M anagerial perceptions of project stability

1. Managerial perceptions of project stability • 941602 朱菲比 • 941606 洪嬿翔 • 941607 周佩穎 • 941614 戴琬臻 • 941628 陳采揚 • 941644 陳奕君 • 941655 劉若芬

2. ABSTRACT • the importance of stability project outcomes. • Cost, schedule, performance, and earned value were compared to proposed measures of stability. • Stability and earned value had both importance and usefulness to the managers. • depending on program size, scope, and stage of completion and between managers depending on experience and certification level 941628 陳采揚

3. 941628 陳采揚

4. Stability • In case A, “positive” stability. the disruption is absorbed by the schedule, and the activities quickly get back to the original schedule. • In case B, “neutral” stability. the disruption is simply arried forward throughout the schedule, neither increasing nor decreasing in magnitude. • In case C, “negative” stability or instability .the initial disruption has caused increasing levels of delay, resulting in a change to project duration well beyond that of the initial delay. 941628 陳采揚

5. Project Performance Measurement • project objectives have been characterized : cost, schedule, and performance. • Net present value and earned value measurement systems track both time and cost, or time and quality, at the same time. 941628 陳采揚

6. Single-Dimension Measures: Cost,Schedule, Performance • Schedule measures track the completion of the required activities—usually in comparison to the project plan or schedule. • Various disaggregate as well as aggregate cost, schedule, and performance measures have been used for monitoring and guiding project performance. 941628 陳采揚

7. Relative Importance of Cost, Schedule, and Performance Over Time • One key question for the project manager to answer is whether or not the relative degrees of importance or weights of the three generic goals change over the life of a project. • Example : assume performance is the most important of the three goals during the initial stage of the project life cycle , when attention is focused on the technical specifications on the project 941628 陳采揚

8. Relative Importance of Cost, Schedule, and Performance Over Time • Once the specifications are set and work on the project begins in earnest, priority could shift to cost, then to schedule as the project approaches completion. • The assumption of changing performance priorities over time has been challenged in the literature both in nature and scale 941628 陳采揚

9. Relative Importance of Cost, Schedule, and Performance Over Time • Members of the Project Management Institute (PMI) have been surveyed. • The project life cycle divided into four major parts (formation, buildup, main program, and phaseout ) • The importance assigned to cost, schedule, and performance goals varied systematically across the project life cycle. 941628 陳采揚

10. Relative Importance of Cost, Schedule, and Performance Over Time • A contrary finding was provided by Tukel and Rom. • While project managers at all levels measured and responded to deviations in cost and schedule, the dominant measure of success tended to be performance. 941628 陳采揚

11. Relative Importance of Cost, Schedule, and Performance Over Time • The “internal measures” of cost and schedule were perceived to have relatively low priority throughout the duration of the project • Quality (performance), when considered to be an“external measure” of responsiveness to customer needs, remained most important regardless of industry or project type 941628 陳采揚

12. Complex Measures: Net Present Value & Earned Value Management System 941607 周佩穎

13. Net Present Value • Net present value (NPV) is a measure that takes into account both schedule and cost, using the time value of money. • It is calculated by discounting (or inflating) the cost and benefit time series to the reference year and subtracting the present value of costs from the present value of benefits to yield the net present value of the investment. • Its use is affected by the selection of a discount rate, which is used to adjust the time series of benefits and costs for risk, time preferences of money, and inflation. 941607 周佩穎

14. Earned Value Management System • The earned value management system (EVMS) for program management is designed to effectively integrate the work scope of a program with the schedule and cost elements for optimum program planning and control. • The primary purpose of the system is to support program management under the broad principles of cost/schedule control systems criteria. • The cost/schedule control system criteria established standards for the management of large-scale,long-term projects. 941607 周佩穎

15. Earned Value Management System • The essence of EVMS is that standards or target values (budgeted cost)can be determined or estimated,appropriate for the degree of technical,schedule, and cost risk or uncertainty associated with the program, for each scheduled element of work. • The earned value becomes a metric against which to measure both what was spent to perform the work and what was scheduled to have been accomplished. 941607 周佩穎

16. Alternative Comprehensive Performance Measurement Systems • The balanced scorecard (BSC) approach to organizational performance measurement has received attention in the literature. A system applying the BSC principles to the management of projects has been proposed. • Firms involved in product development (1) already have a system of metrics for managing the projects; (2) have a need to “fine tune” the metrics to provide the proper emphasis or culture; and (3) have the ability to allow individual projects to increase or decrease emphasis on a particular metric. 941607 周佩穎

17. Alternative Comprehensive Performance Measurement Systems • Tailored to the specific strategic needs of the firm or industry that context-unique measures must be developed. • A survey of project managers attempted to relate three “formal” controls (process control, output control, team rewards) and three “interactive” controls (team operational influence, team strategic influence, management intervention) to project performance outcomes. 941607 周佩穎

18. Measures of Stability • Stable: Project is able to absorb disruption as a result of unplanned events. • Unstable: Project is particularly sensitive to disruptions. 941655 劉若芬

19. Measures of Stability(2) • There are some overlap between the multidimensional measures of EVMS and the proposed single-dimension measures of stability • Measurement of “variance” or deviation; both concepts are based on departures from plan. 941655 劉若芬

20. Measures of Stability(3) • The schedule represents a plan for how to best use the resources available in order to achieve some set of objectives within the constraints imposed upon the project. • When the schedule or plan cannot be met, several direct and indirect undesirable consequences may result. 941655 劉若芬

21. The stability measures divide into two distinct groups • offset measures : total person-days of overtime or under time (idleness) experienced by resources used to complete the project. • deviation measures : total amount of earliness or lateness for activities in a project 941655 劉若芬

22. Methodology • Assess the project manager’s perceptions of the importance and usefulness of various project attributes and performance measures, primarily with respect to a new concept of stability. 941655 劉若芬

23. Research Questions • Q1:Have stability measures or concepts been previously used in project performance measurement? • Q2:With respect to existing attributes of overall project performance, is the concept of stability separable from, but comparable to, existing concepts? 941655 劉若芬

24. Research Questions • Q3:Compared to traditional measures of project performance used for project management, are some proposed measures of stability separable from, but comparable to, existing project management measures? 941655 劉若芬

25. Research Questions • Q4:Are the perceptions of stability and traditional measures affected by project or managerial context (project size, scope, or maturity; managerial level; experience; association with specific project)? • Q5:Of what use are the analysis results for the management of future projects? 941655 劉若芬

26. Developing the Survey Instrument • The survey was structured in three parts. • Start with demographic questions and two parts with the scale and the rank of items representing the constructs. 941655 劉若芬

27. Developing the Survey Instrument • First part: demographic questions • Second part: elicited information about the attribute or characteristics. • Third part: concern specific project performance measures. 941655 劉若芬

28. 941644 陳奕君 Demographics Questions asking supervisory some information (position.age.occupational specialty…ect) and questions regarding the program (what stage ofexecution, size, scope, etc.) In order to process the returned survey data on the computer, the categorical data was converted into numeric codes.

29. Creating Item Scales • The second section of the instrument used item scales and associated ranks. • 1. General Attributes: Characteristics that a project or task will assume as it is executed. • Cost:How much does the project or task cost overall? • Schedule (Sched):How long does the project or task take to complete? • Performance (Perf ):How many desirable features does the project or task successfully deliver ? • Earned Value (EV):“how much progress am I making against my original plan?” 941644 陳奕君

30. Creating Item Scales • Stability (Stab): Measures the ability of a project or task to get “back on track” after being disrupted. • 2. Specific Performance Measures: The metrics used to measure performance of a project. • Cost Variance (CV): The difference between the budgeted cost of work performed and the actual cost of work performed. • Cost Performance Index (CPI): a measure of efficiency and can be used to predict the final range of costs. • Schedule Variance (SV): The difference between budgeted cost of work scheduled and budgeted cost of work performed. 941644 陳奕君

31. Creating Item Scales • Schedule Performance Index (SPI): A productivity measure that can be useful in assessing how much work has been accomplished. • Activity Deviation (AD): This measures the proportion of how much time the project is “off-track” in terms of scheduled completion. • Resource Offset (RO): This measures how much time resources spend waiting to work or catching up on work in terms of scheduled activity. 941644 陳奕君

32. Creating Item Scales • When items are to be judged on a single dimension and arrayed on a scale with equal intervals, a simple,linear numeric scale with extremes labeled appropriately is the most advisable method of scaling. • Respondents were provided with an appendix at the last page of the survey briefly defining each construct in addition to the instructions at the beginning of every one of the scales. 941644 陳奕君

33. Selecting the Sample • A survey method was used for the collection of data for this research. • Program managers in the design, development, and acquisition of aircraft and support systems would form the population of interest. • The selection of sample strata is usually based on some demographic characteristics known or suspected to have an influence on the result. • The sample was stratified according to the dimensions of authority level and project affiliation. 941644 陳奕君

34. Selecting the Sample • The dimensions included three levels for civilian affiliation and five levels for military affiliation. • Participants were selected randomly from within each stratum to conform to proportional representation. 941644 陳奕君

35. Sample-Size Determination • Sample size determines the degree of statistical confidence available for analysis and interpretation. • When population variance increases, sampling error increases and sample reliability decreases. • Normally, a size of 30 or less would not provide certain practical results. • Because the people in the system program offices are busy, and they work with sensitive information, they might not be willing to share information by means of surveys. 941644 陳奕君

36. Initial Analysis and Reliability • For tracking purposes and to increase response rates, the randomly assigned name list was used to make follow-ups. • Based on the response rate and the expected number of returned usable questionnaires, directed(within strata), random resampling was performed, and additional surveys were mailed as required. 941606 洪嬿翔

37. Collecting and Processing the Data • Incomplete, unusable, or blank questionnaires were set aside as declined to participate. • Monitoring was performed to guard against nonresponse bias, by analyzing the demographicsubcategories (within the strata) to check for representation of completed responses. • The received survey percentages within the sampling strata were generally in accordance with the overall response rate. 941606 洪嬿翔

38. Collecting and Processing the Data The response rates and proportionality were considered sufficient for the purposes of this research, although some underrepresentation appears in the higher level of authority for the military affiliation. 941606 洪嬿翔

39. Descriptive Statistics, Means, and Ranks Paired-difference t tests were run to determine the significance of the difference. • scaled “importance” means and p values in the lower- left quadrant of the table • scaled “usefulness” means and p values are indicated in the upper right • quadrant of the table. • Values of p that are smaller than 0.10 are indicated in bold type. 941606 洪嬿翔

40. Descriptive Statistics, Means, and Ranks The results indicate that significant differences exist in the minds of the respondents as to the relative importance and usefulness of the various project attributes, according to the order indicated, between most of the attributes. 941606 洪嬿翔

41. Descriptive Statistics, Means, and Ranks Similar agreement was found between scale means and ranks with respect to both importance and usefulness for the performance measures • scaled “importance” means and p values in the lower- left quadrant of the table • scaled “usefulness” means and p values are indicated in the upper right • quadrant of the table. • Values of p that are smaller than 0.10 are indicated in bold type. 941606 洪嬿翔

42. Descriptive Statistics, Means, and Ranks There was no deviation in relative order between scaled or ranked mportance or usefulness (most to least): cost variance, schedule variance, cost performance index, schedule performance index, activity deviation, and resource offset. 941606 洪嬿翔

43. Reliability Analysis • Constructs representing each of the five attributes and six performance measures were created from theimportance, usefulness, scale, and rank data. • In order to check the internal validity of the combined constructs, Cronbach’s alpha was used. • While reliance on this measure alone is somewhat, it is suggested that a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.7 or greater (as a rule of thumb) is an acceptable level of agreement. 941606 洪嬿翔

44. Reliability Analysis • Describes the Cronbach’s alpha values along with the common interitem correlation and overall model significance (x2 test) values for the variables from both general project attributes and specific performance measures. • For both the attributes and measures, it is, therefore, concluded that sufficient item, scale, and constructvalidity (internal, convergent) exists to support additional analysis. 941606 洪嬿翔

45. Exploratory Factor Analysis • Based on the positive results from the reliability analyses, factor analyses were performed on the attributes and measures. • Exploratory factor analysis was used to distill the factors out of the data matrix with no apriori assumption of variables loading against any particular construct • SPSS v. 12.0 for Windows was used to run the principle components model, with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 for extraction, followed by a Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization. 941606 洪嬿翔

46. Exploratory Factor Analysis The five factors provided a cumulative total variance explained of 77% • While internal (convergent) validity appeared to be demonstrated by the reliability • analysis discussed previously, discriminatory validity was not supported at this time. • Additional research is suggested in this area. 941606 洪嬿翔

47. 941614 戴琬臻 Analysis of Variance The initial phase of the analysis : Reliability and Validity The final phase of analysis : performed to assess the degree to which the stability constructs exhibit behaviors different from the traditional measures based on the environmental characteristics of the project management situation.

48. The relationships between the attributes and characteristics 941614 戴琬臻

49. About Table8 • There are positive and statistically significant relationships between the managers’ career experience (CXP), program experience (PXP), and acquisition professional level (APL). • The standardized coefficients (created by the factor analysis) between the project attributes create zero or near-zero correlations and unit significance scores. • The cost attribute appeared not significantly correlated with any of the situational characteristics. (The exception to this is the relationship between cost and stage of completion ) • As experience increased, the perceived importance and usefulness of earned value increased. 941614 戴琬臻

50. About Table8 • The nonparametric test found a relationship between performance and career experience in addition to certification level. • Stability was positively related to all of the attributes except project size.. • The project attribute of schedule was negatively correlated with both types of experience. • 6 and 7 are opposition. This information supports, perhaps indirectly, that stability and schedule are indeed separable constructs from the perspective of the project managers surveyed.