The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm

MRR
36,2 Project management assets
and project management
performance outcomes
112
Exploratory factor analysis
Gita Mathur
Department of Organization and Management, San José State University,
San José, California, USA
Kam Jugdev
Athabasca University, Athabasca, Canada, and
Tak Shing Fung
Department of Information Technologies, University of Calgary,
Calgary, Canada

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine characteristics of project management assets
and project management performance outcomes as a step towards exploring the link between assets
being valuable, rare, inimitable, and having organizational support and the achievement of
competitive advantage.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper analyzes data from responses to an online
survey by 198 North American Project Management Institutew members. Exploratory factor
analysis is used to identify characteristics of project management assets and project management
performance outcomes.
Findings – In total, six factors that comprised the characteristics of project management assets, three
factors that comprised organizational support for project management assets, and two factors that
comprised the project management performance outcomes were extracted.
Research limitations/implications – Limitations of this study include sample size, response rate,
and self-report bias, calling for a larger sample in ongoing research. This study is a step towards
making the link between project management assets and performance outcomes.
Practical implications – This study draws managerial attention to project management assets as
sources of competitive advantage, applying the resource based view of the firm that assets are
sources of competitive advantage if they add economic value, are rare, are difficult to imitate, and have
organizational support.
Originality/value – Few papers have applied the resource based view of the firm to examine project
management capabilities as a source of competitive advantage. This paper contributes to the literature
on the resource based view of the firm and contributes to an improved understanding of project
management as a source of competitive advantage.
Keywords Competitive advantage, Project management, Resource management, Assets,
Performance outcomes, Project management assets, Project management resources, Resource based view,
Strategic assets, Strategic resources
Management Research Review Paper type Research paper
Vol. 36 No. 2, 2013
pp. 112-135
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-8269
DOI 10.1108/01409171311292234
Introduction Project
Using the resource based view (RBV) of the firm, we take the perspective that firms are management
a collection of resources, that the project management process is a subset of resources
of a firm, and that some of these project management resources are strategic and, assets
therefore, a source of competitive advantage for the firm. Resources are considered
strategic if they have the following competitive characteristics, they provide economic
value (valuable), they are unique (rare), they are difficult to copy (inimitable), and they 113
have organizational support. The presence of these competitive characteristics, referred
to as VRIO (Barney, 1991, 1998, 2002), lead to competitive advantage. A resource
contributes to competitive parity by being valuable and having organizational support.
If a resource is both valuable and rare, and has organizational support, it contributes
to temporary competitive advantage. A resource needs to be valuable, rare, inimitable,
and have organizational support to provide a sustained competitive advantage.
The project management process has been getting an increasing amount of attention
as a means to improve a firm’s competitive position. The academic literature has, however,
focused primarily on operational aspects of project management, and the role of this
process as a strategic capability, while it has been recognized, is still understudied.
The objective of our research is to make a contribution to the growing body of empirical
work that provides an improved understanding of project management as a source of
competitive advantage for scholars and practitioners interested in project management.
Prior research has attempted to highlight the competitive advantage that can be gained
from project management assets, empirically linking project management assets to the
achievement of the characteristics, valuable, rare, inimitable, and organizationally
supported (Jugdev and Mathur, 2006; Jugdev et al., 2007; Mathur et al., 2007). This past
work has not empirically addressed the link between the characteristics of the project
management assets and project or firm performance. We extend this past work, using
a new survey instrument that also draws on the VRIO framework to examine the factors
that comprise these competitive characteristics of project management assets, and in
addition, examines factors that comprise project management performance outcomes,
in an attempt to explore the link between assets being valuable, rare, inimitable, and
having organizational support and the achievement of competitive advantage. In this
paper we present our findings from an exploratory factor analysis of the data collected
from responses to an online survey by 198 North American Project Management
Institutew members using our survey instrument. We report on the extracted factors that
are characteristics of project management assets and project management performance
outcomes. This is a step towards exploring the link between project management and
the achievement of competitive advantage. The development of a path model based on
the data and extracted factors reported in this paper will be addressed in future research.
The sections that follow include the literature review, the study methodology,
a discussion of findings, conclusions, limitations, and the next steps in this research
program.

Literature review
The RBV examines competitive advantage in terms of a company’s many resources or
assets (e.g. financial, human, organizational, physical, social, technological). The firm’s
resources can be tangible (concrete; physical; codified or based on explicit knowledge)
or intangible (tacit; unspoken but understood). Only a subset of these resources,
MRR classified as strategic assets, contributes to its competitive advantage (Amit and
36,2 Schoemaker, 1993). The RBV and the perspective that strategic assets contribute to a
firm’s competitive advantage are widely accepted in the literature. Strategic assets
(e.g. intellectual property rights, reputation, brand, and culture) are resources that
involve explicit and tacit knowledge (Eisenhardt and Santos, 2000; Kaplan et al., 2001;
Kogut, 2000; Nonaka, 1994) that is embedded in a company’s unique skills, knowledge,
114 resources, and ways of working (Foss, 1997; Rumelt et al., 1994). As a recent review
indicates, the RBV continues to hold merit (Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010).
The VRIO framework has emerged from this perspective as a useful way of
characterizing strategic assets (Barney, 1991, 2002). The RBV and Barney’s VRIO
framework have been widely used in empirical studies on strategic assets such as: the
cognitive abilities of entrepreneurs (Alvarez and Busenitz, 2001), human resource skills
(Barney, 1998), managerial skills and abilities (Castanias and Helfat, 2001), electronic
commerce strategy capabilities (Montealegre, 2002), the effectiveness of the customer
service process in the insurance industry (Ray et al., 2004), governance decisions for
sourcing technological know-how (Schilling and Steensma, 2002), and technology
commercialization (Zahra and Nielsen, 2002). Newbert provides a broad assessment of
the empirical research on RBV (Newbert, 2007). Others have assessed empirical research
within specific fields, for example, the international business literature (Peng, 2001) and
the strategic human resources management field (Wright et al., 2001). Some researchers
have examined specific sectors, for example, the banking industry (Liu et al., 2010), the
home video game industry (Shankar and Bayus, 2003), and management support and
the performance of entrepreneurial start-ups in Germany (Stubner et al., 2007).
Our literature review indicates that the stream of research on operations management
using the RBV lens is evolving. Scholars have examined several operational processes
and reported that information sharing meets the VRIO criteria (Barratt and Oke, 2007);
scheduling estimating and management capabilities positively affect project
revenue (Ethiraj et al., 2005); functional areas integrated through organizational
knowledge contribute to valuable and rare product features (Paiva et al., 2008); and
improvement and innovation routines are distinct bundles that significantly relate
to operational performance (Peng et al., 2007).
The project management arena is also seeing an emerging interest in the application
of the RBV perspective. Project management is a set of processes that encompasses
the tools, techniques, and knowledge-based practices applied to projects, to achieve
organizational goals and deliver products or services (DeFillippi and Arthur, 1998;
Fernie et al., 2003; Project Management Institute, 2008). Project management involves
both tangible and intangible assets. Tangible resources involve codified or explicit
knowledge while intangible resources are based on tacit knowledge. Codified and tacit
knowledge have also been labeled as “know-what” and “know-how” (Nonaka, 1994).
To date, considerable project management literature has focused on the tangible
resources and codified knowledge through research on project management offices
(Aubry et al., 2007, 2008; Hobbs and Aubry, 2007) and studies on the use of tools and
techniques (Besner and Hobbs, 2006, 2008; Kloppenborg and Opfer, 2002; Ulri and Ulri,
2000). Several studies extend this stream of research to explore the tools and techniques
in relation to project success (Fortune et al., 2011; Patanakul et al., 2010; White and
Fortune, 2002). However, none of these aforementioned studies were anchored within
the RBV framework.
 Following the RBV logic, it is the lesser-studied intangible project management Project
resources that are more likely to be rare and inimitable, and therefore more likely to be management
sources of competitive advantage. Intangible project management resources include
tacit knowledge, the application and sharing of tacit knowledge, and processes and assets
relationships for facilitating this sharing. While explicit knowledge is more formal,
codified, and transmitted systematically (Polanyi, 1966), tacit knowledge is shared
informally through social exchanges (Granovetter, 1985) and some examples in project 115
management include brainstorming, mentoring, learning through shadowing, and
storytelling (Egbu, 2004; Leonard-Barton, 1992). Project teams often share knowledge
through informal exchange of ideas and practice in communities of practice, groups
where members regularly engage in sharing and learning based on their common
interests (Lesser, 2000).
A few studies have applied the RBV and the VRIO framework to explore how project
management contributes to a company’s competitive advantage. In a qualitative
field study based on an American-UK feature film industry project, DeFillipi and Arthur
found that although projects involve mobile and rented personnel (human capital),
they could accumulate core competencies and create a competitive advantage through
possessing inimitable resources (DeFillippi and Arthur, 1998). The VRIO framework
has also been applied to a case study of a project in the German music industry to analyze
competitive advantage levers (Enders et al., 2009). In their research program, Jugdev,
Mathur, and Fung drew on the RBV literature and developed an instrument based on the
VRIO framework to survey project management practitioners to explore the relationship
between tangible and intangible project management assets and the achievement
of the competitive characteristics of the project management process ( Jugdev and
Mathur, 2006; Jugdev et al., 2007; Mathur et al., 2007). They found that while tangible
project management assets are valuable, it is the intangible project management assets
that result in the process being rare, contributing to competitive advantage.
With firms increasingly focusing on project management as a source of competitive
advantage to help leverage their resources (Cleland and Ireland, 2002; Pinto, 2001),
we believe that an improved understanding of project management as a source of
competitive advantage motivates further investigation.

Conceptual model
We propose a high-level conceptual model (Figure 1) based on the literature to link the
characteristics of project management assets, as independent variables, to project
management performance outcomes, the dependent variables. Project management
assets can have one or more of the following characteristics – valuable (V), rare (R), and
inimitable (I). It is expected that these characteristics of the project management process
(V, R, and I) will affect project management performance outcomes, thereby contributing
to competitive advantage. If an asset is valuable and has organizational support it
contributes to competitive parity. If it is both valuable and rare, and has organizational
support, it contributes to temporary competitive advantage. Assets need to be valuable,
rare, inimitable, and have organizational support to provide a sustained competitive
advantage (Barney, 2007). Since organizational support is required for these assets to lead
to competitive advantage, in our model, we consider organizational support (O) as
a moderating variable for valuable, rare, and inimitable project management assets
to lead to competitive advantage from the project management process. We expect
MRR that the presence of the characteristics valuable (V), rare (R), and inimitable (I) will predict
36,2 project management performance outcomes in the presence of organizational support (O).
Our research draws on and builds upon previous empirical research that reports on
factors that constitute project management strategic assets and links them to the
achievement of the VRIO characteristics of the project management process
( Jugdev and Mathur, 2006; Jugdev et al., 2007; Mathur et al., 2007). The conceptual
116 model we propose in this paper (Figure 1) goes beyond these prior models to propose
relationships between the VRIO characteristics of project management assets and
project management performance outcomes and, it deviates from the prior models in
proposing that organizational support (O) is a moderating variable between the
independent variables valuable (V), rare (R), and inimitable (I) and the dependent
variables, project management performance outcomes. We consider both project-level
and firm-level performance as dependent variables that constitute project management
performance outcomes.
This paper reports on the findings from a factor analysis of data collected using a
survey tool to explore the factors that constitute the independent, moderating, and
dependent variables in this conceptual model. The relationships between the variables
are beyond the scope of this paper. The development of a path model to link the
variables in the conceptual model will be addressed in future research to test hypotheses
that the valuable, rare, and inimitable characteristics of project management assets will
predict project management performance outcomes in the presence of organization
support for project management practices.

Methodology
We developed a survey questionnaire to gather data on project management processes
focusing on the constructs in our conceptual model. We anchored our instrument on
Barney’s (2007) VRIO framework wherein he posed specific questions that guided
item creation. The strategic management literature guided item generation to capture
the concepts of valuable, rare, inimitable, organizational support, and sustainable
competitive advantage (Barney, 1998; Chakraborty, 1997; Mata et al., 1995). The project
management success literature supported item generation on project performance based
on time, cost, and scope – including quality (Belassi and Tukel, 1996; Pinto and Slevin,
1988a, b; Shenhar et al., 2002; Wateridge, 1998). The extant literature on project
management practices (Barczak et al., 2007; Besner and Hobbs, 2002, 2004; Jugdev and
Characteristics of Competitive Advantage from
Project Management Assets Project Management Process

Valuable

Rare Project Management

Figure 1. Performance Outcomes
Conceptual model linking
characteristics of project Inimitable
management assets to
project management
Organizational
performance outcomes
Support
Thomas, 2002; White and Fortune, 2002) guided the identification of the most widely Project
used tools and techniques along with the development of survey questions on project management
management resources. We used multiple items for each construct in our instrument.
Our instrument was an extension and elaboration of a prior instrument used in project assets
management research based on the VRIO framework (Jugdev and Mathur, 2006;
Jugdev et al., 2007; Mathur et al., 2007).
To further develop the items, we used a focus group process with seven experienced 117
project managers. Their feedback enabled us to include examples in our question
wording as well as ensure that our items were more clearly worded. The final revised
and expanded instrument was pretested with five colleagues representing industry
and academia to address any concerns related to item wording and clarity. Thereafter,
minor refinements were undertaken to develop the instrument.
We followed survey design practices using the guidelines recommended by experts
(Couper et al., 2001; Dillman et al., 1993; Fowler, 1992; Groves et al., 2009).
The final survey consisted of 17 structured questions and an 18th open-ended
question soliciting feedback on additional comments on the survey topic. The survey
was based on a seven-point ordinal Likert Scale, appropriate for perception-oriented
questions, with the anchors being “strongly agree” and “strongly disagree.” We
minimized retrospective bias by asking participants to respond in the context of
projects they had worked on within the past year. Since our survey was intended to
gather data to analyze the project management process, and since project durations
vary considerable across project contexts, we chose the past year rather than the last
project as the context for the survey.
The survey questions were designed to focus on the constructs of interest in our
theoretical model as outlined below:
.
Question 1 addressed valuable project management resources with 12 items.
.
Question 2 addressed rare project management resources with 12 items.
.
Question 3 addressed inimitable project management resources with 12 items.
.
Question 4 addressed the overall maturity of the project management process
with one item.
.
Question 5 addressed the organizational alignment of project management
practices with the company’s mission, services, and products and the construct
organizational support with three items.
.
Question 6 addressed project communication and the construct organizational
support with three items.
.
Question 7 addressed organizational integration and the construct organizational
support with five items.
.
Question 8 addressed impact of project management resources on project-level
performance with five items.
.
Question 9 addressed impact of project management resources on firm-level
performance with six items.
.
Questions 10-17 addressed demographics.
.
Question 18 was open-ended.
MRR The survey questionnaire is provided as an Appendix. This instrument was designed to
36,2 collect data for analysis that extends beyond the scope of this paper. The exploratory
factor analysis that we report on in this paper is a step towards our development of a
path model beyond the scope of this paper. For the purposes of this paper, we do not
report on Question 4 or 18.
We purchased a randomly generated mailing list for 4,000 members from the Project
118 Management Institutew. The list represented a subset of the institute’s members from
North America – 3,200 members from the USA and 800 members from Canada. We
mailed letters to solicit interest in participation in the survey. Out of the 4,000 letters
mailed, 315 letters (7.9 percent) were returned as undeliverable. A total of 240 individuals
indicated by e-mail to us that they were interested in completing the survey. We
acknowledge that our survey involved non-response bias because we were only able to
follow up with those who indicated interest in completing the survey. We e-mailed these
interested participants the survey link to complete the survey online and followed up
with two e-mail reminders, each approximately a week apart. This approach enabled us
to secure 212 responses, which is a response rate of 5.75 percent, a “fair” rate for internet
based surveys since different survey approaches involve different variables and
response rates (Groves et al., 2009; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2006). The data were collected
in 2008. After data cleaning, we found we had a sample size of 198 respondents, which is
considered “fair” for exploratory factor analyzes (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2006). We
hosted our survey at Zoomerangw as online surveys are faster and more cost-effective
than mail-out surveys and can help reduce non-response errors (Couper, 2000). While
data was reported by individual participants, the unit of analysis was the project
management process.
The 198 study participants represented a group of experienced project management
professionals. A large majority of the participants (80 percent) had their project
management professional designation. Nearly 60 percent of the participants worked as
project managers and nearly 30 percent worked in senior level capacities. Over half
(55 percent) had advanced degrees. About four-fifths of the participants were from four
economic sectors – information technology, financials, government, health care, and
industrial. Close to three-quarters of the study participants came from companies with
annual sales revenues greater than $50 million. About half of the respondents worked at
companies with over 5,000 employees. Roughly half the participants represented
companies that were 0-50 years old and the rest were from companies that were older and
more established. The gender ratio was 74.7 percent male to 25.3 percent female. We could
not account for multiple respondents from the same company; however, given that we
secured a random list of 4,000 members from approximately half a million members from
the Project Management Institutew, we do not expect company-bias to be significant.
We used IBMSPSSw v. 19 to conduct descriptive statistics and factor analysis to extract
factors representing project management resource characteristics (independent variables),
organizational support (moderating variable), and project management performance
outcomes (dependent variable). We used the principal components extraction method with
Varimax (variance maximizing) rotation. This extraction method is widely used,
understood, and conforms to the factor analytic model in which common variance is
analyzed with the unique and error variances removed (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2006). We
used 0.40 as a cut-off to identify items with the highest loadings for inclusion with a factor
(Conway and Huffcutt, 2003). Eigenvalues over one were used to extract reliable factors.
Cronbach’s a measures how well a set of items measures a single unidimensional latent Project
construct. A reliability coefficient of 0.70 or higher is acceptable in the social sciences
(Nunnally, 1978). We used this test to assess the internal consistency of the items within
management
each construct and all extracted factors had Cronbach’s a greater than 0.7. assets
None of our item loadings were lower than 0.5 in the results of the first factor analysis
run. We dropped items that cross-loaded on two or more factors with a difference of less
than 0.1; two of the 12 items were dropped from each of the independent variables. After 119
conducting the factor analysis again, we dropped two items for interpretability reasons
and re-ran the factor analysis; both items had factor loadings between 0.5 and 0.6. All of
our remaining items had loading of greater than 0.6.
We extracted six factors for the independent variables (valuable, rare, and
inimitable characteristics of project management resources). We extracted three factors
for the moderating variable, organizational support. We extracted two factors for the
dependent variable, project management performance. The results of the factor
analysis are discussed in the section that follows.

Discussion of findings
The six factors that comprised the competitive characteristics of project management
assets – valuable, rare, inimitable (the independent variables), three factors that
comprised organizational support for project management assets (the moderating
variable), and two factors that comprised the project management performance outcomes
(the dependent variable) that were extracted from the data analysis are numbered from
1 through 11 and are labeled to reflect the items that define them. The items in each of these
11 factors are presented in the discussion that follows and the variance explained by these
factors and Cronbach’s a are provided for each factor. We have labeled these factors based
on the items that we consider most significant and discuss these delineations below.
Table I shows the rotated component matrix of independent variable factors
that define valuable characteristics of project management resources. Factors 1 and 2

Items constituting valuable project management Factor 1 Factor 2

resources Project management knowledge IT tools

q1.6 Project job shadowing is a valuable resource 0.815

q1.5 Project management methodologies are valuable
resources 0.799
q1.10 Project management offices are valuable resources 0.785
q1.7 Project management templates are valuable
resources 0.742
q1.2 Databases are valuable resources 0.703
q1.1 Printed project management material is a valuable
resource 0.609
q1.3 Computer hardware is a valuable resource 0.855
q1.4 Software is a valuable resource 0.847
Percentage of variance explained 42.6 22.7
Cronbach’s a 0.863 0.703 Table I.
Rotated component
Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser matrix of independent
normalization; rotation converged in three iterations; italic entries in a column indicate items that load variable, valuable project
on the particular factor management resources
MRR represent valuable project management resources and were extracted from data
36,2 collected from Question 1. The total variance explained by these was 65.3 percent.

Factor 1
Valuable project management resources (project management knowledge) consisted of
six items with factor loadings from 0.609 to 0.815 and a Cronbach’s a of 0.863. The
120 variance explained was 42.6 percent. The items included project job shadowing, project
management methodologies, project management offices, project management
templates, databases, and printed project management material.

Factor 2
Valuable project management resources (IT tools) consisted of two items with factor
loadings from 0.847 to 0.855 and a Cronbach’s a of 0.703. The variance explained was
22.7 percent. The items included computer hardware and software.
We distinguish between Factors 1 and 2, both of which consist of valuable project
management assets by labeling the first as comprised of assets that capture and
disseminate project management knowledge (project management knowledge) and
the second as comprised of assets which enable application and sharing of this knowledge
(IT tools). The items in the Factor 1 allow the sharing of project management knowledge by
making it explicit, structuring it for sharing, and by establishing processes that facilitate
the sharing of this knowledge. The items in the Factor 2 assist in this knowledge capture
and dissemination through technology. The two items that were dropped out of the pool
due to cross-loading also had loadings below 0.6. These were project management
communities of practice and mentoring (q1.9 and q1.12). Two other items were dropped
because of low interpretability and were the lowest two items to load on Factor 2 with
loadings below 0.6. These were project social capital and tacit project management
knowledge. We note that all four dropped items are intangible assets (q1.8 and q1.11).
Table II shows the rotated component matrix of independent variable factors that
define rare characteristics of project management resources. Factors 3 and 4 represent
rare project management resources and were extracted from data collected from
Question 2. The total variance explained by these was 66.5 percent.

Factor 3
Rare project management resources (knowledge sharing processes) consisted of six
items with factor loadings from 0.628 to 0.791 and a Cronbach’s a of 0.849. The
variance explained was 35.0 percent. The items included project job shadowing, project
mentoring, project databases, project management communities of practice, project
management offices, and printed project management material.

Factor 4
Rare project management resources (knowledge sharing tools and techniques) consisted of
four items with factor loadings from 0.732 to 0.917 and a Cronbach’s a of 0.895. The
variance explained was 31.5 percent. The items included project software, project computer
hardware, project management methodologies, and project management templates.
We distinguish between Factors 3 and 4, both of which consist of rare project
management assets by labeling the first as comprised of processes that document
and share project management knowledge that is unique to a company (knowledge
 Project
Factor 3 Factor 4
Items constituting rare project management Knowledge sharing Knowledge sharing management
resources processes tools and techniques assets
q2.6 Project job shadowing is a rare resource 0.791
q2.12 Project mentoring is a rare resource 0.756
q2.2 Project databases are rare resources 0.734 121
q2.9 Project management communities of
practices are rare resources 0.709 0.427
q2.10 Project management offices are rare
resources 0.645
q2.1 Printed project management material is a
rare resource 0.628
q2.4 Project software is a rare resource 0.917
q2.3 Project computer hardware is a rare resource 0.873
q2.5 Project management methodologies are rare
resources 0.443 0.738
q2.7 Project management templates are rare
resources 0.464 0.732
Percentage of variance explained 35.0 31.5
Cronbach’s a 0.849 0.895 Table II.
Rotated component
Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser matrix of independent
normalization; rotation converged in three iterations; italic entries in a column indicate items that load variable, rare project
on the particular factor management resources

sharing processes) and the second as comprised of assets which enable sharing of
such project management knowledge (knowledge sharing tools and techniques). The
items in Factor 3 also include knowledge sharing at the interpersonal level and
knowledge sharing through fluid and informal processes in addition to structured
ones. The items in Factor 4 are likely to be rare assets if customized for a company’s
unique processes. The two items that were dropped out of the pool due to cross-loading
also had loadings below 0.6. These were project social capital and tacit project
management knowledge (q2.8 and q2.11). We note that these two items are intangible
assets which are embedded in the routines and relationships of a company.
Table III shows the rotated component matrix of independent variable factors that
define inimitable characteristics of a project management process. Factors 5 and 6
represent inimitable project management resources and were extracted from data
collected from Question 3. The total variance explained by these was 66.6 percent.

Factor 5
Inimitable project management resources (proprietary tangible assets) consisted of six
items with factor loadings from 0.678 to 0.846 and a Cronbach’s a of 0.877. The variance
explained was 36.2 percent. The items included difficult to imitate project management
related software, computer hardware, databases, project management methodologies,
printed project management material, and project management templates.

Factor 6
Inimitable project management resources (embedded intangible assets) consisted
of four items with factor loadings from 0.768 to 0.846 and a Cronbach’s a of 0.866.
MRR
Factor 5 Factor 6
36,2 Items constituting inimitable project management Proprietary tangible Embedded intangible
resources assets assets

q3.4 My company’s software is a resource that is very

difficult for competitors to copy 0.846
122 q3.3 My company’s computer hardware is a resource
that is very difficult for competitors to copy 0.820
q3.2 My company’s databases are resources that are
very difficult for competitors to copy 0.747
q3.5 My company’s project management
methodologies are resources that are very difficult for
competitors to copy 0.733
q3.1 My company’s printed project management
material is a resource that is very difficult for
competitors to copy 0.709
q3.7 My company’s project management templates are
resources that are very difficult for competitors to copy 0.678
q3.8 At my company, project social capital is a
resource that is very difficult for competitors to copy 0.846
q3.11 My company’s tacit project management
knowledge is a resource that is very difficult for
competitors to copy 0.840
q3.9 At my company, project management
communities of practices are resources that are very
difficult for competitors to copy 0.814
q3.12 At my company, mentoring is a resource that is
very difficult for competitors to copy 0.768
Table III. Percentage of variance explained 36.2 30.4
Rotated component Cronbach’s a 0.877 0.866
matrix of independent
variable, inimitable Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser
project management normalization; rotation converged in three iterations; italic entries in a column indicate items that load
resources on the particular factor

The variance explained was 30.4 percent. The items included difficult to imitate project
social capital, tacit project management knowledge, project management communities
of practice, and mentoring.
We distinguish between Factors 5 and 6, both of which consist of inimitable project
management resources by labeling the first as comprised of tangible assets which
embody codified knowledge that is company-specific or proprietary and therefore hard
to copy (proprietary tangible assets) and the second as comprised of intangible assets
which are embedded in a company’s routines and relationships and are therefore hard
for competitors to imitate (embedded intangible assets). The two items that were
dropped out of the pool due to cross-loading also loading below 0.6. These were job
shadowing and project management offices (q3.6 and q3.10). We note that these two
practices are commonly use by competing firms.
The factor analysis yielded three factors that represent the moderating variable,
organizational support for project management assets. Factors 7-9 were extracted from
data collected from Questions 5-7, respectively. Single factors were extracted from the
data for each of these questions. The component matrices of these factors are shown in Project
Tables IV-VI.
management
Factor 7 assets
Project management alignment consisted of three items with factor loadings from 0.896
to 0.928 and a Cronbach’s a of 0.904. The variance explained was 84.0 percent. The
items included the importance of the quality of project management practices to the 123
company’s mission, services, and products.

Factor 8
Project management communication consisted of three items with factor loadings from
0.881 to 0.925 and a Cronbach’s a of 0.893. The variance explained was 82.6 percent. The
items included ability to communicate upward in the project hierarchy, upward in the
company hierarchy, and openly on the project.

Items constituting project management alignment Factor 7

q5.1 Quality of project management practices is important to the company’s mission 0.928
q5.2 Quality of project management practices is important to the company’s services 0.925
q5.3 Quality of project management practices is important to the company’s products 0.896
Table IV.
Percentage of variance explained 84.0
Component matrix of
Cronbach’s a 0.904
moderating variable,
Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; italic entries in a column indicate items that project management
load on the particular factor alignment

Items constituting project management communication Factor 8

q6.1 At my company, I can communicate upwards in the project hierarchy 0.925

q6.2 At my company, I can communicate upwards in the company hierarchy 0.919
q6.3 At my company, I can communicate openly on the project 0.881
Percentage of variance explained 82.6 Table V.
Cronbach’s a 0.893 Component matrix of
moderating variable,
Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; italic entries in a column indicate items that project management
load on the particular factor communication

Items constituting project management integration Factor 9

q7.5 At my company, the environment promotes sharing knowledge/information 0.884

q7.4 At my company, the environment encourages learning 0.872
q7.2 At my company, people trust each other 0.863
q7.3 At my company, people work well together 0.844
q7.1 At my company, upper management supports me, even in critical project phases 0.774
Percentage of variance explained 71.9 Table VI.
Cronbach’s a 0.900 Component matrix of
moderating variable,
Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; italic entries in a column indicate items that project management
load on the particular factor integration
MRR Factor 9
Project Management Integration consisted of five items with factor loadings from
36,2 0.774 to 0.884 and a Cronbach’s a of 0.900. The variance explained was 71.9 percent.
The items included a company environment that promotes sharing of knowledge/
information, a company environment that encourages learning, people trusting each
other, people working well together, and upper management support, even in critical
124 project phases.
The factor analysis yielded two factors that represent the dependent variable, project
management performance outcomes. Factors 10 and 11 were extracted from the data
collected from Questions 8 and 9, respectively. Single factors were extracted from the
data for each of these questions. The component matrices of these factors are shown in
Tables VII and VIII.

Factor 10
Project-level performance consisted of five items with factor loadings from 0.846
to 0.913 and a Cronbach’s a of 0.932. The variance explained was 78.9 percent. The
items included achievement of project scope requirements, project schedules,
customer expectations, quality of deliverables, and project costs through project
management processes.

Items constituting project-level performance Factor 10

q8.3 Project management processes allow us to meet project scope

requirements 0.913
q8.4 Project management processes allow us to meet project schedules 0.908
q8.2 Project management processes allow us to meet customer expectations 0.892
q8.1 Project management processes allow us to meet deliverables quality 0.880
q8.5 Project management processes allow us to meet project costs 0.846
Percentage of variance explained 78.9
Table VII. Cronbach’s a 0.932
Component matrix of
dependent variable, Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; italic entries in a column indicate items that
project-level performance load on the particular factor

Items constituting firm-level performance Factor 11

q9.4 Project management resources and capability allow us to achieve sales targets 0.856
q9.6 Project management resources and capability allow us to achieve customer loyalty 0.856
q9.1 Project management resources and capability allow us to achieve profitability levels 0.847
q9.2 Project management resources and capability allow us to achieve market share 0.838
q9.5 Project management resources and capability allow us to achieve continuous
innovation 0.808
q9.3 Project management resources and capability allow us to achieve customer
satisfaction 0.806
Percentage of variance explained 69.8
Table VIII. Cronbach’s a 0.912
Component matrix of
dependent variable, Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; italic entries in a column indicate items that
firm-level performance load on the particular factor
Factor 11 Project
Firm-level performance consisted of six items with factor loadings from 0.806 to 0.856 and management
a Cronbach’s a of 0.912. The variance explained was 69.8 percent. The items included
achievement of sales targets, customer loyalty, profitability levels, market share, assets
continuous innovation, and customer satisfaction through project management resources
and capability.
All of the factors consisted of three or more items except the second factor for Q1, which 125
had two items. We retained this two item factor because the items relate to computer
hardware and software, both of which strongly pertain to IT management.
Work on path analysis and building of models that show the
relationship between the extracted factors is in progress and will be reported in
upcoming papers.

Summary and conclusions

In this paper we propose a conceptual model (Figure 1) based on the literature to link
the characteristics of project management assets, as independent variables, to project
management performance outcomes, as dependent variables. Drawing on the RBV of the
firm, we expect that the valuable, rare, and inimitable characteristics of project
management assets will predict project management performance outcomes in the
presence of organizational support for these assets, as a moderating variable, thereby
contributing to competitive advantage. In our study, we conducted an online survey
with 198 North American Project Management Institutew members and used
exploratory factor analysis to identify the factors that comprise the valuable, rare,
and inimitable characteristics of project management assets, organizational support for
these assets, and project management performance outcomes.
The two factors extracted as characterizing valuable project management resources
were comprised of assets that capture and disseminate project management knowledge
and IT tools which enable application and sharing of this knowledge. The two factors
extracted as characterizing rare project management resources were comprised of
knowledge sharing processes that document and share project management knowledge
that is unique to the company and knowledge sharing tools and techniques that enable
the sharing of such knowledge. The two factors extracted as characterizing inimitable
project management assets were comprised of proprietary tangible assets and
intangible assets which are embedded in the routine and relationships of a company,
these being assets which are hard for a competitor to copy. These findings highlight the
valuable, rare, and inimitable assets of the project management process that can be
a source of competitive advantage.
The three factors extracted for characterizing organizational support included
project management alignment, project management communication, and project
management integration, all of which contribute to embedding project management
practices into the fabric of a company’s culture.
Two factors were extracted for project management performance outcomes. The
factor comprising project-level performance pertains to the traditional measures of
project success, such as time, cost, quality, scope, and customer expectations. The factor
comprising firm-level performance pertains to the traditional measures of firm
competitive advantage, such as sales targets, customer loyalty and satisfaction,
profitability, market share, and innovation.
MRR While we acknowledge the limited scope of the study and limitations of sample size,
36,2 response rate, and self-report bias, we believe that we have a valid and reliable instrument
with which to develop a path model to test relationships between the extracted factors and
examine hypotheses that the valuable, rare, and inimitable characteristics of project
management assets will predict project management performance outcomes in the
presence of organization support for these assets.
126 Few empirical studies have applied the RBV of the firm to examine project
management capabilities as a source of competitive advantage. Our research is an
attempt to contribute to the understanding of the characteristics of project management
assets that lead to a firm’s competitive advantage. This understanding has significant
value for scholars interested in project management. It is differentiated from prior
research that has explored the link between assets and the achievement of the VRIO
characteristics from the process by extending the conceptual model to link VRIO
characteristic to project and firm performance. It deviates from prior models in proposing
that organizational support is a moderating variable that is required for assets that are
valuable, rare, and inimitable to contribute to project management project outcomes.
This paper contributes to practice by drawing managerial attention to project
management assets as sources of competitive advantage. It highlights that
project management assets are not merely a set of tools and techniques to achieve a
project objectives, but also include intangible elements that are embedded in the
routines and relationships of an organization, such as tacit knowledge, mechanisms to
make such knowledge explicit so that it can be shared, as well as processes and
relationships for facilitating this sharing (e.g. job shadowing, mentoring, project
management communities of practice, social capital). We believe that further research
linking project management assets to project management performance outcomes will
help guide managers towards more strategic investments in project management
resources that are not only sources of operational efficiency, but also sources of
sustainable competitive advantage.

Acknowledgements
This study was supported by San José State University, Athabasca University, and a
grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada. The authors would
like to acknowledge the study participants for completing the survey. An earlier
version of this paper was presented at Portland International Center for Management
of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) on August 2011, and published in the
Conference Proceedings.

References
Alvarez, S.A. and Busenitz, L.W. (2001), “The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 755-75.
Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1993), “Strategic assets and organizational rent”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 33-46.
Aubry, M., Hobbs, B. and Thuillier, D. (2007), “A new framework for understanding
organisational project management through the PMO”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 328-36.
Aubry, M., Hobbs, B. and Thuillier, D. (2008), “Organisational project management: a historical Project
approach to the study of PMOs”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26
No. 1, pp. 38-43. management
Barczak, G., Sultan, F. and Hultink, E.J. (2007), “Determinants of IT usage and new product assets
performance”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 600-13.
Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120. 127
Barney, J.B. (1998), “On becoming a strategic partner: the role of human resources in gaining
competitive advantage”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 31-46.
Barney, J.B. (2002), Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Barney, J.B. (2007), Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, 3rd ed., Upper Saddle River,
NJ, Prentince-Hall.
Barratt, M. and Oke, A. (2007), “Antecedents of supply chain visibility in retail supply chains:
a resource-based theory perspective”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6,
pp. 1217-33.
Belassi, W. and Tukel, O.I. (1996), “A new framework for determining critical success/failure
factors in projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 141-52.
Besner, C. and Hobbs, J.B. (2002), “The use, usefulness and support for project management tools
and techniques”, paper presented at the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars
and Symposium, San Antonio, TX, October 3-10.
Besner, C. and Hobbs, J.B. (2004), “An empirical investigation of project management practice: in
reality, which tools do practitioners use?”, in Slevin, D., Cleland, D. and Pinto, J. (Eds),
Innovations: Project Management Research 2004, 1st ed., Project Management Institute,
Newtown Square, PA, pp. 337-51.
Besner, C. and Hobbs, J.B. (2006), “The perceived value and potential contribution of project
management practices to project success”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 37-48.
Besner, C. and Hobbs, J.B. (2008), “Project management practice, generic or contextual: a reality
check”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 16-33.
Castanias, R.P. and Helfat, C.E. (2001), “The managerial rents model: theory and empirical
analysis”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 661-78.
Chakraborty, K. (1997), “Sustained competitive advantage: a resource-based framework”,
Advances in Competitiveness Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 32-63.
Cleland, D.I. and Ireland, L. (2002), Project Management: Strategic Design and Implementation,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Conway, J.M. and Huffcutt, A.I. (2003), “A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysis
practices in organizational research”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 147-68.
Couper, M.P. (2000), “Web surveys: a review of issues and approaches”, Public Opinion Quarterly,
Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 464-94.
Couper, M.P., Traugott, M.W. and Lamias, M.J. (2001), “Web survey design and administration”,
Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 230-53.
DeFillippi, R.J. and Arthur, M.B. (1998), “Paradox in project-based enterprise: the case of film
making”, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 125-39.
Dillman, D.A., Sinclair, M.D. and Clark, J.R. (1993), “Effects of questionnaire length,
respondent-friendly design, and a difficult question on response rates for
occupant-addressed census mail surveys”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 289-304.
MRR Egbu, C.O. (2004), “Managing knowledge and intellectual capital for improved organizational
innovations in the construction industry: an examination of critical success factors”,
36,2 Engineering Construction & Architectural Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 301-15.
Eisenhardt, K. and Santos, F. (2000), “Knowledge-based view: a new theory of strategy?”, in
Pettigrew, A., Thomas, H. and Whittington, R. (Eds), Handbook of Strategy and
Management, 1st ed., Sage, London, p. 544.
128 Enders, A., König, A., Hungenberg, H. and Engelbertz, T. (2009), “Towards an integrated
perspective of strategy: the value-process framework”, Journal of Strategy and
Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 76-96.
Ethiraj, S.K., Kale, P., Krishnan, M.S. and Singh, J.V. (2005), “Where do capabilities come from
and how do they matter? A study in the software services industry”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 25-45.
Fernie, S., Green, S.D., Weller, S.J. and Newcombe, R. (2003), “Knowledge sharing: context, confusion,
and controversy”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 177-87.
Fortune, J., White, D., Jugdev, K. and Walker, D. (2011), “Looking again at current practice in
project management”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 4 No. 4,
pp. 553-72.
Foss, N.J. (Ed.) (1997), Resources, Firms, and Strategies: A Reader in the Resource-based
Perspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Fowler, F.J. (1992), “How unclear terms affect survey data”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 56
No. 2, pp. 218-31.
Granovetter, M. (1985), “Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness”,
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 481-510.
Groves, R.M., Fowler, F.J., Couper, M.P., Lepkowski, J.M., Singer, E. and Tourangeau, R. (2009),
Survey Methodology, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Hobbs, B. and Aubry, M. (2007), “A multi-phase research program investigating project
management offices (PMOs): the results of phase 1”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 38
No. 1, pp. 74-86.
Jugdev, K. and Mathur, G. (2006), “Project management elements as strategic assets: preliminary
findings”, Management Research News, Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 604-17.
Jugdev, K. and Thomas, J. (2002), “Project management maturity models: the silver bullets of
competitive advantage”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 4-14.
Jugdev, K., Mathur, G. and Fung, T. (2007), “Project management assets and their relationship
with the project management capability of the firm”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 560-8.
Kaplan, S., Schenkel, A., von Krogh, G. and Weber, C. (2001), “Knowledge-based theories of the firm in
strategic management: a review and extension”, MIT Sloan Working Paper 4216-01.
Kloppenborg, T. and Opfer, W. (2002), “The current state of project management research: trends,
interpretations, and predictions”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 5-18.
Kogut, B. (2000), “The network as knowledge: generative rules and the emergence of structure”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 405-25.
Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, J.-C. and Groen, A.J. (2010), “The resource-based view: a review and
assessment of its critiques”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 349-72.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992), “Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing
new product development”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 111-25.
Lesser, E.L. (Ed.) (2000), Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications, Project
Butterworth & Heinemann, Boston, MA.
management
Liu, L., Timothy, V. and Gao, Y. (2010), “A review of approaches of resource-based empirical
research in banking”, International Journal of Applied Economics & Finance, Vol. 4 No. 4, assets
pp. 230-41.
Mata, F.J., Fuerst, W.L. and Barney, J.B. (1995), “Information technology and sustained
competitive advantage: a resource-based analysis”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 487-507. 129
Mathur, G., Jugdev, K. and Fung, T. (2007), “Intangible project management assets as determinants
of competitive advantage”, Management Research News, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 460-75.
Montealegre, R. (2002), “A process model of capability development: lessons from the electronic
commerce strategy at Bolsa de Valores de Guayaquil”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 5,
pp. 514-31.
Newbert, S.L. (2007), “Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: an assessment and
suggestions for future research”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 121-46.
Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization
Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Paiva, E.L., Roth, A.V. and Fensterseifer, J.E. (2008), “Organizational knowledge and the
manufacturing strategy process: a resource-based view analysis”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 115-32.
Patanakul, P., Iewwongcharoen, B. and Milosevic, D. (2010), “An empirical study on the use of
project management tools and techniques across project life-cycle and their impact
on project success”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 41-65.
Peng, D.X., Schroeder, R.G. and Shah, R. (2007), “Linking routines to operations capabilities:
a new perspective”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 730-48.
Peng, M.W. (2001), “The resource-based view and international business”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 803-29.
Pinto, J.K. (2001), “Project management: the future”, in Knutson, J. (Ed.), Project Management for
Business Professionals: A Comprehensive Guide, 1st ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 575-86.
Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1988a), “Critical success factors across the project life cycle”, Project
Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 67-75.
Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1988b), “Project success: definitions and measurement techniques”,
Project Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 67-73.
Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, Doubleday & Company, Garden City, NY.
Project Management Institute (2008), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOKw Guide), Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
Ray, G., Barney, J.B. and Muhanna, W.A. (2004), “Capabilities, business processes,
and competitive advantage: choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of
the resource-based view”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 23-37.
Rumelt, R.P., Schendel, D.E. and Teece, D.J. (1994), “Fundamental issues in strategy”,
in Rumelt, R.P., Schendel, D.E. and Teece, D.J. (Eds), Fundamental Issues in Strategy,
Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 9-47.
Schilling, M.A. and Steensma, H.K. (2002), “Disentangling the theories of firm boundaries: a path
model and empirical test”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 387-401.
Shankar, V. and Bayus, B.L. (2003), “Network effects and competition: an empirical analysis of
the home video game industry”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 375-84.
MRR Shenhar, A.J., Tishler, A., Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S. and Lechler, T. (2002), “Refining the search for
project success factors: a multivariate, typological approach”, R&D Management, Vol. 32
36,2 No. 2, p. 111.
Stubner, S., Wulf, T. and Hungenberg, H. (2007), “Management support and the performance of
entrepreneurial start-ups – an empirical analysis of newly founded companies in
Germany”, Schmalenbach Business Review, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 138-59.
130 Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2006), Using Multivariate Statistics, Harper Collins College
Publishers, Northridge, CA.
Ulri, B. and Ulri, D. (2000), “Project management in North America: stability of the concepts”,
Project Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 33-43.
Wateridge, J. (1998), “How can IS/IT projects be measured for success?”, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 59-63.
White, D. and Fortune, J. (2002), “Current practices in project management: an empirical study”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Wright, P.M., Dunford, B.B. and Snell, S.A. (2001), “Human resources and the resource based
view of the firm”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 701-21.
Zahra, S.A. and Nielsen, A.P. (2002), “Sources of capabilities, integration, and technology
commercialization”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 377-98.

About the authors

Dr Gita Mathur is an Associate Professor in the Department of Organization and Management in
the College of Business at San Jose State University. Her research interests are in the
management of technological innovation and product and service development processes. She
has held engineering and management positions in the semiconductor industry and has served
as a management consultant to several technology-based companies. She holds a PhD in
Electrical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA and a DBA in Technology
and Operations Management from Harvard Business School, USA. Gita Mathur is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Dr Kam Jugdev is an Associate Professor of Project Management and Strategy in the Faculty of
Business at Athabasca University in Alberta. Her specific areas of interest and research include
project management as a source of competitive advantage, project lessons learned, project
management maturity models, communities of practice, project success/failure, and project
management education. She actively contributes to the advancement of academic and professional
communities of management practice.
Dr Tak Shing Fung is a Senior Statistical Consultant in Information Technologies, Sessional
Instructor in Mathematics and Statistics, and an Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Faculty of
Nursing, University of Calgary. His specific areas of interest and research are Brownian motion
and statistical analysis. He has over 25 years of statistical consulting experience in different
disciplines including medicine, nursing, kinesiology, education, social sciences, environmental
design, social work, biology, chemistry, management, and engineering. He has co-authored more
than 50 peer reviewed articles in different disciplines.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Appendix Project
management
Please answer the questions in the context of projects you have worked on within the past year.
assets
Question 1
VALUABLE resources improve a firm's financial position and are sources of strength. Please rate how strongly you agree or
disagree with each of the following statements.

Strongly Strongly
131
2 Disagree 4 Agree 6
Disagree Agree
q1.1 Printed project management material is a
valuable resource (source of strength) at my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
company (e.g., manuals, books).
q1.2 Databases are valuable resources (sources
of strength) at my company (e.g., project
databases, knowledge management databases, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
risk management simulations, such as Monte
Carlo analyses).
q1.3 Computer hardware is a
valuable resource (source of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strength) at my company.
q1.4 Software is a valuable resource (source of
strength) at my company (e.g., Primavera, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Microsoft Office.
q1.5 Project management methodologies are
valuable resources (sources of strength) at my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
company.
q1.6 Project job shadowing is a valuable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
resource (source of strength) at my company.
q1.7 Project management templates are
valuable resources (sources of strength) at my
company (e.g., checklists or forms for project 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
business cases, charters, lessons learned, issues
logs, status reports, change requests).
q1.8 Project social capital-thenetwork of
strong or weak relationships a person has with
others within or outside the company, is a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
valuable resource (source of strength) at my
company.
q1.9 Project management communities of
practices (whereby people regularly share and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
learn based on common interests) are valuable
resources (sources of strength) at my company.
q1.10 Project management offices are valuable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
resources (sources of strength) at my company.
q1.11 Tacit project management knowledge is
a valuable resource (source of strength) at my
company (e.g., personal and experiential 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
knowledge shared by showing others how
things are done).
q1.12 Mentoring is a valuable resource (source
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
of strength) at my company.

Question 2
RARE resources are unique and few companies have them. Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the
following statements.

Strongly Strongly
2 Disagree 4 Agree 6
Disagree Agree
q2.1 Printed project management material is a
rare resource that my company has (e.g., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
manuals, books).

(continued) Figure A1.

Survey questionnaire
MRR
36,2 q2.2 Project databases are rare resources that
my company has (e.g., project databases,
knowledge management databases, risk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
management simulations, such as Monte Carlo
analyses).
q2.3 Project computer hardware is a rare
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
132 resource that my company has.
q2.4 Project software is a rare resource that my
company has (e.g., Primavera, Microsoft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Office.
q2.5 Project management methodologies are
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
rare resources that my company has.
q2.6 Project job shadowing is a rare resource
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
that my company has.
q2.7 Project management templates are rare
resources that my company has (e.g., checklists
or forms for project business cases, charters, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
lessons learned, issues logs, status reports,
change requests).
q2.8 Project social capital-the network of
strong or weak relationships a person has with
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
others within or outside the company, is a rare
resource that my company has.
q2.9 Project management communities of
practices (whereby people regularly share and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
learn based on common interests) are rare
resources that my company has.
q2.10 Project management offices are rare
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
resources that my company has.
q2.11 Tacit project management knowledge is
a rare resource that my company has e.g.,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
personal and experiential knowledge shared by
showing others how things are done).
q2.12 Project mentoring is a rare resource that
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
my company has.

Question 3
INIMITABLE resources are very difficult for competitors to copy. Inimitable resources have no equals. Please rate how strongly
you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

Strongly Strongly
2 Disagree 4 Agree 6
Disagree Agree
q3.1 My company's printed project
management material is a resource that is very
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
difficult for competitors to copy (e.g., manuals,
books).
q3.2 My company's databases are resources
that are very difficult for competitors to copy
(e.g., project databases, knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
management databases, risk management
simulations, such as Monte Carlo analyses).
q3.3 My company's computer hardware is a
resource that is very difficult for competitors to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
copy.
q3.4 My company's software is a resource that
is very difficult for competitors to copy (e.g., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Primavera, Microsoft Office.
q3.5 My company's project management
methodologies are resources that are very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
difficult for competitors to copy.
q3.6 At my company, project job shadowing is
a resource that is very difficult for competitors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
to copy.
Figure A1. (continued)
 Project
q3.7 My company's project management
templates are resources that are very difficult
management
for competitors to copy (e.g., checklists or
forms for project business cases, charters, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 assets
lessons learned, issues logs, status reports,
change requests).
q3.8 At my company, project social capital-
the network of strong or weak relationships a
person has with others within or outside the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
133
company-is a resource that is very difficult for
competitors to copy.
q3.9 At my company, project management
communities of practices (whereby people
regularly share and learn based on common 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
interests) are resources that are very difficult
for competitors to copy.
q3.10 My company's project management
offices are resources that are very difficult for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
competitors to copy.
q3.11 My company's tacit project management
knowledge is a resource that is very difficult
for competitors to copy (e.g., personal and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
experiential knowledge shared by showing
others how things are done).
q3.12 At my company, mentoring is a resource
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
that is very difficult for competitors to copy.

Question 4
Which single level best describes your company's overall level of project management maturity; that is, how evolved and
sophisticated are the practices? Each level builds on the previous level(s).

Initial Level: Our project management practices are mainly ad hoc and chaotic; we rely on the project management
competences of some individuals.
Repeatable Level: Our project management practices include a project management system and plans, are based on
previous experience.
Defined Level: Project management practices are commonly used at the company; we have an organization-wide
understanding of project management activities, roles and responsibilities.
Managed Level: Our project management practices are stable and we measure processes against organizational goals;
variations are identified and addressed.
Optimising Level: Our project management practices are organization wide and the entire organization is focused on
continuous improvement.

Question 5
The quality of my company's project management practices is important to:

Strongly Strongly
2 Disagree 4 Agree 6
Disagree Agree
q5.1 The company's mission (the business
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
it is in).
q5.2 The company's services. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
q5.3 The company's products. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question 6
At my company, I can:

Strongly Strongly
2 Disagree 4 Agree 6
Disagree Agree
q6.1 Communicate upwards in the project
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
hierarchy.
q6.2 Communicate upwards in the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
company hierarchy.
q6.3 Communicate openly on the project. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(continued) Figure A1.
MRR
36,2 Question 7
At my company:

Strongly Strongly
2 Disagree 4 Agree 6
Disagree Agree
q7.1 Upper management supports me, even
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
in critical project phases.
134 q7.2 People trust each other. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
q7.3 People work well together. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
q7.4 The environment encourages learning. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
q7.5 The environment promotes sharing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
knowledge/information.

Question 8
My company's project management processes generally allow us to:
Strongly Strongly
2 Disagree 4 Agree 6
Disagree Agree
q8.1 Meet deliverables quality. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
q8.2 Meet customer expectations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
q8.3 Meet project scope requirements. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
q8.4 Meet project schedules. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
q8.5 Meet project costs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question 9
My company's project management resources and capability allow us to achieve:
At a higher level At a much higher
Below that of At about the same
than immediate level than immediate
immediate level as immediate
competitors competitors
competitors competitors
(for 1-3 years) (for over 3 years)
q9.1 Profitability levels. 1 2 3 4
q9.2 Market share. 1 2 3 4
q9.3 Customer satisfaction. 1 2 3 4
q9.4 Sales targets. 1 2 3 4
q9.5 Continuous innovation. 1 2 3 4
q9.6 Customer loyalty. 1 2 3 4

Question 10
My company's approximate annual sales revenue is (in Millions of dollars):
$0-$1 Million
$1-$10 Million
$10-$50 Million
Over $50 Million
NA

Question 11
My company best fits into the following economic sector:
Energy (i.e., oil and gas)
Materials (i.e., chemicals, construction, mining)
Industrial (i.e., aerospace, defense, construction/engineering, machinery, transportation)
Consumer Discretionary (i.e., automobiles, consumer durables & apparel, hotels, restaurants, leisure, media, retail)
Consumer Staples (i.e., food and drugs, personal products)
Health Care
Financials
Information Technology
Telecommunications Services
Utilities
Government (including not-for-profit organizations)
Other, please specify

Figure A1. (continued)

Question 12
The number of full-time employees at my company ranges from
Project
1 to 50 management
51 to 250
251 to 1,000
assets
1,001 to 5,000
5,001 to 20,000
Over 20,000
135
Question 13
My current role in project management is
Senior-level project executive
Project manager
Project team member
Other, please specify

Question 14
My company is
Less than 10 years old
11-25 years old
26-50 years old
51-75 years old
Over 76 years old

Question 15
I hold a project management designation (i.e., Project Management Professional®).
Yes
No

Question 16
My highest level of education is
High school
College diploma/certificate
Undergraduate degree (e.g., BA, BSc)
Master's degree (e.g., MA, MBA, MSc, MEng)
Doctoral degree

Question 17
I am
Male
Female

Question 18 Figure A1.

Please use this box to provide additional comments on this survey topic.