Impact of using project management tools and techniques on project and firm performance
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose This research aims to empirically examine perceived predictive relationships between the use of project management tools and techniques (PMTTs) and resulting project-level and firm-level performance. Design/methodology/approach This study used data gathered from 190 project management professionals engaged in strategic projects. Data were collected using a survey tool that drew on prior project management research studies and asked about the use of 49 PMTTs. The conceptual model hypothesized positive relationships between the use of PMTTs and the project management outcomes, project-level performance and firm-level performance. Hypotheses were tested using PMTT components extracted through an exploratory factor analysis of the PMTTs as independent variables and project and firm performance as dependent variables. Six factors that emerged as independent variables (subsets of PMTTs) were labeled per managerial focus (e.g. quality management and cost management). The extracted dependent variables were one factor representing project-level performance and one factor representing firm-level performance. The hypothesized relationships between independent and dependent variables were tested using linear regression analysis. Findings PMTTs were found to contribute positively to project management outcomes, both project-level performance and firm-level performance. For the sample of strategic projects considered, practices used for time and resource planning, quality management and supplier management were found to positively and significantly impact project-level performance. Practices used for time and resource planning and scope management of tasks and interdependencies were found to positively and significantly impact firm-level performance. Practices used for cost management and risk management were not found to have a significant impact on project management outcomes for the sample of strategic projects studied. Practical implications This study validates the positive relationship between the use of PMTTs and both project-level and firm-level performance. It also suggests that while there is a collective of PMTTs that are considered standard practice, some PMTTs may more significantly predict project management performance than others in specific project and organizational contexts. Originality/value The study used a survey tool that draws on prior research and collected a new dataset on strategic projects to contribute to understanding the importance of different subsets of PMTTs for both project success and a firm’s competitive advantage.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».