Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 210 (2015) 96 – 104

4th International Conference on Leadership, Technology, Innovation and Business Management

Support of Project Management Methods by Project Management

Information System
Jana Kostalova.a , Libena Tetrevovab , Jan Svedikc, a
a,b,c
University of Pardubice, Studentska 95, 532 10 Pardubice, Czech Republic

Abstract

Utilization of project management methods in practice in more extensive projects is, due to high demands, only possible with
support of a Project Management Information System. Project managers can use a number of applications offering a wide range of
functions in the areas of project planning, monitoring and continuous evaluation of project implementation, and final evaluation
when it has finished. An important function offered by a Project Management Information System is the possibility of sharing data
concerning the running projects across the project team and their surroundings. Project Management Information System
applications are primarily designed to support project management, so it is worth considering how much the available applications
support the project management methods defined in the project management theory, how much software applications make it
possible to get support in individual stages of the project life cycle, and if this scope is sufficient from the point of view of quality
project management. The evaluation involved selected project management methods suitable for individual project life cycle stages,
and the scope of support of individual project management methods within the respective project life cycle stages was evaluated in
selected software applications.

Keywords: Project Management Methods, Project Management Information System, Project Management Software Application, Project
Management Software Function.

© th
©2015
2014The Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd. This and/or
Ltd. Selection is an open access articleunder
peer-review underresponsibility
the CC BY-NC-ND
of 4license
International Conference
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
on Leadership,
Peer-review under Technology and
responsibility of theInnovation
InternationalManagement
Conference on Leadership, Technology, Innovation and Business Management

1. Introduction

The project management theory offers a number of simple and advanced methods which help with project
management in individual project life cycle stages and lead to increased success of project implementation. A number
of studies confirm that the project success rate increases if project management methods are used, e.g. Patanakul et al.
(2010) and Lappe, Spang (2014). Application of project management methods is made easier by software applications
which lead to a decrease in the time demands of project management, simplification of the process of implementation
of the respective method, and also an increase in the success rate of project implementation. Utilization of software
applications to support project management is implemented in a number of ways. One of them is utilization of the
existing applications, e.g. within office software, spreadsheet processors, text editors, or software applications
supporting time management. In view of the fact that these tools are not able to cover the specific requirements

Corresponding author. Tel. + 420466037789 fax. +420466036308
E-mail address: jana.kostalova@upce.cz
1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the International Conference on Leadership, Technology, Innovation and Business Management
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.333
 Jana Kostalova et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 210 (2015) 96 – 104 97

relating to project planning, implementation, and evaluation, specific software applications have been developed to
support project management. Apart from software applications that are available on the market, a number of
organizations solving projects make use of their own applications to support project management, which they have
developed as a superstructure within the company information system. Their benefits reside in their high integration
with other software applications and use of common database sources. Overall, these software applications designed to
support project management are called a Project Management Information System (PMIS).
The functions of software applications supporting project management are gradually extended. Apart from project
management support in individual project life cycle stages, the other important functions of most such applications
include project documentation administration, sharing of this documentation across the project team, and any other
involved parties (Meredith and Mantel, 2006; Braglia and Frosolini, 2014), and support in the multi-project
environment (Ahlemann, 2009; Kaiser and Ahlemann, 2010; Reyck et al., 2005).
An increase in the project success rate thanks to utilization of a PMIS has been confirmed by available studies (Ali
et al., 2008). Therefore, utilization of project management methods and their processing using PMIS helps increase the
project success rate. So, it is necessary to assess how much the available PMIS software applications make it possible
to apply project management methods in practice.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Project Management, Project and Project Life Cycle

The basic project management terms are defined not only by the project management theory, but also by the
international project management standards. The basic project management standards include the standard of the
Project Management Institute (PMI), the standard of the Association for Project Management called PRojects IN
Controlled Environments 2 (PRINCE 2), and the standard of the International Project Management Association
(IPMA), creating national versions of the standard through its branches, e.g. in the Czech Republic in the form of the
National Standard Competences of Project Management.
The Project Management Institute (2004) states, in its standard, that “Project management is the application of
knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to project activities to meet project requirements. It is accomplished through
the application and integration of the project management processes of initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and
controlling, and closing.” The Association for Project Management (2012) defines, in its PRINCE 2 standard, project
management as “the process by which projects are defined, planned, monitored, controlled and delivered such that the
agreed benefits are realised”. According to the National Standard Competences of Project Management (Pitas et al.,
2010), “Project management is the planning, organizing, monitoring and controlling of all aspects of a project and the
management and leadership of all involved to achieve the project objectives safely and within agreed criteria for time,
cost, scope and performance/quality.”
The Project Management Institute (2004) standard defines a project as “a temporary endeavour undertaken to create
a unique product, service, or result”. The Association for Project Management (APM, 2012) defines, within its
PRINCE 2 standard, a project as “a unique, transient endeavour undertaken to achieve a desired outcome”. So, both
standards particularly point out the temporariness of a project and the uniqueness of the outcome project
implementation brings. Similarly, a project is defined by the National Standard Competences of Project Management
(Pitas et al., 2010) as a unique process limited by time, costs, and sources, implemented to create defined outcomes (to
fulfil project objectives) in the desired quality and in compliance with the valid standards and approved requirements.
Project preparation and implementation is usually divided into partial phases, which together form the project life
cycle. According to the standard of the Project Management Institute (2004), division of a project into partial phases
brings better control over the project and better interconnection within the solving organization. The Association for
Project Management (2012) divides, within the PRINCE 2 standard, the life cycle into five basic, successive phases:
concept, definition, implementation, handover and closeout. The National Standard Competences of Project
Management (Pitas et al., 2010) presents the project life cycle as a group of sequential successive phases expressing
the course of the given project, also taking account of pre-project stages dedicated to specification of the project intent,
and of post-project stages, intended for project evaluation. Maylor (2003) and Meredith and Mantel (2006) agree on
four project life cycle phases including the project concept, planning, implementation, and closeout. Oellgaard (2013)
divides the project life cycle into more phases: sales, scope, analysis, design, build, implementation, and operation.
98 Jana Kostalova et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 210 (2015) 96 – 104

Regardless of the number of phases into which the project life cycle is divided, this division makes it possible for
the solver to structure the course of action within the project and to focus on different activities in each phase. Division
of a project into time-limited phases aims to improve the conditions for controlling processes and activities within
individual phases. If needed, it is possible divide and structure individual phases further into lower levels for clearer
arrangement.
For successful implementation of individual project life cycle phases, there are different project management
methods available. However, there are also methods whose benefits are used within more phases or within the entire
course of the project life cycle (Patanakul et al., 2010).

2.2. Project Management Methods

The project management theory and practice offers a number of methods, tools and techniques supporting project
management. In the phase of concept, it is possible to use the Feasibility Study (Hapanova and Al-jiburi, 2009), the
Cost Benefit Analysis (Cambell and Brown, 2003), the financial analysis and assessment of the economic
effectiveness of a project (Mian, 2011), and the Logical Framework (Couillard et al., 2009; Norwegian Agency for
Development Cooperation, 1999) to define a project as precisely as possible and to assess its benefits.
In the phase of planning, the scope of a project and its time course can be precisely specified thanks to the Product
Breakdown Structure (APM, 2012), the Work Breakdown Structure (PMI, 2004), a network analysis method (the
Critical Path Method, the Metra Potential Method, the Critical Path Method/Cost, the Program Evaluation and Review
Technique, the Graphical Evaluation and Review Technique) (Hillier and Lieberman, 2005; Ravindran, 2008), the
Gantt chart (PMI, 2004) and the Critical Chain Method (Goldratt, 1997). For planning human resources, it is suitable
to make use of the Resource Breakdown Structure and the Resource Leveling (Rad and Cioffi, 2004), the
Responsibility Assignment Matrix (Melnic and Puiu, 2011), and the Stakeholders Analysis (PMI, 2004). It is also
important to identify any potential project risks in the planning phase, where it is possible to use the Risk Breakdown
Structure (PMI, 2004), or the quantitative and qualitative risk analysis (PMI, 2004; APM, 2012). To propose the time
schedule of a project and to plan the risks, it is convenient to use the Monte Carlo Method (PMI, 2004; APM, 2012).
In the project implementation phase, it is important to monitor the course of project implementation. The Earned
Value Management (Solanki, 2009; Storm, 2008) is a method that makes it possible to assess the course of action of a
project. When a project has finished, it is important to make assessment of the project using, for example, the Lessons
Learned (Carrilo et al., 2013; Jugdev, 2012), or using the McKinsey 7S model (Poster and Applegarth, 2006). A
specific approach to project management within the entire project life cycle is then represented by the Agile Methods
(Beck, 2001; Koerner, 2005).

2.3. Project Management Information System

PMIS represents a standardized set of automated tools available on the level of the organization and integrated into
the system (PMI, 2004). The scope of automated functionality of software tools and their implementation is always
based on particular requirements set by the project solver, and it is suitable to proceed from simpler solutions to
sophisticated integrated software systems.
Meredith and Mantel (2006) particularly appreciate the PMIS benefit in processing more extensive projects. For the
choice of PMIS, they recommend choosing an application that offers the functions of friendliness, schedules,
calendars, budgets, reports, graphics, networks, charts, migration and consolidation. According to Briglia and
Frosolini (2012), PMIS “allows individuals or teams to track projects from their conception to their execution,
providing project managers and other team members with pertinent information such as the scheduling of resources,
budget management, supplier management, time management, task assignment, quality control, documentation and
collaborative tools”. The current trends in development and utilization of PMIS in practice head from single-project
management towards integrated multi-project planning with exploitation of shared sources (Briglia and Frosolini,
2012).
When using software tools, it is necessary to remember that software applications are auxiliary tools only, and
definition of their scope and utilization in project implementation must be based on the general concept of procedures
within project management of the given organization. PMIS is helpful for an organization solving projects only of the
functionality of the installed software application is used entirely.
 Jana Kostalova et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 210 (2015) 96 – 104 99

Software Applications Supporting Project Management

PMIS in the form of particular software applications offers several possibilities of solution. There are simple
freeware applications, cloud solutions, more complex applications developed by smaller local software houses,
complex internationally available applications, and sophisticated solutions supporting portfolio management with a
wide scope of functionality and the possibility of adaptation to user requirements.
For project management, it is possible to use, from the current offer on the market, the simplest freeware tools, like
OpenProj, since 2012 known as ProjectLibre (ProjectLibre, 2014), GanttProject (GanttProject, 2014), dotProject
(dotProject, 2005), or Open Workbench (Open Workbench, 2014). There are also web applications in the cloud mode,
e.g. Gantter (Gantter, 2014), iProject (iProject, 2012), or AdminProject (AdminProject, 2014), bringing, on the one
hand, a various scope of functionality and, on the other hand, an advantage in unlimited availability of data with
ensured internet access. The web application principle was also used in development of the British software of
Concerto Project Management Software (Parasoft, 2014).
For simple, but also more complex projects in a wide scope of functionality for project planning, project monitoring
during their implementation, and for evaluation, or, as the case may be, also for project portfolio management, it is
possible to make use of the most wide-spread application of Microsoft Project in the available version in the form of a
number of products intended for management of individual projects and project portfolios (Microsoft, 2013). The
applications of EasyProject (EasyProject, 2013) and MinuteMan Systems (MinuteMan Systems, 2013) are some of the
other applications available on the market with the possibility of adaptation of the scope of application, the size and
number of implemented projects. For complex projects or for project portfolio management, there are also software
applications that are superstructures or parts of management information systems, e.g. Primavera - Primavera P6
Enterprise Project Portfolio Management and Primavera Instantis PPM tools (ICZ, a.s., 2014), PD TRAK (PD TRAK,
2010), JIRA (Atlassian, 2014), Hewlett Packard Project and Portfolio Management Software (Hewlett Packard, 2014),
IBM Rational Portfolio Management (IBM, 2014), or a specialized part of SAP (SAP, 2014).

2.4. Utilization of Software Applications Supporting Project Management in Practice

On the basis of available surveys, it is possible to assess what the scope of utilization of software applications
supporting project management is in practice. As evidenced by the survey of the Information Week´s 2012 Enterprise
Project Management implemented in North America in 2011, which analyzed answers of 508 respondents, utilization
of software tools supporting project management reaches 53% (Feldman, 2012). A similar survey assessing the scope
of utilization of software tools was implemented by Pricewaterhouse in 2006 evaluating answers of 213 respondents
from 26 countries. This study proved utilization of PMIS by 77% respondents (Pricewaterhouse, 2007). In
comparison, a survey implemented in the Czech Republic by Spolecnost pro projektove rizeni in 2012 with 178
respondents – project managers proved utilization of software applications by 62% respondents (Kratky, 2012).
The Pricewaterhouse survey also proved that software applications are used more for support of individual projects
than for management of project portfolios. Exploitation of PMIS is higher in more complex projects and also in
organizations with a higher level of project management (Pricewaterhouse, 2007). The Pricewaterhouse survey also
assessed the areas in which the respondents use software support; this support was most of all used in the areas of time
management, cost management, risk management, and reporting (Pricewaterhouse, 2007). A similar focus of used
software applications was confirmed by a survey implemented by Spolecnost pro projektove rizeni in the Czech
Republic in 2008 assessing answers of 30 respondents, which declared use of software applications especially for time
planning, source planning and management, budget planning and management, project monitoring within the course
of its implementation, and for ensuring availability of the monitored data (Spolecnost pro projektove rizeni, 2008).

3. Software Support of Selected Project Management Methods within the Project Life Cycle

3.1. Research Goal, Methodology and Data Collection

Within the survey, the authors were aiming to assess available PMIS applications from the point of view of support
of project management methods used in individual project life cycle stages within the functionality of these
applications. Applications representing all the groups of software applications present on the market were chosen from
a large group of software applications within discussion with experts from the academic environment. The chosen
100 Jana Kostalova et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 210 (2015) 96 – 104

applications included a representative of freeware applications (ProjectLibre), freeware cloud solutions (Gantter),
software developed by a local producer (Easyproject), a representative of applications used on a mass scale (Microsoft
Project) and applications for complex management of projects and project portfolios (Primavera).
Once the applications were chosen, on the basis of the set research goal, the suppliers of the above five selected
applications were then addressed and asked to specify which project management methods are supported within their
applications. The suppliers were addressed by email. Data collection was performed from June to August 2014, and
the collected data was subsequently analyzed.

3.2. Analyses and Results

The chosen representative of freeware applications was one of the most widely spread applications – ProjectLibre.
This application makes it possible, when planning, to structure the project outcomes, to plan the schedule, sources, and
costs. It does not support project portfolio management. Its advantage is that it is compatible with other applications, it
is possible to view files created in MS Project and in Primavera. The software is available under all the most
commonly used operating systems (Windows, Unix, Linux, Mac).
Freely accessible cloud solutions were represented by the application of Gantter. The condition of availability of
this application is access to the web environment. Gantter is integrated with Google Drive. Also in this application, it
is possible to view files created in different applications (MS Project). The scope of its functionality is limited; the
application serves for support of management of project time and sources. Its advantage is availability of data and
synergy with other Google applications.
MS Project was chosen as the most commonly used application on the market. Currently, it is available in the
versions of Microsoft Project Standard 2013 for management of single projects, and Microsoft Project Server 2013 for
management of project portfolios. In this application, it is possible to use its compatibility with other Microsoft
products. Microsoft also offers a cloud solution through Microsoft Project Online and Project Lite within Project Pro
for Office 365. Microsoft Project enables a wide range of activities within project planning, implementation, and
evaluation.
Smaller local applications of the Czech origin were represented by EasyProject. It is also an on-line application
with the possibility of extending its functionality in the form of additional installations. It covers project management
from the points of view of project time, source and cost management. It makes it possible to plan a project and
monitor its course, it offers the possibility of saving the project documentation, and it is a quick tool for
communication and data handover within the project team. It also supports projects applying an agile approach,
Kanban and SCRUM. This application is also accessible through iPad, iPhone, iAndroid.
Primavera represents the group of the most sophisticated applications supporting project management. It is an
application built on Oracle database, offering a large support of activities in project management, project portfolio
management, activity project management office. The name Primavera covers a number of products of Oracle
Primavera P6 Enterprise Project Portfolio Management for complex management of project portfolios; there are also
extensions of this application in the form of Primavera Instantis PPM Tools, Primavera P6 Progress Report, Oracle
Primavera P6 Analytics, Risk Analysis P6 Professional Project Management, Primavera P6 Progress Report, and
Primavera Gateway. These extensions make it possible to perform more detailed analyses, to monitor fulfilment of
tasks, to analyze and manage project risks, and to access data through the web interface, mobile communication tools,
and interconnection with other IT systems. Its disadvantage is that it is a costly application, and so it is only suitable
for management of a large number of extensive projects.
The support of the selected project management methods was assessed in each of the selected applications. Table 1
presents an overview of functions of the selected software applications from the point of view of support of the
selected project management methods.
 Jana Kostalova et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 210 (2015) 96 – 104 101

Table 1 Project management methods within software applications supporting project management
Project Management Methods

MS Project Standard

Primavera - Instantis
ProjectLibre

Easy Project

PPM tools
Gantter

2013
Phase: concept

Feasibility Study X*) X

CBA (Cost Benefit Analysis) X
Financial Analysis and Evaluation of Project X X
Logical Framework X

Phase: planning
PBS (Product Breakdown Structure) X X
WBS (Work Breakdown Structure) X X X X X
CPM (Critical Path Method) X X X X
MPM (Metra Potential Method) X
CPM/COST (Critical Path Method/Cost) X
PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique) X X X
GERT (Graphical Evaluation and Review Technique) X
Monte Carlo simulation X
Gantt Chart X X X X X
Critical Chain Method X
Resource Breakdown Structure and Resource Levelling X X X X
Responsibility Assignment Matrix X*) X X
Stakeholders Analysis X*) X
RiBS (Risk Breakdown Structure) X*) X
Qualitative Risk Analysis X X
Quantitative Risk Analysis X X

Phase: implementation
EVM (Earned Value Management) X X X

Phase: evaluation
Lessons Learned X*) X X
McKinsey model of 7 S for Project Evaluation X*) X

Phases concept, planning, implementation and evaluation

Agile Methods X*) X X
102 Jana Kostalova et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 210 (2015) 96 – 104

Legend:
X method is supported
X*) method is partially supported

On the basis of the collected data, it is possible to state that the support of project management methods is different
in different project life cycle phases. In the phase of preparation of the project intent, freeware applications do not
offer any support. The support is also limited in the other applications with the exception of Primavera.
A similar situation is with the methods intended for the final project phases. Freeware applications do not offer the
possibility of support when the project is evaluated, and so it is possible to use them as a source of data only. By
contrast, Primavera and MS Project offer sufficient support in the final project phase.
Most supported project management methods within the assessed applications are in the phases of project planning
and implementation, where all the applications offer project planning in time, even though the tools are limited in the
case of freeware applications.

4. Assessment of Selected Software Applications and Approaches to their Utilization

On the basis of the collected data, it is possible to state that the support of project management methods is not
sufficient in the representatives of cloud solutions, as they only support the basic methods for management of the
project scope using the Work Breakdown Structure, project management in time using the Gantt Chart and the Critical
Path Method, and source management using the Resource Breakdown Structure.
A similar situation is in freeware applications. Also there, the offer of support is limited to management of the
project scope, project management in time using the Gantt Chart and the Critical Path Method, and source
management. However, compared with cloud solutions, it is also possible to use, apart from the Work Breakdown
Structure, the Product Breakdown Structure, and support of the PERT method is available for project management in
time.
This means that both applications are only suitable for management of smaller, simple projects, and application of
other methods is only possible without help of software support.
The software of a local production of EasyProject offers insufficient support of the network analysis method; it
only offers a simpler tool for project management in time using the Gantt Chart. However, the application can be used
for other areas, specifically for financial assessment of projects, and also partly for source management. Also, as one
of the few, it offers support in the case of application of Agile Management. Also here, the project solver has to opt,
when applying other methods, for tools different from software support of the chosen application.
Microsoft Project covers the basic range of methods and offers sufficient support for project management in time,
source management, and cost management. Support of risk management is sufficient, too. Support is weaker in the
phase of project preparation. The advantage of Microsoft Project is its wide range of possible adjustments according to
the project solvers’ requirements. There are individual installations, and also server solutions enabling data sharing,
with a different scope of the possible access. The application can be used for management of project portfolios,
including management of shared sources. There is also the possibility of a cloud solution and data access via the
internet.
Primavera is financially the most demanding solution, but it offers full coverage of the selected project
management methods. Compared to the other applications, it also offers support of management using the Critical
Chain Method and Agile Management. Therefore, in this case it is possible to manage both single projects of different
scopes and a portfolio of projects with full support of PMIS within the entire course of the project life cycle.

Conclusion

Mainly freeware applications and freely available cloud tools for support of project management offer insufficient
range of supported methods. These tools are only usable for simple projects with small budgets, short implementation
periods, or uncomplicated implementation processes. In the case of more complex and extensive projects, it is
necessary to make use of more sophisticated software applications, like MS Project or Primavera. However, their
disadvantages include high financial demands, demands on extensive knowledge of project managers and project team
members for work with these software applications, and the necessity of reflecting their utilization in a single project
management methodology on the level of the organization.
 Jana Kostalova et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 210 (2015) 96 – 104 103

Next research should be aimed at assessment of the scope of utilization of PMIS by project managers and project
team members. Such research could evaluate to what extent project management methods using PMIS are actually
used in practice, what functions are the most suitable from the point of view of project managers, and where the
functionality is insufficient for support of any of the project management methods.

References

Ahlemann, F. (2009), Towards a Conceptual Reference Model for Project Management Information Systems, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 19-30.
Ali, A. S. B.,Anbari, F. T. and Money, W. H. (2008), Impact of Organization and Project Factors on Acceptance and Usage of Project Management
Software and Perceived Project Success, Project Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 5-33.
Adminproject. (2014), Feattures of AdminProject, retrieved August 14th 2014 from https://www.adminproject.eu/features/.
Association for Project Management. (2012), APM Body of Knowledge, Rirborough: Association for Project Management.
Atlassian. (2014), JIRA retrieved August 14th 2014 from https://www.atlassian.com/software/jira.
Beck, K. et al. (2001), Manifesto for Agile Software Development, retrieved July 20th 2014 from http://www.agilemanifesto.org/.
Braglia, M. and Frosolini, M. (2012), An Integrated Approach to Implement Project Management Information Systems within the Extended
Enterprise, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 18-29.
Cambell, H. and Brown, R. (2003), Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carrilo, P.; Ruikar, K.; Fuller, P. (2013), When Will We Learn? Improving Lessons Learned Practice in Construction, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 567-578.
Couillard, J., Garon, S. and Riznic, J. (2009), The Logical Framework Approach – Millennium, Project Management Journal, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 31-
44.
Dotproject. (2005), The Home of dotProject – the Open Source Project Management Tool, retrieved August 14th 2014 from
http://www.dotproject.net.
Easyproject. (2013), On-line Project Management Software Presentation (in Czech), retrieved August 15th 2014 from
http://www.easyproject.cz/cz/rizeni-projektu-on-line-predstaveni-software.
Feldman, J. (2012), Enterprise Project Management Survey, retrieved August 25th 2014 from
http://reports.informationweek.com/abstract/83/8656/it-business-strategy/research-2012-enterprise-project-management.html.
Gantter. (2014), Collaborative Cloud Scheduling Made Easy, retrieved August 14th 2014 from http://www.gantter.com/.
GanttProject. (2014), Free Project Scheduling and Management, retrieved August 14th 2014 from: http://www.ganttproject.biz/.
Goldratt, E. M. (1997), Critical Chain, New York: North River Press.
Haponava, T. and Al-Jibouri, S. (2009), Identifying Key Performance Indicators for Use in Control of Pre-project Stage Process in Construction,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 160-173.
Hewlett Packard. (2014), Project Portfolio Management Software, retrieved August 14th 2014 from http://www8.hp.com/us/en/software-
solutions/project-portfolio-management-it-portfolio-management/.
Hillier, F. S. and Lieberman, G. J. (2005), Introduction to Operations Research, New York: McGraw-Hill.
IBM. (2014), Project Portfolio Management with IBM Rational Focal Point, retrieved August 14th 2014 from
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/downloads/r/focalpoint/.
ICZ, a.s. (2014), Oracle Primavera P6 Enterprise Project Portfolio Management, retrieved August 16th 2014 from http://www.i.cz/co-
delame/verejna-sprava/nastroje-pro-rizeni-projektu/oracle-primavera-p6-enterprise-project-portfolio-management/.
iPROJECT. (2012), iProject Internet Document Administration (in Czech), retrieved August 16th 2014 from http://www.iproject.cz/iProject.asp.
Jugdev, K. (2012), Learning from Lessons Learned: Project Management Research Programme, American Journal of Economics and Business
Administration, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 13-22.
Kaiser, M. G. and Ahlemann, F. (2010), Measuring Project Management Information Systems Success - Towards a Conceptual Model and Survey
Instrument retrieved September 16th 2014 from http://is2.lse.ac.uk/asp/aspecis/20100126.pdf.
Koerner, M. (2005), Declaration of Interdependence, retrieved July 21st 2014 from http://pmdoi.org/.
Kratky, J. et al. (2012), Project Management in the Czech Republic, Report of Research Results, Brno: Spolecnost pro projektove rizeni.
Lappe, M. and Spang, K. (2014), Investment in Project Management Are Profitable: A Case Study-based Analysis of the Relationship between the
Costs and Benefits of Project Management, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 32, No. 4, 603-612.
Maylor, H. (2010), Project Management, Harlow: Pearson Education.
Melnic, A. and Puiu, T. (2011), The Management of Human Resources within Projects: the Structures of the Project Team, the Responsibility,
Economy Transdisciplinary Cognition, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 476-484.
Meredith, J. R. and Mantel, S. J. (2012), Project Management a Managerial Approach, Hoboken: John Wiley Sons.
Meredith, J. R. and Mantel, S. J. (2006), Project Management a Managerial Approach, Hoboken: John Wiley Sons.
Microsoft. (2013), Deliver Winning Projects, retrieved July 21st 2014 from Internet: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/project/.
Mian, M. A. (2011), Project Economics and Desion Analysis: Deterministic models, Tulsa: PennWell Books.
MinuteMan Systems. (2013), MinuteMan Project Management Software, retrieved July 21st 2014 from http://www.minuteman-
systems.com/index.htm.
Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation. (1999), The Logical Framework Approach (LFA). Oslo: NORAD.
Project Management Institute (2004), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, Newton Square: PMI.
Oellgaard, M. J. (2013), The Performance of Project Life Cycle Methdology in Practice, Project Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 5, pp. 65-83.
Open Workbench. (2014), Description, retrieved July 21st 2014 from http://sourceforge.net/projects/openworkbench/.
104 Jana Kostalova et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 210 (2015) 96 – 104

Parasoft. (2014), Concerto, retrieved August 16th 2014 from http://www.parasoft.com/development-testing-platform/alm?itemId=473.

Patanakul, P.; Iewwongcharoen, B. and Milosevic, D. (2010), An Empirical Study on the Use of Project Management Tools and Techniques Across
Project Life-cycle and Their Impact on Project Success, Journal of General Management, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 41-65.
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2007), Insights and Trends: Current Programme and Project Management Practices, retrieved June 14th 2012 from
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/operations-management/assets/pwc-global-project-management-survey-second-survey-2007.pdf.
Rad, P. F. and Cioffi, D. F. (2004), Work and Resource Breakdown Structure for Formalized Bottom-up Estimating, Cost Engineering, Vol. 46, No.
2, pp. 31-37.
PD-Trak Solutions. (2010), Project Portfolio Management Program Features, retrieved August 16th 2014 from http://pd-trak.com/.
Poster, K. and Applegarth, M. (2006), Project Management. Praha: Portal (in Czech).
ProjectLibre. (2014), ProjectLibre, retrieved August 15th 2014 from http://www.projectlibre.cz/.
Ravindran, A. R. (2008), Operations Research and Management Science Handbook. Boca Raton: Taylor Francis Group.
Reyck, B. D.; Grushka-Cockayne, Y.; Lockett, M.; Calderini, S. R.; Moura, M. and Sloper, A. (2005), The Impact of Project Portfolio Management
on Information Technology Projects, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23, No. 7, pp. 524-537.
SAP. (2014), SAP Portfolio and Project Management, retrieved August 14th 2014 from
http://global.sap.com/community/eBook/2012_05_PPM/en/index.html#/page/1.
Solanki, P. (2009), Earned Value Management: Integrated View of Cost and Schedule Performance. New Delhi: Global India Publications.
Spolecnost pro projektove rizeni. (2008), Outcomes of the Project Management Computer Support (in Czech), retrieved August 15th 2014 from
http://www.ipma.cz/dokumenty_sekci/Anketa-SPR-SW.pdf (in Czech).
Storms, K. (2008), Earned Value Management Implementation in an Agency Capital Improvement Program, Cost Engineering, Vol. 50, No. 12, pp.
17-40.