+ All Categories
Home > Documents > PM1 OM Even-Managing Global Project

PM1 OM Even-Managing Global Project

Date post: 17-Oct-2014
Category:
Upload: richard-tino-andrean
View: 32 times
Download: 7 times
Share this document with a friend
Popular Tags:
14
60 April 2010 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj PAPERS INTRODUCTION I n this global environment of intense competition, to realize and sustain competitive advantage, organizations must place importance on how they practice project management (PM). Specifically, it is critical, in the context of global projects and geographically dispersed project teams, to integrate information technology (IT) tools and manage cultural differences in dealing with project risk and complexity with a focus on improving effi- ciency, effectiveness, and innovation. A review of journals and publications provides ample evidence of research interest in global projects. However, only a few research studies focus on identifying enablers and barriers of global projects and implement- ing them successfully (Dodson, 1998; Grosse, 2002; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Lientz & Rea, 2003; Nidiffer & Dolan, 2005; Sarker & Sahay, 2002). None of these studies have addressed the interaction of enablers and barriers or how well their relationships to one another could be used to improve project performance. The purpose of this research effort is to develop a model for improving the performance of global projects using the underlying relations among the important enablers and barriers of global projects. This study begins with the premise that global projects and global virtual teams are inextricably linked with each other. The focus of the study is to understand how enablers and barriers of global projects interrelate with one another. Using these interrelationships, a model is developed to analyze the roles and responsibilities of the project manager and the team to successful- ly manage global projects. In this article, as a first step, enablers and barriers of global projects are identified using the literature review. Second, the research methodology for collecting data to develop underlying relations among these factors and their level of impact on project success is presented. Then the structural linkages between these factors are identified, analyzed, and discussed. The analysis of these linkages will determine individual and team roles in project success from the research and practitioner’s perspectives. Finally, we will present limitations of the study and suggest opportunities for future research efforts. Literature Review For the purposes of this study, a global project is defined as a transnational project, a temporary endeavor with a project team made up of individuals from different countries; working in different cultures, business units, and functions; and possessing specialized knowledge for solving a common strategic task (Adenfelt & Lagerström, 2006: Marmer, 1998; Schweiger, 1998). Likewise, a global virtual team is defined by three dimensions: (1) no com- mon past or future, (2) culturally diverse and geographically dispersed, and (3) communicating electronically (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999) define a global virtual team to be a temporary, culturally diverse, geographically dispersed, electronically Managing Global Projects: A Structured Approach for Better Performance Vittal Anantatmula, College of Business, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC, USA Michael Thomas, College of Business, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC, USA ABSTRACT The purpose of this research effort is to develop a model for improving the performance of global projects using the underlying relations among the important enablers and barriers of global project performance. A number of factors are identified in the study, using a literature review to develop the model. A survey was used to determine the impact of these factors on global project performance. The model suggests differ- ent management practices for global projects versus traditional, co-located projects. Different from the outcomes of traditional projects, research results suggest that leadership and establishing trust is a first step in the initial stages of the global project. KEYWORDS: global projects; virtual teams; interpretive structural modeling; project performance factors; enablers and barriers of global projects Project Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 2, 60–72 © 2010 by the Project Management Institute Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20168
Transcript
Page 1: PM1 OM Even-Managing Global Project

60 April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

PA

PE

RS

INTRODUCTION ■

In this global environment of intense competition, to realize and sustaincompetitive advantage, organizations must place importance on howthey practice project management (PM). Specifically, it is critical, in thecontext of global projects and geographically dispersed project teams, to

integrate information technology (IT) tools and manage cultural differencesin dealing with project risk and complexity with a focus on improving effi-ciency, effectiveness, and innovation.

A review of journals and publications provides ample evidence ofresearch interest in global projects. However, only a few research studiesfocus on identifying enablers and barriers of global projects and implement-ing them successfully (Dodson, 1998; Grosse, 2002; Jarvenpaa & Leidner,1999; Lientz & Rea, 2003; Nidiffer & Dolan, 2005; Sarker & Sahay, 2002). Noneof these studies have addressed the interaction of enablers and barriers orhow well their relationships to one another could be used to improve projectperformance. The purpose of this research effort is to develop a model forimproving the performance of global projects using the underlying relationsamong the important enablers and barriers of global projects.

This study begins with the premise that global projects and global virtualteams are inextricably linked with each other. The focus of the study is tounderstand how enablers and barriers of global projects interrelate with oneanother. Using these interrelationships, a model is developed to analyze theroles and responsibilities of the project manager and the team to successful-ly manage global projects. In this article, as a first step, enablers and barriersof global projects are identified using the literature review. Second, theresearch methodology for collecting data to develop underlying relationsamong these factors and their level of impact on project success is presented.Then the structural linkages between these factors are identified, analyzed,and discussed. The analysis of these linkages will determine individual andteam roles in project success from the research and practitioner’s perspectives.Finally, we will present limitations of the study and suggest opportunities forfuture research efforts.

Literature ReviewFor the purposes of this study, a global project is defined as a transnationalproject, a temporary endeavor with a project team made up of individualsfrom different countries; working in different cultures, business units, andfunctions; and possessing specialized knowledge for solving a commonstrategic task (Adenfelt & Lagerström, 2006: Marmer, 1998; Schweiger, 1998).Likewise, a global virtual team is defined by three dimensions: (1) no com-mon past or future, (2) culturally diverse and geographically dispersed, and(3) communicating electronically (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999).

Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999) define a global virtual team to be a temporary, culturally diverse, geographically dispersed, electronically

Managing Global Projects: A StructuredApproach for Better PerformanceVittal Anantatmula, College of Business, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC, USA Michael Thomas, College of Business, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC, USA

ABSTRACT ■

The purpose of this research effort is to developa model for improving the performance of globalprojects using the underlying relations amongthe important enablers and barriers of globalproject performance. A number of factors areidentified in the study, using a literature reviewto develop the model. A survey was used todetermine the impact of these factors on globalproject performance. The model suggests differ-ent management practices for global projectsversus traditional, co-located projects. Differentfrom the outcomes of traditional projects,research results suggest that leadership andestablishing trust is a first step in the initialstages of the global project.

KEYWORDS: global projects; virtual teams;interpretive structural modeling; project performance factors; enablers and barriers ofglobal projects

Project Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 2, 60–72

© 2010 by the Project Management Institute

Published online in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com)

DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20168

Page 2: PM1 OM Even-Managing Global Project

April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 61

communicating work group. Further,they clarify that the notion of temporaryin the definition describes teams whosemembers may have never workedtogether before and who may not expectto work together again as a group.Jarvenpaa and Leidner concluded thatin global virtual teams, communicationthat rallies around the project and tasksappears to be necessary in order tomaintain trust. Social communicationthat complements rather than substi-tutes for task communication maystrengthen trust. Advantages of employ-ing virtual teams are flexibility, respon-siveness, lower costs, and better utilizationof resources that are necessary to meetever-changing requirements in highlyturbulent and dynamic global businessenvironments (Mowshowitz, 1997;Snow, Snell, & Davison, 1996).

Enablers and BarriersAs noted earlier, global virtual teams gohand-in-hand with global projects. Thevirtual team effectiveness plays animportant role in project performance.Dubé and Paré (2001) contend thatglobal virtual teams face significantchallenges over and above virtualteams located locally due to culturaldifferences and language issues. Dubéand Paré identified people and tech-nology as key issues for global virtualteams.

Communication was found to be animportant component of project suc-cess in virtual teams (Beranek, Broder,Reineg, Romano, & Sump, 2005;Khazanchi & Zigurs, 2005; Lin & Berg,2001). Diallo and Thuillier (2005) andTavcar, Zavbi, Verlinden, and Duhovnik(2005) underlined the importance ofestablishing strong communicationand cooperation among the projectmanager, stakeholders, and team mem-bers and argued that these factors arecritical for the success of the project.Rad and Anantatmula (2009) suggestthat a major source for the failure ofglobal virtual teams is due to the realitythat virtual teams are denied most ofthe traditional modes of synchronous

communication, an effective way toresolve conflicts.

Global projects can use time zonedifferences to increase the number ofproductive work hours in a day, andsecure scarce resources such as knowl-edge experts and other specializedresources no matter where they reside(Nidiffer & Dolan, 2005). Global projectscan also employ more people sincethere are no space constraints. However,Nidiffer and Dolan caution that thesebenefits come with increased risks dueto the lack of face-to-face interaction,which may result in lack of trust andineffective communication, leading todifficulty in collaboration. IBM has usedthis concept very well in its global proj-ect teams (Singer, 2001).

Research has shown that teammember trust is a key antecedent to col-laboration (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999;Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002).Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999) argue thatthe use of electronic communication,cultural diversity, and no history ofworking together challenge the potentialexistence of trust in global virtual teams.They conclude that communicationthat supports the project and tasksmakes it possible for the existence andmaintenance of trust. Kanawattanachaiand Yoo (2002) also found that trustresults in open communication, coop-eration, higher-quality decision making,and risk taking. It is in this context thatproject leadership plays an importantrole in establishing clarity in generatingcollaboration and trust among the proj-ect team members (Anantatmula, 2008).

It is obvious that cultural differ-ences and different time zones are bar-riers to effective communication withinthe project team as well as between theproject team and its external stakehold-ers. In the past, local traditions, includ-ing the language and culture, have beenconfined to the physical location(Sarker & Sahay, 2002). In recent history,technological advances, such as theInternet, satellite television, and wire-less communication networks, and theglobal economy are bringing more

changes to local language and culture.However, Sarker and Sahay (2002),observe that the cultural identity ofindividuals is still inextricably tied totheir native language. Citing otherresearch studies, Sarker and Sahayargue that individuals still have a strongpreference for conducting business intheir native language.

The study of the impact of cultureon the operation of international orga-nizations is well documented from usinginstitutional theory to analyze conflictson global projects (Mahalingam &Levitt, 2007; Orr & Scott, 2008) to usingthe life-cycle framework to analyzeglobal project conflicts (Byosiere &Luethge, 2007; Khang & Moe, 2008;Wang & Liu, 2007) to using a heuristicmodel for resolving cross-cultural ethi-cal conflicts (Hamilton, Knouse, & Hill,2009). The seminal work of Hofstede’scultural values framework has beenused in a variety of cultural studies(Hofstede, 1991). The use of psychic dis-tance first defined by Beckerman in1956 has been used to describe “. . . thedistance between home market and aforeign market, resulting from the per-ception of both cultural and businessdifferences” (Evans & Mavondo, 2002, p. 516).

However, in this study the authorsare more concerned with the broadervalues of culture as described herein.Other cultural characteristics definewho we are and how we interact whilemanaging a global virtual team. Forinstance, Horii, Jin, and Levitt (2005)used the two dimensions proposed byHofstede (1991): practice differencesand value differences. In a project theydefine three practice differences: “thelevel of centralization of authority, the level of formalization of communi-cation, and the depth of the organiza-tional hierarchy” (Horii et al., 2005, p.307). Value differences in a project aredefined by “. . . how project participantsmake work-related and communicationrelated decisions” (Horii et al., 2005, p. 308). Similarly, the idea of what con-stitutes a good performance differs

Page 3: PM1 OM Even-Managing Global Project

62 April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Managing Global Projects: A Structured Approach for Better PerformanceP

AP

ER

S

from country to country. These differ-ences impact the project performance,and the risk of project failure escalates(Simons, 2006). Likewise, an individual’sidea about what constitutes accountabil-ity can also vary within different cultures(Dubé & Paré, 2001). Project managers ofglobal virtual teams must be mindful of these differences.

Barczak, McDonough, andAthanassiou (2006) found that the mainchallenges facing a global project leaderare associated team members whospeak different native languages, comefrom different cultural backgrounds,live and work in multiple countries, andcome from different companies.

Yasin, Martin, and Czuchry (2000),citing other studies (Halpin & Huang,1995; Kerzner, 1995), suggest that proj-ect managers dealing with internation-al projects should be trained to developsensitivity to cultural differences andshould be knowledgeable about inter-national environmental regulationsand standards. Grosse (2002) andDodson (1998) conclude that speakingthe language, knowing the culture, andbeing sensitive to cultural differencescould also help communication.

In their study, Sennara and Hartman(2002) found that although major cul-tural risks on domestic and global proj-ects are superficially similar, theirimpact on project effectiveness andsuccess are different. They list six issues:organizational culture, networking,project selection, contracts and negoti-ation, project leadership, and foreignagent selection, which need to be con-sidered before deciding to go forwardwith a global project. Organizationalstructure, communication, culture, andtrust are considered to be four areas forrisk mitigation in virtual organizationsby Grabowski and Roberts (1999).

The main issue between culturesseems to be the role of trust. Majchrzak,Rice, Malhotra, King, and Ba (2000)defined this issue further, developingthree practical outcomes that canimprove trust in global project teams:(1) creating an environment where

team members are comfortable openlydiscussing conflicts, (2) avoiding rigidstructures that are not adaptable, and(3) using telephone conferences as wellas the Internet.

Apart from culture, Damodara(2000) argues—in the context of engi-neering and construction projects—that organizations need to change theirproject management practices in atleast six areas to remain competitiveglobally. They are:• Become a cost-effective organization

in the global environment.• Maintain state-of-the-art information

systems.• Hire team members who can think

globally.• Use global suppliers effectively.• Take advantage of local existing facili-

ties.• Achieve global quality.

Most of these project managementissues are relevant irrespective of theindustry to which the global project isexecuted as is evident from the study ofAdenfelt and Lagerström (2006), whoobserved that organization structure isconsidered an important enabler inglobal projects to promote a culture ofcollaboration, learning, and trust.

Lientz and Rea (2003) have identi-fied a number of factors that add com-plexity to global projects: lack of controldue to external issues such as local pri-orities, diverse cultures, different timezones, volatility associated with localand foreign exchange currencies, differ-ing rules and regulations in differentgeographical locations, political pres-sures, and greater public visibility ofthese projects. Political risks are oftensignificant depending on political rela-tions specifically, if projects are execut-ed in developing countries (Khattab,Anchir, & Davies, 2007).

A research study examining issuesrelated to enabling and sharing knowl-edge in transnational projects has iden-tified communication technology as anenabler (Adenfelt & Lagerström, 2006).Lehmann (2004) points out the difficulty

of setting up a global information sys-tem for a large multinational firm, withissues being the definition of require-ments, the internal politics of the orga-nization, and the changing strategicdirection of the organization.

Yasin et al. (2000), in their study of81 project managers, observed thatcompared to project managers with nointernational experience, those withglobal project management experiencehave more knowledge in internationallaw, international finance, internation-al economics, and international market-ing. More interestingly, global projectmanagers are more knowledgeableabout integration management, cus-tomer satisfaction, and leadership.According to their study, project man-agers with global experience consid-ered procurement management to beimportant when managing their proj-ects. Lee-Kelley (2006) also found thatselection of team members in the glob-al team is critical to project success.

Team building is considered essen-tial for virtual project teams (ProjectManagement Institute [PMI], 2008).Nidiffer and Dolan (2005) observed thatbuilding virtual teams with a minimumof face time, clearly defining work,measuring cybernetic worker produc-tivity, and managing employee commu-nications across time zones are majormanagement priorities. Based on theirstudy of virtual teams using WebCT,Sarker and Sahay (2002) suggested thatattention to technical and social com-ponents of virtual teams would mini-mize the friction related to location andtemporal distances.

Research MethodologyTwo research methods were used in thisstudy. The first one, interpretive structur-al modeling (ISM), examines the under-lying dependency relations among thefactors identified from the literaturereview (Table 1). The second method wasdesigned to establish the importanceand level of impact of each of these fac-tors on the success of global projects in general and type of global project in

Page 4: PM1 OM Even-Managing Global Project

April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 63

particular. To obtain this information, asurvey was sent to project managementprofessionals working in virtual teamson global projects. Using the surveyresults in conjunction with the ISMresults, the most important success fac-tors were identified and strategies devel-oped to manage them.

Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)The ISM methodology is used to deter-mine underlying relations among thefactors (see Table 1), which is normallyused for structuring of goals and ob-jectives into a hierarchical model(Warfield, 1973). ISM is chosen becausehuman brains experience problems incoping with complex problems with asignificant number of elements andrelations among elements (Waller,1975). ISM has its other advantages too;it uses an interactive discussion methodto collect data, which forces the partici-pant in the research study to carefullyanalyze links between these factors.

After identifying a set of global proj-ect management factors (Table 1), anExcel spreadsheet (Figure 1) is used forcollecting the data.

ISM uses a process in which indi-viduals or a group of people participatein structuring their collective knowl-edge and modeling interrelationshipsin a way that enhances the understand-ing of the complexity associated with theelements. In the process, ISM facilitatesidentifying structure within a system ofrelated elements and creates an oppor-tunity to analyze it from different per-spectives. Once these relations aremodeled, they can be validated usingcase studies or through surveys. Thisresearch effort is expected to serve as afoundation for such studies and for val-idating these relations.

Figure 1 was used when discussingthe barriers and enablers with the par-ticipants in the study and they wereasked to fill out the white cells of thematrix shown in the figure by followingthe steps outlined in Appendix A. Datais gathered from discussions and inter-views. The participants included project

management professionals and acade-micians in the project management dis-cipline and were actively involved inglobal projects. Thus, we used qualita-tive research data as input to the ISMsoftware to generate ISM data, and thecomputational results are shown inAppendix B. Using these results, ISMsoftware has generated the model(Figure 2), which shows: (1) how we canidentify the direct and indirect relation-ships between attributes of project per-formance and (2) how to include softervariables in the analysis.

Survey ResultsThe survey was sent to around 100 proj-ect management professionals who areactively involved in global projects.Seventy-six responses were received.The higher response rate could beattributed to the fact that managing orworking in these projects offers incen-tives and challenges to learn aboutwhat success entails. Although 55% ofrespondents are project managers, atotal of 91% of the respondents aredirectly involved in either managing orparticipating in a global project team.Respondents represented global proj-ect teams of considerable size, with 71%of them having more than 20 membersin the team and 29% of them have morethan 50 members. The survey alsorevealed that over 68% of respondentshad more than six years of project man-agement experience, with 45% havingmore than ten years of project manage-ment experience. Referring to globalprojects and virtual teams, 83% of therespondents have three or more yearsof experience with global project teams.

All the participants have basic edu-cational qualifications, with 31% ofthem holding PMP certification, withan additional 22% holding advancedcertification or a graduate degree inproject management. Representedorganizations are large organizations interms of revenue, with 71% of themhaving annual revenue exceeding $500million and 62% exceeding $1 billion.There are more than 1,000 full-time

employees in 78% of the organizations,with 58% employing more than 10,000.Of the organizations, 85% are multina-tional organizations.

A wide spectrum of organizations isrepresented in the study, with technol-ogy (24%) leading the group, followedby the health care industry (20%),financial services (13%), and the com-munication sector (7%).

All the respondent organizationsused e-mail for communication withvirtual team members. Intranet wassecond (83%) in usage. The respon-dents used videoconferencing (75%),virtual data sharing (75%), and projectmanagement software tools (63%).Among all the electronic communica-tion tools, instant messaging was theleast used (68%).

Respondents were asked to rate allthe global project factors, identified inTable 1 on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 repre-senting low impact and 5 representinghigh impact. The complete results areshown in Table 2.

Looking at the results, it can be seenthat communication is the key factorand is likely to have a high impact onproject success. Considering that virtualteams are less successful compared toteams working using face-to-face com-munication (Baker, 2002), communica-tion assuming greater importance thanthe other factors is justified. Communi-cation is followed by the importance of leadership and establishing trust. The high impact of stakeholder and customer satisfaction implies the signif-icance of communicating with thestakeholders and managing their expec-tations. The factors planning, execution,and control, and fast and reliable infor-mation systems are means to employeffective communication, and managethe project and team to meet stakeholderand customer satisfaction. The culturein which the project team performsinfluences all the factors of high impactlisted previously. Close attention to cul-tural differences and similarities mustbe made to carve out a unique workingculture for every global project.

Page 5: PM1 OM Even-Managing Global Project

64 April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Managing Global Projects: A Structured Approach for Better PerformanceP

AP

ER

S

Communication Language and associated cultural differences—an Beranek et al. (2005), Diallo and Thuillier (2005), Dodsonobvious obstacle to communication—but its importance (1998), Grosse (2002), Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999),is apparent with the increasing use of the World Wide Web. Khazanchi and Zigurs (2005), Lientz and Rea (2003), Lin

and Berg, (2001), Nidiffer and Dolan (2005), Rad and Anantatmula (2009), Sarker and Sahay (2002)

Cultural Values Religion has an impact on a project in terms of work Dubé and Paré (2001), Grosse (2002), Horii et al. (2005),ethics, values, holidays, who will work with whom, Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999), Lientz and Rea (2003),and the like. Beliefs, an outcome of culture, can Nidiffer and Dolan (2005)influence work practices. Local, regional, and nationalmanagement practices can vary from country to countryand could be different from Western norms such as timeoff from work, hierarchical authority, gender issues, andthe like.

Global Business International market, international economics, Lientz and Rea (2003), Yasin et al. (2000)Environment international finance, and currency—an understanding

of all these global business environmental issues willfacilitate making better project decisions throughout theproject life cycle.

Legal and Country-specific laws, environmental regulations, Halpin and Huang (1995), Kerzner (1995), Lientz and ReaPolitical Issues political issues, and acceptable standards can (2003), Yasin et al. (2000)

impact a global project.

Integration Vertical (within the organization) and horizontal Damodara (2000), Erickson and Management (external to the organization) integration are critical Ranganathan (2006), Lientz and Rea (2003), Nidiffer and

and can become difficult across regions and countries. Dolan (2005), Yasin et al. (2000)

Project A cost-effective organizational structure will be Damodara (2000), Erickson and Ranganathan (2006),Organizational decentralized and flexible to collaborate and manage Yasin et al. (2000)Structure global projects successfully to meet customer needs.

Global Procurement management in global projects will have Damodara (2000), Erickson and Ranganathan (2006),Procurement no geographical boundaries. Therefore, it is a challenge Lee-Kelly (2006), Sennara and Hartman (2002), Yasin et al.Management to possess the knowledge of the best places to go for (2000)

materials and labor, which can impact global projectsuccess.

Leadership and Treating a global project as a standard project can lead to Anantatmula (2008), Damodara (2000), Dodson (1998),Establishing problems. Leadership and people skills are more important Erickson and Ranganathan (2006), Grabowski and RobertsTrust for global projects. They help in establishing trust. (1999), Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999), Kanawattanachai

Micromanaging is a temptation in global projects and Yoo (2002), Lientz and Rea (2003), Majchrzak et al. because of a lack of understanding of the capabilities of (2000), Lientz and Rea (2003), Majchrzak et al. (2000), the project team members including contractors, and Nidiffer and Dolan (2005), Sennara and Hartman (2002),the absence of trust. Yasin et al. (2000)

Planning, Planning, execution, and control—which include risk Al-Tabtabai and Alex (2000), Erickson and RanganathanExecution, and management—are impacted by cultural differences, (2006), Nidiffer and Dolan (2005), Sennara and HartmanControl varying working conditions, and local issues. (2002), Yasin et al. (2000)

Stakeholder and Stakeholder and customer satisfaction—cultural, Nidiffer and Dolan (2005), Yasin et al. (2000)Customer financial, and communication complications can occurSatisfaction in terms of determining what the customer considers to

be a successful project.Stakeholders need to be part of the global projectprocess and should be made to feel that they arein a win-win situation with respect to theproject outcomes.

Fast and Reliable Fast and reliable information systems are essential Adenfelt and Lagerström (2006), Dubé and Paré (2001),Information for success in global projects. Lehmann (2004), Lientz and Rea (2003), Sennara andSystems Communication and control systems that are standard, Hartman (2002), Yasin et al. (2000)

compatible, and reliable are essential for knowledge sharing and those that can be used in participating countries are essential.

Time-Zone Time zone differences can create communication Lientz and Rea (2003), Nidiffer and Dolan (2005), Differences (meetings) problems, specifically in synchronous Yasin et al. (2000);

mode. However, time zone differences can also allow work to proceed 24 hours a day.

Table 1: Factors of influence on performance of global projects.

Page 6: PM1 OM Even-Managing Global Project

April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 65

Global business environment, inte-gration management, legal and politi-cal issues, organizational structure, andglobal procurement management had arelatively low impact compared to thetop six noted in the previous paragraph.It is interesting to note that respon-dents were not overly concerned withtime zone differences. It is suggestedthat the reason for this could relate tothe fact that project team members arenow continually using asynchronouscommunications and time difference isa normal part of their experience.

By using ISM results in conjunctionwith these survey results, we can addmore clarity to the success model interms of highlighting the factors ofgreater importance. Considering thetop six factors as having greater impor-tance than the rest and considering theremaining as behind-the-scenes driv-ing factors, we have modified the com-prehensive model shown in Figure 2 toa simplified version, Figure 3, for man-aging global projects successfully.

The relevance and importance ofthe research findings, as reflected inFigure 3, in the project implementationphase are obvious. Culture influencesthe leadership style and resultant trustthat is established among the projectteam members. Leadership style mustadapt to the prevailing cultures and thecultural differences that are present inthe project environment. It is logicalthat cultural factors also dictate theadoptability of technology and influ-ence the design of the information sys-tem such as level of sophistication,types of information tools, and com-munication techniques. Once installed,it is important to maintain and upgradethe information system to ensure itsperformance at the desired speed andreliability levels throughout the projectmanagement life cycle. Likewise, lead-ership and trust help create effectivecommunication that must be sustainedthroughout the project life. Geographi-cally dispersed project teams that donot have an opportunity to get the proj-ect status will result in decreasing levels

Contextual relationship - leads to

1 Planning, execution, and control

2 Communication

3 Cultural values

4 Global business environment

5 Legal and environmental regulations and

policies

6 Time zone differences

7 Integration management

8 Project organizational structure

9 Global procurement management

10 Leadership and team management

11 Stakeholder and customer satisfaction

12 Fast and reliable information systems

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Plan

ning

, exe

cuti

on, a

nd c

ontr

ol

Com

mun

icat

ion

Cul

tura

l val

ues

Glo

bal

bus

ines

s en

viro

nmen

t

Leg

al a

nd e

nviro

nmen

tal r

egul

atio

ns a

nd p

olic

ies

Tim

e zo

ne d

iffer

ence

s

Inte

gra

tion

man

agem

ent

Proj

ect

org

aniz

atio

nal s

truc

ture

Glo

bal

pro

cure

men

t m

anag

emen

t

Lead

ersh

ip a

nd t

eam

man

agem

ent

Stak

ehol

der

and

cus

tom

er s

atis

fact

ion

Fast

and

rel

iab

le in

form

atio

n sy

stem

s

Figure 1: ISM for data collection.

N � 76

Mean ValueGlobal Project Performance Factor (Impact) SD

Communication 4.86 0.34

Leadership and establishing trust 4.76 0.49

Planning, execution, and control 4.67 0.53

Stakeholder and customer satisfaction 4.47 0.70

Fast and reliable information system 4.16 0.86

Culture 4.13 0.83

Global business environment 3.95 0.97

Integration management 3.92 0.83

Legal and political issues 3.81 1.01

Organization structure 3.79 0.87

Global procurement management 3.78 0.99

Time-zone differences 3.60 1.00

Table 2: Success factors and their impact.

Page 7: PM1 OM Even-Managing Global Project

66 April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Managing Global Projects: A Structured Approach for Better PerformanceP

AP

ER

S

of motivation. Understanding the cul-tural differences, engaging leadership,building trust, and communicatingeffectively would help to avoid such pit-falls.

Figure 2 has its relevance in devel-oping a detailed plan and strategy formanaging global projects, whereasFigure 3 could be a reference model forglobal project managers to sustain thesuccess strategy that is developed. Weargue that the simplified model shownin Figure 3 should be used in conjunc-tion with Figure 2, which presents alarger picture, yet consider both themodels to be important.

Participants of the study were askedabout the type of global project they were

currently working on. Using this data, theinfluence of project type was exploredwith respect to performance factors thatimpact project success (Table 3) and fac-tors important for the project.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) resultsand Tukey-Kramer honestly significantdifference (HSD) mean comparisonsshow that the mean scores of medicaland biotechnology projects (9) are sig-nificantly different as compared to the mean scores of IT projects (28) forthree factors as shown in Table 3. Theseresults imply that the impact of integra-tion management, project planning,execution, control, and time-zone dif-ferences is higher for IT projects relativeto biotechnology and medical projects.

Likewise, results of ANOVA andTukey-Kramer HSD show that meanscores of six factors that are consideredimportant for project success are signif-icantly different for all the three types ofprojects (see Table 4). They are: manag-ing cultural differences, managing lan-guage differences, understanding glob-al business environment, procurementmanagement, leadership for establish-ing trust, and fast and reliable informa-tion systems. Further, these statisticaltests denote that the importance oflegal issues is different for IT projectsand biotechnology and medical proj-ects only.

ANOVA results suggest that theimportance and impact of some of thefactors that contribute to the perfor-mance of global projects vary depend-ing upon the industry in which they areexecuted.

Analysis, Discussion, andImplicationsAnalysisOur results show that the global businessenvironment and cultural values are thetwo main driving factors that can be usedas a basis to build a successful projectmanagement efforts in global projects. Itis imperative that the project managercritically examine the prevalent global

Figure 2: Comprehensive global projects success model.

Cultural values

Global businessenvironment

Legal and politicalissues

Fast and reliableinformation systems

Time-zonedifferences

Leadership andestablishing trust

Global procurementmanagement

Communication

Project organizationstructure

Integrationmanagement

Planning, execution,and control

Stakeholder andcustomer

satisfaction

Fast and reliableinformation

systems

CommunicationCulturePlanning,

execution, andcontrol

Stakeholder andcustomer

satisfaction

Leadership andestablishing trust

Figure 3: Simplified global projects success model.

Page 8: PM1 OM Even-Managing Global Project

April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 67

business environment and its influenceon existing legal and political issues forthe applicable geographical regionswhere the project will be managed.

Likewise, cultural values, whichinclude religious-based differences invalues, differences in local and nationalmanagement practices, work ethics,and beliefs, will have an impact onwork practices and productivity, andshape the leadership and team man-agement of global projects. It is criticalfor the project manager to be cognizantof cultural values in formulating leader-ship and team management strategies.With all these factors in consideration,a project manager will have to adapttheir leadership style and ways inwhich the team is managed. As is truewith any project, among other things,stakeholder and customer satisfactionis the ultimate goal of global projects.

Project leadership and team man-agement influence and, in turn, areinfluenced by time zone differences

and fast, reliable information systems.As defined earlier, time zone differenceshelp the project manager to engage theproject team round the clock. On the downside, the project team may notalways have an opportunity to discussissues face-to-face or by synchronousvideo-conference meetings because ofgeographical dispersion. For the samereason, fast and reliable informationsystems play a major role in decidingleadership and team managementstyles. On the other side, cultural values,which lead to the adoption of suitableproject leadership and team manage-ment, will have a significant influenceon how time zone differences are man-aged and what kind of information system is required. Global project man-agers must analyze and understandthese project-specific interdependen-cies in formulating their approach.

These factors—information systems,issues related to time-zone differences,and project leadership and manage-

ment—together will influence procure-ment practices in global projects. Forinstance, time zone differences and infor-mation systems will have a bearing on theproject manager’s decision to identifyplaces for obtaining human resources andmaterials. Global project managers mustexercise prudence in exploring and iden-tifying all the possible sources for pro-curement of materials, services, and people because there are no geographicalboundaries or other constraints. Similarly,organizational structure, while adjustedto project leadership and managementpractices, is also influenced by informa-tion systems and time zone differences.

Integration management is aboutintegration within the organization aswell as outside the organization. Theinvolvement of various agencies in dif-ferent parts of the world makes inte-gration extremely important. Theinvolvement of these agencies is a crit-ical component of global projects andrepresents a significant difference

Management BiotechnologyIT Systems and Medical

Project Type SSSS Size Mean Size Mean Size Mean Probability � F

Managing cultural differences 28 4.32 12 4.16 9 2.77 0.0180

Managing language differences 28 4.25 12 4.25 9 2.77 0.0056

Understanding global business environment 28 4.18 12 4.33 9 2.44 0.0016

Legal issues 28 4.14 12 3.83 9 2.66 0.0208

Global procurement management 28 4.28 12 4.50 9 2.66 0.0004

Leadership of effective collaboration and trust 28 4.50 12 4.41 9 2.44 0.0007

Fast and reliable information systems 28 4.18 12 3.91 9 2.44 0.0028

Table 4: Factors important for project success.

Management BiotechnologyIT Systems and Medical

Project Type SSSS Size Mean Size Mean Size Mean Probability � F

Integration management 28 4.25 12 3.83 9 3.44 0.0288

Planning, execution, and control 28 4.85 12 4.58 9 4.22 0.0028

Time-zone differences 28 4.03 12 3.66 9 3.00 0.0192

Table 3: ANOVA—Project type and mean values of performance factors that impact success.

Page 9: PM1 OM Even-Managing Global Project

68 April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Managing Global Projects: A Structured Approach for Better PerformanceP

AP

ER

S

between global projects and traditionalprojects. Involvement of various agen-cies external to the parent organizationis decided by global procurement man-agement practices, and their effective-ness is a determinant of project com-munications and the structure.

Several research studies haveshown that stakeholder and customersatisfaction are the ultimate goals ofany project, and our research resultshave confirmed this. However, for thisto happen in global projects, stakehold-ers and customers should be made tofeel that they are in a win-win situationand should be included in project com-munication whenever feasible.

DiscussionThe significance of ISM and its resultsfrom the global project managementpoint of view is the emergence of thislogical flow of causal influences. Thesecausal influences are logically consis-tent and provide a combined view ofthe participants who participated in thestudy. The contextual relevance of thisapproach has important consequencesfor successful strategies and manage-ment practices in global projects.

In this research method, the result-ant model permits us to understand howeach of these elements can behave as anenabler and an inhibitor to global proj-ect performance. In the models shownin Figures 2 and 3, the weakness of anelement makes it an inhibitor, while thestrength of that very same elementmakes it an enabler. For instance, thepresence of fast and reliable informationleads to effective and efficient commu-nication among the project stakeholdersand creates a system for effective leader-ship and team management, whereasthe absence of such an information sys-tem will impede project team function-ing because of its geographical disper-sion. This research approach demon-strates the dual role of all the elements interms of whether they are enablers orbarriers in global projects. Therefore, itmay not be helpful to classify these ele-ments as enablers or barriers.

The difference between the man-agement practices the model suggestsfor global projects (Figures 2 and 3) andthe management practices of tradition-al, co-located projects is an importantoutcome of this study. Defining rolesand responsibilities, employing consis-tent processes, and communicatingexpectations are the activities that areaddressed first in a traditional project(Anantatmula, 2008). Likewise, earlystudies on project success identifiedsuccess factors such as clearly definedgoals, adequate communication withall of the stakeholders including theproject team, and the ability to handleunexpected problems (Pinto & Prescott,1987; Pinto, Slevin, & Dennis, 1987).However, in global projects, which areroutinely managed with virtual teamsand diverse cultures, establishment of leadership and the establishment oftrust that is sensitive to the culture incontext are initial steps and assumeimportance during the early phases ofthe project. Establishing leadership andinformation systems in the initial phas-es of the project life cycle exert signifi-cant influence on the project success ina global environment.

ImplicationsIn order to manage a global project suc-cessfully, organizations need to under-stand the global business environmentand different relevant cultures. Further,the impact and importance of factorsvaries based on the type of project andthe industry in which it is executed. Thesponsoring organization and the proj-ect manager must develop an under-standing of the relevant legal and polit-ical issues. The project-sponsoringorganization and all the key stakehold-ers must recognize similarities and dif-ferences in culture and values. Ifrequired, the entire project team can beconsidered for training on cultural val-ues. However, developing and nurtur-ing a culture of openness and trust isusually a gradual process and will havea significant impact on communica-tions. It is critical that the global project

establish current, reliable, and fastinformation systems because of thegeographical dispersion of project teammembers and stakeholders. Integrationis a key success factor, and the primarystakeholders will have to play impor-tant roles in managing this aspect of theglobal project. Finally, project man-agers who are managing global projectsmust adopt their leadership and teammanagement practices and processesbased on prevailing cultural values,legal and political issues, time-zone dif-ferences, and information systems.Only after these aspects are addressedin detail can we move on to the tradi-tional project management life-cyclephases of planning, executing, andmonitoring and control.

Limitations of the StudyA limitation to creating a structure isthat it is not easy to generalize theseresults across organizations. Therefore,caution should be exercised in usingthese findings. As stated earlier, thesedirectional results need to be validated,and this study is expected to serve as afoundation for such a study. To increasethe validity of these results and todevelop a more robust shared mentalmodel, we plan to apply the model inglobal projects in various industries forits validation. These actions will facili-tate the development of a more robuststructural model. Further research isplanned to validate the model to estab-lish the importance and effectiveness ofeach factor in the model, and establishtheir dependency relations using statis-tical methods.

Our research data represented proj-ects of a few dominant industries. Thereis scope to expand this study to includea significant number of projects thatrepresent a wider range of industries.

ConclusionOur research results suggest thatimportance and impact of some of thefactors that contribute to performanceof global projects are industry-specific.Depending on the type of industry in which the project is executed, the

Page 10: PM1 OM Even-Managing Global Project

April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 69

relative importance of these factorsmay vary. Our results also show thatproject management practices of globalprojects differ from traditional, co-located, and internal projects.

Through the use of ISM, theresearch study has shown how we cancapture the behavior of important fac-tors that can act as either enablers orbarriers to global project performance.It has also shown that such a qualitativeapproach allowed us to examine therichness of the complexity associatedwith the interactions among the factors.From the standpoint of enablers andbarriers, this approach allows us tounderstand how each of these elementscan behave as an enabler as well as aninhibitor to the success of global proj-ects. Consequently, these results willhelp redefine some of the key projectmanagement processes to improve per-formance.

The model can be used to set prior-ities within a global project and assessthe ability of global projects in meetingtheir objectives. These models help toevaluate global projects. They can beused as tools to improve project man-agement processes and they can alsoserve as structures to develop project-specific strategies and priorities. ■

ReferencesAdenfelt, M., & Lagerström, K. (2006).Enabling knowledge creation and shar-ing in transnational projects.International Journal of ProjectManagement, 24, 191–198.

Anantatmula, V. (2008). Role of tech-nology in project manager perform-ance model. Project ManagementJournal, 39(1), 34–48.

Baker, G. (2002). The effects of syn-chronous collaborative technologieson decision making: A study of virtualteams. Information ResourcesManagement Journal, 15(4), 79–93.

Barczak, G., McDonough, E. F., &Athanassiou, N. (2006, May–June). Soyou want to be a global project leader.Research Technology Management,pp. 28–35.

Beranek, P., Broder, J., Reineg, B.,Romano, N., & Sump, S. (2005).Management of virtual project teams:Guidelines for team leaders.Communications for the Association forInformation Systems, 16, 247–259.

Byosiere, P., & Luethge, D. J. (2007).Project management processes acrossborders: A comparison of EU-US cor-porate subsidiary project activities.Project Management Journal, 38(2),18–29.

Damodara, K. U. (2000, November–December). Global project management—Not business as usual.Journal of Management in Engineering,pp. 29–33.

Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2005). Thesuccess of international developmentprojects, trust and communication: AnAfrican perspective. InternationalJournal of Project Management, 23,237–252.

Dodson, W. R. (1998, April). Virtuallyinternational: Managing globalizedproject teams. PM Network, pp. 29–31.

Dubé, L., & Paré, G. (2001). Global vir-tual teams. Communications of theACM, 44(12), 71–74.

Erickson, J. M., & Ranganathan, C.(2006). Project management capabili-ties: Key to application developmentoffshore outsourcing. Proceedings ofthe 39th Annual Hawaii InternationalConference on System Sciences(pp. 199–208).

Evans, J., & Mavondo, F. T. (2002).Psychic distance and organizationalperformance: An empirical examina-tion of international retailing opera-tions. Journal of International BusinessStudies, 33, 515–532.

Grabowski, M., & Roberts, K. (1999).Risk mitigation in virtual organiza-tions. Science, 11, 704–721.

Grosse, C. U. (2002). Managing com-munication within virtual interculturalteams. Business CommunicationsQuarterly, 65(4), 22–38.

Halpin, D. W., & Huang, R. Y. (1995).Competition and future needs of

international clients. Journal ofProfessional Issues in EngineeringEducation and Practice, 121, 191–196.

Hamilton, J. B., Knouse, S. B., & Hill, V.(2009). Google in China: A manager-friendly heuristic model for resolvingcross-cultural ethical conflicts. Journalof Business Ethics, 86, 143–157.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures andorganizations: Software of the mind,intercultural cooperation and itsimportance for survival. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Horii, T., Jin, Y., & Levitt, R. E. (2005).Modeling and analyzing cultural influ-ences on project team performance.Computational & MathematicalOrganizational Theory, 10, 305–321.

Jarvenpaa, S., & Leidner, D. (1999).Communication and trust in globalvirtual teams. Organization Science, 10,791–815.

Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2002).Dynamic nature of trust in virtualteams. Journal of Strategic InformationSystems, 11, 187–213.

Kerzner, H. (1995). Project manage-ment: A systems approach to planning,scheduling, and controlling (5th ed.).New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Khang, D. B., & Moe, T. L. (2008).Success criteria and factors for inter-national development projects: A life-cycle-based framework. ProjectManagement Journal, 39(1), 72–84.

Khattab, A. A., Anchir, J., & Davies, E.(2007). Managerial perception of polit-ical risk in international projects.International Journal of ProjectManagement, 25, 734–743.

Khazanchi, D., & Zigurs, I. (2005).Patterns of effective management of vir-tual projects—An exploratory study.Newtown Square, PA: ProjectManagement Institute.

Lee-Kelley, L. (2006). Locus of controland attitudes to working in virtualteams. International Journal of ProjectManagement, 24, 234–243.

Lee-Kelley, L., & Sankey, T. (2008).Global virtual teams for value creation

Page 11: PM1 OM Even-Managing Global Project

70 April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Managing Global Projects: A Structured Approach for Better PerformanceP

AP

ER

S

and project success: A case study.International Journal of ProjectManagement, 26, 51–62.

Lehmann, H. (2004). The Australasianproduce cooperative: A global informa-tion system project. Communicationsof the Association for InformationSystems. 13, 220–232.

Lientz, B. L., & Rea, K. P. (2003).International project management. SanDiego, CA: Academic Press.

Lin, B. W., & Berg, D. (2001). Effects ofcultural differences on technologytransfer projects: An empirical study ofTaiwanese manufacturing companies.International Journal of ProjectManagement, 19, 287–293.

Mahalingam, A., & Levitt, R. E. (2007).Institutional theory as a framework foranalyzing conflicts on global projects.Journal of Construction Engineeringand Management, 133, 517–528.

Majchrzak, A., Rice, R., Malhotra, A.,King, N., & Ba, S. (2000). Technologyadaption: The case of a computer sup-ported inter-organizational virtualteam. MIS Quarterly, 24, 569–600.

Marmer, C. (1998, November).Building teams across borders. GlobalWorkforce, pp. 13–17.

Mowshowitz, A. (1997). Virtual organi-zation. Communications of the ACM,40(9), 30–37.

Nidiffer, K., & Dolan, D. (2005,September/October). Evolving distrib-uted project management. IEEESoftware, pp. 63–72.

Orr, R. J., & Scott, W. R. (2008).Institutional exceptions on global proj-ects: A process model. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 39,562–588.

Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. (1987).Variations in critical success factorsover stages in the project life cycle.Journal of Management, 14(1), 5–18.

Pinto, J. K., Slevin, D. P., & Dennis, P.(1987). Critical factors in successfulproject implementation. IEEE

Transactions on EngineeringManagement, 34(1), 22–27.

Project Management Institute (PMI).(2008). A guide to the project manage-ment body of knowledge (PMBOK ®

Guide)—Fourth Edition. NewtownSquare, PA: Author.

Rad, P. F., & Anantatmula, V. (2009June-July). Attributes of a harmoniousproject team. Presented at the AACEInternational 53rd Annual Meeting,Seattle, WA.

Sarker, S., & Sahay, S. (2002).Information systems development byUS-Norwegian virtual teams:Implications of time and space.Presented at the 35th Annual HawaiiInternational Conference on SystemSciences.

Schweiger, D. M. (1998, January–March). Networking global style.Business Economic Review, pp. 3–6.

Sennara, M., & Hartman, F. (2002).Managing cultural risks on interna-tional projects. Proceedings of the PMIAnnual Seminars and Symposium.Retrieved February 17, 2010, fromhttp://www.risksig.com/members/2002_papers/global07.pdf

Simons, M. (2006). Global softwaredevelopment: A hard problem requir-ing a host of solutions. Communica-tions of the ACM, 49(10), 32–33.

Singer, C. (2001, April). Leveraging aworldwide project team. PM Network,pp. 36–40.

Snow, C. C., Snell, S. A., & Davison, S.C. (1996). Use transnational teams toglobalize your company. Organiza-tional Dynamics, 24(4), 50–67.

Tavcar, J., Zavbi, R., Verlinden, J., &Duhovnik, J. (2005). Skills for effectivecommunication and work in globalproduct development teams. Journal ofEngineering Design, 16, 557–576.

Waller, R. J. (1975). Application ofinterpretive structural modeling to

priority-setting in urban systems man-agement. In M. Baldwin (Ed.), Portraitsof complexity (Battelle Monograph No. 9). Columbus, OH: BattelleMemorial Institute.

Wang, X., & Liu, L. (2007). Cultural bar-riers to the use of western projectmanagement in Chinese enterprises:Some empirical evidence from YunnanProvince. Project Management Journal,38(3), 61–73.

Warfield, J. N. (1973). Intent structures.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man,and Cybernetics, 3(2), 133–140.

Yasin, M. M., Martin, J., & Czuchry, A.(2000). An empirical investigation ofinternational project managementpractices: The role of internationalexperience. Project ManagementJournal, 31(2), 20–30.

Vittal Anantatmula, DSc, PMP, CCE, is an associateprofessor of project management in the College ofBusiness at Western Carolina University. His cur-rent research is focused on integrating knowledgemanagement and project management, knowl-edge management effectiveness, project manage-ment performance, and leadership. He has had hiswork published in journals such as the Journal ofKnowledge Management, the InternationalJournal of Knowledge Management, the Journalof Information and Knowledge ManagementSystems (VINE), the International Journal ofKnowledge and Learning, and ProjectManagement Journal. Prior to joining WesternCarolina University, he was at the GeorgeWashington University teaching and directing agraduate degree program. He has worked in thepetroleum and power industries for several yearsas an electrical engineer and project manager. Heholds a B.E. degree (electrical engineering) fromAndhra University, an MBA degree from IIM-MDI,and MS and DSc degrees in engineering manage-ment from the George Washington University. Heis a Certified Project Management Professionaland Certified Cost Engineer.

Michael Thomas, PhD, MPM, BTP, PMP, is anassistant professor of project management at

Page 12: PM1 OM Even-Managing Global Project

April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 71

Western Carolina University. He holds his PhDfrom the Business School at James CookUniversity, Australia, and a Master of ProjectManagement (MPM) degree from WesternCarolina University. His research interests are in

the areas of the leadership developmentprocess, global project management, and theproject lessons learned. He has published sever-al articles in scholarly journals and has present-ed papers at conferences on topics in these

domains. In addition to his current teachingposition, he has over 30 years of project man-agement experience in the IT industry, townmanagement, factory management, and the ironand steel industry.-

Appendix A: ISM Method1. Identification of Elements:

The elements of the system are identified and listed. In this study, it is achieved using literature review. However, brain-storming or other research methods can also be used.

2. Contextual Relationship:

A contextual relationship between elements is established, depending upon the objective of the modeling exercise.

3. Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM):

This matrix represents the respondent’s perception of an element-to-element directed relationship. Four symbols are used torepresent the type of relationship that can exist between two elements of the system under consideration. These are:

a. for the relation from element Ei to Ej, but not in the reverse direction;b. for the relation from Ei to Ej, but not in the reverse direction;c. for an interrelation between Ei and Ej (both directions); andd. to represent that Ei and Ej are unrelated.

4. Reachability Matrix (RM):

A Reachability Matrix is then prepared that converts the symbolic SSIM Matrix into a binary matrix. The following conver-sion rules apply:

If the relation Ei to Ej � 1 in SSIM, then element Eij � 1 and Eji � 0 in RMIf the relation Ei to Ej � 2 in SSIM, then element Eij � 0 and Eji � 1 in RMIf the relation Ei to Ej � 3 in SSIM, then element Eij � 1 and Eji � 1 in RMIf the relation Ei to Ej � 4 in SSIM, then element Eij � 0 and Eji � 0 in RM

The initial RM is then modified to show all direct and indirect reachabilities—that is, if Eij � 1 and Ejk � 1, then Eik � 1.

5. Level Partitioning:

Level partitioning is done in order to classify the elements into different levels of the ISM structure. For this purpose, twosets are associated with each element Ei of the system—a Reachability Set (Ri; that is, a set of all elements that can bereached from the element Ei, and an Antecedent Set (Ai; that is, a set of all elements that element Ei can be reached by).

In the first iteration, all elements, for which Ri � Ri∩Ai, are Level I Elements. In successive iterations, the elements identi-fied as level elements in the previous iterations are deleted, and new elements are selected for successive levels using the same rule. Accordingly, all the elements of the system are grouped into different levels.

6. Canonical Matrix:

Grouping together elements in the same level develops this matrix. The resultant matrix has most of its upper triangularelements as 0, and lower triangular elements as 1. This matrix is then used to prepare a digraph.

7. Digraph:

Digraph is a term derived from directional graph, and, as the name suggests, is a graphical representation of the elements,their directed relationships, and hierarchical levels. The initial digraph is prepared on the basis of the canonical matrix.This is then pruned by removing all transitivities, to form a final digraph.

Page 13: PM1 OM Even-Managing Global Project

72 April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Managing Global Projects: A Structured Approach for Better PerformanceP

AP

ER

S

8. Interpretive Structural Model:

The ISM is generated by replacing all element numbers with the actual element description. The ISM, therefore, gives avery clear picture of the system of elements and their flow of relationships.

Appendix B: ISM DataInputElement 1: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0Element 2: 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0Element 3: 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0Element 4: 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0Element 5: 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0Element 6: 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0Element 7: 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Element 8: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1Element 9: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0Element 10: 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0Element 11: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0Element 12: 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1

Reachability MatrixElement 1: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0Element 2: 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0Element 3: 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0Element 4: 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0Element 5: 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0Element 6: 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0Element 7: 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Element 8: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1Element 9: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0Element 10: 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

Level PartitionLevel Element

1 112 13 74 2, 8, 95 6, 10, 126 3, 57 4

Canonical MatrixElement 11: Level 1: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Element 1: Level 2: 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Element 7: Level 3: 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Element 2: Level 4: 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Element 8: Level 4: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0Element 9: Level 4: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0Element 6: Level 5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0Element 10: Level 5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0Element 12: Level 5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0Element 3: Level 6: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0Element 5: Level 6: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0Element 4: Level 7: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1

Page 14: PM1 OM Even-Managing Global Project

Copyright of Project Management Journal is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. / Education and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.


Recommended