiencies that can be achieved through the use of formal PM techniques within the academic environment is beginning to surface. Bickers [16] discusses the use of informal PM techniques in the operations of admissions programs. His analysis of a fictional admissions process provides the basis for illustrating how an informal development process can be mapped to a more formal PM structure. He also states that applying such formal structure to the development process can lead to improved efficiencies and success. Others have provided anecdotal evidence in support of PM practices in academia providing measurable improvements. Murphy [17] presents an argument for the application of formal PM techniques to the design and development of instructional materials. Conway [18] discusses the impact of using formal PM techniques on the success of developing a client/server fundraising system. Henry [19] shows that the use of formal PM techniques can help contain costs in school district construction projects. The use of formal PM techniques supported the implementation of a new campus wide information system at Lafayette College [20]. The majority of the literature addressing academiaÕs involvement with project management has been anecdotal or application based. However, there is evidence of a growing realization that PM techniques need to be adopted for IT projects as well. As part of approval and funding requirements for IT projects, several states have legislation that requires public funded universities to use some formal PM analysis and tracking processes [21,22]. While business and academia appear to have taken different paths to adoption of PM techniques, they are both traveling to the same destination. The business environment has shifted into high gear and is rapidly implementing the PM techniques that will allow them to react to the driving forces they face. Academia has only recently begun to move down their path.
5. Research objective As the funding situations at most public universities continue to tighten, increased accountability measures are being imposed. IT projects vary in size from small to those large enough to warrant substantial cost and schedule monitoring. Utilizing PM tools and techniques for IT projects is one way of addressing this concern.
D. Wierschem, C. Johnston / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 640–649
643
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the current status of project management adoption and utilization within the university IT environment. Based on the results of this initial evaluation, recommendations can be made for further research in specific areas of potential benefit to university IT departments.
6. Methodology To evaluate the acceptance and usage of formal project management techniques in academic institutions, an anonymous survey was distributed to 500 randomly selected US university information technology departments. The sample was obtained from the university population as defined by the Higher Education Directory and consisted of the following Carnegie classifications: Doctoral/Research Universities – Extensive and Intensive; MasterÕs Colleges and Universities I and II; Baccalaureate Colleges – Liberal Arts and General, and Baccalaureate/AssociateÕs Colleges. The total population set included 1469 universities. The survey instrument contained 13 questions printed on the front and back of a single sheet of paper. Demographic information collected consisted of the number of employees in the IT department, number of students enrolled at the university, and whether the institution was public or private. Other questions looked at factors affecting the priority of IT projects, the importance of organizational sponsors for IT projects, and designating someone as a project manager on new development efforts. The remainder of the survey focused on the university IT departments identifying themselves as using ‘‘formal’’ PM tools and techniques. All questions are explained in more detail when presented with the survey results. A pilot test of the survey instrument was conducted to evaluate the usability of the survey instrument. Based upon feedback from the pilot test, modifications to the instrument were made. The updated survey was then distributed to the sample set of 500 universities. The surveys were addressed to the Director of IT services at each university. Four weeks later a second mailing of the survey was made. Because the survey was anonymous, a second complete mailing of the sample set was delivered. It requested that if the recipient had already completed the survey previously they were not to respond to the second mailing. A total of 101 usable surveys were returned for a response rate of 20%. Figs. 1 and 2 describe the overall demographics of the sample respondentsÕ universities. Figs. 3 and 4 describe the individual descriptive statistics for the sub-categories of public and private universities. As previously noted, the study population consisted of 1469 institutions listed in the Higher Education Directory. Of those universities listed, 36% (530) were
Fig. 1. Survey respondentsÕ demographics - students.
Fig. 2. Survey respondentsÕ demographics – IT departments.
Fig. 3. Descriptive statistics – students – public versus private.
public and 64% (939) private. The sample set consisted of 500 randomly selected institutions from the population set. Of the sample universities, 42% (210) were
644
D. Wierschem, C. Johnston / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 640–649
Fig. 4. Descriptive statistics – IT departments – public versus private.
Table 1 Public and private population, sample, and respondent set CIs Public universities
Private universities
Population, n = 1496
36% (530)
64% (939)
Sample set, n = 500 Sample set 95% CI
42% (210) 50.1–31.4%
58% (290) 48–68%
Respondent set, n = 101 Respondent set 95% CI
41% (41) 46.3–37.7%
59% (60) 49–69%
public and 58% (290) private. The respondent set of 101 institutions consisted of 41% (41) public and 59% (60) private. The validity of the sampling was tested using standard confidence interval analysis. The proportion of public versus private university participation in the survey for the representative sample was within the 95% confidence interval relative to the population set. The proportion of public versus private university responses to the survey was within the 95% confidence interval relative to the sample set but not to the population set. See Table 1 for the confidence intervals (CIs).
7. Results Some project management techniques are utilized whenever a project is identified. This is true regardless of the scope or complexity of the project, or the organization responsible for it. The issue under study however, is the identification and application of ‘‘formal’’ project management tools/techniques in university IT departments. The continued development of technology advances and new technology-based products results in a never
ending string of projects for university IT departments. Whether it is upgrades, extensions to existing infrastructure, development of new systems or processes to meet regulatory mandates such as the Patriot Act, there are always more projects to do than there are resources to develop them. With this in mind, three questions were asked of all respondents relative to their utilization of project management concepts, irrespective of whether they were formal or informal. IT directors were given a list of factors that affect the priority of projects in their departments and asked to rank their top five (5) from most to least important. These factors were identified through a careful search of current project management texts. The factors listed were, in no particular order: regulatory requirement, administrative request, resource availability, ROI justification, competitive necessity, operational necessity, and strategic objective. Table 2 provides the resulting descriptive data. Operational necessity was the most important influencing factor for project priority with 77 respondents, or 76%, ranking it as either first or second. Another way to interpret the results is to evaluate the strength of each influence based on the overall number of times it was selected, regardless of its assigned rank. This serves to further identify a factor as having an influence, even if it may not be the most influential. Based on this analysis, operational necessity was identified as having the most important influence with all but one respondent identifying it as a top five factor. It was closely followed by strategic objective with 95 respondents, or 94%, selecting it in their top five ranking. Of special interest is the observation that ROI justification ranked last with only 29% of the respondents identifying it as a top five factor affecting project priority. This can perhaps be explained by the non-profit nature of academia. However, this bodes the question of whether private institutions, which rely solely on tuition and are therefore more subject to marketplace influences as well as financial pressures, rank the influences differently than their public sector counterparts. Table 3 provides public university versus private university comparisons. An analysis of public versus private universitiesÕ results shows that both identify operational necessity as the most important influencing factor in terms of both total number of responses and top two ranking. It is also closely followed for both by strategic objective. Additionally, both public and private institutions ranked ROI justification as having the least impact on IT project priority. A Wilcoxon rank sum test identified no statistical difference between the rankings of the public institutions and the private institutions. This indicates that there exists a general mindset relative to the criteria used to prioritize projects in the academic IT environment.
D. Wierschem, C. Johnston / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 640–649
645
Table 2 Project priority factors Project priority influence factors
Total count
% of Responses (n = 101)
Count identified as 1st or 2nd
% of Responses (n = 101)
Regulatory requirement Administrative request Resource availability ROI Justification Competitive necessity Operational necessity Strategic objective
60 82 65 29 72 100 95
59 81 64 29 71 99 94
31 18 16 4 8 77 48
31 18 16 4 8 76 48
Table 3 Project priority factors – public versus private universities Priority influence factors
Public universities
Private universities
Total count
% of Responses (n = 41)
Count as 1st or 2nd
% of Responses (n = 41)
Total count
% of Responses (n = 60)
Count as 1st or 2nd
% of Responses (n = 60)
Regulatory requirement Administrative request Resource availability ROI Justification Competitive necessity Operational necessity Strategic objective
28 31 26 10 28 41 39
68 76 63 24 68 100 95
14 7 5 1 2 31 22
34 17 12 2 5 76 54
32 51 39 19 44 59 56
53 85 65 32 73 98 93
17 11 11 3 6 46 26
28 18 18 5 10 77 43
Survey respondents were then asked the importance of a project having an organizational sponsor relative to project selection and ultimate completion. The response utilized a Likert scale ranging from 1 (absolutely necessary) to 5 (not at all necessary). The average response was 2.33 with a standard deviation of 1.1. This indicates that in academia opinions vary widely as to the importance of IT project sponsorship for projects to be selected and completed. Analysis performed on the public and private university data separately yielded similar results. Public institutions had an average score of 2.24 with a standard deviation of .99 and private institutions had an average score of 2.38 with a standard deviation of 1.17. Performing a Kruskal–Wallis and a Wilcoxon comparison of means yielded no statistically significant difference between them. Next, respondents were asked if they designate a ‘‘project manager’’ for new projects. Of the 101 respondents, 88% said they did. 93% of public universities assigned project managers while 83% of private universities did. The reason private universities may not utilize designated project managers to the same extent as public universities is that the IT staffs of private universities are not as large, and therefore they have developed specialists that assume the duties of project management. IT directors were then asked specifically if their departments utilized ÔformalÕ project management tools/techniques. Of the 101 respondents, 75% said they did utilize formal project management tools/techniques, resulting in 25% indicating they did not. However, based
on the previous questions, it is obvious that many of those IT departments not acknowledging formal usage do in fact practice some project management techniques. The remainder of the survey was completed by only those IT directors who indicated they did utilize formal project management tools/techniques. This resulted in a total of 76 remaining respondent data sets. These respondents were first asked to rank in order of importance, from most important to least important, up to 10 formal project management tools/techniques used by their departments. The list of tools/techniques from which to choose was developed by a careful analysis of various project management texts. The list consisted of: work breakdown structure; cost analysis for project selection; formal organization PM methodology; Gantt charts for scheduling; PERT diagrams; project plan; risk monitoring/management; critical path analysis; resource loading/allocation; resource leveling; project monitoring; status/budget reporting; review meetings with stakeholders; scope/other change control system. Summary statistics are provided in Table 4.
646
D. Wierschem, C. Johnston / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 640–649
Table 4 Formal PM tools/techniques Formal PM tools/techniques used
Total count
% of Responses (n = 76)
Count identified as 1st or 2nd
% of Responses (n = 76)
Work breakdown structure Cost analysis for project selection Formal organization PM methodology Gantt charts for scheduling PERT diagrams Project plan Risk monitoring/management Critical path analysis Resource loading/allocation Resource leveling Project monitoring Status/budget reporting Review meetings with stakeholders Scope/other change control system
32 31 30 33 5 66 33 21 33 14 60 56 55 39
42 41 39 43 7 87 43 28 43 18 79 74 72 51
9 12 15 7 0 49 2 1 3 0 15 8 17 5
12 16 20 9 0 64 3 1 4 0 20 11 22 7
It is clear to see that the most used tool or technique is project planning with 64% of the respondents identifying it as either their first or second most important tool. It was ranked in the top 10 by 87% of the respondents. While project monitoring, status/budget reporting and reviews with stakeholders were also ranked high by the number of respondents who identified them as a top 10 tool (79%, 74% and 72%, respectively), the number who identified them as a top one or two were significantly less (20%, 11% and 22%, respectively). The results for comparing public and private sectors are provided in Table 5. The response patterns for the public and private universities generally reflected those of the whole. However, while the overall percentage of public universities ranking project planning in their top 10 (82%) is less than private universities (91%), the percentages are essentially the same for 1st or 2nd in importance (64% and 65%,
respectively). This may be a reflection of the increased scrutiny that public institutions are under from their governing bodies. By utilizing formal project planning tools, they provide a higher degree of confidence to their financial overseers. Another observation is that public institutions included project monitoring (82%) in their top 10 lists as much as project planning (82%), but only ranked it 1st or 2nd in importance 18% of the time. One explanation for this may be legislative accountability. Utilizing formal project monitoring tools allows the institutions to primarily meet regulatory mandates for accountability. Beyond that purpose, monitoring the project is not considered more important than a number of other PM tools/techniques. The Kruskal–Wallis test identified risk monitoring/ management and resource leveling as having statistically significant deviations at the 10% level (p = .0621 and
Table 5 Formal PM tools/techniques – public versus private universities Formal PM tools/techniques used
Public universities Total count
% of Responses (n = 33)
Count as 1st or 2nd
% of Responses (n = 33)
Private universities Total count
% of Responses (n = 43)
Count as 1st or 2nd
% of Responses (n = 43)
Work breakdown structure Cost analysis for project selection Formal organization PM methodology Gantt charts for scheduling PERT diagrams Project plan Risk monitoring/management Critical path analysis Resource loading/allocation Resource leveling Project monitoring Status/budget reporting Review meetings with stakeholders Scope/other change control system
18 16 16 15 2 27 19 9 13 3 27 26 24 14
55 49 49 46 6 82 58 27 39 9 82 79 73 42
6 5 7 3 0 21 1 1 0 0 6 3 6 1
18 15 21 9 0 64 3 3 0 0 18 9 18 3
14 15 14 18 3 39 14 12 20 11 33 30 31 25
33 35 33 42 7 91 33 28 47 26 77 70 72 58
3 7 8 4 0 28 1 0 3 0 9 5 11 4
7 16 19 9 0 65 2 0 7 0 21 12 26 9
D. Wierschem, C. Johnston / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 640–649
647
to answer less than the total number of responses. Of the responses, the majority of respondents ranked at most three criteria with only 25 ranking all five. The responses of the public and private universities were in line with the overall statistics and each other. The Kruskal–Wallis test identified no significant differences. The results for comparing public and private sectors are provided in Table 7. Several other project characteristics were also presented by respondents as drivers for the use of formal PM tools/techniques on their IT projects. These included the number of departments involved, the experience of the assigned project manager, and political aspects such as visibility, risk level, strategic value and executive oversight. Of these, the political aspects of strategic value, risk level and executive oversight were identified as most important. While Regulatory Requirements was the project characteristic least ranked, it was nonetheless identified as one of the drivers for use of formal PM tools/techniques by 25 of the respondents. Of those, 10 respondents indicated that sometimes regulatory mandates dictate the PM techniques and tools used. As would perhaps be expected, 8 of the 10 came from public institutions and only 2 from private. Regulatory mandates included the Graham–Leach–Bliley Act at the federal level, but most of them were attributable to state mandates. For example, one respondent identified that the ‘‘Virginia IT Agency (VITA) requires formal reporting and approval for projects that cost $1 M or more. Projects costing $100,000 to $1 M require internal documentation which can be audited’’. Of the tools utilized by the responding institutions, by far the most popular is Microsoft Project. Only four of the
p = .0585, respectively). Public universities appear to be more aware of IT project risks (perhaps also due to financial accountability concerns) than private universities, and private universities place Resource Leveling in their top 10 list significantly more often than public universities. Several respondents identified other tools outside of the specified list. These included change orders, organizational structure, process mapping and the use of a project charter. Of these, the use of the project charter and process mapping were identified as a top one or two priority. A significant amount of IT activity does not rate project status. Resetting of passwords, re-imaging labs, and isolated code maintenance are a few such activities. However, formal PM techniques can be utilized at various levels of activity scope. We therefore asked the respondents to rank in order of importance (1 being the most important and 5 being the least important) up to five project characteristics utilized to identify when a proposed project will require the application of formal project management tools/techniques. 12, or 16%, responded that all projects are treated the same regardless of these characteristics. Of the 12, 2 are public institutions and the other 10 are private. The characteristics listed were, in no particular order: project duration, project cost, project scope, number of people involved, and regulatory requirement. Table 6 provides the resulting descriptive data. Project scope was identified as the most important driver for using project management techniques by 64% of the respondents. Project scope was followed by project cost and then project duration as the top three drivers for PM. This question permitted respondents
Table 6 PM drivers – all survey respondents Formal PM drivers
Total count
% of Responses (n = 64)
Count Identified as 1st or 2nd
% of Responses (n = 64)
Project duration Project cost Project scope Number of people involved Regulatory requirement
52 52 55 46 25
81 81 86 72 39
25 32 41 14 3
39 50 64 22 5
Table 7 PM drivers – public versus private universities Formal PM drivers
Project duration Project cost Project scope Number of people involved Regulatory requirement
Public universities
Private universities
Total count
% of Responses (n = 31)
Count as 1st or 2nd
% of Responses (n = 31)
Total count
% of Responses (n = 33)
Count as 1st or 2nd
% of Responses (n = 33)
25 26 28 21 12
81 84 90 68 39
12 16 20 7 2
39 52 65 23 7
27 26 27 25 13
82 79 82 76 39
13 16 21 7 1
39 49 64 21 3
648
D. Wierschem, C. Johnston / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 640–649
Fig. 5. RespondentsÕ PM tools usage.
76 respondents used no form of PM tool. Forty one institutions relied on only one tool, with MS Project being that tool for 38 of them. The other tools used were Microsoft Access, Microsoft Excel and Primavera. Fig. 5 shows all the tools utilized by the respondents. When asked for comments about the current effectiveness or improvement of the PM practices of their departments, many respondents indicated they have seen improvements. Several stated they had just recently started implementing formal PM techniques. This is an indication of the acknowledgement of the advantages that PM techniques can offer to university IT departments. Other comments included the implementation of ERP systems, which necessarily require PM. Several admitted there was room for improvement in their implementation of existing PM processes. For example, one respondent stated, ‘‘Project planning is critical to staying on-time with projects, but I stress that one should not spend more time planning/managing than doing the actual project. Balance is required with a small staff’’. Another theme that permeated the comments was that of communication. The need for a common framework and PM training, such as that offered by the Project Management Institute and its associated certification, was cited. One respondent talking about the importance of training stated, ‘‘Conducting in-house and outside vendor provided training on project start up, cost estimating, use of MS Project, IT project management, specialized PM training in methodology. All of this in an effort to improve PM for new and seasoned PMs’’.
8. Conclusions and recommendations for further research The role of IT in the university environment has received much attention. Whether it is integrated into
teaching, or course materials, or as part of the operational infrastructure, university IT departments are being called upon to do more with less. Industry IT departments which are facing the same demands are increasingly adopting project management tools and techniques to better plan, monitor and control their IT activities. Similarly, university IT departments are beginning to realize the value that PM provides. The purpose of this study was to identify the degree to which project management practices are being utilized in university IT departments, and if so, which ones. Several aspects of the utilization of project management techniques and tools by United States university IT departments were identified. The study results provide a glimpse of how US academic IT departments currently practice project management and suggest directions for meaningful additional research. While the following discussion must necessarily be recognized as being based on survey results within the United States, it would certainly be beneficial to generally extend the research to university IT departments around the world. In general, university IT departments are far removed from their industry counterparts. While they may utilize many of the same tools and technologies, their adoption of PM tools/techniques and justification for their use, are limited at this time. Academic IT departments are primarily driven by operational issues and not cost cutting efficiencies or strategic initiatives. Therefore, they have not been under the same competitive pressures to adopt improved PM practices as their business counterparts. Study results verified operational necessity as by far the most influential factor affecting project priority with strategic objective not too far behind. Regulatory requirement finishing in third place may indicate an increasingly important influence in the university environment. Ongoing research could certainly explore the relative importance of these factors and then track changes for trends and the emergence of new factors affecting project priority in university IT departments. The need for top management support has been consistently found to be a critical factor in IT project success. The results of this study indicated a wide variance of opinion as to its importance for university IT projects. This finding definitely warrants further investigation. Establishing the relationship between this factor and others, such as those determining the use of formal PM tools/techniques (Project Duration, Project Cost, Project Scope, Number of People Involved, Regulatory Requirement), could provide valuable insights into how to execute particular university IT projects successfully. The fact that most public (93%) and private (83%) universities designate a ‘‘project manager’’ for new IT projects begs for a clarification of what the title project manager means in terms of what they do in university IT
D. Wierschem, C. Johnston / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 640–649
departments, just as in the IT business sector. Further research to evaluate the level of sophistication of PM practices within university IT departments would help to put the results of this study in perspective. The importance of project planning is recognized by university IT departments. The use of a Project Plan was ranked first or second in importance approximately three times as often as use of a formal organization PM methodology, project monitoring, and review meetings with stakeholders. However, further research is necessary to establish the true nature of the relative importance of these factors in the university IT department environment. It would also be valuable to explore the consistency of the definition of a project plan among university IT departments. Additional issues worth future efforts were also mentioned in Section 7 with respect to project monitoring, risk monitoring/management and resource leveling. Not unexpectedly, project scope and project cost were cited most frequently as the first or second most important factors determining whether or not formal PM tools/techniques would be employed on a project. Determining the relationship between these factors and the important tools/techniques actually used (as identified above) would be very worthwhile as well. Noticeably absent from the identified important tools utilized by academic institutions for IT project management were many of the control tools. In essence, it appears that university IT departments currently utilize PM techniques primarily to justify and document the development of their projects. This is further supported by the fact that project scope was the principal project characteristic determining whether PM tools would be used or not. Project management practices in university IT departments do indeed appear to be generally limited at this time. The study also compared the responses between public and private universities. Private institutions, it could be argued, are more susceptible to market forces due to their lack of, or significantly decreased, governmental support. However, with the exception of the use of risk monitoring/management and resource leveling techniques, no statistical significance between them was identified. Being able to treat them the same in future
649
research efforts is a valuable, simplifying result of this study.
References [1] Schwalbe K. Information technology project management. 2nd ed. Boston (MA): Course Technology; 2002. p. 11. [2] Rolstadas A. Visualization of production plans. Editorial, Product Plan Control 1997;8(1):1. [3] http://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research/chaos_1994_1.php. [4] Whittaker B. What went wrong? Unsuccessful information technology projects. Inform Manage Comput Security 1999;7(1): 23. [5] 1998 Chaos Report Standish Group. [6] 2001 Chaos Report Standish Group. [7] Gantz J. E-Marketplaces are down, but not for long. Computer World 2001;35(23):28. 1/2 p. [8] PMI Institute. http://www.pmi.org/prod/groups/public/documents/info/pdc_pmp.asp 1/10/2005. [9] White D, Fortune J. Current practice in project management – an empirical study. Int J Project Manage 2002;20:1–11. [10] Liberatore M, Pollack-Johnaosn B, Smith C. Project management in construction: Software use and research directions. J Construct Eng Manage 2001;127(2):101–7. [11] Young Sue. Why IT projects fail. Computer World 2003;37(34):44. 1 p. [12] Aladwani A. IT project uncertainty, planning and success. An empirical investigation from Kuwait. Inform Technol People 2002;15(3):210–25. [13] Pulk B. Improving software project management. J Syst Software 1990;13(3):231. 5 p. [14] Clark A. Short on skills. Computing Canada 2003;29(18):18. [15] Hoffman T. IT Departments face a lack of project management know-how. Computer World 2003;37(32):16. 1 p. [16] Bickers D. The application of project management techniques to college and university admissions activities. C & U Feature, Spring/Summer 1993:86–92. [17] Murphy D. Utilizing project management techniques in the design of instructional materials. Perform Instruct 1994;33(3):9–11. [18] Conway J. Evolution of SOLAR, HarvardÕs client/server-based fundraising management system. Cause/Effect, Spring 1995;18(1): 46–52. [19] Henry R. Under control – Careful planning and monitoring can help to contain costs in your next school construction project. Am School University 2001(November):365–6. [20] Yerk-Zwickl S. Project implementation using a team approach. Campus – Wide Inform Syst 1995;12(2):27. [21] Rider 9 in the General Appropriations Act, 77th Texas Legislature. p. 1–67. [22] http://www.vita.virginia.gov/docs/psg.cfm 1/11/2005.