Identifying useful project management practices: A mixed methodology approach

IF 2.2 Q3 MANAGEMENT
G. Fernandes, S. Ward, M. Araújo
{"title":"Identifying useful project management practices: A mixed methodology approach","authors":"G. Fernandes, S. Ward, M. Araújo","doi":"10.12821/IJISPM010401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper describes a mixed methodological research approach for identifying practitioner perceptions of the most useful project management (PM) practices to improve project management performance. By identifying the perceived most useful tools and techniques, as having the most potential for increased contribution to project management performance, practitioners and organizations can select their priorities when improving PM practices. The research involved a programme of thirty interviews with Project Management professionals in Portugal, followed by a global survey. Completed questionnaires were received from 793 practitioners worldwide, covering 75 different countries. The results showed that the top twenty of the list of the most useful tools and techniques is composed of very well-known and widely used tools, such as: progress report; requirements analysis; progress meetings; risk identification; and project scope statement. PM practices in the top of list cover the overall PM life cycle from initiation to project closing, but particular relevance is given to tools and techniques from planning. The areas of knowledge, scope, time, risk, communication and integration, assume a high relevance, each with at least three PM practices on the top of the list.","PeriodicalId":43984,"journal":{"name":"IJISPM-International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IJISPM-International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12821/IJISPM010401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

Abstract

This paper describes a mixed methodological research approach for identifying practitioner perceptions of the most useful project management (PM) practices to improve project management performance. By identifying the perceived most useful tools and techniques, as having the most potential for increased contribution to project management performance, practitioners and organizations can select their priorities when improving PM practices. The research involved a programme of thirty interviews with Project Management professionals in Portugal, followed by a global survey. Completed questionnaires were received from 793 practitioners worldwide, covering 75 different countries. The results showed that the top twenty of the list of the most useful tools and techniques is composed of very well-known and widely used tools, such as: progress report; requirements analysis; progress meetings; risk identification; and project scope statement. PM practices in the top of list cover the overall PM life cycle from initiation to project closing, but particular relevance is given to tools and techniques from planning. The areas of knowledge, scope, time, risk, communication and integration, assume a high relevance, each with at least three PM practices on the top of the list.
确定有用的项目管理实践:混合方法论方法
本文描述了一种混合方法研究方法,用于识别从业者对最有用的项目管理(PM)实践的看法,以提高项目管理绩效。通过识别感知到的最有用的工具和技术,作为对项目管理绩效最有潜力的贡献,从业者和组织可以在改进PM实践时选择他们的优先级。这项研究包括对葡萄牙项目管理专业人士进行30次访谈,然后进行一项全球调查。来自75个不同国家的793名从业人员完成了问卷调查。结果表明,排名前二十的最有用的工具和技术由非常知名和广泛使用的工具组成,例如:进度报告;需求分析;进度会议;风险识别;以及项目范围说明书。列表顶部的项目管理实践涵盖了从开始到项目结束的整个项目管理生命周期,但是特别相关的是来自计划的工具和技术。知识领域,范围,时间,风险,沟通和集成,假设高度相关,每个领域在列表的顶部至少有三个PM实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
18.20%
发文量
99
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信