The impact of organizational support for the project management process on project and firm performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This research draws on the resource-based view of the firm from strategic management and applies it to a study of competitive advantage in the project management context. The relationship between the characteristics of project management resources, focusing on organizational support for the project management process, and outcomes of the project management process are examined. Design/methodology/approach This study uses data gathered from 437 North American project management professionals with an existing survey tool that was used in a prior smaller sample study. The study uses Barney’s VRIO framework that assesses resources as valuable (V), rare (R), inimitable (I) and organizationally supported to leverage their value (O). The conceptual model hypothesizes relationships between the project management asset characteristics (valuable, rare, and inimitable), organizational support for the project management process, and project management performance outcomes (both project and firm level). Hypotheses are tested using factors extracted from a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The factors extracted include two factors representing valuable project management asset characteristics, one factor representing rare project management asset characteristics, one factor representing inimitable project management asset characteristics, two factors representing organizational support for the project management process, one factor representing project-level performance and one factor representing firm-level performance. Findings Project management assets that are considered valuable and organizational support for the project management process are found to contribute positively to project management process outcomes. No advantage was perceived from rare and inimitable project management assets. Project-level performance was found to significantly mediate the relationship between organizational support and firm-level performance. Practical implications This study draws managerial attention to organizational support for the project management process as a source of competitive advantage through its positive affect on both project-as well as firm-level performance. Originality/value The study uses a survey tool from previous research with a new, larger dataset to contribute to the understanding of the importance of organizational support for the project management process in a quest for both project success as well as a firm's competitive advantage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".