Influence of Project management on the socioeconomic variables

Influence of Project Management on the

socioeconomic variables

Víctor Lerga Bezunartea

© Victor Lerga., 2012

1ª Edition

ISBN:-----------------

Impreso en España / Printed in Spain

Printed by Victor Lerga

INDICE GENERAL

CAPÍTULO PAG

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 5

2. PROJECT MANAGEMENT ,ORGANTIZATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS .......................................................... 6

2.1. PMI® (PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUT) ............................................................................................ 6

2.2. IPMA® (INTERNATIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT ASSOSIATION) ....................................................... 7

2.3. PRINCE2® ............................................................................................................................................... 8

2.4. ISO 21500. .............................................................................................................................................. 9

3. MEASUREMENT OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT SKILLS ............................................................................... 10

4. CORRELATION STUDY .............................................................................................................................. 15

4.1. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INNOVATION AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT. ............................................. 16

4.2. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMPETITIVENESS AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT ..................................... 20

4.3. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRODUCTIVITY AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT ........................................... 24

4.4. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT .................................. 28

5. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 31

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 33

ILLUSTRATIONS INDEX

ILLUSTRATION PAG

Illustration 1 - IPM Index formula. source: own .................................................................................................... 10

Illustration 2 - Histogram of IPM index by country. Source: own ......................................................................... 14

Illustration 3 - Scatter-plot IPM vs Innovation Index Source: own ....................................................................... 16

Illustration 4 - Quadrant Innovation and Project Management ........................................................................... 17

Illustration 5 - Scatter plot of Innovation and Project Management in TOP50 countries ..................................... 18

Illustration 6 - Scatter plot Competitiveness vs Project Management Focus countries ....................................... 20

Illustration 7 -Quadrant of competitiveness vs Project Management .................................................................. 21

Illustration 8 - Scatter plot Competitiveness versus Project Management in TOP50 countries .......................... 22

Illustration 9 - Scatter plot of GDP per capita in Focus countries and Project Management ............................... 24

Illustration 10 -GDP per capita vs. Project Management in Focus countries without Norway and Luxembourg . 25

Illustration 11 - Scatter plot of GDP per capita and Project Management in TOP50-limited countries ............... 26

Illustration 12 -Quadrant de GPD per capita vs Project Management ................................................................. 27

Illustration 13 - Scatter plots Entrepreneurship and Project Management Focus countries................................ 30

Illustration 14 - Scatter plot Entrepreneurship and Project Management. Focus countries without Scandinavian

countries ...................................................................................................................................................... 30

TABLE INDEX

TABLAS PAG

Table 1 - Weighting factor certifications. Source: own .......................................................................................... 10

Table 2 - List of countries focus of the study. ........................................................................................................ 11

Table 3 -List of 50 countries extended study. Source: own ................................................................................... 13

Table 4 - Project Management Track vs. Innovation in Spain. Source; own calculations ..................................... 18

Table 5 - List of IPM values and Innovation Index ............................................................................................... 19

Table 6 - Situation of Project Management vs Competitiveness in Spain. Source : own ...................................... 21

Table 7 - List of IPM values and Competitiveness index ........................................................................................ 23

Table 8 - Situation of Project Management vs GDP/per capita in Spain. Source own ........................................... 27

Table 9 - List of IPM index and GDP per capita...................................................................................................... 28

Table 10 - List of IPM and Entrepreneurship Perceived Opportunities ................................................................ 29

Table 11 - Conclusion correlation study. Source: own .......................................................................................... 31

Influence of Project management

Víctor Lerga Bezunartea 5

1. INTRODUCTION

In the past 50 years, the number of projects in the world has grown exponentially. Today we

live in a society in flux, which promotes embarking on new projects. Project management is

a growing discipline, although worldwide standards did not appear until the second half of

the twentieth century. If projects have such a presence in society, it seems obvious that

excellence in the management of these processes, plays a key role in society, and therefore

defines their social and economic situation key variables.

From the most influential gurus, to politicians, everyone promotes a new economic model,

which should rely on innovation, competitiveness, productivity and entrepreneurship. But

what moves and leads to obtain high levels in these variables?, Will Project Management

influence on the social and economic situation?

Ed Naughton and Dr. Donnacha Kavanagh,[1] in his article "Innovation & Project

Management" related "Innovation" and "Project Management (PM)" variables by country.

They showed that these variables have a positive relationship, so countries with greater

capabilities in Project Management in Innovation performed better. However, after reaching

a certain tipping point, the relationship was no longer efficient. This study used data from

2008.

Following those conclusions, an study of project management skills has been updated to

date 2011. It has expanded the study frame to include other socioeconomic variables such as

competitiveness or productivity, and innovation. The measurement method of skills in

project management has also been updated to include the most reputable worldwide

certifications. This study focuses in European countries and USA in order to analyze the

situation in Spain and de number of certificated needed to obtain a acceptable

socioeconomic position.

First, the article will summarize the main organizations and certifications on the discipline of

project management, from which measurements quantify this variable.

Subsequently, we present the results of the study, to finally expose the most significant

conclusions.

Influence of Project Management

6 Víctor Lerga Bezunartea

2. PROJECT MANAGEMENT ,ORGANTIZATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

Although project management is now a standardized discipline, there are no regulated

university qualifications. The skills and competencies are acquired either through experience

or specific postgraduate training as master type. There are several professional associations

and standards worldwide, issuing certifications in Project Management.

Thus, it is not possible to make an accurate measurement of skills in project management,

because of the difficulty of estimating the number of professionals dedicated to the subject,

and their level of qualification. It has been estimated in this study that measuring country-

level certified professionals can be a valid criteria to establish a comparative global scale.

Below the main organizations and standards worldwide representing knowledge and skills in

project management are summarized ([8] and [9]).

2.1. PMI® (PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUT)

The Project Management Institute (PMI® ) is an international non-profit professional

association related to Project Management. It was formed in 1969 and its first meeting

gathered 80 people. The premise of PMI® is that the tools and techniques of project

management are common, for widespread application in projects, from software to the

construction industry. At the date of this article, it is the world's largest institution of Project

Management with over 450,000 licenses in about 170 countries.

PMBOK® Guide ( A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)

- Fourth Edition

The PMBOK® Guide is a standard in the Project Management developed by the (PMI®). It

comprises two main sections, the first on the processes and contexts of a project, the second

on specific knowledge areas of project management.

In 1987, PMI® published the first edition of the PMBOK® , as an attempt to document and

standardize information and generally accepted practices in project management. The

current edition, the fourth, provides basic references for anyone interested in project

management. PMBOK® version 5 is expected by the in late 2012. This version will consider

convergence with the ISO 21500 and will be in line with the norm.

PMI® CERTIFICATIONS

The PMI® certifies professional skills in project management with a certification system

based on standardized placement tests. The certificates issued by the PMI® are known

worldwide and today most requested in international tenders.

The certificates are issued with a validity period of three years. More than 40,000 PMP®

certifications expire and are annually renewed .



In addition, PMI® certifies a basic level of Project Management (CAPM®) and the PgMP®

Program Director. Currently the Project Management Institute offers five types of

certification:

CAPM® Certification (Associate Certificate in Project Management): One that has

shown a common base of knowledge and terms in the field of project management.

It takes 1,500 hours of work in a project team or 23 hours of formal education in

project management to achieve this certification, plus a 150-question exam.

Project Management Professional (PMP® ): This certification is oriented to

professionals that can demonstrate specific education and experience requirements.

To obtain the certification, it’s necessary to be agreed to a code of professional

conduct and to pass an examination designed to objectively assess and measure your

project management knowledge. It takes 4,500 hours of work in a project team and a

knowledge test of 200 questions. Additionally, a PMP® must meet certification

requirements continuous, otherwise the certification.

Program Management Professional (PgMP® ): Obtaining this certifications requires

that has undergone specific education and has extensive experience in project and

program management, has also agreed to adhere to the code of ethics and

professional conduct of PMI® . Requires 8 years of experience working in project

teams, knowledge test and interviews by staff of PMI®. Credentials CAPM® or PMP®

are not prerequisites for the PgMP® certification.

Besides these three certifications Integrated project management, there are two specific

aspects (PMI® in Programming Professional (PMI-SP®) recognizes demonstrated knowledge

and advanced experience in the specialized area of developing and maintaining the project

schedule and PMI® Professional risk Management (PMI-RMP®). The PMI-RMP® recognizes

demonstrated knowledge and expertise in the specialized area of assessing and identifying

project risks.

Once it is in possession of any of these certifications, credentials will be renewed every three

years. Professional must obtain the PDU's (Professional Development Units) required by the

every certifications. After obtaining the PDU's required, the certification will be renewed

automatically.

2.2. IPMA® (INTERNATIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT ASSOSIATION)

The IPMA®, was founded in Europe in 1967 and registered in Switzerland and it is a

nonprofit organization whose purpose is to promote Project Management International. It is

constituted as a federation of over 50 national associations and in 2011 had more than

140.00 certified worldwide

ICB (IPMA® Competence Baseline)

The IPMA® established baseline proficiency IPMA® (ICB), as common framework document

that all IPMA® member associations and certification bodies should follow to ensure



consistent and harmonized standards compliance. Most of its content focuses on the

description of the elements of competition. It covers the technical competence to project

management (20 items), the behavior of personnel in project management (15 elements)

and relations with the context of projects, programs and portfolios (11 elements).

IPMA® CERTIFICATIONS

IPMA® has 4 certifiable competition IPMA® levels A, B, C, and D.

The certification program is conducted by the National Associations. AEIPRO, founded in

1992, is the Member Association of IPMA® in Spain.

The IPMA® certification is divided into four categories:

IPMA Level A®: Programs Director

IPMA Level B®: Projects Directors.

IPMA Level C®: Professional Project Management.

IPMA Level D®: Technical Project Management.

The certification process is incremental, , the knowledge acquired in the lower level is

applied at each level. To access any level, you need to submit an application, resume and a

self-assessment of the areas of responsibility of the Project Management.

The validity period of certification is five years, regardless of the level of accreditation is

held. After this period of time, you will need to renew this certification, analyzing the tasks

performed and the continued professional development.

2.3. PRINCE2®

The UK Government, through OGC (Office of Government Commerce) has created standards for UK in various aspects of Information Systems (IT).

PRINCE2® (PRojects IN Controlled Environments)

PRINCE2® was released in 1996 by the CCTA (Central Computer and Telecommunications

Agency) UK government (now the OGC), as a method of generic project management. It is a

process-based method for effective project management. It is widely used by the

Government of the United Kingdom . There are two levels of certification as a basic level the

Foundation and Practitioner. The level Foundation, requires renewal.

CERTIFICACIONES PRINCE2®

The accreditations are administered by the APM Group, but it does not act as a professional

association. APMG is specialized in the accreditation and certification of organizations,

processes and people. The main number of certifications is in the UK.



There are two PRINCE2® qualification levels: PRINCE2® Foundation and PRINCE2®

Practitioner:

PRINCE2® foundation is aimed at people who need to learn the basics and

terminology of PRINCE2®. Its purpose is to explain the roles and responsibilities,

terminology and components of PRINCE2®. This qualification is the first of the two

PRINCE2® qualifications necessary to become a Practitioner PRINCE2®. In order to

measure the training and certifying people, should conduct a review of one hour,

consisting in seventy-five multiple choice questions, which must be answered

correctly at least thirty-eight them.

PRINCE2® Practitioner is the highest level qualification and is suitable for those who

want to manage projects within a PRINCE2® environment. To obtain them, you must

have previously PRINCE2® Foundation certification besides being recommended prior

experience in project management. For this qualification, you must perform an

examination of three hours duration consisting of 9 objective type questions test

case studies. Each of the questions will have a review of forty points, being necessary

to obtain certification, obtain at least one hundred eighty three hundred sixty total

points. The review is allowed to use PRINCE2® manual and is based on the resolution

of cases studies.

Once these two tests, you get the certification and recognition worldwide. Currently, there

are over 600,000 people certified. After a period of time between three and five years, you

must pass a recertification. To do this, interested parties must submit to an examination of

one hour in which they ask three questions, each valued at twelve points. To recertify, the

score in the examination shall be at least twenty points of the thirty-six possible.

2.4. ISO 21500.

All the above organizations are also participating in the development of a standard ISO

international standard. The first completed version of ISO 21500 "Guidance on project

management", is scheduled for August 2012.

It is expected that ISO 21500 will become the common reference standard for the

community of professionals and stakeholders in project management and facilitate transfer

of knowledge and harmonization of the principles, vocabulary and processes in rules and

best practices. It is still unknown whether this rule will be certifiable.

_______________________________

NOTA: PMI®, PMBOK®, PMP®, PgMP®, CAPM®, PMI-SP®, PMI-RMP®, PRINCE2®, IPMA®, IPMA-ICB®, IPMA Level

D®, IPMA Level C®, IPMA Level B®, IPMA Level A®, are trademarks. In order to get a better reading

comprehension the trade mark reference will be erased "®" in the following text..



3. MEASUREMENT OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT SKILLS

Establishing a measurement of competencies and skills on Project Management (PM) is not

an easy task, since you cannot evaluate the tacit knowledge of people, acquired by

experience or development methodologies. It must be noted, that there is no global

standardized a university degree (such as engineering, medicine or other). There isn’t a

global standard ISO 21500 as expected to homogenize and frameworks certifications in

Project Management either . Currently, there are professional associations such as PMI or

IPMA or as APMG PRINCE2 institutions that certify the skills on this discipline.

Based on the method provided by Ed Naughton and Dr. Donnacha Kavanagh [1], and

assuming that the number of certified professionals in a country, is a valid assessment scale,

has established an index to measure the level in-country Project Management discipline. It

has generated a synthetic index called IPM for measuring the level of skills in Project

Management. This index corresponds to the formula:

𝐼𝑃𝑀 =𝐺𝑃𝑀

𝑝𝑜𝑝=

𝐾𝑛 ∗ Nº certificates 𝑛𝑖=1

population (millions)

Illustration 1 - IPM Index formula. source: own

IPM index is obtained by dividing the Global Project Management (GPM) for the population

of the country (in millions).

For the GPM is weighted by a coefficient (K) each type of certification, trying to give more

weight in the index to those certifications that require the certificate to have more skills to

obtain it.

The types of certifications referred to in this study, are the main recognized worldwide,

which have already been explained in previous chapters.

The weighting table each certification is:

IPMA D IPMA C IPMA B IPMA A PgMP PMP CAPM PRINCE2 P PRINCE2 F

Coef. K 1,2 1 0,9 0,6 1,2 1 0,8 1 0,5

Table 1 - Weighting factor certifications. Source: own

IPMA Certifications: four certifications of the level C applies the coefficient K = 1

PMI Certifications: PMP Certification has K = 1



PRINCE2 Certifications; Practitioner certification is considered with K = 1. It has the

incidence of underweight Foundation accreditation and which are not supported by a

specific professional association, and does not require renewal, also note that the

calculation has been performed with accredited Practitioner between 2005 and 2011

and there is no data number of professionals currently re-accredited and

professionally active

The study is focusing on the countries of the European and the U.S.. The list of countries

based on the study described in the following table:

FOCUS Countries (EUROPE & USA)

Germany Ireland

Austria Iceland

Belgium Italy

Czech Republic Luxembourg

Croatia Norway

Denmark Poland

Spain Portugal

Finland Romania

France Russian Federation

Greece Serbia

Netherlands Sweden

Hungary Switzerland

United Kingdom United States of America

Table 2 - List of countries focus of the study.

As a way of checking the results, it has also made an extension to include 50 countries

(TOP50) more significant compared to IPM index.

The following table shows the index by country and IPM certification standard. We present

the results for the 50 countries of the TOP50, and its weight percentage in the country.



Country TOP 50

POPULATION (Millions inhab.)

IPM (IPMA)

IPM (PMI)

IPM (PRINCE2)

IPM %

IPMA %

PMI %

PRINCE2

United Kingdom 61,9 365,8 103,2 4.422,00 4.891,00 7,50% 2,10% 90,40%

Netherlands 16,7 293 72,9 3.079,30 3.445,20 8,50% 2,10% 89,40%

Denmark 5,5 701 118,6 1.342,70 2.162,30 32,40% 5,50% 62,10%

Iceland 0,3 1.705,70 3,3 121,7 1.830,70 93,20% 0,20% 6,60%

Australia 21,5 111,8 266,3 1.397,10 1.775,20 6,30% 15,00% 78,70%

Singapore 4,8 - 1.516,80 182,1 1.698,90 0,00% 89,30% 10,70%

Ireland 4,6 336,7 352,4 620,1 1.309,20 25,70% 26,90% 47,40%

Austria 8,4 1.030,70 81,8 89,6 1.202,10 85,70% 6,80% 7,50%

Switzerland 7,6 657 329 212,8 1.198,80 54,80% 27,40% 17,80%

Luxembourg 0,5 - 166,4 996 1.162,40 0,00% 14,30% 85,70%

Canada 33,9 - 983,4 42,2 1.025,60 0,00% 95,90% 4,10%

United Arab Emirates 4,7 - 845 156 1.001,00 0,00% 84,40% 15,60%

Hong Kong 7,1 - 596,6 108,9 705,5 0,00% 84,60% 15,40%

Belgium 10,7 - 112,6 591,1 703,7 0,00% 16,00% 84,00%

USA 317,6 - 691,2 8,9 700,1 0,00% 98,70% 1,30%

Finland 5,3 545,2 76,8 57,1 679,1 80,30% 11,30% 8,40%

Qatar 1,5 - 598,9 79 677,9 0,00% 88,30% 11,70%

Germany 82,1 207,8 110,9 113,8 432,5 48,00% 25,60% 26,30%

Sweden 9,3 171,9 163 71,7 406,6 42,30% 40,10% 17,60%

Poland 38 51,5 41,2 253,8 346,5 14,90% 11,90% 73,20%

Norway 4,9 - 184,1 133 317,1 0,00% 58,10% 41,90%

Japan 127 - 238,9 1,3 240,2 0,00% 99,50% 0,50%

Korea, REP 48,5 - 202 4,2 206,2 0,00% 98,00% 2,00%

Czech Republic 10,4 - 27,8 162,3 190,1 0,00% 14,60% 85,40%

South Africa 50,5 - 44,6 116,9 161,5 0,00% 27,60% 72,40%

Oman 2,9 - 69,2 88,3 157,5 0,00% 43,90% 56,10%

Croatia 4,4 80,7 46,9 17,2 144,8 55,70% 32,40% 11,90%

Slovenia 2 69,4 28,9 35,3 133,6 51,90% 21,60% 26,40%

Slovak Republic 5,4 - 23,9 108,7 132,6 0,00% 18,00% 82,00%

France 62,6 22,6 53,9 54 130,5 17,30% 41,30% 41,40%

Portugal 10,7 8,5 87,2 3 98,7 8,60% 88,30% 3,00%

Saudi Arabia 26,2 - 93,6 5,1 98,7 0,00% 94,80% 5,20%

Spain 45,3 7,7 64,7 23,7 96,1 8,00% 67,30% 24,70%

Italy 60,1 - 62,4 21,3 83,7 0,00% 74,60% 25,40%

Israel 7,3 - 75,8 5,6 81,4 0,00% 93,10% 6,90%

Brazil 195,4 - 60,3 1 61,3 0,00% 98,40% 1,60%

Romania 21,2 5,3 29,3 20,3 54,9 9,70% 53,40% 37,00%

Hungary 10 - 33 14,8 47,8 0,00% 69,00% 31,00%

Greece 11,2 - 35,7 11,1 46,8 0,00% 76,30% 23,70%



Country TOP 50

POPULATION (Millions inhab.)

IPM (IPMA)

IPM (PMI)

IPM (PRINCE2)

IPM %

IPMA %

PMI %

PRINCE2

China 1.354,10 13,8 31,1 0,7 45,6 30,30% 68,20% 1,50%

Peru 29,5 - 39,7 2,3 42 0,00% 94,50% 5,50%

Colombia 46,3 - 40,2 0,3 40,5 0,00% 99,30% 0,70%

Bulgaria 7,5 - 19,8 18,7 38,5 0,00% 51,40% 48,60%

India 1.214,50 1,7 22,5 3,9 28,1 6,00% 80,10% 13,90%

Mexico 110,6 - 24,6 0,8 25,4 0,00% 96,90% 3,10%

Argentina 40,7 - 23,9 - 23,9 0,00% 100,00% 0,00%

Chile 17,1 - 22,3 0,1 22,4 0,00% 99,60% 0,40%

Turkey 75,7 - 14,8 1,7 16,5 0,00% 89,70% 10,30%

Russian Federation 140,4 7,3 6,7 1,4 15,4 47,40% 43,50% 9,10%

Bosnia & Herzegovina 3,8 - 3,4 10,1 13,5 0,00% 25,20% 74,80%

Table 3 -List of 50 countries extended study. Source: own

All certification data, collected over 90% of the statistical records of each of the associations.

The following graph shows the relationship and importance of IPM by country and type of

certification:

Notably head clearly in three countries. UK and the Netherlands, with a high rate of PRINCE2

certified occupy the highest ranking. Iceland ranks third, especially given the high

penetration rate in a small population IPMA.



Illustration 2 - Histogram of IPM index by country. Source: own

-

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

4.500

5.000

IPM (PRINCE2)

IPM (PM

I)

IPM (IPM

A)



4. CORRELATION STUDY

The IPM index has been associated with different variables to study the influence of project

management in the socio-economic situation of a country. For this purpose, each one has

associated variables, with the index IPM through a scatter plot. On this graph, it has

reflected the trend line and its root mean square (R2) that provides reliable information on

the extent of the trend. In all cases they found a correlation between the different variables

and the index IPM, the trend has been Potential-logarithmic. We consider an R2 value above

0.6 as an acceptable correlation between the two variables.

We present the results of studying the relationship of the index variables measuring IPM

Innovation, Competitiveness, Productivity and Entrepreneurship at country level. With all

these variables, found a clear link.

Other variables analyzed, such as economic growth or the level of exports, have little or no

relation to the Project Management. This is not to suggest that project management is a

negative influence, but not a decisive variable for example, economic grow or increase

export of goods. The latest findings correlate these variables are not presented in this study.



4.1. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INNOVATION AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT.

Innovation is process successfully exploit new ideas. The implementation of a "project" is the

link between idea and market. If the fundamental unity of the innovation process is the

project, it is clear that project management skills should be correlated with the results of

innovation. Below we present the results of a study, which reveals that obtaining a level of

innovation is directly related to the skills and abilities to manage projects.

To assess the rate of innovation of a country, we have used the INSEAD report "The Global

Innovation Index 2011" [2] and the rates of innovation resulting from this study. Each

country studied yields a numerical index from the aggregation of different socio-economic

variables of the country, generating a ranking of countries with respect to innovation. Since

2007, INSEAD evaluates 125 countries to establish this ranking.

The results of this study show a high correlation with potential trend R2 = 0.6405. That is,

there is a positive trend, but with a damping effect to significantly increase the rate IPM,

especially in the first 3 ranking countries. The graph in the main European countries,

including USA is as follows:

Illustration 3 - Scatter-plot IPM vs Innovation Index Source: own

You can notably note that United Kingdom (UK) is shifted right (high index IPM), due to its

large number of certificates in PRINCE2. To sort and graphically display the status of each

country in respect to these two variables, the data have been entered into a quadrant,

which is presented below:

Germany

Austria

Belgium

Czech Republic

Croatia

Denmark

Spain

Finland

France

Greece

Netherlands

Hungary

IrelandIceland

Italy

LuxembourgNorway

Poland

Portugal

RomaniaRussian Federation

Serbia

Sweden

Switzerland

United KingdomUnited States of America

R² = 0,6405

30

40

50

60

70

Inn

ova

tio

n in

dex

Project Management Index



Illustration 4 - Quadrant Innovation and Project Management

Each quadrant is identified with a name. It has also reflected a trend line we call the "straight

efficiency", ie the most effective way to obtain an adequate level to quadrant "leaders".

Watching the chart, we can find the following conclusions:

Countries 'Leaders' are those with high-level Innovation, and with high ability in

Project Management. They are a large group, but some of them, below the

theoretical efficiency (especially Austria, Netherlands, y).

A group of "Efficient" countries achieve a high level of innovation with efficient ratio

of PM. So they reach more inovationwithless certified project managers

In the "Followers" group, several countries (especially Poland and Croatia) whose

expertise in PM do not currently generate visible results in innovation. However, the

Czech Republic and Hungary achieve a high level of efficiency.

The last quadrant is empty. This implies that high ability in PM always achieve

acceptable levels of innovation.

Let's consider now the situation in Spain, to find your its current location

SerbiaRussian Federation

Czech Republic

Romania

Hungary

Greece

Croatia

Italy

Spain

Portugal

France

Luxembourg

Poland

Norway

Belgium

Germany

Sweden

United States of America

Ireland

FinlandDenmark

Switzerland

Netherlands

Austria

United KingdomIceland

Followers

Efficients Leaders


Inn

ova

tio

n in

de

x



IPM PMP (equivalent in Spain population) PMP needed

Spain 2011 96 4.352

Innovation European average 704 31.877 27.524

Efficient line cross Efficient quadrant 500 22.650 18.298

Table 4 - Project Management Track vs. Innovation in Spain. Source; own calculations

The IPM index for Spain is 96, or the equivalent 4352 level certified PMP (K = 1) in a

population of 45.3 million inhabitants. While it is slightly above the line efficiency (above

Innovation management skills PM), its level is well below the European average. Analyzing

neighbor countries, close to the limit of the efficiency, the IPM index should be around

704, to obtain European average about innovation (similar to Belgium). If we analyze the

shortest path to "efficiency", we would get the best position with an index close to 500 IPM.

According to both benchmarks, Spain will need between 18,000 and 27,000 new certified

Project Managers (PMP equivalent level) to be average innovative countries.

When we extend the results to the TOP50 list of countries, we find that the correlation index

R2 is at 0.6301, with a positive potential trend.

Illustration 5 - Scatter plot of Innovation and Project Management in TOP50 countries

R² = 0,6301

30

40

50

60

70

TOP 50 Project Management Index


Inn

ova

tio

n in

de

x



Thus, it is confirmed that globally speaking, project management skills are related to

innovation. It seems unlikely that a higher level of innovation causes an increase in teh

number ofcertificates in a country. So we can conclude that Project Management skills are

asuccessful innovation generator.

Finally, we list the values of both the IPM generated in this study and the values of

innovation ranking obtained from INSEAD report 2011 [2].

TOP 50 Country IPM INNOV Score TOP 50 Country IPM INNOV Score

1 United Kingdom 4.891,00 56 26 Oman 157,5 35,5

2 Netherlands 3.445,30 56,3 27 Croatia 144,7 38

3 Denmark 2.162,40 57 28 Slovenia 133,6 45,1

4 Iceland 1.830,70 55,1 29 Slovak Republic 132,6 39,1

5 Australia 1.775,20 49,9 30 France 130,5 49,3

6 Singapore 1.698,90 59,6 31 Portugal 98,7 42,4

7 Ireland 1.309,20 54,1 32 Saudi Arabia 98,7 36,4

8 Austria 1.202,00 50,8 33 Spain 96,1 43,8

9 Switzerland 1.198,80 63,8 34 Italy 83,7 40,7

10 Luxembourg 1.162,40 52,7 35 Israel 81,4 54

11 Canada 1.025,60 56,3 36 Brazil 61,3 37,8

12 United Arab Emirates 1.000,90 42 37 Romania 54,8 36,8

13 Hong Kong 705,5 58,8 38 Hungary 47,7 48,1

14 Belgium 703,7 49,1 39 Greece 46,8 34,2

15 USA 700,1 56,6 40 China 45,6 46,4

16 Finland 679 57,5 41 Peru 42 30,3

17 Qatar 677,9 47,7 42 Colombia 40,4 32,3

18 Germany 432,5 54,9 43 Bulgaria 38,4 38,4

19 Sweden 406,5 62,1 44 India 28,1 34,5

20 Poland 346,5 38 45 Mexico 25,4 30,5

21 Norway 317 52,6 46 Argentina 23,9 35,4

22 Japan 240,2 50,3 47 Chile 22,4 38,8

23 Korea, REP 206,3 53,7 48 Turkey 16,5 34,1

24 Czech Republic 190 47,3 49 Russian Federation 15,4 35,9

25 South Africa 161,5 35,2 50 Bosnia & Herzego. 13,6 30,8

Table 5 - List of IPM values and Innovation Index



4.2. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMPETITIVENESS AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Competitiveness is the ability of a company or country to get profitability in the market in

realtion to its competitors. Competitiveness depends on the relationship between the value

and quantity of the offered product and the needed inputs to obtain it, in free concurrency

with other participants in teh market. The concept of competitiveness can be applied to

both a company or a country.

This study has used as a measure of competitiveness, the index established in "The Global

Competitiveness Report 2011-2012." [3] at country level. This report generates a composite

index based on the different variables of situation, to establish a ranking of competitiveness

in 142 countries .

As is the case of innovation, competitiveness reflects the ability to produce efficiently.

Project Management as a tool for standardization, should have a positive influence on this

variable.

The scatter plot presented below, reflects a potential trend between the index and the index

IPM Competitiveness. Reliability between the two variables is R2 = 0.6222.

Illustration 6 - Scatter plot Competitiveness vs Project Management Focus countries

Germany

AustriaBelgium

Czech Republic

Croatia

Denmark

Spain

Finland

France

Greece

Netherlands

Hungary

Ireland Iceland

Italy

Luxembourg

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russian Federation

Serbia

Sweden

Switzerland

United KingdomUnited States of America

R² = 0,622

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0


Glo

bal

co

mp

eti

tive

ne

ss I

nd

ex



The chart highlights the separation of the trend in several countries, both positively

(Switzerland and Sweden) and negatively (Ireland and Iceland).

If we place results in a quadrant again, , Spain is in the quadrant of the followers, below the

European average. It is imnportant to note thatIceland and Ireland appear displaced in the

fourth quadrant . One might think that the two countries have been displaced below the

average in the short term, since both have been punished during the present crisis decreases

in their socioeconomic variables (including competitiveness).

Illustration 7 -Quadrant of competitiveness vs Project Management

Reviewing the situation in Spain in the quadrant, we obtain the following table:

IPM PMP (equivalent for Spain population) PMP needed

Spain 2011 96 4.352

Belgium 704 31.877 27.524

Germany 433 19.593 15.241

Efficient line cross Efficient quadrant 490 22.197 17.845

Table 6 - Situation of Project Management vs Competitiveness in Spain. Source : own

Serbia

Russian Federation

Czech Republic

Romania

Hungary

Greece

Croatia

Italy

Spain

Portugal

France

Luxembourg

Poland

NorwayBelgium

Germany

Sweden


Ireland

Finland

Denmark

Switzerland

Netherlands

Austria

United Kingdom

Iceland

Followers

Efficients Leaders


Glo

bal

co

mp

eti

tive

ne

ss I

nd

ex



The IPM index for Spain is 96, or the equivalent 4352 level certified PMP (K = 1). Its current

position is slightly above the line of Efficiency (Competitiveness above PM management

skills), but its level is reallyl below the European average.

The comparative with neighboring countries is complicated because there is no country near

the line efficiency and in the limit of the quadrant of "efficient". Germany would mark the

"vertical", in the IPM index, but its high level of efficiency on Competitiveness makes it

difficult to achieve this goal. Following the line of efficiency, it is more affordable to reach

average levels requiredby achieving an IPM similar to Belgium or Austria. If we analyze the

shortest path of evolution, (the blue line), we would cut quadrant line with a rate close to

490 IPM. In view of these comparisons, Spain will need between 17,000 and 27,000 certified

new Project Managers PMP equivalent level, to be in the average of the most competitive

countries.

Extended the study to the countries named as Top 50, the trend correlation decreases

slightly to R2 = 0.5907. We conclude again that there is a very significant relationship

between Project Management and Competitiveness,. As with innovation index, we can

deduce that Project Management is a driver for competitiveness.

Illustration 8 - Scatter plot Competitiveness versus Project Management in TOP50 countries

The following table lists the IPM index values and the values obtained from Competitiveness

ranking report "Global Competitiveness Report" [3].

R² = 0,5907

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

TOP 50 Project Management Index


Glo

bal

co

mp

etit

iven

ess

Ind

ex



TOP 50

Country IPM Global

Competitiv. TOP 50

Country IPM Global

Competitiv.

1 United Kingdom 4.891,00 5,4 26 Oman 157,5 4,6

2 Netherlands 3.445,30 5,4 27 Croatia 144,7 4,1

3 Denmark 2.162,40 5,4 28 Slovenia 133,6 4,3

4 Iceland 1.830,70 4,8 29 Slovak Republic 132,6 4,2

5 Australia 1.775,20 5,1 30 France 130,5 5,1

6 Singapore 1.698,90 5,6 31 Portugal 98,7 4,4

7 Ireland 1.309,20 4,8 32 Saudi Arabia 98,7 5,2

8 Austria 1.202,00 5,1 33 Spain 96,1 4,5

9 Switzerland 1.198,80 5,7 34 Italy 83,7 4,4

10 Luxembourg 1.162,40 5 35 Israel 81,4 5,1

11 Canada 1.025,60 5,3 36 Brazil 61,3 4,3

12 United Arab Emirates 1.000,90 4,9 37 Romania 54,8 4,1

13 Hong Kong 705,5 5,4 38 Hungary 47,7 4,4

14 Belgium 703,7 5,2 39 Greece 46,8 3,9

15 USA 700,1 5,4 40 China 45,6 4,9

16 Finland 679 5,5 41 Peru 42 4,2

17 Qatar 677,9 5,2 42 Colombia 40,4 4,2

18 Germany 432,5 5,4 43 Bulgaria 38,4 4,2

19 Sweden 406,5 5,6 44 India 28,1 4,3

20 Poland 346,5 4,5 45 Mexico 25,4 4,3

21 Norway 317 5,2 46 Argentina 23,9 4

22 Japan 240,2 5,4 47 Chile 22,4 4,7

23 Korea, REP 206,3 5 48 Turkey 16,5 4,3

24 Czech Republic 190 4,5 49 Russian Federation 15,4 4,2

25 South Africa 161,5 4,3 50 Bosnia & Herzegovina 13,6 3,8

Table 7 - List of IPM values and Competitiveness index



4.3. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRODUCTIVITY AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Productivity is the relationship between the quantity of products obtained by a production

system and the resources used for this production. Actually productivity should be defined

as the performance indicator that relates the amount of resources used to the amount of

output obtained. [Wikipedia]

The GDP per capita is strongly correlated with productivity. This study used the variable GDP

per capita to relate it to the IPM index. We used data from the World Bank [4], taking the

indicator named in their databases as GDP per capita, PPP (current international $).

These data are graphically expressed as follows.

Illustration 9 - Scatter plot of GDP per capita in Focus countries and Project Management

It is detected, that although the potential trend line is maintained, the correlation index is

very low ,0.03727. Two countries are displaced from the trend with peculiarities in their

economy: Luxembourg with a structure of 28% GDP in the financial sector and Norway

whose economy is highly dependent on oil exports. So, certain sectors such as finance and

oil have low dependence on project management, or at least their turnovers are far superior

to other sectors such as industrial or technological.

If we remove these two countries the study of productivity, is:

Germany AustriaBelgium

Czech Republic

Croatia

Denmark

Spain FinlandFrance

Greece

Netherlands

Hungary

Ireland

Iceland

Italy

Luxembourg

Norway

Poland

Portugal

RomaniaRussian Federation

Serbia

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom


R² = 0,3727

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

90.000

GD

P p

er

cap

ita,

PP

P (

curr

en

t in

tern

atio

nal

$)




Illustration 10 -GDP per capita vs. Project Management in Focus countries without Norway and

Luxembourg

The positive trend is maintained, increasing the rate to 0.6068 square. We can conclude that

GDP per capita is highly correlated with the PM, but depends on the productive nature of

the country's economic model.

Performing an extension of the study to the TOP50, also we can detect that several countries

are displaced from the trend. UAE and Qatar, (plus Luxembourg and Norway) raise

significantly GDP per capita, causing a significantly shifting of the trend. After removingthe 4

countries (Luxembourg and Norway in Europe and UAE and Qatar in addition), the type of

trend is similar but the reliability increases significantly to R2 = 0.6982. This confirms that

there is a strong relationship between Productivity and Project Management.

The following chart shows the results of the study:

Germany AustriaBelgium

Czech Republic

Croatia

Denmark

SpainFinland

France

Greece

Netherlands

Hungary

Ireland

Iceland

Italy

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russian Federation

Serbia

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom

United States of AmericaR² = 0,6068

0

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

30.000

35.000

40.000

45.000

50.000

GD

P p

er

cap

ita,

PP

P (

curr

en

t in

tern

atio

nal

$)




Illustration 11 - Scatter plot of GDP per capita and Project Management in TOP50-limited countries

Thus, we can conclude that the production (GDP) per capita has a high dependence on

project management, except in cases where the economy has a depends on highly profitable

services (financial) or in very scarce and valued resources (oil). In producing economies

(technological, industrial and / or agricultural) the correlation is proved.

Placing European data in a quadrant, we note again that there are no countries in the 4th

quadrant. Excluding Luxembourg and Norway, Spain would go to "efficient"quadrant,

because despite its low level in PM, its GDP per capita is within the european average. Even

without removing these two countries, the GDP per capita of Spain ($ 32,544.8) is very close

to the average of the entire study ($ 34,155.7), So it is very close to that "Efficient"

quadrant.

R² = 0,6982

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

TOP 50 Project Management IndexG

DP

pe

rca

pit

a P

PP

cu

rre

nt

$




Illustration 12 -Quadrant de GPD per capita vs Project Management

Reviewing the situation of Spain in the quadrant, we obtain the following table:

IPM

PMP( equivalent to Spanish population)

PMP needed

Spain 2011 96 4.352

France 130 5.911 1.559

Table 8 - Situation of Project Management vs GDP/per capita in Spain. Source own

The level of Spain in the quadrant of efficient countries, indicates that it doesn't require a

greater number of certificates. In any case, comparing ourselves with France,. we would

require about 1,500 new certificates at PMP level. However, one can conclude that to

achieve higher levels of GDP per capita, it will be neccesary to increaselevels of certification,

because Analyzing the countries in our environment, higher turnovers require higher level of

management.

The following table lists the values of IPM index and the GDP per capita values obtained

from the databases of the World Bank [4].

Serbia

Russia

Czech Republic

Romania

Hungary

Greece

Croatia

ItalySpain

Portugal

France

Poland

BelgiumGermany

Sweden

USA

Ireland

FinlandDenmark

Switzerland

Netherlands

Austria

United Kingdom

Iceland

Followers

Efficients Leaders




TOP 50

Country IPM GDP per capita, PPP (current $)

TOP 50

Country IPM GDP per capita, PPP (current $)

1 United Kingdom 4.891,00 36.495,80 26 Oman 157,5 25.462,10

2 Netherlands 3.445,30 40.714,70 27 Croatia 144,7 19.805,40

3 Denmark 2.162,40 36.761,70 28 Slovenia 133,6 27.004,40

4 Iceland 1.830,70 37.595,10 29 Slovak Republic 132,6 22.356,30

5 Australia 1.775,20 39.230,70 30 France 130,5 33.655,50

6 Singapore 1.698,90 50.632,80 31 Portugal 98,7 24.569,40

7 Ireland 1.309,20 41.278,20 32 Saudi Arabia 98,7 23.395,40

8 Austria 1.202,00 38.363,10 33 Spain 96,1 32.544,80

9 Switzerland 1.198,80 45.116,90 34 Italy 83,7 31.908,60

10 Luxembourg 1.162,40 83.758,80 35 Israel 81,4 27.759,20

11 Canada 1.025,60 37.945,60 36 Brazil 61,3 10.412,10

12 United Arab Emirates 1.000,90 57.743,70 37 Romania 54,8 14.278,00

13 Hong Kong (SAR), China 705,5 44.303,80 38 Hungary 47,7 19.764,30

14 Belgium 703,7 36.249,00 39 Greece 46,8 29.663,40

15 United States of America 700,1 45.989,20 40 China 45,6 6.828,00

16 Finland 679 34.719,70 41 Peru 42 8.629,50

17 Qatar 677,9 91.378,70 42 Colombia 40,4 8.959,20

18 Germany 432,5 36.267,40 43 Bulgaria 38,4 13.332,70

19 Sweden 406,5 37.904,60 44 India 28,1 3.270,10

20 Poland 346,5 19.058,70 45 Mexico 25,4 14.335,10

21 Norway 317 55.672,10 46 Argentina 23,9 14.538,30

22 Japan 240,2 32.452,80 47 Chile 22,4 14.330,70

23 Korea, REP 206,3 27.168,50 48 Turkey 16,5 13.885,00

24 Czech Republic 190 25.232,00 49 Russia 15,4 18.962,60

25 South Africa 161,5 10.227,80 50 Bosnia 13,6 8.490,60

Table 9 - List of IPM index and GDP per capita

4.4. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT

One of the most pressing concerns in this time of crisis is the ability of a country's

entrepreneurship. Creating a new enterprise has to do with developing a proyect but the

two concepts (enterprise and proyect) have different connotations (business vs.

development). However, there may be some relationship between both, as starting a

business requires management skills and project management has a high management

component.



Measuring the level of entrepreneurship in a country is a difficult task and there is no global

and differential indicator on this concept. For this study we used the report "Global

Entrepreneurship Monitor 2011 EXTENDED REPORT: Entrepreneurs And Entrepreneurial

Employees Across the Globe" of Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA).

The report makes a ranking for countries in three different scales and in different variables.

We have chosen the group of countries called "innovative economies" where Spain is

located and the ranking variable "Perceived Opportunities" has been analyzed This variable

has to do withe the perception of opportunities in the country.

The following table shows the data used in the study regarding the IPM and obtained the

report "Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2011 [5]:

Innovative economies IPM Entrepreneurship

Perceived Opportunities

USA 700,10 36,00

United Kingdom 4.890,96 33,00

Switzerland 1.198,83 47,00

Sweden 406,49 71,00

Spain 96,08 14,00

Slovenia 133,55 18,00

Portugal 98,70 17,00

Norway 317,04 67,00

Netherlands 3.445,27 48,00

Ireland 1.309,20 26,00

Greece 46,77 11,00

Germany 432,52 35,00

France 130,49 35,00

Finland 679,04 61,00

Denmark 2.162,36 47,00

Czech Republic 190,03 24,00

Belgium 703,68 43,00

Australia 1.775,19 48,00

Table 10 - List of IPM and Entrepreneurship Perceived Opportunities

It is Clearl that there is a positive trend in relation to the management of projects, but since

the measurement bases do not follow the same guidelines for all countries, we cannot

conclude that there is a causal relationship between high PM and Entrepreneurship

The results of the scatter plot are as follows:



Illustration 13 - Scatter plots Entrepreneurship and Project Management Focus countries

A positive potential trend is reflected, but with a low correlation (0.3952). Scandinavian

countries are perceived as high-potential countries for entrepreneurship, and are far apart

from the main trend. If we remove these countries from the graph, it remains with a R2 =

0.6519.

Illustration 14 - Scatter plot Entrepreneurship and Project Management. Focus countries without

Scandinavian countries

USA

United Kingdom

Switzerland

Sweden

Spain

SloveniaPortugal

Norway

Netherlands

Ireland

Greece

GermanyFrance

Finland

Denmark

Czech Republic

Belgium

AustraliaR² = 0,395

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 En

tre

pre

ne

urs

hip

Pe

rce

ive

d

Op

po

rtu

nit

ies


USA

United Kingdom

Switzerland

Spain

SloveniaPortugal

Netherlands

Ireland

Greece

GermanyFrance

Denmark

Czech Republic

Belgium

AustraliaR² = 0,651

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Entr

ep

ren

eu

rsh

ip P

erc

eiv

ed

O

pp

ort

un

itie

s




5. CONCLUSIONS

The Project Management disciplines have taken a great importance in recent decades, and

global standardization makes them a new and influential social and economic driver. The

following table shows the summary of the study.

Variable Trend vs Project

Management Trend &

Reliability R

2 Data Source

Innovation Potential-log HIGH 0,64 INSEAD

"The global innovation Index 2012"

Competitiviness Potential-log HIGH 0,62

World Economic Forum The Global

Competitiveness Report 2011-2012

Productivity Potential-log MEDIUM-

HIGH 0,60

World Bank GDP per capita PPP

current USD

Enterpreneuship Potential-log LOW 0,40/0,65

Global Entrepreneurship Research Association

(GERA) GLOBAL

ENTREPRENEURSHIP MONITOR 2011

EXTENDED REPORT Perceived Opportunities

Economic growing No trend NULL -- World Bank

GDP Growing 5 years.

Exports No Trend NULL -- World Bank

Export tech & exports of goods and services

Table 11 - Conclusion correlation study. Source: own

The table reflects di8fferent situations. First, the Competitiveness and Innovation are clearly

related to project management. In fact, even skills in Project Management, acti as a

"driver", ie they are engines that promote high levels of innovation and competitiveness.

In relation to Productivity, the correlation may be considered "Medium-High" and therefore

there is also a high component as "engine" for this variable. But while productivity is directly

related to project management, other factors in the production model may have a more

significant influence (eg dependence on oil production).

The relationship with the Entrepreneurship has also a positive trend, but with a low level of

correlation.



In today's society, define the causes that affect any variable wiht a cyclical move is a

complex task. The social and cultural interaction and immediacy of reaction worldwide,

made the definition of casue-effect relationships an almost unapproachable challenge. You

cannot act on a single dimension to generate the desired response, it is necessary to work in

a multidisciplinary and coordinated way to achieve results., It is necessary to work in

different areas, combining efforts from the government and civil society to maintain the

growing path

Anyway throughout this study , it is shown how a single tool like Project Management is a

driver that can positively act on Innovation, Competitiveness, Productivity and

Entrepreneurship.

This discipline should be encouraged in education to obtain these skills. We should not

forget that education is another engine of social improvement.

Summarizing, improving skills in project management, we will be more efficient, more

competitive and the train of the economy and growth will be kept..



6. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES

- *1+ Naughton, Ed y Kavanagh , Donnacha. "Innovation & project management" “.PM

World Today. April 2009.

- *2+ Soumitra Dutta, INSEAD; “The Global Innovation Index 2011,Accelerating Growth and Development”; ISBN: 978-2-9522210-1-6

- [3] Professor Xavier Sala-i-Martin, Columbia University Chief Advisor. Centre for Global

Competitiveness and Performance. “The Global Competitiveness Report 2011–2012.

“ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-74-6

- [4] Data bases of World Bank http://datos.bancomundial.org. indicators:

http://datos.bancomundial.org/indicador/all?display=default

- [5] Niels Bosma, Sander Wennekers and José Ernesto Amorós and Global

Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA). “GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP MONITOR

2011 EXTENDED REPORT: Entrepreneurs And Entrepreneurial Employees Across the

Globe”.

- [6+ Grant, Robert M.;”Dirección estratégica, Conceptos, técnicas y aplicaciones”, Ed.

Thomsom Civitas. ISBN 84-470-2658-2

- [7+ CIDEM; “Guia de Gestió de Proyectes de innovació”, Generalitat de Catalunya

- [8] Valledor, Luis V. 1 y de la Fuente, David ; ”Certificaciones a la gestión de proyectos.

IPMA, PMI, ISPI Y APM GROUP” Septembre 2010; Department of Business

Administration. Oviedo University

- [9+ Demos Group; “Project Management Certification” Juanary 2010.

- [10+ “Guía de los fundamentos para la dirección de proyectos (guía del PMBOK®) fourth

edition”. Project Management Institute , 2008. ISBN: 978-1-9ANT90-72-2.

- [11+ “Dirección y gestión de proyectos”. Jaime Peñara Brand, 1991. ISBN: 84-87189-78-4

http://datos.bancomundial.org/

http://datos.bancomundial.org/indicador/all?display=default

Documents

Influence of Project management on the socioeconomic variables