P a g e | 1

Thomas G. Lechler

The Project Value Mindset of Project Managers

Thomas G. Lechler, Stevens Institute of Technology

Abstract The triple constraint (TC) paradigm constitutes the conceptual foundation of project

management. Although limited in its effectiveness, as documented by the high project

failure rates, and strong criticism from several authors, the research on the TC paradigm

lacks a theoretical base allowing an integrative perspective of the different lines of

critiques.

As an alternative, the project value paradigm (PVP) is offered enabling a reevaluation

and integration of the widely discussed limitations of the TC paradigm. It is derived from

the economic theories of entrepreneurship and serves as the conceptual base for an

empirical study conducted over the last two years. The main research goal of this study is

to answer the questions why and how project managers are creating project value during

a project’s implementation.

Following the TC paradigm, project managers are charged with reducing, if not avoiding,

project risks and project uncertainties. In contrast, the economic literature argues that

uncertainties are the precondition for entrepreneurial opportunities. It follows therefore

that as projects face more or less uncertainties, the question remains if project managers

who were able to create project value were actually seeking and exploiting opportunities

to improve the value proposition of a project. The disposition or attitude of project

managers towards these decisions and activities seems to be a central variable. These

P a g e | 2

Thomas G. Lechler

dispositions are integrated in the construct of a project manager’s project value mindset

(PVM). The PVM stands in contrast to the basic premises of the TC-paradigm. It

suggests that those project managers with a PVM, will more likely create more project

value. Thus, the central hypothesis investigated in this study proposes a link between a

project manager’s PVM and the created project value.

Over a period of two years, data were collected with a survey instrument developed by

the author and co-investigators. To avoid single informant bias, data were collected for

each individual project from the responsible project manager, three project team

members, and the senior manager (sponsor) responsible for funding the project. The final

sample consists of 594 individual responses related to 114 projects. Using structural

equation modeling, it could be demonstrated that the higher the perceived value of a

project manager’s PVM, the higher the likelihood that value opportunities are exploited

and the higher the achieved project value. The results support the hypothesis positing a

relationship between a project manager’s PVM and project value. The research makes the

theoretical discussion of the entrepreneurship research field accessible to develop a

comprehensive theory of project management. Finally, the research stimulates the

discussion of the TC paradigm limitations as well as it supports the call for changing the

paradigm in order to explain common project management issues.

Introduction The discrepancy between project management practices and theoretical efforts to explain

them is criticized by many different authors over the past decade. The critique is focused

at questioning the theory and, as a consequence, requesting a new or alternative theory of

P a g e | 3

Thomas G. Lechler

project management. Most of these critiques are based on the general project

management paradigm, resulting in a discussion of symptoms without reflecting on the

specific underlying assumptions of the existing paradigm. This approach leaves still

many questions unanswered. This paper reports on a study that was partially funded by

the Project Management Institute (PMI) in 2008 and 2009 with the objective to offer an

alternative perspective to the general discourse in project management. It is an attempt to

change the thinking about how to explain project management specific phenomena or as

Albert Einstein is quoted as saying “we will never solve problems using the same logic

we were using when we created them.”

This study focuses on the central role that project managers assume when implementing

projects. In recent discussions, authors suggest that the mindset of project managers is an

important variable to understand the pattern of decisions made during a course of action.

But the mindset is not independent of the underlying and accepted paradigm. Despite its

critique the TC paradigm is still dominating the literature and the standardization of

project management related education. In general, the TC paradigm is based on two

fundamental assumptions: satisficing and determinism. These two assumptions will be

changed to maximizing and entrepreneurism to build the foundation for the PVP.

Based on the two project management paradigms, the overarching research question is to

understand to which degree a project manager stays closely to the TC paradigm by

satisficing the triple constraints versus the degree to which a project manager attempts to

maximize the project value and achieves better project results. Differently phrased, the

question could be also described as to which degree a project manager “breaks with” the

TC paradigm and demonstrates a value maximizing mindset.

P a g e | 4

Thomas G. Lechler

The main research objective is to empirically demonstrate the importance of a project

manager’s value mindset on the creation of project value. The empirical establishment of

this relationship will help to understand the interaction of project management specific

procedures (planning, controlling, etc.) with the behavioral decision level of the

management of projects. It will also have significant theoretical and practical

implications for the discussion of improving project performance and for the training of

project personnel in general.

Research Objectives and Contributions Uncertainties of projects are sources for opportunities and, as such, have to be recognized

and exploited. This is only possible if project managers are alert for these opportunities.

A precondition for this alertness is the motivation to maximize a project’s value, which is

driven by the established paradigm. These arguments are linked to the field of

entrepreneurship that is occupied with the question of opportunity recognition,

evaluation, and exploitation. A comprehensive literature review suggests that research on

entrepreneurial behaviors of project managers is sparse and the possibility of the

occurrence of opportunities on the project level is not systematically explored. This

theoretical gap leads to the second major research objective.

With this research effort the main arguments of the entrepreneurship research field are

integrated into the conceptual discourse of project management. For once, this discussion

will allow the theoretical treatment of the existence and occurrence of uncertainty during

project implementation. The importance of uncertainty and its theoretical differentiation

from the concept of risk is not well understood. In most practical and theoretical

P a g e | 5

Thomas G. Lechler

discussions, uncertainty and risk are treated as closely related theoretical phenomena.

Furthermore, uncertainty is seen in most discussions as a negative consequence for

managing projects. This is the general conclusion when uncertainty is analyzed through

the lens of the TC paradigm. In addition, changing the paradigm perspective to a

maximization paradigm allows the discussion of the potential positive effects of

uncertainties. The treatment of project uncertainty through the lens of the maximization

paradigm leads to the second contribution of this study. The enrichment of the theoretical

foundation of project management by changing the paradigm from a satisficing and risk

avoidance to a maximizing and opportunity-based perspective. This conceptual paradigm

change allows the reevaluation of many empirical results and their importance for project

success. One major question which the empirical research on success factors is concerned

with is the importance of senior managers for project success. In a TC-paradigm driven

project management organization, opportunities could only be perceived and exploited by

senior managers as they make decisions about project changes.

Basic Assumptions of TC Paradigm and PV Paradigm In the view of Thomas Kuhn (1970), paradigms are guidelines for theoretical thoughts

and scientific research. They represent conceptual views of the world consisting of

formal theories. By choosing a paradigm, its user accepts the actual scientific practice,

which includes law, theory, application, and instrumentation together (Kuhn 1970, p.10).

From the perspective of management, Pfeffer (1982, p. 228) mentions that “A paradigm

is not just the view of the world but embodies procedures for inquiring about the world

and categories into which these observations are collected. Thus paradigms have within

P a g e | 6

Thomas G. Lechler

them an internal consistency that makes evolutionary change or adoption nearly

impossible.”

Only few authors explicitly analyzed the TC paradigm’s limitations for the

implementation of projects. A major underlying critique of the TC paradigm and its

related tools and techniques is that they cannot explicitly handle uncertainty, for example,

the critical path method is criticized for not being able to model uncertainty appropriately

(Whitty & Maylor, 2009). The underlying assumption is that uncertainty could be

avoided by maximizing determinism, for example, the more effort that is put into

collecting data about a project in the planning stage, the less likely it will face risks.

Uncertainty is not really mentioned and is often mixed with risk.

Another major critique is the definition and measurement of project success. One

problem is, as Freeman and Beale (1992) pointed out, that, “... success means different

things to different people.” This perspective is supported by the view that it could be

ambiguous when determining whether a project succeeded or failed (Belassi &Tukel

1996; Freeman & Beale 1992; Pinto & Slevin 1989). Other authors differentiate between

project success and the project management success (Baccarini, 1999; de Wit, 1988) or

they add criteria that are industry specific. The problems of defining and measuring

project success are related to the conceptual level. Many authors start with the TC

paradigm in mind and try to extend and supplement it. This approach does not change the

basic principles under which the criteria are selected. Project success is still measured as

an adherence to the triple constraints with some other criteria that should be fulfilled as

well. The underlying assumption of these discussions is that project success could be

P a g e | 7

Thomas G. Lechler

achieved by satisficing predefined objectives, for example, it is the measurement against

predefined objectives and not the type of objectives that poses the limitation.

The two identified assumptions pose limitations on the management of projects. From a

project manager’s perspective, the challenge is to avoid variation from the baseline. A

valid performance measure with this approach would be only possible if the project is

implemented under deterministic conditions, for example, uncertainty that leads to a

radical change of a project’s value proposition is encountered neither in the available

management tools nor in the management approach. Consequently uncertainties are not

taken into account even though projects are facing uncertainties. The other problem is

that the baseline has to be “realistic.” If the baseline is too ambitious, a negative deviation

is built into the project plan. Another less obvious and less discussed possibility is when a

baseline is too low and the baseline could be met easily. From the perspective of the TC

paradigm, this conceptually means that the project manager needs to minimize the

negative variation from the baseline, but is not challenged to maximize the value of a

project beyond the baseline. There is no empirical evidence about the practical magnitude

of this conceptual problem.

Conceptual Framework of the Study This chapter provides an overview of the different components that are considered in this

study. Rather than conceptually developing the different components of the framework

for this study, the study’s framework is shown. This gives the reader a structured

overview of the model discussion that follows in the succeeding chapters of this book.

The research framework of this study consists of four variables:

P a g e | 8

Thomas G. Lechler

1) Project Value Mindset—The project value mindset (PVM) describes the

attitude of a project manager, which maximizes the value of a project, by

making value-focused project decisions and by seeking and exploiting

opportunities beyond the baseline that will lead to increased project value.

2) Exploited Opportunities—Those opportunities recognized and exploited by the

project manager during the project implementation.

3) Project Value—Those values defined by efficiency, scope, stakeholder, and

shareholder satisfaction.

4) Project Situation—Those characteristics of the project which include

uncertainty and complexity.

An overview of the relationships between the model variables and the research

hypotheses are indicated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Project Value Mindset (PVM) Research Framework

The hypotheses are depicted in Figure 1 by the arrows which describe the proposed

relationships between the model variables. The proposed hypotheses for this study are:

Project Value Mindset

(PVM)

Exploited Opportunities

Opportunities

Project Value

H1 H2

H3

P a g e | 9

Thomas G. Lechler

H1: The higher a project manager scores on the project value mindset (PVM) scale, the

greater the likelihood that project value opportunities are exploited.

H2: The higher a project manager scores on the project value mindset (PVM) scale the

greater the likelihood of an increase in project value.

H3: The more project value opportunities that are exploited by a project manager, the

greater the likelihood of increased project value.

The theoretical basis of the model variables and their proposed relationships are

discussed in the next sections of this article.

Project Success vs. Project Value

Most authors agree that project success is insufficiently defined by the TC paradigm, but

a general definition is still not agreed upon. The problems of defining and measuring

project success are related to a conceptual level as many authors begin with the TC

paradigm in mind and try to extend and supplement it. This approach does not change the

basic principles under which the criteria are selected. Project success is still measured as

an adherence to the triple constraints complemented with other criteria that should be

fulfilled as well. It is measuring project success towards a baseline that is predefined

before a project is started and modified during the project execution. From a project

manager’s perspective, the challenge is avoiding variation from the predefined baseline.

This enforces a satisficing approach that does not necessarily lead to the value

maximization of a project. A valid performance measure with this approach would be

only possible if the project is implemented under completely determined conditions, for

example, negative deviation is then directly related to poor management performance of

P a g e | 10

Thomas G. Lechler

the project manager or stakeholders. This means also that projects are successful if the

baseline is met.

The main problem with this approach is that uncertainties are not taken into account.

Contextual conditions of projects are changing constantly and what once looked like

criteria to define value could dramatically change, for example, a new product

development project now competing against another product, although it was started

without the expectation of a competitor’s product. It is impossible to accurately predict a

project’s objectives because of the inevitable occurrence of uncertainty.

The basic TC principle of determining project success leads to critical conclusions like

successful projects do not appear as time and budget critical (Wateridge 1995). To ask, in

general, which performance criteria are more important than others, is an incomplete

question. This question has to be modified as it depends on the specific circumstances

under which a project is implemented. The question should be “which success criteria

best reflect the achievement of project value?” (e.g., time is a very critical success

criterion for consumer product development projects). A delay leads to significant losses

of market share. Also project budget can be an important success criterion for example,

significant cost overruns in a fixed price contract will lead to an overall loss.

The question has to be changed from a generic normative view on determining project

success with a general set of criteria towards a value-oriented perspective. Several

authors have indirectly addressed this perspective, for example, the Thames Barrier

project took twice as long to build and cost four times the original budget, but it provided

profit for most contractors (Morris & Hough 1987). The success of this project could not

P a g e | 11

Thomas G. Lechler

be explained with the TC-based approach. Turner and Muller (2004) suggest that project

outcome should be measured and remunerated on a wider set of objectives, not just the

achievement of time, cost, and technical requirements.

Although the discussions are TC paradigm-centric, the critiques and suggested extensions

to measure project success have a common thread by pointing at a different paradigm. It

is widely accepted that a project is not necessarily successful if the triple constraints are

met and it is more important to create a certain level of satisfaction. This leads to some

extend away from a satisficing approach and points at a maximizing paradigm.

Definition 1: Project Value

A project’s value is defined by the value a project creates for its stakeholders. The project

value could be represented by a single or any combination of efficiency, technical

effectiveness and the satisfaction of a project’s stakeholder with emphasis on clients and

shareholders.

As definition 1 suggests, project value is not defined in a normative sense, rather it is

defined in a relativistic sense as the value of a project could be determined in many

different ways depending on its specific context and situation. The question of whether

the achieved project value represents a maximum can never be answered accurately. This

question is addressed only by evaluating the management process of a project in the

perspective of the maximization paradigm. The expression project value was chosen to

differentiate clearly from the mainstream discussion of project success.

P a g e | 12

Thomas G. Lechler

A Project Manager’s Project Value Mindset

The specific characteristics of a project manager’s value mindset are derived from

conceptual differences of the TC paradigm and the PV paradigm. One fundamental

characteristic of the PV paradigm is its maximization premise in contrast to the

satisficing premise of the TC paradigm. Another premise is that uncertainty occurs during

the implementation of projects and that these uncertainties are a potential source for

opportunities to increase a project’s predefined value. The definition of PVM is based on

these two fundamental assumptions. It is obvious that PVM cannot be derived from one

singular perspective rather it is a complex concept that is related to different attitudes and

traits of a project manager as discussed in the following sections.

Project Manager’s Opportunity Disposition

Uncertainties during the implementation of projects are more likely a general rule and not

the exception. The strategic management literature amply points out that developing the

plan addresses the market while the implementation of the plan is an operations-based

endeavor. The plan will most likely face uncertainties. The economists argue that

uncertainty is the conditio sine qua non for the existence of business opportunities

(Knight, 1948). Furthermore, entrepreneurs only evolve if individuals are “alert” to

opportunities, that is, they are actively seeking or are open for opportunities (Kirzner

1973). Following this line of thought, it is imperative for project managers to seek for

those opportunities that could significantly change the value proposition of a project. The

disposition for seeking and creating opportunities to maximize the project value beyond

the predefined value proposition is a necessary attitude. These attitudes express the quest

of a project manager to seek a project value maximum beyond the baseline of a project.

P a g e | 13

Thomas G. Lechler

Project Manager’s Overachievement Disposition

The main critique of the TC paradigm is its inherent premise of satisficing, as evidenced

by the concept of trade-offs. But if projects face more or less uncertainties, it is

impossible to set project objectives that reflect the future “reality” of a project. This

would be possible only in a deterministic world and the main objective for a project

manager would be to satisfy these objectives.

The conditions are completely different under the premise of uncertainty. It is impossible

to define ultimate project objectives. Changing objectives is a given and a project

manager, who strictly follows the rules of the TC paradigm, would most likely not

achieve the full value potential of a project.

Most discussions see uncertainty negatively related to a project’s value proposition, for

example, the targets of the objectives have to be lowered. However, uncertainty, as

discussed earlier, could also open the door for opportunities that could lead to a higher

value proposition of a project. What if the initial project targets were set too low? In this

situation, the initial value proposition of a project should be completely changed. Under

these conditions, it is obvious that a satisficing approach would not lead to achieving the

potential project value. Only if seeking to increase the initial value proposition, would the

project manager be alert for opportunities and be willing to exploit opportunities. Thus,

the attitude for overachievement is a defining component of the PVM

Project Manager’s Dialectic Requirement Disposition

For any project manager, it is imperative to understand the “constraints” of a project, for

example, the requirements and the specifications laid out in a project charter. Often a

project manager is charged with fulfilling the requirements for which involvement during

P a g e | 14

Thomas G. Lechler

their definition was likely minimal, if at all. Under these conditions, project managers are

charged to “find” the best fit between the requirements and the management process

necessary to fulfill them. The traditional way to do so is to create a project baseline that

best meets the requirements. In acting in compliance with the TC paradigm, project

managers are calculating the critical path under the given resource constraints to assure a

most likely project implementation process with a high likelihood of fulfilling the

predefined requirements. This planning process that complies with the constraints follows

the satisficing premise. As discussed earlier, the best possible compliance for a given set

of requirements would not necessarily lead to the best possible project results or as it is

called here—project value.

However, if the premise is changed from satisficing to maximizing a project’s value, as

the PV paradigm suggests, it is imperative for the project manager to question the given

project requirements and specifications. It is most likely that the derived requirements are

not representing an “optimal” set of constraints defining a “solution space” in which the

maximal potential project value lies. Given that project managers have a certain level of

expertise about the relationship between intended requirements and the implementation

of specific problems, it seems important to question the given set of requirements and to

put some effort into modifying and prioritizing requirements before and during the

implementation process, in particular with the occurrence of uncertainty. Only a constant

search for modifying and exceeding predefined specific requirements will lead to a

potential possibility to maximize a project’s value. The questioning and constant

validation of project requirements and technical specifications under the maximization

premise seems to be an essential attitude in describing a project manager’s PVM.

P a g e | 15

Thomas G. Lechler

Project Manager’s Ambiguity Disposition

The creation and exploitation of opportunities is related to situations of ambiguity. Only

those project managers who are accepting ambiguous situations will be able to exploit

opportunities. The disposition to tolerate ambiguous situations was defined by Budner

(1962) as an individual's propensity to view ambiguous situations as either threatening or

desirable first. A project manager’s disposition towards ambiguity could be seen as a

precondition to exploit opportunities. A disposition towards ambiguity is related to the

direct treatment of uncertainty and thus an essential facet in describing a project

manager’s PVM as it is supported by the general literature on ambiguity.

Project Manager’s Personality Traits

The attitude which an individual displays and acts upon is intertwined with one’s

personality and to some degree with individual’s intelligence. Intelligence is a general

concept that underlies nearly every human behavior and is not specific enough for the

PVM concept. The traits of a project manager are more specific and are easier to be

monitored. The common traits typology consists of extraversion and stability as well as

conscientiousness, openness, and agreeableness. Other personality traits that are

important to the project manager include an ability to be comfortable in making decisions

under ambiguous situations.

Under the conditions of uncertainty and value maximization, the personality of a project

manager to seek and exploit opportunities is an important characteristic of the person’s

mindset. A PM’s traits are linked to the decision process and thus an important facet of

the PVM concept.

P a g e | 16

Thomas G. Lechler

Project Value Mindset Definition and Conclusion

The discussion of the different components of a project manager’s PVM suggests that it

is a complex mix of personal characteristics, dispositions, attitudes, and context, the

result of which is strongly situation-dependent.

Definition 2: Project Manager’s Project Value Mindset (PVM)

The PVM of a project manager is a mental state involving several dispositions and

attitudes resulting in activities to seek, discover, and create opportunities beyond a pre-

defined value proposition with the intent to create and maximize a project’s value.

The VPM is defined in contrast to a TC paradigm by questioning the underlying premises

of the satisficing concept. It is based on a maximization premise and focuses on the

maximization of project value.

Project Value Opportunities

The creation of economic value is closely related to the exploitation of opportunities and

consequently an important variable for the project value paradigm. The existence and

nature of opportunities traditionally occupied the economic literature and were not yet

considered by project management researchers. It is argued that occurrence of

uncertainties is one of the major preconditions for the existence of opportunities within

an economy (Kirzner, 1973; Knight, 1948; and Schumpeter, 1934), and and it is

understandable that without uncertainties, entrepreneurial profits (e.g., extraordinary

profits) would be impossible.

The relevance of this topic for project management is obvious. The management of

projects is challenged with managing uncertainties. If projects are unique, as all formal

project definitions suggest, then uncertainties (unknown-unknowns) are inevitable no

matter how much information is gathered before a project is initiated. This means that the

P a g e | 17

Thomas G. Lechler

concept of opportunity and its recognition and exploitation could be adopted for the

management of projects. This argument is related to the unique nature of all projects

which face, more or less, a specific level of uncertainty during their implementation.

Thus, following the arguments of the economists, these uncertainties represent potential

sources for opportunities to increase a project’s value.

The bottom line is that projects, as they are facing uncertainties, are predestined to

experience the emergence of opportunities and subsequently the recognition, evaluation,

and exploitation of an opportunity during a project’s implementation is a major concept

of the project value paradigm as it is the source for maximizing project value.

Definition 3: Project Value Opportunity (PVO)

Project Value Opportunities represent a potential to exceed the predefined stakeholder

value of a project during a project’s implementation.

The project management literature acknowledges the concept of project risks (known-

unknowns) and suggests many different approaches to analyze possible sources of project

variation. The TC paradigm addresses these sources of variation by analyzing trade-offs

and their consequences for the project results; however, it does not address the concept of

uncertainty. But as Baumol (1993) pointed out, situations of uncertainty defy any

optimization calculus. Thus, under a paradigm of maximization, project uncertainties

could also be linked to opportunities and if exploited, will exceed the predefined project

value.

Research Hypotheses

The guiding question of this study is the relationship between a project manager’s PVM

and the creation of project value. The discussion of the potential TC paradigm constraints

P a g e | 18

Thomas G. Lechler

is a good starting point. One of the main critiques of the TC paradigm is that it is not

constructed to deal effectively with uncertainty. It also does not support a maximization

approach, instead it encourages a satisficing attitude. The consequences are indicated by

the relatively high failure rates of projects. The main proposition is that uncertainty has to

be managed effectively with a maximization approach in mind.

Project Value Mindset – Project Value Opportunity Relationship

The relationship between PVM and project value opportunities is substantiated by the

theoretical arguments of the entrepreneurship research field. Opportunities have to be

created, discovered, selected, and exploited to enable an entrepreneur or an organization

to generate entrepreneurial profit (Shane & Venkataraman, 2001). One major

precondition is the alertness of entrepreneurs (Kirzner, 1973) to seek for opportunities.

The alertness, as Kirzner defined it, is reflected by the presented definition of the PVM

construct. This leads to the first research hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: PVM – PVO Relation

The higher a project manager scores on the project value mindset scale, the greater the

number of project value opportunities that were exploited during a project’s

implementation.

This hypothesis describes the relationship between the PVM and opportunity variables

that are represented by specific measurement scales. The measurement scales are

developed in the next section.

Project Value Opportunity – Project Value Relationship

The second relationship in the introduced research framework is the direct influence of a

project manager’s PVM on project value. As expressed with Hypothesis 1 and shown in

the research model in Figure 1, the influence of PVM on project value is mediated by the

P a g e | 19

Thomas G. Lechler

exploitation of project value-related opportunities. However, the recognition and

exploitation of opportunities is not the only source to maximize project value. The PVM

is also related to the decisions and specific activities that project managers make when

implementing a project. Thus a direct relationship between PVM and project value is

proposed.

Hypothesis 2: PVM – PV Relation

The higher a project manager scores on the project value mindset(PVM) scale the

greater the created project value.

Exploited Project Value Opportunities – Project Value Relationship The third relationship in the introduced research framework represents the impact of

exploited project value opportunities on the created project value. The conceptual

treatment of this hypothesis is straightforward. It builds on the assumption that the PVM

represents the attitude of a project manager to create and seek project value opportunities.

But the search alone would not necessarily lead to an increase in project value. It is

actually the opportunity that was exploited that has the potential to increase a project’s

value.

Hypothesis 3: PVO – PV Relationship

The more project value opportunities (PVO)that are exploited, the greater the created

project value.

This relationship is a result of the underlying assumption that opportunities which are

exploited were chosen under the maximization premise.

P a g e | 20

Thomas G. Lechler

Research Methodology and Data Collection

The chosen research method to address the raised research questions and to finally test

the research hypotheses are discussed in this section. A correlational research design was

chosen to analyze quantitatively the role and influence of a project manager’s PVM

across many different projects within different industries.

Data Collection Method

A survey instrument was developed and data were collected during 2008 and 2009 from

many different projects across a variety of industries including manufacturing, software,

and telecommunication industries and many different organizations. One of the major

goals was to obtain a large-scale sample allowing for advanced statistical analyses. To

achieve a high return rate and to have some control over the data collection process,

participants of this study were recruited from a part-time graduate program of

professional who were studying and/or earning their certifications in project

management. They were instructed on how to conduct the data collection and their

questions about the data collection process were directly answered by the principal

investigators of this study. The questionnaires were distributed to them as hardcopies or

on request as files via email.

For the purpose of this research, it was necessary and important to gather data from

multiple sources. As the focus of this study is a project manager’s PVM, it was important

to collect data on the perceptions from several members of the project manager’s team as

to which project-related decisions were made by the project managers, what

considerations where taken, and which decisions could have or should have been made.

To prevent single-informant bias issues, the contacts of this study were asked to identify

P a g e | 21

Thomas G. Lechler

five members of a project and to return five completed questionnaires for each project:

from three key members of the project team, one from the project manager, and one from

the senior manager (sponsor) responsible for the funding of the project. All respondents

received the same questionnaire to avoid confusion in the data collection process on the

side of the contact person. Due to their direct involvement, these respondent groups were

believed to be the most knowledgeable about the project decisions and processes. Further,

given that project team members and project sponsors were directly affected by project

decisions and processes, understanding their views about the PVM and the project results

was most important.

Finally, to ensure a reasonably comparable level of familiarity with the projects across

the sample, project members were instructed by the contact person to choose a project

with which they were most familiar and involved with throughout its implementation.

Many empirical studies conducted in project settings use retrospective methods for

reasons of feasibility (Meyer & Utterback, 1995; Tatikonda & Montoya-Weiss, 2001). To

improve the accuracy of retrospective reports, respondents were asked by the contact

person to select recent projects to control the elapsed time between the events of interest

and the data collection.

Data for this study were mainly collected in the U.S. The total sample obtained thus far is

596 questionnaires. The sample includes responses from 387 core team members, 114

project managers and 95 senior managers. Actually, the original number of collected

questionnaires was higher but 21 cases had to be rejected because they were incomplete

or had other serious quality issues (e.g. questionnaires filled out by incorrect respondents

or each respondent reported on different projects) or they did not meet the required

P a g e | 22

Thomas G. Lechler

project characteristics. These 21 cases were discarded from further analyses. The final

sample used in the data analyses includes the data of 114 projects and consists of 104

mainly successful projects and only 10 unsuccessful projects. Some unsuccessful projects

were possibly not reported because they were never completed. Such restriction in range

tends to impact correlations more than regression weights and path coefficients and

consequently do not expect seriously distorted results. All projects had a budget of at

least $500,000 and their duration was at least three months.

Research Methodology

One of the main challenges this research project faced was the measurement of a project

manager’s project value mindset (PVM). However, the PVM is not directly observable

andan adequate measurement tool that could be applied for this study was not existent.

Over the course of this research project, many different steps were incorporated to

develop a valid and reliable measurement tool.

In behavioral organizational science, it is quite common to use Likert-scales to measure a

respondent’s feelings or attitudes about a variable that is not directly observable. Each

Likert-scale consists of several questions that are called items. Each item describes a

continuum between two extremes from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The

respondents indicate how closely their feelings match the question or statement on a

rating scale consisting of numbers ranging between 1 and 5 or more. During the summer

of 2006, a 118 item questionnaire was developed. A pilot-scale investigation was

performed in the fall of 2006 and spring of 2007 to evaluate the quality of the survey

instrument. In total, 30 respondents with project experience were asked to provide

detailed feedback of how well they understood the questions. Based on this investigation,

P a g e | 23

Thomas G. Lechler

several minor modifications were made to improve the survey instrument. Besides

rewording some items, the survey instrument was extended to 120 items.

The analyses of the data were conducted in several steps. In the first step, the quality and

final configurations of the measurement scales were determined. This step was conducted

on the full sample of 596 surveys. Several statistical tests were used to analyze the quality

of the measurement scales. In the second step the constructed scales were used to analyze

the proposed relationships between the model variables depicted in Figure 1.

The first step tests validity and reliability of the developed measurement scales.

Reliability refers to the consistency of a measure and a measure is considered reliable if

the same result is received repeatedly. Cronbach’s Alpha test was used to test for

reliability of the measurement scales. It is a test commonly used as a measure of the

internal consistency reliability of Likert-scales. Values below 0.70 would lead to a

rejection or modification of the constructed scale. Values above 0.80 are acceptable and

values above 0.90 very good. The value of alpha is not related to the factorial

homogeneity because it depends on the size of the average inter-item covariance, while

unidimensionality depends on the pattern of the inter-item covariances.

For the latter reason, Principal Component Analysis was used to investigate the construct

validity of the measurement scales. Only if the resulting factor achieved an explained

variance of at least 60% and all factor loadings were at least 0.7 for each individual item

or each component of a scale, it was accepted and not further modified.

In a second step, all scales were aggregated to the project level. In this step of the data

analyses, the responses of the project managers were used for the specific project

information (name, size, etc.) and to replace missing values in the individual answers.

P a g e | 24

Thomas G. Lechler

Otherwise, to avoid any respondent specific biases, only the responses of the team

members and the senior managers were aggregated by calculating the mean across the

developed scales of project value, PVM, and exploited opportunities. The aggregated

scales were used as the input for the final step. To test the derived research hypotheses, a

structural equation modeling (SEM) technique was employed. This technique allows

testing simultaneously interactions between several model variables. Furthermore, it is a

combination of a factor analysis combined with a regression analysis, allowing the

measurement model (different scales) of a latent variable (not directly observable

variable) and testing its influence on other similar constructed variables. This has an

advantage in that the estimates are more accurate since a total aggregation of different

scales measuring a variable is not necessary and specific measurement errors could be

included in the estimation without distorting the estimates. This is in particular necessary

for the PVM variable. The results of the SEM are direct tests for the hypotheses. For the

model estimation LISREL version 8.51 (linear structural relationships) was used.

LISREL is a statistical method that allows simultaneous analyses of hypothesized causal

relationships for multiple variables (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). The use of SEM also

offers several test statistics to evaluate several aspects of the validity of the measurement

scales. In particular, it was used to test for criterion validity by checking if the proposed

causal relations are indeed of statistical significance (predictive validity) and if the

constructs (model variables) are clearly explained by the several scales (concurrent

validity).

P a g e | 25

Thomas G. Lechler

Measures for Project Value

The achieved project value is a complex and multidimensional construct that is difficult

to measure and many different alternative measures for project success are suggested.

Pinto and Mantel (1990) identified three distinct aspects of project performance: the

implementation process, the perceived value of the project, client satisfaction with the

delivered project outcome. Shenhar, et al. (1997) suggested four different criteria to

assess project success: meeting design goals, benefits to customers, c) commercial

success, and future potential. Even though there is no convergence about the scales to be

used to determine project success, it is commonly agreed, as the examples from the

literature show, that multiple measures are necessary to determine project success.

Following this line of thought, a project’s value was measured by four different scales

derived from the literature review and the conceptual discussion of the project value

paradigm by using and developing 19 different items as shown in Table 1.

Individual PVM Scale Number of Items Cronbach s Alpha Variance Explained

Project_Value 4 0.97 0.78

1. The project was an economic success for the organization that completed it. 2. All things considered, the project was a success for the organization that completed it. 3. The project will achieve a positive net present value (NPV) for the organization that completed it. 4. The project will achieve a positive return on investment (ROI) for the organization that completed it.

Client_Satisfaction 4 0.88 0.74

1. The clients were satisfied with the project implementation process.

2. Clients using this project’s outcomes will experience more effective decision making and / or

improved performance.

3. The project results led to an improvement in client performance.

4. The clients are satisfied with the results of the project.

Scope_Satisfaction 3 0.87 0.79

1. The project outcome met all technical requirements. 2. The planned project scope was fully met. 3. The project outcome does what it is supposed to do.

Technical_Quality 3 0.83 0.74

P a g e | 26

Thomas G. Lechler

1. A high number of defects were discovered after initial acceptance by the client. 2. The number of hours of rework to previously completed deliverables was high. 3. The total support costs after project completion are expected to significantly exceed the original

estimates. Efficiency 5 0.86 0.64

1. The project was completed on schedule. 2. The project was completed within budget. 3. The scheduled milestones had a high on-time completion rate. 4. This project was finished faster than comparable projects. 5. The process by which this project was completed was very efficient.

Table 1: Quality measures of the project value scales

The scales of efficiency, satisfaction with scope and technical quality are standard

measures of the TC paradigm. The statistics for the efficiency scale testing reliability and

construct validity reach satisfying levels. Originally, six items were developed to measure

a project’s effectiveness. The first and the third item were used from an effectiveness

scale developed by Pinto (1986). Although an orthogonal factor analysis with varimax

rotation of the effectiveness items yielded in two different factors representing different

aspects of project effectiveness. One scale measures the achieved technical quality of the

project output and the other scale measures the level of satisfaction with the fulfillment of

a project’s scope requirements. In summary, both effectiveness scales satisfy the

statistical criteria for reliability and validity.

Client satisfaction as a success criterion is mentioned by many authors and represents an

extension of the TC paradigm. The perceived client satisfaction was measured with four

items. The first three items were adopted from Pinto’s (1986) client satisfaction scale. As

demonstrated in Table 1, the client satisfaction scale satisfies all statistical requirements.

The fifth scale measures the perception of the value the project has created for the

organization that implemented the project. The implementing organization might not be

necessarily the project owner. The project value scale consists of four items and, as

shown in Table 1, satisfies the discussed requirements for reliability and validity.

P a g e | 27

Thomas G. Lechler

The scores for each scale were calculated by averaging the scores across the single items

of each scale. These values were used as a basis for the following statistical analyses.

Measures for Project Value Mindset Components

The PVM definition indicates that the operationalization of the variable PVM to test the

research hypotheses is complex and requires several scales representing the different

aspects of PVM. This problem constitutes one of the major methodological challenges of

this study: How to measure the PVM of a project manager?

In this step a comprehensive measurement model consisting of seven scales was

constructed. In total, seven different scales were developed based on 29 items to measure

the PVM of a project manager. The scales correspond with the different conceptual

components discussed in the previous sections.

P a g e | 28

Thomas G. Lechler

Conceptual PVM

Components

Empirical PVM Measurement Scales

Opportunity Disposition Value Opportunity Search—Project manager seeks out

ways to improve efficiency and effectiveness, which

should result in lowering the budgeted costs,

shortening the time, or improving the functionality for

the benefit of the managing firm and client.

Overachievement

Disposition

Overachievement—Project manager seeks to

overachieve the original objectives.

Dialectic Requirement

Disposition

Strategic Gap Analysis—The Project manager puts

effort into understanding the requirements that are

beyond the written scope statement and that are

relevant for the achievement of project value.

Specifications Analysis—At the project start, project

manager looks for inconsistencies, seeks accuracy, and

anticipates missing data or project requirements.

Ambiguity Disposition Change Anticipation—The project manager constantly

tries to anticipate sources of change.

Ambiguity—The project manager is not risk averse

and, if an opportunity occurs, accepts uncertainty in

order to increase the value of the project.

Traits Traits—Adopted from the five-factor personality

characteristic, attitudinal views, and attention to detail.

Table 2: PVM component—PVM scale relations

Two components of the PVM concept are measured by two scales. The dialectic

requirement analysis is measured with the strategic gap analysis and the specifications

gap analysis. The first scale measures attitudes and activities to specify or seek for project

requirements that are not formally defined. These activities consume resources that are

most likely not considered in the project plan and therefore it is the project manager’s

decision to “invest” in these activities. Since the investment of resources in these

activities could be seen as a strategic decision the scale is called strategic gap analysis.

The other scale measures activities and attitudes to adjust, modify, and identify project

specifications and is therefore called specifications gap analysis. The literature

differentiates between specifications as technical issues from requirements that are

broader including nontechnical issues as well.

P a g e | 29

Thomas G. Lechler

The ambiguity deposition is also measured with two scales. The ambiguity scale

represents the positive attitude of a project manager towards uncertainty. The change

anticipation scale represents the avoidance of changes by anticipation. The latter stands to

some extent as a contrast to ambiguity.

The only scale that was not developed for this study is the traits scale. It was adopted

from a five-factors personality scale to measure a project manager’s traits.

The following analyses to construct a scale to measure a project manager’s PVM were

conducted in two steps: First, the individual scales measuring the different components of

the PVM were developed. The second step tests if these scales are representing the

mindset of project managers as a whole.

P a g e | 30

Thomas G. Lechler

Individual PVM Scale Number of Items Cronbach s Alpha Variance Explained

Project Manager_Value Opportunity

Search

4 0.87 0.71

1. The project manager was always seeking solutions to improve the project value (beyond the original plans).

2. The project manager contacted experts to find opportunities to exceed project requirements. 3. The project manager was open to new ways to achieve better project results. 4. During the project implementation the project manager was seeking opportunities to exceed the

planned functionality of the output. Project Manager Overachievement 3 0.80 0.70

1. The project manager routinely tries to exceed stated specifications. 2. The project manager considers giving clients more than is specified. 3. The project manager exhibits awareness of opportunities to improve or “over achieve” project

performance. Strategic Gap Analysis 5 0.87 0.66

1. The project manager spent a significant amount of time to identify the needs of the different stakeholders (clients, management, and shareholders).

2. The project manager invested effort to identify stakeholder needs (clients, management, and shareholders), that were not included in the original project plan or contract.

3. The project manager routinely tried to anticipate new risks or changes to project requirements. 4. The project manager exceeded the project requirements. 5. The project manager prevented conflicts by putting a significant effort into the requirement

analysis. Specifications Gap Analysis 5 0.88 0.67

1. The project manager critically evaluates or challenges the project specifications 2. The project manager routinely corrects project specifications. 3. The project manager routinely modifies project specifications. 4. The project manager looks for weaknesses or inconsistencies in project specifications. 5. The project manager tries to identify a mismatch between project specifications with the company’s

capabilities. Traits 5 0.90 0.71

1. The project manager is sociable, talkative, dominant, exhibition, confident, andactive.

2. The project manager is good natured, nurturing, gentle, warm, cooperative, andforgiving.

3. The project manager is careful, thorough, detailed, responsible, dependable, organized, and self-

disciplined.

4. The project manager is calm, enthusiastic, poised, in control, and secure.

5. The project manager is imaginative, creative, aware, sensitive, cultured, curious, intellectual, and

polished.

Change Anticipation 3 0.80 0.70

1. The PM looks for unrealistic goals in project specifications. 2. The PM anticipates unwritten (undocumented) specifications. 3. The PM anticipates new or a change in project specifications.

Ambiguity 4 .82 .69

1. The project manager accepts uncertainty in an attempt to improve the project. 2. The project manager is open to take chances to improve the project. 3. The project manager has the vision to see opportunities for project improvement. 4. The project manager invites the views of others to improve project performance.

P a g e | 31

Thomas G. Lechler

Table 3: Quality of individual PVM scales

The developed individual PVM scales achieve good to very good values, as the statistical

values in Table 3 demonstrate, indicating that the developed scales could be used for

further analyses.

Aggregated Measures for Project Value Mindset In this section, the different scales are combined to measure the project-value-mindset

scale. Several statistical tests were conducted to test if these scales are indeed

representing the mindset of project managers.

Both statistical scale tests, the Cronbach’s Alpha test as well as the PCA indicated that

the scale project manager change anticipation had to be removed from the final PVM

scale. The inclusion of this scale lowered the Alpha to an unacceptable level and it

lowered also the portion of explained variance estimated with the PCA concluding that

the project manager’s change anticipation could not be statistically integrated into the

overall PVM scale. From a practical perspective, this result is consistent with the entire

discussion. The relatively low variance of the project manager’s change anticipation scale

indicates that the anticipation of changes is an act that all project managers, independent

of their mindset, are considering. After this step, the number had to be reduced from

seven subscales to finally six subscales. The final results of the analyses are demonstrated

in Table 4.

P a g e | 32

Thomas G. Lechler

PVM_Scale

Cronbach s Alpha 0.90 Variance

Explained0.67

PVM Subscales Factor Loadings

Strategic requirement gap 0.787

Traits 0.861

Requirement analyses 0.771

Ambiguity 0.820

Over achievement 0.771

Opportunity recognition 0.895

Table 4: PVM—Overall scale

Overall, the resulting PVM scale to measure the value mindset of project managers

represents a very good base for further analyses to test the research hypotheses.

Measures for Exploited Project Value Opportunities

The existence of a specific mindset could only be validated by the specific decisions that

could be related to it. Seven items were developed to measure if opportunities were

exploited during the project implementation. Surprisingly, the analyses resulted in two

different scales measuring two kinds of exploited opportunities. One scale measures

exploited opportunities that are directly related to the TC paradigm as they describe

opportunities to increase schedule, budget, and scope objectives (exploited TC

opportunities). The second scale measures exploited opportunities with the purpose to

increase the value of a project.

Exploited TC Opportunities Scale Number of Items Cronbach s Alpha Variance Explained

Items 3 0.82 0.74

1. During the project implementation, opportunities were exploited to exceed the planned functionality of the output.

2. During the project implementation, opportunities were exploited to shorten the project duration. 3. During the project implementation, opportunities were exploited to lower the project budget.

Table 6: Quality of exploited TC opportunities

P a g e | 33

Thomas G. Lechler

The statistical parameters of the Exploited TC Opportunities scale indicate a very good

scale quality to measure if TC opportunities were exploited during the project

implementation.

Exploited Value Opportunities Scale Number of Items Cronbach s Alpha Variance Explained

Items 4 0.84 0.68

1. During the project implementation, opportunities were exploited to increase the satisfaction of the client.

2. Implemented project changes were financially beneficial to the project owner (the group implementing it) or client.

3. During the project implementation, several opportunities were exploited to increase the project value.

4. During the project implementation, opportunities were exploited to significantly increase the shareholder value.

Table 7: Quality of exploited value opportunities

The second scale measuring exploited opportunities to increase in general the project

value (Exploited Value Opps Scale) demonstrates also a good statistical quality.

Several statistical tests were conducted, like a PC analysis across all seven items to

confirm these results. Despite the exploratory nature of this study, these results are

consistent with the initial idea about the constraints of the TC-paradigm and its

consequences for managing projects and achieving project results.

Empirical Results

For this step, all variables were aggregated by using the ratings of four responding project

participants, for example, three project team members and the project sponsor. Due to the

risk of response bias, the responses of the project managers were excluded from further

analyses. These responses were only used to fill in for missing values. The data

aggregation led in total to 114 projects. All further analyses are based on the aggregated

data of the responses of the different respondents of 114 projects.

P a g e | 34

Thomas G. Lechler

Component related descriptive results

The descriptive statistics of the scales show that means are pretty high across all

developed scales. This is not very surprising as most reported projects were classified by

the respondents as successful. Interesting are also the standard deviations of the scales.

P a g e | 35

Thomas G. Lechler

Descriptive Statistics

Minimum Maximum Mean

Standard

Deviation

Strategic requirements gap 2.95 7.00 5.1178 0.76792

Traits 3.30 7.00 5.5924 0.80222

Requirement analyses 2.50 6.75 4.9814 0.81029

Ambiguity 2.94 6.67 5.1240 0.81555

Overachievement

Opportunity recognition 2.88 7.00 5.1557 0.85906

Business result 1.00 7.00 5.5154 1.02267

Exploited TC opportunities 1.00 7.00 4.0293 1.05726

Exploited value opportunities 1.94 6.88 4.6405 1.00356

Quality 1.00 6.67 3.3198 1.32320

Effectiveness 1.78 7.00 5.7879 1.00863

Client satisfaction 2.12 7.00 5.5939 1.00134

Efficiency 1.15 6.75 4.7048 1.15819

Table 8: Descriptive statistics of the measurement scales

P a g e | 36

Thomas G. Lechler

Business Quality Effectiveness

Client

Saqtisfaction Efficiency

Strategic requirements

gap

0.553 -0.242 0.510 0.562 0.388

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000

Traits 0.614 -0.322 0.631 0.628 0.446

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000

Requirements analyses 0.434 -0.214 0.434 0.448 0.360

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000

Ambiguity 0.504 -0.357 0.522 0.608 0.498

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Over achievement 0.480 -0.042 0.362 0.454 0.425

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.663 0.000 0.000 0.000

Opportunity recognition 0.591 -0.247 0.564 0.662 0.397

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Project Value Mindset 0.644 -0.329 0.633 0.693 0.496

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000

Exploited TC

opportunities

0.216 0.129 0.088 0.224 0.177

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.024 0.187 0.362 0.019 0.065

Exploited value

opportunities

0.543 -0.035 0.325 0.504 0.277

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.723 0.001 0.000 0.004

Table 9: Correlations of mindset scales and exploited opportunities with project

value

All correlations between the mindset scales with the project value scales are significant

and very strong.

Empirical Tests of Hypotheses

The developed measurement scales are the basis for testing the research hypotheses. In

the final step of the statistical analyses, the three research hypotheses were

simultaneously tested with a structural equation model (SEM) by using LISREL VIII for

P a g e | 37

Thomas G. Lechler

the model estimation. The SEM shown in Figure 2 displays the structural model as well

as the measurement model of the PM’s Project Value Mindset consisting of the six

scales. The error terms are not shown.

Figure 2

Standardized Path Coefficients of the Structural Equation Model a

* p < 0.05;

Fit Statistics b

RMSEA AGFI NNFI NFI CFI X 2

df

0.002 0.93 1.00 0.99 1.00 14.98 (p=0.53)

16 a T-values are in brackets.

b RMSEA = Root-mean-square error of approximation; NNFI = Nonnormed Fit Index;

NFI = Normed Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; X 2chi-square, df = degrees of

freedom

The evaluation of a structural equation model is quite complex since no single test offers

sufficient evidence to accept or reject a model. Recognizing the problems associated with

the evaluation of linear structural equation models (Anderson &Gerbing, 1988; Bagozzi,

1980; Baumgartner & Homburg, 1996; Bollen, 1989), a comprehensive set of tests was

0.63* (7.49)a

0.19 *

(2.04)

0.59 * (5.93)

Strat_Req_Gap

Traits

Req_Analyses

Overachievement

Ambiguity

Opp_Recognition

0.59

*

0.65

*

0.59

*

0.60

*

0.64

*

0.77

*

PM’s Value

Mindset

Project

Value

R2=0.52

Exploited Value

Opportunities

R2=0.41

P a g e | 38

Thomas G. Lechler

employed to assess the goodness of fit. To accept the model, the following criteria have

to be satisfied: a chi square (p > 0.05), which tests the null hypothesis that the estimated

variance-covariance matrix deviates from the sample variance-covariance matrix only

because of sampling errors. The chi-square test is limited to the extent that it is dependent

on the sample size. Browne and Cudeck (1993) showed that with an increase of the

sample size, any model could be rejected. Because of these weaknesses of the chi-square

test, Jöreskog and Sörbom suggested two global fit indices, GFI (goodness of fit index)

and AGFI (adjusted goodness of fit index). To evaluate a model’s fit the AGFI was used,

since its calculation is based on the GFI but it also accounts for the degrees of freedom.

Values below 0.90 indicate that the model should be rejected (Baumgartner& Homburg,

1996). The RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) is a measurement of non-

centrality and estimates how well the fitted model approximates the population

covariance matrix per degree of freedom. Browne and Cudeck (1993) suggest that a

RMSEA <= 0.05 indicates a close fit and the model should be accepted. The CFI

(comparative fit index) assesses the relative reduction in lack of fit as estimated by the

chi square of a target model versus a baseline model in which all of the observed

variables are uncorrelated (Bentler, 1990). Models with a CFI below the 0.85 should be

rejected (Bentler & Bonett, 1980).

The table of the fit statistics demonstrates that the estimated model fulfills all requested

statistical benchmarks and demonstrates an acceptable fit. All path coefficients are

significant (p < 0.05) suggesting that all model variables have to be included in the

structural equation model. Furthermore, the PVM variable explains 41% of the variance

of the exploited value opportunities during a project’s implementation. Both, the PVM

P a g e | 39

Thomas G. Lechler

variable and the exploited opportunity variable explain 52% of the variance in the project

value variable. This percentage is very high given the many other possible influences on

the achievement of project success.

The SEM also supports the proposed measurement model for a project manager’s

mindset. The path coefficients between the latent variable (project manager’s value

mindset) and the six different measurement scales are very high and significant on the 1%

level (p < 0.01). In sum, the SEM demonstrates that the three research hypotheses should

not be rejected. It could be empirically demonstrated that links between the project

manager’s value mindset the exploited opportunities during a project’s implementation

and the perceived project value exist.

Discussion of Empirical Results

Overall the empirical results of this study are surprising. The initial expectation was that

many project managers follow the dominant TC paradigm and try to create project value

within the predefined constraints of their projects. Instead the strong relations

demonstrate that it is more common than not that project managers strive to maximize

project value in seeking for opportunities to improve the value proposition of their

projects. Given all other possible influences on project value, as mainly discussed by

success factor studies, the project value mindset of a project manager turns out to be an

important contributor in achieving project success.

The empirical results demonstrate that the PVM should be measured with at least the six

different scales measuring a project manager’s traits, attitudes, and behaviors. This

means, that project managers who are perceived by team members and peers to have a

PVM receive simultaneously high scores on all six scales. It is possible that individual

P a g e | 40

Thomas G. Lechler

project managers could receive a high score on a specific scale but lower scores on other

scales. In these cases project managers demonstrate some aspects of the value mindset

but in summary they do not demonstrate a PVM as a whole.

The results show in summary how important each of the six scales are to measure a

project manager’s PVM. The importance of each scale was tested with two different tests

(principle component analysis and SEM) with two different levels of data aggregation

and both methods show similar results. The results also demonstrate the complex nature

of the PVM variable and they underline the necessity to operationalize the construct in

dependence of the specific context, in this case the management of projects.

The main hypothesis of this study describes the importance of a project manager’s PVM

for the creation of project value. This hypothesis was tested with the SEM method,

estimating the strength of the direct path of the PVM variable on project value while

simultaneously considering the influence of exploited value opportunities on project

value. The high path coefficient is surprising and shows how important it is that project

managers manage their project continuously towards improving the value proposition of

their project. The strong impact indicates also that project managers who seek to satisfice

the initial project value proposition will likely fail to capture the potential project value.

The openness towards change by questioning the initial requirements and seeking for

improving the value proposition of a project is an effective strategy to face uncertainty.

This well-known companion of many projects could be addressed by seeking for

opportunities to improve the initial value proposition of a project.

The relatively high mean of the scale for exploited opportunities suggests that

opportunities to increase the project value obviously occur and are exploited to achieve

P a g e | 41

Thomas G. Lechler

and create value. The strong impact of exploited value opportunities on the created

project value, as suggested by the high path coefficient in Figure 2, demonstrates how

important it is to exploit opportunities during a project’s implementation.

An important precondition to exploit project value opportunities is a project manager’s

disposition to seek and identify opportunities by constantly questioning a project’s

requirements and the motivation to maximize a project’s value. The proposed relationship

between the PVM and the exploited value opportunities is supported by the high path

coefficient (Figure 2) and the high level of explained variance (R2=43%). This means that

without a mindset to maximize the project value, promising opportunities to extend a

project’s value proposition won’t be exploited. This link is crucial as it points to the

fundamental limitations of the TC paradigm. The creation of project value by means of

the exploitation of opportunities to increase stakeholder satisfaction is beyond the TC

paradigm. The results support the basic critique of the TC paradigm in that only the quest

to maximize the value of a project will, in the end, lead to achieving a project’s value

potential.

P a g e | 42

Thomas G. Lechler

Benefits of the Study

The role of a project manager is often seen as an implementer with an operational focus,

implicitly excluding the responsibility or the need for opportunity recognition and

exploitation. After studying the impact of a project manager’s mindset on the creation of

project value, the perspective on a project manager’s responsibilities and functions should

be changed. Project managers have much more influence on the creation of project value

than the TC paradigm conceptually could explain.

This study redefines the role of a project manager: from an implementer to a manager

with strategic responsibilities in generating value for the organization. Consequently the

empirical results demonstrate the need for a greater empowerment of project managers

and encouragement of project managers to use more entrepreneurial behaviors. It also

suggests changes in criteria used to evaluate project managers’ performance beyond the

established triple constraint measures. The consequences of this study for project

management are manifold and could be related to three different perspectives: The

practice of project management, the education and the research.

Thomas G. Lechler was educated at the University of Karlsruhe, Germany and received the

degrees of Diplom Wirtschaftsingenieuer and PhD in Management. He was the cofounder and

CEO of the Vivatech GmbH. He was a NASA research fellow in project management from 2003–

2005. At present he is an associate professor at the Howe School, Stevens Institute of

Technology. His research focuses on the value creation through innovation with particular

emphasis on the management of projects and the recognition and exploitation of business

opportunities. He received several research grants from PMI (Project Management Institute) to

P a g e | 43

Thomas G. Lechler

investigate the value creation of project managers. He is a member of the GPM and the Academy

of Management.

P a g e | 44

Thomas G. Lechler

References Anderson, J., & Gerbing, D. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review

and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 411–423.

Baccarini, D. (1999).The logical framework method for defining project success. Project Management Journal, 30(4), 25–32.

Bagozzi, R. (1980). Causal Models in Marketing. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation

modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of

Research in Marketing, 13, 139–161.

Baumol W. J. (1993). Formal entrepreneurship theory in economics: Existence and

bounds. Journal of Business Venturing 8(3),197–210.

Belassi, W., & Tukel O. I. (1996). A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in projects. International Journal of Project Management,14(3), 141-151.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.

Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in

the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley &

Sons.

Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In:

K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.) Testing Structural Equations Models. (pp. 136–

162).London: Sage.

Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of

Personality, 30, 29–50.

deWit, A. (1988). Measurement of project success. Project Management Journal, 6(3), 164–170.

Freeman, M., & Beale, P. (1992). Measuring project success. Project Management Journal, 23(1), 8–17.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL VIII: A guide to the program and

applications (3rd Ed.). Chicago: SPSS.

Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Knight, F. H. (1948). Risk, uncertainty and profit. (7th ed.). London: London School of

Economics and Political Science.

Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (2nd

ed.). London: University of

Chicago Press.

Meyer, M. H., & Utterback, J. M. (1995). Product development cycle time and

commercial success. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42, 297–304.

P a g e | 45

Thomas G. Lechler

Morris, P. W. G., & Hough G. H. (1987). The Anatomy of Major Projects. New York,

John Wiley.

Pfeffer, J. (1982). Organizations and organization theory. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

Pinto, J. K. (1986). Project implementation: A determination of its critical success

factors, moderators, and their relative importance across the project lifecycle. Pittsburgh

Pennsylvania cycle.

Pinto, J. K., & Mantel, S. J., Jr. (1990). The causes of project failure. IEEE Transactions

on Engineering Management, 37, 305–327.

Pinto, J. K., and Slevin, D. P. (1989). Critical success factors in R&D projects. Research Technology Management, 32(1), 31–35.

Schumpeter J.A. (1934). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Berlin: Duncker &

Humblot.

Shane, S. A., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of

research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.

Shenhar,A. J., Levy, O., & Dvir, D. (1997). Mapping the dimensions of project success. Project Management Journal, 28(2), 5–13.

Tatikonda, M. V., & Montoya-Weiss, M. M. (2001). Integrating operations and

marketing perspectives of product innovation: The influence of organizational process

factors and capabilities on development performance. Management Science, 47, 151–172.

Turner, J.R., & Muller, R. (2004). Communication and co-operation on projects between

the project owner as principal and the project manager as agent. European Management

Journal , 22(3), 327–226.

Wateridge, J. (1995). IT projects: A basis for success, International Journal of Project Management, 13(3), 169–172.

Whitty, S. J., & Maylor, H. (2009). And then came complex project management.

International Journal of Project Management, 27(3), 304–310.