Slay, Peter Gordon Ronald (2019) Development of an ontology for project management success criteria and associated technical and personal competencies in an Australian engineering context. PhD thesis, University of New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
Past research has been undertaken into the development of the project management body of knowledge including issues such as how to define and measure project success, the constitution of a successful project outcomes, and the competencies needed for project managers to be successful.This research aims to develop an ontology to define successful project outcomes, and the associated technical and personal competencies needed for those outcomes. To minimise the impact of potential confounding variables identified from past research, the research was set within an Australian engineering project context, with the potential impact of professional background being evaluated within the study.The research uses a multi-method approach with conceptual data drawn from existing literature, an ontology developed using a Delphi style approach, and a review of the resulting attributes considered in a Case Study environment. It draws on project management peak body documentation, and academic literature, to identify a number of project success outcomes and competencies which provide the conceptual framework for the follow-up studies. A Delphi study involving twenty-three highly experienced Project Managers from a range of project management environments (Client, Consultant, Contractor and Supplier) established an ontology using three questionnaire-based study rounds, and a final Focus Group discussion. The resulting ontology maps the important relationships of 60 technical and personal competencies to each of five generic outcome groups.The key attributes of the ontology were then discussed with seventeen Project Managers, each responsible for mid-level projects, using a qualitative case study approach. The purpose of the Case Study was for the interviewees to reflect on their experiences relating to the attributes of the ontology and to be able to highlight the variables of particular importance to them.The research provides an improved understanding of key generic project outcomes, and the correlation between technical/ personal competency skills and those outcomes. The ontology may assist organisations involved in the recruitment of staff and team selection to target staff most likely to facilitate specific project outcomes. It may also allow project managers to work with their employers to target specific development programs in areas of their natural and developable strengths as part of a lifelong learning path.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Lee, C K; Abbasi, A and Imran, A |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | success criteria; project management; ontology; competencies |
| Index terms: | success criteria, key attribute, focus group, maps, documentation, ontology, program, questionnaire, conceptual framework, body of knowledge, lifelong learning, Delphi method, project success, project manager, case study, project outcome, project management, recruitment |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, profession, risk assessment, professional development, project management theory and practice, software systems, education and knowledge transfer, management, project completion, knowledge management, spatial and geospatial analysis, theoretical framing, assessment methods |
| Topics: | Education, Project Management, Risk Management, Human Resources, Digital Applications, Information Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here