بررسی منطقی برای اتخاذ روش شناسی مدیریت پروژه بین المللی شناخته شده در ایرلند: دیدگاه مدیر پروژه

As businesses become more dependent on technology, effective project management has been recognised as a necessity, in order to lead and deliver quality software applications on time and within budget. One possible option in software projects is the use of a project management methodology. This exploratory research examines why organisations with an existing project management methodology are transitioning to an internationally-recognised methodology, and why organisations that do not have a project management methodology are implementing an internationally-recognised methodology. Results of five case studies suggest that while an in-house project management methodology can work well within an organisation, the benefits of using an internationally-recognised methodology should be considered. These include: the assurance that the organisation is using what is considered to be best-practice; demand from external customers that a recognised methodology is used; assistance with external recruitment; and the availability of suppliers of the methodology for training and support.

The growth and acceptance of project management of Information Systems (IS) projects in organisations is on the increase and has come about more through necessity than through desire (Abbasi & Al-Mharmah, 2000, Crawford & Pollack, 2007 and Kerzner, 2006b). More and more organisations are under pressure to develop and execute innovative business strategies and projects in order to stay competitive (Srivannaboon and Milosevic, 2006). Increasingly, information systems are being used to carry out these business strategies, and as a result better planning skills are required (Brancheaum and Wetherbe, 1987). Management are realising that to remain competitive their organisations must implement good project management practices as an organisation may find that they are no longer competitive on price or quality and that it may be cheaper to outsource project work (Kerzner, 2006b). As a result, organisations are forced to look internally for a solution to execute these projects effectively. One possible solution is project management, as using good project management practices can help organisations to better plan, organise, manage and control work, which leads to better performance and increased productivity (Abbasi & Al-Mharmah, 2000 and Loo, 2002). The fundamental objective of project management is to deliver a project within time, cost and to specification (Jurison, 1999). Yet, it is well known that many IS projects exceed their budget and time schedule (De Meyer et al., 2002). Various studies have found that between 40% and 50% of these projects fail to meet estimates and that the degree of overspend can exceed 200% (Keil et al., 2000 and Robey & Keil, 2001). In 2004 the StandishGroupInternational (2004) conducted one of the most extensive and often cited studies which showed that only 29% of all the projects surveyed succeeded (i.e. were delivered on time, on budget, with required features and functions) with 18% of projects failing (cancelled prior to completion or delivered and never used). Brock et al. (2003) are of the opinion that these IS project performance problems could be addressed by having better implementation procedures and better management of projects while Milosevic and Patanakul (2005) have identified the use of project management processes as a factor affecting the success of IS projects. Research by Parker & Skitmore, 2005 and Wateridge, 1997 has also shown that IS projects that do not have a project manager or do not follow a methodology or a defined process are more likely to fail as ultimately, the project manager is responsible for the delivery of a project and is fundamental to ensuring that the project is a success.

These cases studies are a step in providing an insight on project management practices in Ireland, from the project manager's perspective, specifically in relation to the implementation and use of an IRPMM following project management certification. Kerzner, 2001 and Milosevic & Patanakul, 2005 identified several reasons why organisations decide to implement a project management methodology with which this study agrees. This study found that the main driver in larger organisations for the implementation of an IRPMM, was a desire by senior management to have a uniform approach to project management across the organisation. As a result, management provided their full support for the implementation and they also provided the time, money and the resources required for the implementation, which is in line with the existing literature (Brown, 1999 and Loo, 1996). Yet, it must be noted that if an organisation decides to customise a project management methodology this can take a substantial amount of time and money, and this should be taken into consideration. In contrast, the main driver in the smallest organisation was the personal desire of the project manager to enhance her career prospects and her knowledge of project management, while at the same time considering the benefits to the organisation. This was not identified as a driving factor in the existing literature. This may suggest that project managers in smaller organisations can have more direct influence on management to obtain their support, which can benefit both the project managers and their organisation. The findings of this study also suggest that when a recognised methodology is implemented in an organisation, the support and input of the various divisions within the organisation is needed to ensure a successful adoption of the methodology. This concurs with the findings of Blackburn, 2002, Brown, 1999 and Loo, 1996. Where customers who are external to the organisation are required to use a methodology, this study shows that their support is also required for a successful implementation. This requirement has not been highlighted in the literature to date. Many organisations adapt an IRPMM to their own specific requirements, as project life cycles and management structures are different in every organisation (Zielinski, 2005). The organisations in this study that tailored the methodology to meet their needs were large organisations that were well-established and have been in existence for over fifty years. This may suggest that in order for the methodology to be successful, large, well-established organisations require a methodology that can be modified to fit with their existing business processes. This agrees with the findings of Garcia (2005) who states that if a standard does not fit within the framework of the organisation it will not achieve its promised benefits. The organisations that adapted the methodology also tended to have a condensed version of the methodology for smaller projects, which made the methodology more flexible in terms of its use for projects of all sizes. This suggests that adapting an IRPMM may improve the flexibility of a methodology, and so, could resolve the problems identified by White and Fortune (2002) who find that sometimes a methodology can be difficult to model to the ‘real world’, or can require too much documentation. One project manager believed that there were no major additional benefits following the implementation of their new IRPMM after the completion of the certification programme, as they had a good methodology in place previously. This organisation had already recognised the benefits of using a standard methodology. As a result, in this organisation there was no evidence to suggest that the new methodology was more effective than the old methodology, which concurs with Kerzner (2001) who states that it is not important which methodology is used so long as the project team can use the methodology. However, this study identified a number of benefits to using an IRPMM rather than an in-house methodology (an area not covered in existing literature). These included: the assurance that the organisation was using what was considered to be best-practice within the industry, which should provide a competitive advantage when competing with other suppliers for projects; the expectation of external customers that their suppliers would have a recognised project management methodology in place; the availability of several suppliers of the methodology for training and support; and assistance with external recruitment, resulting in a reduction in the overhead of training of new staff members. This suggests that while using an in-house project management methodology can benefit an organisation and can work well within an organisation, as was seen in the organisation that had a successful internal methodology prior to certification, the benefits of using an IRPMM should be considered by organisations when deciding on a project management methodology. In conclusion, organisations considering implementing an IRPMM need to think about their reasons for doing so. It is possible that if a good project management methodology already exists and is used consistently across an organisation that there may not be a requirement to implement an IRPMM. However, in the event that an organisation intends to implement an IRPMM senior management must be committed and supportive of the implementation in order for it to be successful. Management must also obtain the support of all staff, and possibly customers, to ensure that the methodology is used on projects. In the event that the methodology requires customisation, additional time and money must also be made available for this and also to allow time for staff to receive training on the methodology. This may result in a longer implementation period, which may have an impact on the decision to customise. Selection of the most appropriate project management methodology can depend on factors such as the availability of project management certification providers for training and support; the ease with which the methodology can be adapted to suit the business; and the flexibility of the methodology in practice across projects of different sizes.