Thomas, S R (1996) An assessment tool for improving project team communications. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin, USA.
Abstract
Research conducted by the Project Team Communications research team confirms that which has been acknowledged by project managers for years: effective communication is one of the major challenges to a project's success. While studies have highlighted the importance of effective communications for project success, there has been little effort to reliably measure communications effectiveness. An important step then in improving team communications, is the development of a diagnostic tool for assessing the effectiveness of team communications. This dissertation documents the investigative efforts of research team 105, commissioned by the Construction Industry Institute (CII) to develop such a tool. The research team established specific objectives based on the hypothesis that the successful completion of a project is positively correlated with the effectiveness of the project team's communication. The methodology followed by the research team in evaluating this hypothesis concluded with development of the communications assessment tool. This methodology consisted of three phases: (1) questionnaire development, (2) data collection and analysis, and (3) diagnostic tool development. The research team was made up of seasoned, industry executives and academics. After conducting a thorough search of current literature, members drew upon their professional experience in developing survey questionnaires. Following a series of pre-tests and revisions, the team conducted a highly successful data collection effort. The ensuing statistical analysis of questionnaire responses identified critical communications and success variables used in validating the research hypothesis. This validation led the research team to conclude that the survey questionnaires were capable of measuring communications effectiveness. To gain acceptance within an industry known to resist change, the diagnostic tool had to provide an easily understood, meaningful, and reliable assessment with minimal administrative overhead. The research team addressed these issues by developing a computer automated diagnostic tool which expedites data collection and analysis, provides benchmark results from seventy-two surveyed projects, and offers a variety of reports to assess and pinpoint project communications problems. The benefits gained from this research are significant. Project communications can now be reliably measured and monitored supporting programs for improvement. And, a research database and methodology have been established supporting further research.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Tucker, R L |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | communication; professional; project success; project team; statistical analysis |
| Index terms: | project team, dissertation, effectiveness, executive, project team communication, database, statistical analysis, Construction Industry Institute, project success, project manager, documents, validation, questionnaire, methodology, program, survey, project communication |
| Subjects: | research methods, research dissemination and communication, research organizations, practitioner, software systems, performance management, professional development, project management theory and practice, data management, data collection methods, profession, data science, project delivery |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Roles and Professions, Information Management, Research Practice, Quality Management, Project Management |
| 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