PAPERS

Managing Global Projects: A Structured Approach for Better Performance

Vittal Anantatmula, College of Business, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC, USA Michael Thomas, College of Business, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC, USA

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research effort is to develop a model for improving the performance of global projects using the underlying relations among the important enablers and barriers of global project performance. A number of factors are identified in the study, using a literature review to develop the model. A survey was used to determine the impact of these factors on global project performance. The model suggests different management practices for global projects versus traditional, co-located projects. Different from the outcomes of traditional projects, research results suggest that leadership and establishing trust is a first step in the initial stages of the global project.

INTRODUCTION

KEYWORDS: global projects; virtual teams; interpretive structural modeling; project performance factors; enablers and barriers of global projects

n this global environment of intense competition, to realize and sustain competitive advantage, organizations must place importance on how they practice project management (PM). Specifically, it is critical, in the context of global projects and geographically dispersed project teams, to integrate information technology (IT) tools and manage cultural differences in dealing with project risk and complexity with a focus on improving efficiency, effectiveness, and innovation. A review of journals and publications provides ample evidence of research interest in global projects. However, only a few research studies focus on identifying enablers and barriers of global projects and implementing them successfully (Dodson, 1998; Grosse, 2002; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Lientz & Rea, 2003; Nidiffer & Dolan, 2005; Sarker & Sahay, 2002). None of these studies have addressed the interaction of enablers and barriers or how well their relationships to one another could be used to improve project performance. The purpose of this research effort is to develop a model for improving the performance of global projects using the underlying relations among the important enablers and barriers of global projects. This study begins with the premise that global projects and global virtual teams are inextricably linked with each other. The focus of the study is to understand how enablers and barriers of global projects interrelate with one another. Using these interrelationships, a model is developed to analyze the roles and responsibilities of the project manager and the team to successfully manage global projects. In this article, as a first step, enablers and barriers of global projects are identified using the literature review. Second, the research methodology for collecting data to develop underlying relations among these factors and their level of impact on project success is presented. Then the structural linkages between these factors are identified, analyzed, and discussed. The analysis of these linkages will determine individual and team roles in project success from the research and practitioners perspectives. Finally, we will present limitations of the study and suggest opportunities for future research efforts.

Literature Review
For the purposes of this study, a global project is defined as a transnational project, a temporary endeavor with a project team made up of individuals from different countries; working in different cultures, business units, and functions; and possessing specialized knowledge for solving a common strategic task (Adenfelt & Lagerstrm, 2006: Marmer, 1998; Schweiger, 1998). Likewise, a global virtual team is defined by three dimensions: (1) no common past or future, (2) culturally diverse and geographically dispersed, and (3) communicating electronically (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999) define a global virtual team to be a temporary, culturally diverse, geographically dispersed, electronically

Project Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 2, 6072 2010 by the Project Management Institute Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20168

60

April 2010

Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

communicating work group. Further, they clarify that the notion of temporary in the definition describes teams whose members may have never worked together before and who may not expect to work together again as a group. Jarvenpaa and Leidner concluded that in global virtual teams, communication that rallies around the project and tasks appears to be necessary in order to maintain trust. Social communication that complements rather than substitutes for task communication may strengthen trust. Advantages of employing virtual teams are flexibility, responsiveness, lower costs, and better utilization of resources that are necessary to meet ever-changing requirements in highly turbulent and dynamic global business environments (Mowshowitz, 1997; Snow, Snell, & Davison, 1996). Enablers and Barriers As noted earlier, global virtual teams go hand-in-hand with global projects. The virtual team effectiveness plays an important role in project performance. Dub and Par (2001) contend that global virtual teams face significant challenges over and above virtual teams located locally due to cultural differences and language issues. Dub and Par identified people and technology as key issues for global virtual teams. Communication was found to be an important component of project success in virtual teams (Beranek, Broder, Reineg, Romano, & Sump, 2005; Khazanchi & Zigurs, 2005; Lin & Berg, 2001). Diallo and Thuillier (2005) and Tavcar, Zavbi, Verlinden, and Duhovnik (2005) underlined the importance of establishing strong communication and cooperation among the project manager, stakeholders, and team members and argued that these factors are critical for the success of the project. Rad and Anantatmula (2009) suggest that a major source for the failure of global virtual teams is due to the reality that virtual teams are denied most of the traditional modes of synchronous

communication, an effective way to resolve conflicts. Global projects can use time zone differences to increase the number of productive work hours in a day, and secure scarce resources such as knowledge experts and other specialized resources no matter where they reside (Nidiffer & Dolan, 2005). Global projects can also employ more people since there are no space constraints. However, Nidiffer and Dolan caution that these benefits come with increased risks due to the lack of face-to-face interaction, which may result in lack of trust and ineffective communication, leading to difficulty in collaboration. IBM has used this concept very well in its global project teams (Singer, 2001). Research has shown that team member trust is a key antecedent to collaboration (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002). Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999) argue that the use of electronic communication, cultural diversity, and no history of working together challenge the potential existence of trust in global virtual teams. They conclude that communication that supports the project and tasks makes it possible for the existence and maintenance of trust. Kanawattanachai and Yoo (2002) also found that trust results in open communication, cooperation, higher-quality decision making, and risk taking. It is in this context that project leadership plays an important role in establishing clarity in generating collaboration and trust among the project team members (Anantatmula, 2008). It is obvious that cultural differences and different time zones are barriers to effective communication within the project team as well as between the project team and its external stakeholders. In the past, local traditions, including the language and culture, have been confined to the physical location (Sarker & Sahay, 2002). In recent history, technological advances, such as the Internet, satellite television, and wireless communication networks, and the global economy are bringing more

changes to local language and culture. However, Sarker and Sahay (2002), observe that the cultural identity of individuals is still inextricably tied to their native language. Citing other research studies, Sarker and Sahay argue that individuals still have a strong preference for conducting business in their native language. The study of the impact of culture on the operation of international organizations is well documented from using institutional theory to analyze conflicts on global projects (Mahalingam & Levitt, 2007; Orr & Scott, 2008) to using the life-cycle framework to analyze global project conflicts (Byosiere & Luethge, 2007; Khang & Moe, 2008; Wang & Liu, 2007) to using a heuristic model for resolving cross-cultural ethical conflicts (Hamilton, Knouse, & Hill, 2009). The seminal work of Hofstedes cultural values framework has been used in a variety of cultural studies (Hofstede, 1991). The use of psychic distance first defined by Beckerman in 1956 has been used to describe . . . the distance between home market and a foreign market, resulting from the perception of both cultural and business differences (Evans & Mavondo, 2002, p. 516). However, in this study the authors are more concerned with the broader values of culture as described herein. Other cultural characteristics define who we are and how we interact while managing a global virtual team. For instance, Horii, Jin, and Levitt (2005) used the two dimensions proposed by Hofstede (1991): practice differences and value differences. In a project they define three practice differences: the level of centralization of authority, the level of formalization of communication, and the depth of the organizational hierarchy (Horii et al., 2005, p. 307). Value differences in a project are defined by . . . how project participants make work-related and communication related decisions (Horii et al., 2005, p. 308). Similarly, the idea of what constitutes a good performance differs
61

April 2010 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

PAPERS

Managing Global Projects: A Structured Approach for Better Performance

from country to country. These differences impact the project performance, and the risk of project failure escalates (Simons, 2006). Likewise, an individuals idea about what constitutes accountability can also vary within different cultures (Dub & Par, 2001). Project managers of global virtual teams must be mindful of these differences. Barczak, McDonough, and Athanassiou (2006) found that the main challenges facing a global project leader are associated team members who speak different native languages, come from different cultural backgrounds, live and work in multiple countries, and come from different companies. Yasin, Martin, and Czuchry (2000), citing other studies (Halpin & Huang, 1995; Kerzner, 1995), suggest that project managers dealing with international projects should be trained to develop sensitivity to cultural differences and should be knowledgeable about international environmental regulations and standards. Grosse (2002) and Dodson (1998) conclude that speaking the language, knowing the culture, and being sensitive to cultural differences could also help communication. In their study, Sennara and Hartman (2002) found that although major cultural risks on domestic and global projects are superficially similar, their impact on project effectiveness and success are different. They list six issues: organizational culture, networking, project selection, contracts and negotiation, project leadership, and foreign agent selection, which need to be considered before deciding to go forward with a global project. Organizational structure, communication, culture, and trust are considered to be four areas for risk mitigation in virtual organizations by Grabowski and Roberts (1999). The main issue between cultures seems to be the role of trust. Majchrzak, Rice, Malhotra, King, and Ba (2000) defined this issue further, developing three practical outcomes that can improve trust in global project teams: (1) creating an environment where
62

team members are comfortable openly discussing conflicts, (2) avoiding rigid structures that are not adaptable, and (3) using telephone conferences as well as the Internet. Apart from culture, Damodara (2000) arguesin the context of engineering and construction projects that organizations need to change their project management practices in at least six areas to remain competitive globally. They are: Become a cost-effective organization in the global environment. Maintain state-of-the-art information systems. Hire team members who can think globally. Use global suppliers effectively. Take advantage of local existing facilities. Achieve global quality. Most of these project management issues are relevant irrespective of the industry to which the global project is executed as is evident from the study of Adenfelt and Lagerstrm (2006), who observed that organization structure is considered an important enabler in global projects to promote a culture of collaboration, learning, and trust. Lientz and Rea (2003) have identified a number of factors that add complexity to global projects: lack of control due to external issues such as local priorities, diverse cultures, different time zones, volatility associated with local and foreign exchange currencies, differing rules and regulations in different geographical locations, political pressures, and greater public visibility of these projects. Political risks are often significant depending on political relations specifically, if projects are executed in developing countries (Khattab, Anchir, & Davies, 2007). A research study examining issues related to enabling and sharing knowledge in transnational projects has identified communication technology as an enabler (Adenfelt & Lagerstrm, 2006). Lehmann (2004) points out the difficulty

of setting up a global information system for a large multinational firm, with issues being the definition of requirements, the internal politics of the organization, and the changing strategic direction of the organization. Yasin et al. (2000), in their study of 81 project managers, observed that compared to project managers with no international experience, those with global project management experience have more knowledge in international law, international finance, international economics, and international marketing. More interestingly, global project managers are more knowledgeable about integration management, customer satisfaction, and leadership. According to their study, project managers with global experience considered procurement management to be important when managing their projects. Lee-Kelley (2006) also found that selection of team members in the global team is critical to project success. Team building is considered essential for virtual project teams (Project Management Institute [PMI], 2008). Nidiffer and Dolan (2005) observed that building virtual teams with a minimum of face time, clearly defining work, measuring cybernetic worker productivity, and managing employee communications across time zones are major management priorities. Based on their study of virtual teams using WebCT, Sarker and Sahay (2002) suggested that attention to technical and social components of virtual teams would minimize the friction related to location and temporal distances.

Research Methodology
Two research methods were used in this study. The first one, interpretive structural modeling (ISM), examines the underlying dependency relations among the factors identified from the literature review (Table 1). The second method was designed to establish the importance and level of impact of each of these factors on the success of global projects in general and type of global project in

April 2010 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

particular. To obtain this information, a survey was sent to project management professionals working in virtual teams on global projects. Using the survey results in conjunction with the ISM results, the most important success factors were identified and strategies developed to manage them. Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) The ISM methodology is used to determine underlying relations among the factors (see Table 1), which is normally used for structuring of goals and objectives into a hierarchical model (Warfield, 1973). ISM is chosen because human brains experience problems in coping with complex problems with a significant number of elements and relations among elements (Waller, 1975). ISM has its other advantages too; it uses an interactive discussion method to collect data, which forces the participant in the research study to carefully analyze links between these factors. After identifying a set of global project management factors (Table 1), an Excel spreadsheet (Figure 1) is used for collecting the data. ISM uses a process in which individuals or a group of people participate in structuring their collective knowledge and modeling interrelationships in a way that enhances the understanding of the complexity associated with the elements. In the process, ISM facilitates identifying structure within a system of related elements and creates an opportunity to analyze it from different perspectives. Once these relations are modeled, they can be validated using case studies or through surveys. This research effort is expected to serve as a foundation for such studies and for validating these relations. Figure 1 was used when discussing the barriers and enablers with the participants in the study and they were asked to fill out the white cells of the matrix shown in the figure by following the steps outlined in Appendix A. Data is gathered from discussions and interviews. The participants included project

management professionals and academicians in the project management discipline and were actively involved in global projects. Thus, we used qualitative research data as input to the ISM software to generate ISM data, and the computational results are shown in Appendix B. Using these results, ISM software has generated the model (Figure 2), which shows: (1) how we can identify the direct and indirect relationships between attributes of project performance and (2) how to include softer variables in the analysis. Survey Results The survey was sent to around 100 project management professionals who are actively involved in global projects. Seventy-six responses were received. The higher response rate could be attributed to the fact that managing or working in these projects offers incentives and challenges to learn about what success entails. Although 55% of respondents are project managers, a total of 91% of the respondents are directly involved in either managing or participating in a global project team. Respondents represented global project teams of considerable size, with 71% of them having more than 20 members in the team and 29% of them have more than 50 members. The survey also revealed that over 68% of respondents had more than six years of project management experience, with 45% having more than ten years of project management experience. Referring to global projects and virtual teams, 83% of the respondents have three or more years of experience with global project teams. All the participants have basic educational qualifications, with 31% of them holding PMP certification, with an additional 22% holding advanced certification or a graduate degree in project management. Represented organizations are large organizations in terms of revenue, with 71% of them having annual revenue exceeding $500 million and 62% exceeding $1 billion. There are more than 1,000 full-time

employees in 78% of the organizations, with 58% employing more than 10,000. Of the organizations, 85% are multinational organizations. A wide spectrum of organizations is represented in the study, with technology (24%) leading the group, followed by the health care industry (20%), financial services (13%), and the communication sector (7%). All the respondent organizations used e-mail for communication with virtual team members. Intranet was second (83%) in usage. The respondents used videoconferencing (75%), virtual data sharing (75%), and project management software tools (63%). Among all the electronic communication tools, instant messaging was the least used (68%). Respondents were asked to rate all the global project factors, identified in Table 1 on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 representing low impact and 5 representing high impact. The complete results are shown in Table 2. Looking at the results, it can be seen that communication is the key factor and is likely to have a high impact on project success. Considering that virtual teams are less successful compared to teams working using face-to-face communication (Baker, 2002), communication assuming greater importance than the other factors is justified. Communication is followed by the importance of leadership and establishing trust. The high impact of stakeholder and customer satisfaction implies the significance of communicating with the stakeholders and managing their expectations. The factors planning, execution, and control, and fast and reliable information systems are means to employ effective communication, and manage the project and team to meet stakeholder and customer satisfaction. The culture in which the project team performs influences all the factors of high impact listed previously. Close attention to cultural differences and similarities must be made to carve out a unique working culture for every global project.
63

April 2010 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

PAPERS

Managing Global Projects: A Structured Approach for Better Performance

Communication

Language and associated cultural differencesan obvious obstacle to communicationbut its importance is apparent with the increasing use of the World Wide Web.

Beranek et al. (2005), Diallo and Thuillier (2005), Dodson (1998), Grosse (2002), Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999), Khazanchi and Zigurs (2005), Lientz and Rea (2003), Lin and Berg, (2001), Nidiffer and Dolan (2005), Rad and Anantatmula (2009), Sarker and Sahay (2002) Dub and Par (2001), Grosse (2002), Horii et al. (2005), Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999), Lientz and Rea (2003), Nidiffer and Dolan (2005)

Cultural Values

Religion has an impact on a project in terms of work ethics, values, holidays, who will work with whom, and the like. Beliefs, an outcome of culture, can influence work practices. Local, regional, and national management practices can vary from country to country and could be different from Western norms such as time off from work, hierarchical authority, gender issues, and the like. International market, international economics, international finance, and currencyan understanding of all these global business environmental issues will facilitate making better project decisions throughout the project life cycle. Country-specific laws, environmental regulations, political issues, and acceptable standards can impact a global project. Vertical (within the organization) and horizontal (external to the organization) integration are critical and can become difficult across regions and countries. A cost-effective organizational structure will be decentralized and flexible to collaborate and manage global projects successfully to meet customer needs. Procurement management in global projects will have no geographical boundaries. Therefore, it is a challenge to possess the knowledge of the best places to go for materials and labor, which can impact global project success. Treating a global project as a standard project can lead to problems. Leadership and people skills are more important for global projects. They help in establishing trust. Micromanaging is a temptation in global projects because of a lack of understanding of the capabilities of the project team members including contractors, and the absence of trust. Planning, execution, and controlwhich include risk managementare impacted by cultural differences, varying working conditions, and local issues. Stakeholder and customer satisfactioncultural, financial, and communication complications can occur in terms of determining what the customer considers to be a successful project. Stakeholders need to be part of the global project process and should be made to feel that they are in a win-win situation with respect to the project outcomes. Fast and reliable information systems are essential for success in global projects. Communication and control systems that are standard, compatible, and reliable are essential for knowledge sharing and those that can be used in participating countries are essential. Time zone differences can create communication (meetings) problems, specifically in synchronous mode. However, time zone differences can also allow work to proceed 24 hours a day.

Global Business Environment

Lientz and Rea (2003), Yasin et al. (2000)

Legal and Political Issues Integration Management Project Organizational Structure Global Procurement Management

Halpin and Huang (1995), Kerzner (1995), Lientz and Rea (2003), Yasin et al. (2000) Damodara (2000), Erickson and Ranganathan (2006), Lientz and Rea (2003), Nidiffer and Dolan (2005), Yasin et al. (2000) Damodara (2000), Erickson and Ranganathan (2006), Yasin et al. (2000) Damodara (2000), Erickson and Ranganathan (2006), Lee-Kelly (2006), Sennara and Hartman (2002), Yasin et al. (2000)

Leadership and Establishing Trust

Anantatmula (2008), Damodara (2000), Dodson (1998), Erickson and Ranganathan (2006), Grabowski and Roberts (1999), Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999), Kanawattanachai and Yoo (2002), Lientz and Rea (2003), Majchrzak et al. (2000), Lientz and Rea (2003), Majchrzak et al. (2000), Nidiffer and Dolan (2005), Sennara and Hartman (2002), Yasin et al. (2000) Al-Tabtabai and Alex (2000), Erickson and Ranganathan (2006), Nidiffer and Dolan (2005), Sennara and Hartman (2002), Yasin et al. (2000) Nidiffer and Dolan (2005), Yasin et al. (2000)

Planning, Execution, and Control Stakeholder and Customer Satisfaction

Fast and Reliable Information Systems

Adenfelt and Lagerstrm (2006), Dub and Par (2001), Lehmann (2004), Lientz and Rea (2003), Sennara and Hartman (2002), Yasin et al. (2000)

Time-Zone Differences

Lientz and Rea (2003), Nidiffer and Dolan (2005), Yasin et al. (2000);

Table 1: Factors of influence on performance of global projects.

64

April 2010 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

10

11

12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Contextual relationship - leads to

Planning, execution, and control Communication Cultural values Global business environment Legal and environmental regulations and policies Time zone differences Integration management Project organizational structure Global procurement management

10 Leadership and team management 11 Stakeholder and customer satisfaction 12 Fast and reliable information systems

Figure 1: ISM for data collection.

Global Project Performance Factor

Communication Leadership and establishing trust Planning, execution, and control Stakeholder and customer satisfaction Fast and reliable information system Culture Global business environment Integration management Legal and political issues Organization structure Global procurement management Time-zone differences
Table 2: Success factors and their impact.

N Mean Value (Impact)

4.86 4.76 4.67 4.47 4.16 4.13 3.95 3.92 3.81 3.79 3.78 3.60

76 SD
0.34 0.49 0.53 0.70 0.86 0.83 0.97 0.83 1.01 0.87 0.99 1.00

Global business environment, integration management, legal and political issues, organizational structure, and global procurement management had a relatively low impact compared to the top six noted in the previous paragraph. It is interesting to note that respondents were not overly concerned with time zone differences. It is suggested that the reason for this could relate to the fact that project team members are now continually using asynchronous communications and time difference is a normal part of their experience. By using ISM results in conjunction with these survey results, we can add more clarity to the success model in terms of highlighting the factors of greater importance. Considering the top six factors as having greater importance than the rest and considering the remaining as behind-the-scenes driving factors, we have modified the comprehensive model shown in Figure 2 to a simplified version, Figure 3, for managing global projects successfully. The relevance and importance of the research findings, as reflected in Figure 3, in the project implementation phase are obvious. Culture influences the leadership style and resultant trust that is established among the project team members. Leadership style must adapt to the prevailing cultures and the cultural differences that are present in the project environment. It is logical that cultural factors also dictate the adoptability of technology and influence the design of the information system such as level of sophistication, types of information tools, and communication techniques. Once installed, it is important to maintain and upgrade the information system to ensure its performance at the desired speed and reliability levels throughout the project management life cycle. Likewise, leadership and trust help create effective communication that must be sustained throughout the project life. Geographically dispersed project teams that do not have an opportunity to get the project status will result in decreasing levels
65

Legal and environmental regulations and policies

Stakeholder and customer satisfaction

Leadership and team management

Fast and reliable information systems

Global procurement management

Planning, execution, and control

Project organizational structure

Global business environment

Integration management

Time zone differences

Communication

Cultural values

April 2010 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

PAPERS

Managing Global Projects: A Structured Approach for Better Performance

Fast and reliable information systems Legal and political issues

Global procurement management

Global business environment

Time-zone differences

Communication

Integration management

Planning, execution, and control Cultural values Leadership and establishing trust Project organization structure Stakeholder and customer satisfaction

Figure 2: Comprehensive global projects success model.

Fast and reliable information systems

Culture

Communication

Planning, execution, and control

Leadership and establishing trust

Stakeholder and customer satisfaction

Figure 3: Simplified global projects success model.

of motivation. Understanding the cultural differences, engaging leadership, building trust, and communicating effectively would help to avoid such pitfalls. Figure 2 has its relevance in developing a detailed plan and strategy for managing global projects, whereas Figure 3 could be a reference model for global project managers to sustain the success strategy that is developed. We argue that the simplified model shown in Figure 3 should be used in conjunction with Figure 2, which presents a larger picture, yet consider both the models to be important. Participants of the study were asked about the type of global project they were
66

currently working on. Using this data, the influence of project type was explored with respect to performance factors that impact project success (Table 3) and factors important for the project. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results and Tukey-Kramer honestly significant difference (HSD) mean comparisons show that the mean scores of medical and biotechnology projects (9) are significantly different as compared to the mean scores of IT projects (28) for three factors as shown in Table 3. These results imply that the impact of integration management, project planning, execution, control, and time-zone differences is higher for IT projects relative to biotechnology and medical projects.

Likewise, results of ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer HSD show that mean scores of six factors that are considered important for project success are significantly different for all the three types of projects (see Table 4). They are: managing cultural differences, managing language differences, understanding global business environment, procurement management, leadership for establishing trust, and fast and reliable information systems. Further, these statistical tests denote that the importance of legal issues is different for IT projects and biotechnology and medical projects only. ANOVA results suggest that the importance and impact of some of the factors that contribute to the performance of global projects vary depending upon the industry in which they are executed.

Analysis, Discussion, and Implications

Analysis Our results show that the global business environment and cultural values are the two main driving factors that can be used as a basis to build a successful project management efforts in global projects. It is imperative that the project manager critically examine the prevalent global

April 2010 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Project Type

IT Size
28 28 28

Management Systems Mean

4.25 4.85 4.03

Biotechnology and Medical Size

9 9 9

Size
12 12 12

Mean
3.83 4.58 3.66

Mean
3.44 4.22 3.00

Probability
0.0288 0.0028 0.0192

Integration management Planning, execution, and control Time-zone differences

Table 3: ANOVAProject type and mean values of performance factors that impact success.

Project Type

IT Size
28 28 28 28 28 28 28

Management Systems Mean

4.32 4.25 4.18 4.14 4.28 4.50 4.18

Biotechnology and Medical Size

9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Size
12 12 12 12 12 12 12

Mean
4.16 4.25 4.33 3.83 4.50 4.41 3.91

Mean
2.77 2.77 2.44 2.66 2.66 2.44 2.44

Probability
0.0180 0.0056 0.0016 0.0208 0.0004 0.0007 0.0028

Managing cultural differences Managing language differences Understanding global business environment Legal issues Global procurement management Leadership of effective collaboration and trust Fast and reliable information systems
Table 4: Factors important for project success.

business environment and its influence on existing legal and political issues for the applicable geographical regions where the project will be managed. Likewise, cultural values, which include religious-based differences in values, differences in local and national management practices, work ethics, and beliefs, will have an impact on work practices and productivity, and shape the leadership and team management of global projects. It is critical for the project manager to be cognizant of cultural values in formulating leadership and team management strategies. With all these factors in consideration, a project manager will have to adapt their leadership style and ways in which the team is managed. As is true with any project, among other things, stakeholder and customer satisfaction is the ultimate goal of global projects. Project leadership and team management influence and, in turn, are influenced by time zone differences

and fast, reliable information systems. As defined earlier, time zone differences help the project manager to engage the project team round the clock. On the downside, the project team may not always have an opportunity to discuss issues face-to-face or by synchronous video-conference meetings because of geographical dispersion. For the same reason, fast and reliable information systems play a major role in deciding leadership and team management styles. On the other side, cultural values, which lead to the adoption of suitable project leadership and team management, will have a significant influence on how time zone differences are managed and what kind of information system is required. Global project managers must analyze and understand these project-specific interdependencies in formulating their approach. These factorsinformation systems, issues related to time-zone differences, and project leadership and manage-

menttogether will influence procurement practices in global projects. For instance, time zone differences and information systems will have a bearing on the project managers decision to identify places for obtaining human resources and materials. Global project managers must exercise prudence in exploring and identifying all the possible sources for procurement of materials, services, and people because there are no geographical boundaries or other constraints. Similarly, organizational structure, while adjusted to project leadership and management practices, is also influenced by information systems and time zone differences. Integration management is about integration within the organization as well as outside the organization. The involvement of various agencies in different parts of the world makes integration extremely important. The involvement of these agencies is a critical component of global projects and represents a significant difference
67

April 2010 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

PAPERS

Managing Global Projects: A Structured Approach for Better Performance

between global projects and traditional projects. Involvement of various agencies external to the parent organization is decided by global procurement management practices, and their effectiveness is a determinant of project communications and the structure. Several research studies have shown that stakeholder and customer satisfaction are the ultimate goals of any project, and our research results have confirmed this. However, for this to happen in global projects, stakeholders and customers should be made to feel that they are in a win-win situation and should be included in project communication whenever feasible. Discussion The significance of ISM and its results from the global project management point of view is the emergence of this logical flow of causal influences. These causal influences are logically consistent and provide a combined view of the participants who participated in the study. The contextual relevance of this approach has important consequences for successful strategies and management practices in global projects. In this research method, the resultant model permits us to understand how each of these elements can behave as an enabler and an inhibitor to global project performance. In the models shown in Figures 2 and 3, the weakness of an element makes it an inhibitor, while the strength of that very same element makes it an enabler. For instance, the presence of fast and reliable information leads to effective and efficient communication among the project stakeholders and creates a system for effective leadership and team management, whereas the absence of such an information system will impede project team functioning because of its geographical dispersion. This research approach demonstrates the dual role of all the elements in terms of whether they are enablers or barriers in global projects. Therefore, it may not be helpful to classify these elements as enablers or barriers.
68

The difference between the management practices the model suggests for global projects (Figures 2 and 3) and the management practices of traditional, co-located projects is an important outcome of this study. Defining roles and responsibilities, employing consistent processes, and communicating expectations are the activities that are addressed first in a traditional project (Anantatmula, 2008). Likewise, early studies on project success identified success factors such as clearly defined goals, adequate communication with all of the stakeholders including the project team, and the ability to handle unexpected problems (Pinto & Prescott, 1987; Pinto, Slevin, & Dennis, 1987). However, in global projects, which are routinely managed with virtual teams and diverse cultures, establishment of leadership and the establishment of trust that is sensitive to the culture in context are initial steps and assume importance during the early phases of the project. Establishing leadership and information systems in the initial phases of the project life cycle exert significant influence on the project success in a global environment. Implications In order to manage a global project successfully, organizations need to understand the global business environment and different relevant cultures. Further, the impact and importance of factors varies based on the type of project and the industry in which it is executed. The sponsoring organization and the project manager must develop an understanding of the relevant legal and political issues. The project-sponsoring organization and all the key stakeholders must recognize similarities and differences in culture and values. If required, the entire project team can be considered for training on cultural values. However, developing and nurturing a culture of openness and trust is usually a gradual process and will have a significant impact on communications. It is critical that the global project

establish current, reliable, and fast information systems because of the geographical dispersion of project team members and stakeholders. Integration is a key success factor, and the primary stakeholders will have to play important roles in managing this aspect of the global project. Finally, project managers who are managing global projects must adopt their leadership and team management practices and processes based on prevailing cultural values, legal and political issues, time-zone differences, and information systems. Only after these aspects are addressed in detail can we move on to the traditional project management life-cycle phases of planning, executing, and monitoring and control.

Limitations of the Study

A limitation to creating a structure is that it is not easy to generalize these results across organizations. Therefore, caution should be exercised in using these findings. As stated earlier, these directional results need to be validated, and this study is expected to serve as a foundation for such a study. To increase the validity of these results and to develop a more robust shared mental model, we plan to apply the model in global projects in various industries for its validation. These actions will facilitate the development of a more robust structural model. Further research is planned to validate the model to establish the importance and effectiveness of each factor in the model, and establish their dependency relations using statistical methods. Our research data represented projects of a few dominant industries. There is scope to expand this study to include a significant number of projects that represent a wider range of industries.

Conclusion
Our research results suggest that importance and impact of some of the factors that contribute to performance of global projects are industry-specific. Depending on the type of industry in which the project is executed, the

April 2010 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

relative importance of these factors may vary. Our results also show that project management practices of global projects differ from traditional, colocated, and internal projects. Through the use of ISM, the research study has shown how we can capture the behavior of important factors that can act as either enablers or barriers to global project performance. It has also shown that such a qualitative approach allowed us to examine the richness of the complexity associated with the interactions among the factors. From the standpoint of enablers and barriers, this approach allows us to understand how each of these elements can behave as an enabler as well as an inhibitor to the success of global projects. Consequently, these results will help redefine some of the key project management processes to improve performance. The model can be used to set priorities within a global project and assess the ability of global projects in meeting their objectives. These models help to evaluate global projects. They can be used as tools to improve project management processes and they can also serve as structures to develop projectspecific strategies and priorities.

Beranek, P., Broder, J., Reineg, B., Romano, N., & Sump, S. (2005). Management of virtual project teams: Guidelines for team leaders. Communications for the Association for Information Systems, 16, 247259. Byosiere, P., & Luethge, D. J. (2007). Project management processes across borders: A comparison of EU-US corporate subsidiary project activities. Project Management Journal, 38(2), 1829. Damodara, K. U. (2000, November December). Global project managementNot business as usual. Journal of Management in Engineering, pp. 2933. Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2005). The success of international development projects, trust and communication: An African perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 23, 237252. Dodson, W. R. (1998, April). Virtually international: Managing globalized project teams. PM Network, pp. 2931. Dub, L., & Par, G. (2001). Global virtual teams. Communications of the ACM, 44(12), 7174. Erickson, J. M., & Ranganathan, C. (2006). Project management capabilities: Key to application development offshore outsourcing. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 199208). Evans, J., & Mavondo, F. T. (2002). Psychic distance and organizational performance: An empirical examination of international retailing operations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33, 515532. Grabowski, M., & Roberts, K. (1999). Risk mitigation in virtual organizations. Science, 11, 704721. Grosse, C. U. (2002). Managing communication within virtual intercultural teams. Business Communications Quarterly, 65(4), 2238. Halpin, D. W., & Huang, R. Y. (1995). Competition and future needs of

international clients. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 121, 191196. Hamilton, J. B., Knouse, S. B., & Hill, V. (2009). Google in China: A managerfriendly heuristic model for resolving cross-cultural ethical conflicts. Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 143157. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. New York: McGraw-Hill. Horii, T., Jin, Y., & Levitt, R. E. (2005). Modeling and analyzing cultural influences on project team performance. Computational & Mathematical Organizational Theory, 10, 305321. Jarvenpaa, S., & Leidner, D. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791815. Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 187213. Kerzner, H. (1995). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (5th ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Khang, D. B., & Moe, T. L. (2008). Success criteria and factors for international development projects: A lifecycle-based framework. Project Management Journal, 39(1), 7284. Khattab, A. A., Anchir, J., & Davies, E. (2007). Managerial perception of political risk in international projects. International Journal of Project Management, 25, 734743. Khazanchi, D., & Zigurs, I. (2005). Patterns of effective management of virtual projectsAn exploratory study. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. Lee-Kelley, L. (2006). Locus of control and attitudes to working in virtual teams. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 234243. Lee-Kelley, L., & Sankey, T. (2008). Global virtual teams for value creation
69

References
Adenfelt, M., & Lagerstrm, K. (2006). Enabling knowledge creation and sharing in transnational projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 191198. Anantatmula, V. (2008). Role of technology in project manager performance model. Project Management Journal, 39(1), 3448. Baker, G. (2002). The effects of synchronous collaborative technologies on decision making: A study of virtual teams. Information Resources Management Journal, 15(4), 7993. Barczak, G., McDonough, E. F., & Athanassiou, N. (2006, MayJune). So you want to be a global project leader. Research Technology Management, pp. 2835.

April 2010 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

PAPERS

Managing Global Projects: A Structured Approach for Better Performance

and project success: A case study. International Journal of Project Management, 26, 5162. Lehmann, H. (2004). The Australasian produce cooperative: A global information system project. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 13, 220232. Lientz, B. L., & Rea, K. P. (2003). International project management. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Lin, B. W., & Berg, D. (2001). Effects of cultural differences on technology transfer projects: An empirical study of Taiwanese manufacturing companies. International Journal of Project Management, 19, 287293. Mahalingam, A., & Levitt, R. E. (2007). Institutional theory as a framework for analyzing conflicts on global projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133, 517528. Majchrzak, A., Rice, R., Malhotra, A., King, N., & Ba, S. (2000). Technology adaption: The case of a computer supported inter-organizational virtual team. MIS Quarterly, 24, 569600. Marmer, C. (1998, November). Building teams across borders. Global Workforce, pp. 1317. Mowshowitz, A. (1997). Virtual organization. Communications of the ACM, 40(9), 3037. Nidiffer, K., & Dolan, D. (2005, September/October). Evolving distributed project management. IEEE Software, pp. 6372. Orr, R. J., & Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutional exceptions on global projects: A process model. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 562588. Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. (1987). Variations in critical success factors over stages in the project life cycle. Journal of Management, 14(1), 518. Pinto, J. K., Slevin, D. P., & Dennis, P. (1987). Critical factors in successful project implementation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 34(1), 2227. Project Management Institute (PMI). (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide)Fourth Edition. Newtown Square, PA: Author. Rad, P. F., & Anantatmula, V. (2009 June-July). Attributes of a harmonious project team. Presented at the AACE International 53rd Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA. Sarker, S., & Sahay, S. (2002). Information systems development by US-Norwegian virtual teams: Implications of time and space. Presented at the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Schweiger, D. M. (1998, January March). Networking global style. Business Economic Review, pp. 36. Sennara, M., & Hartman, F. (2002). Managing cultural risks on international projects. Proceedings of the PMI Annual Seminars and Symposium. Retrieved February 17, 2010, from http://www.risksig.com/members/ 2002_papers/global07.pdf Simons, M. (2006). Global software development: A hard problem requiring a host of solutions. Communications of the ACM, 49(10), 3233. Singer, C. (2001, April). Leveraging a worldwide project team. PM Network, pp. 3640. Snow, C. C., Snell, S. A., & Davison, S. C. (1996). Use transnational teams to globalize your company. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 5067. Tavcar, J., Z avbi, R., Verlinden, J., & Duhovnik, J. (2005). Skills for effective communication and work in global product development teams. Journal of Engineering Design, 16, 557576. Waller, R. J. (1975). Application of interpretive structural modeling to priority-setting in urban systems management. In M. Baldwin (Ed.), Portraits of complexity (Battelle Monograph No. 9). Columbus, OH: Battelle Memorial Institute. Wang, X., & Liu, L. (2007). Cultural barriers to the use of western project management in Chinese enterprises: Some empirical evidence from Yunnan Province. Project Management Journal, 38(3), 6173. Warfield, J. N. (1973). Intent structures. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 3(2), 133140. Yasin, M. M., Martin, J., & Czuchry, A. (2000). An empirical investigation of international project management practices: The role of international experience. Project Management Journal, 31(2), 2030.

Vittal Anantatmula, DSc, PMP, CCE, is an associate professor of project management in the College of Business at Western Carolina University. His current research is focused on integrating knowledge management and project management, knowledge management effectiveness, project management performance, and leadership. He has had his work published in journals such as the Journal of Knowledge Management, the International Journal of Knowledge Management, the Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems (VINE), the International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, and Project Management Journal. Prior to joining Western Carolina University, he was at the George Washington University teaching and directing a graduate degree program. He has worked in the petroleum and power industries for several years as an electrical engineer and project manager. He holds a B.E. degree (electrical engineering) from Andhra University, an MBA degree from IIM-MDI, and MS and DSc degrees in engineering management from the George Washington University. He is a Certified Project Management Professional and Certified Cost Engineer.

Michael Thomas, PhD, MPM, BTP, PMP, is an assistant professor of project management at

70

April 2010 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Western Carolina University. He holds his PhD from the Business School at James Cook University, Australia, and a Master of Project Management (MPM) degree from Western Carolina University. His research interests are in

the areas of the leadership development process, global project management, and the project lessons learned. He has published several articles in scholarly journals and has presented papers at conferences on topics in these

domains. In addition to his current teaching position, he has over 30 years of project management experience in the IT industry, town management, factory management, and the iron and steel industry.-

Appendix A: ISM Method

1. Identification of Elements: The elements of the system are identified and listed. In this study, it is achieved using literature review. However, brainstorming or other research methods can also be used. 2. Contextual Relationship: A contextual relationship between elements is established, depending upon the objective of the modeling exercise. 3. Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM): This matrix represents the respondents perception of an element-to-element directed relationship. Four symbols are used to represent the type of relationship that can exist between two elements of the system under consideration. These are: a. for the relation from element Ei to Ej, but not in the reverse direction; b. for the relation from Ei to Ej, but not in the reverse direction; c. for an interrelation between Ei and Ej (both directions); and d. to represent that Ei and Ej are unrelated. 4. Reachability Matrix (RM): A Reachability Matrix is then prepared that converts the symbolic SSIM Matrix into a binary matrix. The following conversion rules apply: If the relation Ei to Ej 1 in SSIM, then element Eij 1 and Eji 0 in RM If the relation Ei to Ej 2 in SSIM, then element Eij 0 and Eji 1 in RM If the relation Ei to Ej 3 in SSIM, then element Eij 1 and Eji 1 in RM If the relation Ei to Ej 4 in SSIM, then element Eij 0 and Eji 0 in RM The initial RM is then modified to show all direct and indirect reachabilitiesthat is, if Eij 1 and Ejk 1, then Eik 1. 5. Level Partitioning: Level partitioning is done in order to classify the elements into different levels of the ISM structure. For this purpose, two sets are associated with each element Ei of the systema Reachability Set (Ri; that is, a set of all elements that can be reached from the element Ei, and an Antecedent Set (Ai; that is, a set of all elements that element Ei can be reached by). In the first iteration, all elements, for which Ri RiAi, are Level I Elements. In successive iterations, the elements identified as level elements in the previous iterations are deleted, and new elements are selected for successive levels using the same rule. Accordingly, all the elements of the system are grouped into different levels. 6. Canonical Matrix: Grouping together elements in the same level develops this matrix. The resultant matrix has most of its upper triangular elements as 0, and lower triangular elements as 1. This matrix is then used to prepare a digraph. 7. Digraph: Digraph is a term derived from directional graph, and, as the name suggests, is a graphical representation of the elements, their directed relationships, and hierarchical levels. The initial digraph is prepared on the basis of the canonical matrix. This is then pruned by removing all transitivities, to form a final digraph.

April 2010 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

71

PAPERS

Managing Global Projects: A Structured Approach for Better Performance

8. Interpretive Structural Model: The ISM is generated by replacing all element numbers with the actual element description. The ISM, therefore, gives a very clear picture of the system of elements and their flow of relationships.

Appendix B: ISM Data

Input Element 1: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Element 2: 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Element 3: 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 Element 4: 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Element 5: 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Element 6: 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 Element 7: 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Element 8: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Element 9: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Element 10: 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 Element 11: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Element 12: 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 Reachability Matrix Element 1: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Element 2: 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Element 3: 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 Element 4: 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Element 5: 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Element 6: 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 Element 7: 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Element 8: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Element 9: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Element 10: 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 Level Partition Level Element 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11 1 7 2, 8, 9 6, 10, 12 3, 5 4

Canonical Matrix Element 11: Level 1: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Element 1: Level 2: 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Element 7: Level 3: 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Element 2: Level 4: 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Element 8: Level 4: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Element 9: Level 4: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Element 6: Level 5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Element 10: Level 5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Element 12: Level 5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Element 3: Level 6: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 Element 5: Level 6: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 Element 4: Level 7: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1

72

April 2010 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Copyright of Project Management Journal is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. / Education and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.