Selling Project Management to Senior Executives:

What’s the Hook?

Kam Jugdev, PMP, MEng, MHSA, BSc, BSc, Project Manager, IBM Canada Ltd.
Janice Thomas, Ph.D., MBA, BSc, University of Calgary
Connie L. Delisle, Ph.D. Candidate, MSc, BA, BEd, University of Calgary
Pam Buckle, Ph.D. Candidate, MBA, BA, University of Calgary

Introduction • Identify the compelling arguments of how project manage-

Worldwide, project management tools and techniques continue
to gain acceptance in many industry sectors. Increasingly, com-
panies espouse project management as a core competency. On
one hand, we are noting a growing interest in elements of proj-
ect management in virtually every segment of every industry.
However, over 30% of projects end up being cancelled in mid-
stream and over half of projects run as high as 190% over bud-
get and 220% over the original time estimate (KPMG, 1997;
Standish Group, 1995). Although lost opportunity costs can be
difficult to measure, KPMG’s (1997) survey of over 1,400 senior
organizations found the lack of top management commitment
to be a key factor in failed projects. Despite the pervasive high
failure rate of projects and advocacy of project management by
practitioners, the serious, long-term investment in project man-
agement remains a tough sell. The difficulty in selling project
management internally can be compounded by stiff competition
between firms (i.e., consultants, product sales representatives)
jockeying for senior executives’ time to espouse on the wonders
of their project management methodologies over others.
Over the last 10 years, the topic of selling project management
has generated a significant amount of interest both within PMI®
as evidenced by papers presented at PMI® conferences (see for
example Block, 1991, 1992) and by PMI’s recent sponsoring of
a research project on the topic. The authors of this paper are con-
ducting this research for PMI® and this paper represents the find-
ings from Phase I. The paper presents practical insights gained
from interviews aimed at identifying best practices necessary to
build senior management awareness of the value and benefits of
project management to their core business. The research team in-
terviewed experienced practitioners familiar with selling and
purchasing project management. A grounded theory approach
was used to identify trends or themes related to successful and
unsuccessful sales strategies. Particular attention was paid to
the similarities and differences in how the sample groups un-
derstood project management and its benefits.
By exploring situations where project management has been
successfully or unsuccessfully introduced into organizations, we
begin to:
ment benefits the organizations
• Articulate the practical and political approaches for gaining ac-
cess to executives.
The paper begins with some background to the research and
is followed by a brief introduction to the Phase I methodology,
preliminary findings and recommendations for practitioners.
Background
We set out to explore the project management, marketing and or-
ganizational literature to provide a framework for understand-
ing the issues around selling project management. The following
is a brief summary of some of the important issues we used to
frame Phase I of this research initiative.
Disconnect Between “Selling” and “Project
Management”
The terms “selling” and “project management” seem discon-
nected in the eyes and minds of most project managers.
According to the Webster’s dictionary selling means to “pro-
mote the sale, acceptance or adoption of ” (1984, pp. 628). A
quick review of the project management practitioner literature
shows that project managers do promote and advocate elements
of project management in the course of their work. Project man-
agers generally promote project management by describing the
features of tools and techniques and their inherent project ben-
efits related to the priority triangle of time, cost and scope. Less
frequently do project manager sales strategies tie project man-
agement outcomes to corporate level outcomes and strategies.
What Senior Executives Are Looking For
Generally, senior executives look for information to help them
make sound business decisions as well as position themselves fa-
vorably in terms of their personal and professional growth. For
example, they look for ways to measure and increase the return
on their organization’s investments and reduce expenditures
(Dinsmore, 1996; McElroy, 1996). These outcomes are tied to
corporate strategy not individual project outcomes.

Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium

September 7–16, 2000 • Houston,Texas, USA
How Do Sellers and Buyers Interact?
Sellers and buyers act either tactically (short term, quick win) or
strategically (long term, slow win). The first level of selling refers to
tactical approaches that advocate a strong product focus.The second
level refers to strategic selling where one works with the customer to
find the right solutions to business problems. The third level refers
to competitive selling whereby one develops broader business rela-
tionships that help customers achieve their business objectives
(Gardner, Bistritz & Klompmaker, 1996). Over the past 30 years
there has been a noticeable shift in the three levels of sales proficiency
toward the second and third stage. Senior executives have less time
for tactical approaches and are seeking business relationships
(Gardner, Bistritz & Klompmaker, 1996). Developing a relationship
as a trusted advisor improves the likelihood of a successful sale.
Need for Alignment of Values
Frost (1999) suggests a value continuum for aligning buyers and
sellers that builds on the Gardner, Bistritz, and Klompmaker (1996)
model. It portrays value on a continuum, with foundation values
of efficiency (e.g., return on investment, cost reductions, revenue
generation, increased market share) and effectiveness (e.g., orga-
nizational effectiveness, customer satisfaction) at one-end and in-
novation values (market expansion, advantage creation) at the
other. Frost’s model portrays the promise-centric values critical to
managers and relates them to how they are sold. For example, tac-
tical selling involves both the vendor and customer being focused
on the features of project management in short term, quick fix re-
lationships. Conversely, strategic selling takes on a consultant/cus-
tomer approach whereby the potential exists for the strategic selling
of solutions to business problems. Finally, competitive selling in-
volves a business-to-business partnership that is more encom-
passing in terms of its focus on both organizations. Sellers generally
craft their messages based on their experiences; successful messages
reflect the buyer’s needs as the buyer understands them.
Selling and Triggers
Successful selling strategies include an approach to trigger a
need in the buyer, a prepared response that situates the product
as the best solution and evidence supporting the argument (Don,
2000). Sometimes the need is triggered by events or circum-
stances external to the sales effort (e.g., a crisis) but these type of
triggers are not as useful in the sales process as the seller has lit-
tle or no control over their timing or occurrence. Successful
salespeople attempt to develop trigger strategies for their prod-
ucts that are more within their control by exploring the needs of
the buyer and framing the product to address those needs.
This review made us speculate that the difficulty in “selling”
project management may be caused by a misalignment between
buyers and sellers (executives, project managers and consul-
tants) around project management values and how they seek to
buy and sell. If senior executives often receive mixed messages
with respect to the benefits of project management, there may be
a disconnect between the values used to sell and those used to buy
Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium
September 7–16, 2000 • Houston,Texas, USA
project management. Based on this review, we set out to confirm
this and gain some concrete insights into the magnitude and na-
ture of the problem by exploring the following two questions.
1. How do “sellers” and “buyers” understand project manage-
ment’s functions and value?
2. How is project management sold in organizations?
The Study
We interviewed a total of 23 participants. Initially, participants
from the Project Management Advisory Council (PMAC)—
(companies that advise the Project Management Specialization
at the University of Calgary) served as lead contacts. From this
beginning we used a snowball technique to identify further in-
terviewees. Interviewees fit into one of three categories:
Senior Managers (Executives, CEOs, CIOs or Vice Presidents)
representing the influential group of individuals making deci-
sions to purchase or not purchase project management (n=9).
Project Managers/Practitioners (Project Management Office
Managers, Project Managers or Directors of Project
Management) championing/selling Project Management largely
in the context of their organizations) (n=6).
External Project Management Consultants/Experts whose
experiences included both successful and unsuccessful attempts
to sell project management to organizations (n= 8).
Participants were asked between 30–35 semi-structured, pre-
tested qualitative questions. The questions focused on the sim-
ilarities and differences in how these three sample groups
understood project management, project management bene-
fits, and the best way to present these. We use a Grounded the-
ory approach whereby findings are “inductively derived from the
study of the phenomenon it represents … it does not begin with
a theory and then proves it but begins with an area of study to
allow what is relevant to that area to emerge” (Strauss & Corbin,
1990, pp. 23). The analysis focused on identifying trends or
themes related to successful implementation strategies.
Participants represent a diverse set of organizations. 14 (61%)
were between 36–46 years, and 9 (39%) were between 46–55
years. Participants had practiced project management in such in-
dustries as oil and gas, information technology, telecommuni-
cations, consulting, healthcare, transportation and new product
development. 15 (65%) of those interviewed had between 11–20
years of project management experience and 8 (35%) had under
10 years of experience. At the time of this research, two partici-
pants had their Project Management Professional (PMP) certi-
fication and two were working towards it. In general, the
participants represented an experienced and educated group.
Findings
For the purposes of this paper, we present a summary of the find-
ings under two categories related to the questions we set out to
Exhibit 1. Common Decision Process for Buying Project Management

Context — External Triggers

Project Failures New Influence Environmental Competition Politics

Consultant Changes Best practices Economy
New staff Mega projects
Dot.coms

Organizational Crises

Financial cost reductions needed Efficiency Competitive pressures

External —
Problem Relationships
Recognition Referrals
Mentors
Education
Information Search
Relational (reactive if in tactical
mode—looking for quick fix)
Internal —
We do PM. We have
tools and techniques.
We are best in class
Need Thank God
Organizational Don’t bring in PM
recognition concern
Black magic

Accidental PM
no real change Denial Acceptance

Action
No internal Grow it Internal
Buy it Decision to go with
help Training
project management

Buy
commercial Consultation
product

Want value — Hire New PMs

buy tactical

answer. First we explore the participant’s understandings of
project management and any gaps that may exist and then we
look at the process of selling project management.
Are We Talking About the Same Thing?
Understandings of Project Management
All the participants initially described project management as per
the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge def-
initions. “A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to cre-
ate a unique product or service” (PMBOK® Guide, 1996, pp. 167).
“Project management is the application of knowledge, skills,
tools and techniques to project activities in order to meet or ex-
ceed stakeholder needs and expectations from a project” (pp.
167). They did not describe it as a philosophy and none of the
practitioners referred to specific methodologies. In general, the
basic understanding of project management appeared to be held
in common.
Once past the initial definition stage, a more varied under-
standing of project management came to light. Some viewed it
as a tool or technique and others viewed it as a lifestyle, some-
thing that was ingrained in them and they believe in it. Some de-
scribed it as “part of their makeup.” It was described in religious
terms on more than a few occasions and interviewees indicated
that they had “found the religion of project management” and
described themselves as “converts.” Most of the executives pro-
vided less passionate or detailed depictions. They tended to de-
scribe it as a tactical toolbox for getting things done.
Value of Project Management
To project managers the value of project management related to
being more efficient and effective in their roles, which helped

Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium

September 7–16, 2000 • Houston,Texas, USA
them with their track records and career paths. The measures of
most interest to them related to being “on time, on budget and
on spec.” As such, they focused on tactical strategies in selling
project management (features, attributes) because they tended
to be “heads down, in the trenches” and these were the values of
importance to them. To many in this category, the value of proj-
ect management was so obvious it almost didn’t bear explaining.
The value of project management to established consultants
in material terms rested in increasing revenue and establishing
their presence on accounts. They preferred to focus on strategic
level outcomes and to sell project management at that level how-
ever they were willing to focus on whatever benefits the client
wanted to buy. Smaller consultants tended to sell project man-
agement benefits relative to their individual skills and expertise.
The value of project management to executives related to
being more efficient and effective in their business capacities and
ultimately in how it helped them with their careers. They wanted
to buy services that were aligned to their strategic business and
personal goals. They were far more interested in buying tools or
techniques that impacted strategic outcomes than those aimed
at improving operations.
In all the interviews conducted, only those at one projectized
firm consistently described project management as providing
strategic benefits; all others interviewed described it as a corpo-
rate tactic. The rationale given was that business priorities lay
elsewhere. Consultants confirmed these views based on experi-
ence with the same clients.
Gaps
Clearly a disconnect exists between perspectives about the value
of PM and what it should accomplish for organizations. Project
managers craft their sales message based on their experience;
however, from the literature we know that successful sales mes-
sages must reflect the buyer’s needs as the buyer understands
them. Project management must be positioned as a solution to
executives’ central business concerns and backed by evidence,
rather than as a religion or a thing you’re just supposed to do.
How is Project Management Usually Sold?
To answer this question, we asked each participant to tell us the
story of a time when they were involved in the “purchase” or
“sale” of project management within an organization.
Synthesizing these stories results in the needs based decision-
making process depicted in Exhibit 1.
From the stories of project management the interviewees in-
dicated that the triggers to buy project management were related
to a combination of internal and external factors as reactions to
specific needs.
• Internally, the decision to buy project management was pri-
marily related to an extremely troubled or failing/failed project
or the advent of mega/complex projects.
• Externally, the decision to buy project management was pri-
marily related to competition and market share issues.
Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium
September 7–16, 2000 • Houston,Texas, USA
The impact of these internal and external contexts left the
companies feeling that they were in “crisis” situations.
Not one interviewee mentioned that project management was
successfully sold proactively, as a strategic investment. Block’s
work presented to PMI® in 1991 and 1992 confirms the difficulty
of proactively selling project management. In organizations not
rife with crises, the executives seemed disinterested in spending
money on project management due to the perception that it was
overhead and expensive. This explains some of the frustrations
and challenges internal project managers faced in their efforts to
sell project management proactively.
Specifically, crisis situations forced executives to consider the
merits of project management in terms of the business problem.
Recognition that the firm needed to improve the project man-
agement processes was usually based on the “insurance policy”
value of project management in reducing risk and buying them
certainty or its contribution to their personal success. Senior
management’s willingness to pay (WTP) for project manage-
ment is associated with their perception of the pay-off—total
revenue must exceed total cost. They tend to avoid buying proj-
ect management because the tangible benefits seem discon-
nected to the individual’s WTP, especially on a larger project that
takes a long time. Conversely, willingness to accept (WTA) the
loss of PM as an option/strategy in the future becomes much
more of a compensation issue on a grander scale. In either case,
the risk decision may rest on only one variable (typically cost),
which acts to underestimate value of project management.
Triggered by these “crisis situations” executives began an in-
formation search. Externally, they reached out to specific proj-
ect management consultants on the basis of prior relationships
or referrals; e.g., those that were “top of mind” for specific ser-
vices or skills. Rarely did the executives seek out new relationships
with consultants or establish stronger ties with internal advocates
of project management. There seemed to be three reasons in-
ternal sources of information were not cultivated. First, execu-
tives tended to view consultants with a different degree of
credibility than their own project managers. In many cases the
organizational crisis was in response to poor performance on or-
ganizational projects. Project managers were usually the ones
blamed or fingered when projects were in trouble and senior
managers failed to appreciate the element of shared responsibility
(Jugdev & Hartman, 1998). This tended to reduce the credibil-
ity of project management proponents within the organization
at the very time when executives might be ready to listen. Second,
another challenge that internal project proponents faced in sell-
ing to their executives related to position power and language.
Typically project management proponents were not at a similar
level in the hierarchy and so did not have access to resources, in-
fluence, coalition and sometimes more importantly did not
share a common language with the executives. When the proj-
ect managers focused on project minutiae, executives further dis-
connected in terms of both receiving the message and listening.
Understandably, project management is experiential and good
project managers tend to become better project managers on the
basis of their previous successes and failures. Frequently, partic-
ipants stated that “you need years of experience and scars on your
back, and have had a few things go wrong to be a real project
manager.” However, most executives had not necessarily achieved
their senior positions by spending time in the project manage-
ment profession so the granularity that project managers used
to sell it to them did not always work.
Finally, executives often got very mixed messages from their in-
ternal resources, messages often in direct conflict with those
being offered by the consultants. Generally, senior executives
got responses to queries about the state of project management
in the organization that range as follows:
• We do project management and we do it well so we don’t
need help. This reaction reflects a resistance to change and ex-
emplifies denial in terms of project management improvements.
• We don’t need project management. We have managed to do
projects “the old way for years” and do not need to change our
practices or learn new ways. This reaction indicates an immature
level of project management, and significant resistance to change.
• We need help with project management. Thank goodness we
are receiving help and our concerns are finally being heard. This
level indicates a moderate level of project management maturity
and awareness that improvements are possible.
Executives receiving the first two types of responses are likely
to be either confused or angry in a situation where they have rec-
ognized the organizational problems around project manage-
ment. Executives receiving the third type of response are not
likely to turn to this group for advice. Thus internal proponents
of project management are severely handicapped by the tendency
of executives to be triggered to explore project management
only in crisis situations. Clearly, this group needs to develop
better ways of gaining access and triggering interest in project
management more conducive to proactive implementation.
Once the need was recognized and heightened awareness on
project management achieved (learning), it usually led to accep-
tance of project management as a potential solution. Then, exec-
utives took action by either buying project management externally
from consultants or growing it internally by training their staff, hir-
ing project managers and augmenting this strategy with some con-
sulting services. These two choices differ in that buying project
management services reflects an organizational culture that views
project management as a commodity. On the other hand, those
companies that grow it internally support it as a core compe-
tency. These companies indicated that it took years to grow proj-
ect management internally and that the progress was incremental.
In the cases where the need for project management contin-
ued to be denied at this stage, the practitioners believed that there
would be no change. In these organizations, project management
was simply something anyone could do when the need arises.
These project managers were often promoted up the technical
ranks and awarded the title “project manager” although they
often did not have the experience or training to fill the role ef-
fectively. One interviewee used the term “accidental project man-
ager” to describe these individuals.
Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium
September 7–16, 2000 • Houston,Texas, USA
Conclusions
Our findings suggest that a disconnect exists between what the
sellers promotes and what the buyers want to hear in the proj-
ect management realm. A naiveté appears around the belief that
project management should be valued for its own sake. Thus, se-
nior executives fail to see project management’s value connection
with the goals of the organization. In addition, the “sale” of
project management at present appears to be the response to in-
ternal crisis or changes in the environment instead of occurring
as a proactive business decision. Those interested in being more
effective at selling project management will benefit from learn-
ing and applying the basics of marketing strategies, listening to
their target audience and ensuring that they align the sale of proj-
ect management to match the executive’s degree of receptiveness
on the value continuum.
Selling project management to senior executives requires proj-
ect managers learn different skills and overcome a discomfort
with acting in a “sales” capacity. Project managers’ experience
with project management means that they best understand it’s
the value and benefits within their company. They appreciate its
value and benefits when it is used effectively on projects and they
appreciate its need when projects do not go well. Project man-
agers are excellent ambassadors to promote project manage-
ment in business terms to executives. They can develop skills in
putting forth the arguments of how project management bene-
fits organizations by applying best practices and heightening
senior management awareness of the value and benefits of proj-
ect management.
As with any project, the attempt to “sell” project management
at the executive level benefits from careful planning and prepa-
ration. The results of this phase of the study provide some insights
into the process necessary to “sell” project management and some
of the arguments that others have found to be successful.
Recommendations
Our preliminary research findings suggest that the difficulty in
selling project management at the executive level often results
from gaps in the marketing relationships. For example, project
managers sell features and attributes when executives want to hear
about results and benefits. At times project managers and smaller
consultants are guilty of selling before the need has been identi-
fied let alone agreed to by executives (Goldratt, 1998). These dis-
connects could be viewed as misalignments between values and
expectations. Those involved in selling project management to ex-
ecutives can benefit from understanding some basics of market-
ing and communication skills (e.g., improving their listening
skills in terms to learn how to frame the problem executives want
answered). This will enable them to make the right connections
about what executives are receptive to hearing in business terms.
We suggest using a three-point approach of triggers, responses
and proof to explain project management benefits.
 Trigger: Understand what the triggers to buy are for executives.
Currently, the strongest triggers for the need for project man-
agement at the executive level appear to be an external crisis or
negative project activity. Buying occurs at a reflexive or invol-
untary level associated with current problems and no real learn-
ing takes place. This situation relegates project management to
a reactive fast fix grounded in delivery of flavor-of-the-month
tactics and bandaid solutions to deep project wounds. In this
case, either a positive or negative association develops through
pairing previous experiences with the promotional pitch. This
cycle perpetuates itself on the underlying belief that project
management will help control and diffuse external trigger events.
From a sales perspective this means that sales will always be re-
active. However, until we determine how best to sell project
management at the strategic level where executives respond on
the basis of listening to their internal needs (reducing costs and
increasing revenue), project management proponents need to be
ready to respond to these external triggers.
To increase the potential for proactive sales, project managers
can initiate the trigger by focusing on questions like: What are
the top five things the executive is trying to do for the company?
What are their priorities? What keeps them up at night? Listen
for cues and insights into these areas. For example, the executive
may be focuses on increasing revenue and decreasing costs. Once
these are understood, project management can be fit into the ap-
propriate context and sold proactively.
Response: Sellers need to move away from selling project
management by focusing on specific features (e.g., tools and
methods) and learn to reframe the information in terms of ben-
efits or values relative to the executive’s priorities. One way of
doing this is by drawing analogies about the impact project fail-
ures have on the business strategy and discussing lessons learned.
The goal being to stimulate deep learning as opposed to associ-
ations made out of fear of past mistakes.
Proof: It helps to provide anecdotal information or proof of
the value proposition in the context that executives will relate to;
e.g., restate the value of project management in terms of effi-
ciency terms that support the business objective and link to the
strategy. A tight correlation between business goals and project
management is required (alignment).
Additional pointers from practitioners who market and sell
services include the following:
• People buy from people they have developed good relation-
ships with and people they trust. The goal of most marketing and
sales staff is to become “trusted advisors.”
• Listen to executives and relate project management to their
agendas and priorities
• Build strong relationships (if you don’t click, you don’t win)
• Understand the politics of the environment
• Don’t waste time selling features, make the connection be-
tween project management and value (Jugdev & Thomas, 2000).
Project management is a tough sell in a competitive environ-
ment characterized by a lack of boundaries and innovative part-
nering strategies. Credibility and trust are important advantages
Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium
September 7–16, 2000 • Houston,Texas, USA
to have and contribute to successful services selling. The insights
from the practitioners provided in this paper can enhance proj-
ect management proponents’ competitive edge by aligning their
selling values to those of the senior executives in the buying mode.
Phase I is an exploratory phase subject to the limitations of the
smaller sample sizes of a distinct population parameter. The re-
sults should be interpreted within this framework, and thus, the
conclusions generalize specifically to this population. The initial
phase enabled the development of a more narrow and in-depth
approach for Phase II of the research. Phase II entails a web
based survey or Delphi study aimed at generalizing and elabo-
rating, challenging and in some respects validating the findings
of the first phase. The aim will be to provide concrete descrip-
tions of important triggers, responses and evidence to be used to
support the introduction of PM in organizations. Individuals or
organizations interested in participating in the second phase
are invited to contact us.
Acknowledgements
The authors of this study would like to acknowledge the Project
Management Institute for visionary directions toward this re-
search initiative. In particular, we are indebted to Dr. Lew
Gedansky for his leadership and support. The authors would also
like to acknowledge the generous financial support provided by
the following organizations:
• University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta
• IBM Canada Ltd., Calgary, Alberta
• Project Management Institute—Southern Alberta Chapter,
Calgary, Alberta
• Computers in Information Processing Society—Calgary,
Alberta Chapter
The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable insights
contributed by the study participants. Further details on this re-
search project or for a copy of the detailed paper that was pre-
sented at the Project Management Institute Research Conference
June 2000 can be requested by contacting Kam Jugdev at
kjugdev@ca.ibm.com
References
Block, T.R. (1991). Selling Project Management to Senior Executives.
PMI Symposium, Dallas, Texas.
Block, T.R. (1992). Selling Project Management to Senior Executives—
The Sequel. PMI Symposium, Pittsburgh
Dinsmore, P. (1996, June). Toward Corporate Project Management.
PM Network.
Don, C. (2000). Personal interview. March17, 2000.
Don, Corey (2000). Personal interview. March 17, 2000.
Frost, J. (1999). Assessing the Strategic Value of IT. Intelligence Unit for
UKP425. IBM Global Services.
Gardner, A., Bistritz, S., & Klompmaker, J. (1998). Selling to senior ex-
ecutives, Part 1. American Marketing Association (sum).
Gardner, A., Bistritz, S., & Klompmaker, J. (1998). Selling to senior ex-
ecutives, Part 2. American Marketing Association (fall).
 Heidrick & Stuggles (1998). unpublished research papers
Http://www.heidrick.com
Houle, D. (1998). Video Transcriptions: Persuading the Customer to Buy
(Part One). Http://www.goldratt.com/juk13t-1htm;
Jacobs, P. (1999). Recovering from project failure. Infoworld
Publications Inc. Vol. 21 (39) pp. 103–107.
Jugdev, K., & Hartman, F. (1998). Project Manager Fears and
Frustrations. PMI Symposium, Long Beach, California.
Jugdev, Kam., & Thomas, Janice. (2000). Effective Services Marketing
and Sales Strategies. (Unpublished paper).
KPMG. (1997). What Went Wrong? Unsuccessful Information
Technology Projects. http://audit.kpmg.ca/vl/surveys/it_wrong.htm
McElroy, W. (1996) Implementing Strategic Change Through
Projects. International Journal of Project Management, 14 (6).
PMI® (1996) A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge.
http://www.pmi.org
Sawy, O., Malhotra, A., Gosain, S., & Young, K. (1999). IT-intensive
value innovation in the electronic economy: Insights from Marshall in-
dustries. MIS Quarterly; Minneapolis.
Standish Group. (1995). The Chaos Report. http://www.standish-
group.com/chaos.htm
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded
theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage.
Thomas, J. (1997). It’s Time to Make Sense of Project Management.
Unpublished manuscript. The University of Calgary, Project
Management Specialization/Faculty of Management. Email:
jthomas@mgmt.ucalgary.ca
Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary. (1984). Berkley Books, New
York.

Return To Menu
Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium
September 7–16, 2000 • Houston,Texas, USA