Article

Project Management Journal

Vol. 50(3) 361–375
Project Managers’ Competences ª 2019 Project Management Institute, Inc.
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
in Managing Project Closing DOI: 10.1177/8756972819832783
journals.sagepub.com/home/pmx

Qi Wen1,2 and Maoshan Qiang1

Abstract
Closing is a strategic but frequently overlooked project phase, in which project managers play pivotal roles as project team
leaders. This study pinpoints project managers’ competences underpinning the effective management of project closing, defined as
project managers’ closing competence (PMCC). A conceptual model of how PMCC contributes to project closing performance
(PCP) was developed from related literature. Based on questionnaire data from 163 project management practitioners, partial
least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was employed to test the model and identify the most influential PMCC
dimensions and indicators. The results reveal four PMCC dimensions (i.e., knowledge and skills, external stakeholder manage-
ment, leadership in project team, and organization-level ability) significantly affecting PCP. The PLS-SEM results also quantify the
relative importance of the indicators in each PMCC dimension. Comparing the findings with recent literature, we found that risk
awareness, closing contract relationships, helping staff with career planning, participating in project closing decisions, and
obtaining support from other departments are crucial aspects of PMCC that deserve more attention in research and practice. The
findings heed the call for identifying competences according to project tasks, and operationalize PMCC and PCP into detailed
indicators. The proposed PMCC framework also provides practical implications for project manager evaluation and selection.

Keywords
project managers’ closing competence, project closing performance, competence framework, competence evaluation

Introduction influence on project performance (Andersen et al., 2002). In

As the leaders of project teams, project managers take respon-
sibility not only for project initiation and execution but also for
project closing (Dupont & Eskerod, 2016). In a temporary
project environment, initiating a project is exciting, but that
excitement tends to decay substantially in the closing phase
(Atkinson, Crawford, & Ward, 2006). This poses unique chal-
lenges for project closing management and requires various
competences from project managers to tackle them (Havila,
Medlin, & Salmi, 2013). The body of knowledge in the project
management field provides abundant guidance on which com-
petences project managers should possess to effectively man-
age project execution (Bredillet, Tywoniak, & Dwivedula,
2015). However, such knowledge is not readily available for
project closing (Padalkar & Gopinath, 2016), which is an indis-
pensable phase of project life cycles, whether or not the project
ends successfully or prematurely (Lundin & Söderholm, 1995).
This can be largely understood with respect to the fact that
project closing itself has received rather limited academic and
professional attention (Andersen, Dyrhaug, & Jessen, 2002;
Dvir, 2005).
The need for managerial effort in project closing is often
underestimated (Royer, 2003). Many managers deem project
closing a routinized administrative procedure with negligible
many organizations that manage multiple projects, there is a
strong tendency to release the occupied resources by closing
projects as soon as possible (Lechler & Thomas, 2015). How-
ever, the pressure to quickly close projects reduces the oppor-
tunity to reflect on project experience, impedes organization
learning, and even leads organizations to be repeatedly
troubled by similar mistakes (Stingl & Geraldi, 2017). Para-
doxically, some projects are executed to create organizational
knowledge, yet the generated knowledge and experience are
not adequately absorbed as a result of abrupt project closing
(Wen & Qiang, 2016).
At the same time, there is a relative lack of tools and tech-
niques for project closing. In project management textbooks,
discussions on project closing typically account for less than
5%, which is disproportionally small compared to discussions
of other project phases (Havila et al., 2013). The majority of
project management studies implicitly build their discussions
1
Department of Hydraulic Engineering, Tsinghua University, China
2
Sloan School of Management, MIT, USA
Corresponding Author:
Maoshan Qiang, Tsinghua University, China.
Email: qiangms@tsinghua.edu.cn
362
on the planning and execution phases, without addressing the
need for managerial methodology in project closing (Padalkar
& Gopinath, 2016). Numerous problems emerge in project
closing management practices, such as failure in closing non-
value-adding projects and “too-much-invested-to-quit
syndrome” (Lechler & Thomas, 2015; Unger, Kock, Gemün-
den, & Jonas, 2012). Moreover, the closing phases of many
projects are often not adequately planned or budgeted, and
there is even an absence of a formal project closing process
(De, 2001). In organizations with a strong culture of punishing
failure and internal competition, project closing even becomes
an unspoken secret instead of a precious opportunity for learn-
ing from failure (Shepherd, Patzelt, Williams, & Warnecke,
2014).
Taken together, the insufficiency of practical attention and
theoretical guidance limits project managers’ ability to effec-
tively manage project closing and acts as the major cause of the
above problems in practice. In fact, project closing includes
many important tasks—for example, contract settlement, proj-
ect deliverable transfer, experience accumulation, and strategic
partnership development (Bakker, 2016; Davis & Venkatesh,
2004). The performance of the closing phase (hereinafter
referred to as project closing performance, or PCP) directly
relates to project benefit realization and customer satisfaction
(Dupont & Eskerod, 2016), so there is a pressing need for
competent management of project closing.
As the first point of contact in project teams (Bredillet et al.,
2015; Crawford, 2005), project managers reconcile the
demands of many external stakeholders in project closing
(Butt, Naaranoja, & Savolainen, 2016). As the middle manag-
ers in the organization’s hierarchy, project managers bridge
senior managers’ project closing decisions with project teams’
execution processes (Unger et al., 2012). Therefore, project
managers assume pivotal roles in project closing (Felekoglu
& Moultrie, 2014; Lechler & Thomas, 2015), and their com-
petences in managing project closing (hereinafter referred to as
project managers’ closing competences, or PMCC) have a large
potential to affect PCP.
Although project managers’ competence has been a hot
topic attracting continuing research attention (Bredillet et al.,
2015), previous studies predominantly focused on project exe-
cution. There is a paucity of research on PMCC, which, how-
ever, is not necessarily the same as the competences needed for
managing project execution (Turner, 1993). For example, proj-
ect managers’ engineering mindset is beneficial for addressing
technical problems during execution, but overly sticking to
technical issues was found to hinder rational project closing
decisions (Meyer, 2014; Unger et al., 2012). In this respect,
project management practices appear to precede theory devel-
opment. Many firms recognize the importance of a competent
manager with adequate closing management competences and
assign a separate termination manager (or exit champion) to
take managerial responsibility for project closing (De, 2001;
Royer, 2003). However, there is a lack of theoretical guidance
for termination manager selection, because which competences
Project Management Journal 50(3)
are needed for project closing management remains largely
unexplored in extant literature (Dvir, 2005).
In view of the fact that the majority of existing project
management knowledge is established around project execu-
tion, we argue, from a contingency theoretical perspective, that
there is a need to identify the PMCC specific to project closing.
Thus, this study develops a conceptual model of PMCC and its
contribution to PCP. The model was empirically tested using
data from 163 practitioners working in a project environment
(Wen, Qiang, & Gloor, 2018; Winch, 2014), where parent
organizations conduct temporary projects for daily operation,
organizational change implementation, strategic development,
and so forth. The results reveal PMCC dimensions, indicators,
and their influence on PCP. Theoretically, the findings identify
the dimensions of PMCC and PCP. In practice, the findings
also provide a PMCC framework to be directly utilized in
evaluating project managers’ competences, identifying weak-
nesses and making improvements accordingly.
The rest of this article is organized as follows: In the second
section, previous studies are reviewed to provide implications
for conceptual model development. The third section describes
the data collection method with a questionnaire survey and the
data analysis procedure with PLS-SEM. The empirical analysis
results are presented in the fourth section and discussed in the
fifth section. Finally, the sixth section draws conclusions.
Literature Review and Conceptual Model
Development
Multidimensional PMCC
In project management literature, project managers’ compe-
tences have long been receiving special research attention
(Crawford, 2005; Hodgson, 2002). With the development of
project management knowledge and increasing expectations
for the project management profession, a trend toward rethink-
ing project managers’ competences has been emerging recently
(Bredillet et al., 2015). This is clearly evidenced by the numer-
ous new research and professional standard updates on project
manager competence development and assessment (IPMA,
2006; PMI, 2013). However, most existing studies on project
managers’ competence implicitly built their discussions on
project planning or execution. Some research even intention-
ally left out the closing phase (Papke-Shields, Beise, & Quan,
2010). In contrast to the growing research interest in project
manager competence, few studies examined PMCC. In fact,
even the closing phase as a whole received rather limited
research attention (Padalkar & Gopinath, 2016). From the
implications of the few studies directly investigating project
closing, we inferred the PMCC required for managing project
closing and identified the four PMCC dimensions, as summar-
ized in Tables 1 and 2.
First, knowledge and skills are fundamental for project man-
agers, and three aspects gained particular emphasis in project
closing. Havila et al. (2013) pointed out that a lack of similar
Wen and Qiang 363

Table 1. Deriving PMCC Dimensions and Indicators Based on Previous Studies

Knowledge and
Skills External Stakeholder Management Leadership in Project Team Organization Level Capability

Havila Experience: Identifying demands: Inspiring team morale: Top management

et al. “Prior experiences “Demands were to be presented “A critical issue is how to deal with the support:
(2013) of this kind of immediately” disappointed employees” “The premature ending called
closure” Negotiation and coordination: for senior management to be
“Experiences “An example of required competences is involved”
concerned negotiation skills” Strategic vision:
handling the end “The negotiators need to have a good “A successful closure…requires
phase” knowledge of the relations to these strategic-level decision
stakeholders” making and closure plans,
Communication: strategic support to project
“On-site visits and personal managers”
communication to deliver the
message to the key external
stakeholders”
Contract management:
“The closure of a project may involve
closing contracts with different types
of stakeholders”
Shepherd Inspiring team morale: Decision participation:
et al. “[Project termination] generated negative “Project leaders expressed
(2014) emotions among individuals who were frustration with the lack of
more emotionally invested” decision making…”
Technical leadership:
“Lead projects by keeping teams close and
solving problems”
Future career planning:
“The most important thing for employees is
‘to get a new task’”

Note: PMCC denotes project manager’s closing competence

Table 2. Deriving PMCCs and Indicators Based on the Implications of Previous Studies

Leadership in
Knowledge and Skills External Stakeholder Management Project Team Organization Level Capability

De (2001) Risk awareness: Negotiation: Future career

Contingency plans necessary to “Negotiating claims with clients” planning:
handle unexpected crises and “Handling claims from suppliers” “Reassignment/
deviations” Contract management: retrenchment of
“Realize the last contractual amount” personnel”
Unger Top management support:
et al. “There is an optimal level of senior
(2012) management involvement for project
termination quality.”
Other departments’ support:
“Overcoming conflicts of interests [across
projects and departments]”
Strategic vision:
“Achieve project success in terms of
strategic fit”
Dvir Technical expertise: Identifying demands:
(2005) “[Technical knowledge] in the “User involvement in the development
specific technological areas of operational and maintenance
related to the project” requirements”
364
project experience may hinder effective closing management.
Based on a survey of project closing management practices, De
(2001) found that managers’ risk awareness is critical for han-
dling unexpected crises during project closing. Dvir (2005)
further underlined the importance of preparation for project
closing and suggested that the domain knowledge related to
projects is especially helpful.
Second, external stakeholder management is a critical dimen-
sion of PMCC, as implied in Havila et al.’s (2013) study on
organizations’ project ending competence. From the
perspective of stakeholder management theory, external stake-
holder management competence involves demand identification,
negotiation, communication, and engagement. Havila et al.
(2013) argued that effective communication is indispensable to
actively share information with key stakeholders. This is echoed
by De (2001) and Dvir (2005), who also emphasized contract
management and demand identification, respectively. Skulmoski
and Hartman (2010) further compared project managers’ compe-
tences needed in each project phase. They found that, in project
closing, project managers often face the challenge of building
consensus among stakeholders on project outcomes, which can
be more or less different from some stakeholders’ expectations.
Therefore, reidentifying stakeholders’ needs, and negotiating and
coordinating with them is crucial for project closing.
Third, project closing management calls for team leadership
competence. Shepherd et al. (2014) argued that project closing
is not merely concerned with members of the top management
“who make the decision” but also by the project staffs who are
intensively influenced by the decision. Project managers face
the twofold challenges of eliminating project staffs’ negative
emotion generated from project closing, and at the same time,
motivating them to complete project closing tasks. To tackle
these challenges, inspiring team morale (Havila et al., 2013),
providing technical guidance, and helping staffs plan future
careers (Shepherd et al., 2014) are essential aspects of the
leadership competence dimension (Müller & Turner, 2010).
Fourth, in the project environment, project managers oper-
ationalize senior managers’ closing decisions into project
teams’ closing practices based on their organization-level abil-
ity (Beringer, Jonas, & Kock, 2013; Stingl & Geraldi, 2017).
From the perspective of parent organizations, project manag-
ers’ participation in closing decisions is appreciated because it
makes the decision grounded on realistic project information
instead of biased intuitions (Unger et al., 2012). On the project
managers’ side, gaining support from the top management and
functional departments of parent organizations (Beringer et al.,
2013) and aligning projects to organization strategy are implied
in previous studies under this dimension (Lechler & Thomas,
2015; Unger et al., 2012).
As shown in Tables 1 and 2, existing insights on PMCC are
rather fragmented. As a result, there is a need for an integrated
PMCC framework in project environments, where project clos-
ing is an integral phase of project life cycles involving multiple
internal and external stakeholders. Combining the implications
from the studies reviewed above, we empirically study the four
Project Management Journal 50(3)
dimensions of PMCC (external stakeholder management,
knowledge and skills, leadership in the project team, and
organization-level ability).
Identifying PMCC Based on PCP: A Contingency Approach
Despite the abundant research efforts on defining project man-
agers’ competences in general, no wide consensus exists in
previous studies and professional standards (Bredillet et al.,
2015). There are even empirical findings showing that project
managers’ competences within some general competence
frameworks do not significantly contribute to project perfor-
mance (Crawford, 2005).
In fact, project managers’ competence should be defined
with respect to performance objectives and project tasks (Mül-
ler & Turner, 2010), which, however, can vary to a consider-
able extent (Pinto & Slevin, 1988). According to Khang and
Moe (2008), the project tasks in the closing phase are rather
unique in the project life cycle. McLeod, Doolin, and MacDo-
nell (2012) further found that the definition of project perfor-
mance objectives can vary across stakeholders and over the
project life cycle. Therefore, a project manager competence
framework specific to the project objectives and tasks of the
closing phase needs to be developed. Following Havila et al.’s
(2013) approach to identify organizations’ ending competence
in business relationship closure, we adopt a contingency per-
spective to identify PMCC as the competence contributing to
PCP. Similar to the lack of study on PMCC, little research
effort has been devoted in particular to the performance of the
project closing phase. Existing literature on portfolio manage-
ment and project performance evaluation provides useful
implications for conceptualizing the dimensions of PCP.
Some studies on portfolio management emphasized improv-
ing project closing decision quality and integrating project
benefit into organization strategy (Dupont & Eskerod, 2016).
Portfolio value optimization by “killing” non-value-adding
projects is the focus of portfolio management, and many tech-
niques have been developed for this purpose (e.g., the stage-
gate approach) (Cooper, 2008). Many studies further contend
to eliminate subjective bias in closing decisions (Meyer, 2014),
avoid the loss from delayed closing (Lechler & Thomas, 2015),
and maintain long-term strategic partnership despite project
closing (Stingl & Geraldi, 2017). In this light, the extents to
which project closing activities terminate non-value-adding
projects, improve strategic alignment, and maintain strategic
partnership are important considerations for project closing
(Unger et al., 2012). However, most of these studies implicitly
advocated closing projects as soon as possible, but overlooked
the managerial complexity of project closing as an individual
project phase (Shepherd et al., 2014).
Complementary to this limitation, many studies on project
performance evaluation included the management efficiency of
project closing as performance indicators (Joslin & Müller,
2016), such as deliverable transfer and budget control in con-
tract settlement. With increasing understanding of project
Wen and Qiang
Identification
Knowledge
and Skills
External
Stakeholder
Management
Project Manager’s
Closing Competence
Leadership in
Project Team
Organizational
Level
Capability
Figure 1. Conceptual model of project managers’ closing competence.
performance, performance evaluation has been extended con-
siderably beyond the iron triangle for project execution toward
a life cycle perspective (Jugdev & Müller, 2005). Many
researchers argued that project closing efficiency should also
be integrated in project life cycle performance evaluation
(Lechler & Thomas, 2015). However, direct explorations of
project closing efficiency are rather limited.
The above two streams of literature identified the organiza-
tional strategy and project efficiency dimensions of PCP, while
ignoring experience accumulation for future projects (Joslin &
Müller, 2016). As pointed out by Shepherd et al. (2014), despite
the close relationship between project closing and organization
learning, studies on them developed in two separate paths. There
may be a trade-off between project closing efficiency and knowl-
edge accumulation—for example, overly emphasizing rapid proj-
ect closing leaves little room for reflection on project experience
(Shepherd et al., 2014; Stingl & Geraldi, 2017). Informed by the
above two streams of research, we investigate three dimensions of
PCP: organizational strategic value integration, project closing
efficiency, and knowledge asset accumulation.
In light of the literature reviewed thus far, we develop a
conceptual model (shown in Figure 1) to analyze the effects
of PMCC on PCP and thereby identify the most influential
PMCC dimensions and indicators.
Research Methods
Data Collection by Questionnaire Survey
Based on the conceptual model, we operationalized the model
constructs into questionnaire items measured using five-point
365
Target
Project
Closing
Efficiency
Organizational
Project Closing Strategic Value
Performance Integration
Knowledge
Asset
Accumulation
Likert scales. The scale of Project Closing Efficiency was
adapted from De (2001). Organizational Strategic Value Integra-
tion was assessed by combining the scales in Unger et al. (2012)
and Dvir (2005). The three items of Knowledge Asset Accumu-
lation were drawn from Joslin and Müller (2016). External
Stakeholder Management was measured following Havila
et al.’s (2013) ending competence. Leadership in Project Team
was conceptualized based on Shepherd et al. (2014) and Havila
et al. (2013). Beringer et al.’s (2013) and Unger et al.’s (2012)
analysis of internal stakeholder management was utilized to
derive the items of organization-level ability. Knowledge and
skills relevant in project closing were identified and combined
from Dvir (2005), Havila et al. (2013), and De (2001). The draft
of the questionnaire was tested through the discussions with two
experienced project management researchers and a pilot survey.
Two rounds of revisions were made until no further concerns on
the content and expressions of the questionnaire were proposed.
Because the respondents are from China, the questionnaire was
translated into Chinese and translated back into English by two
researchers independently to ensure translation accuracy (Lu
&Wang, 2017). Detailed questionnaire items are listed in the
Appendix at the end of this article.
With the support of PMI China, we distributed the question-
naires at the PMI China Annual Conference, which is China’s
largest conference on project management, attracting more
than 1,000 researchers and practitioners from all around China.
Most conference attendees work in a project-based industry
(such as IT and construction) and have professional experience
in project management, providing a convenient and high-
quality sample for our research. In order to increase the
366
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of the Respondents
Number of
Characteristic Category Respondents
Years of project 4–5 years 36
management experience 5–10 years 62
>10 years 65
Familiarity with project Familiar 29
management knowledge Proficient 49
Mastered 85
With PMP® certification 77
Industry Construction 67
IT 79
Others 17
response rate, one author gave a keynote speech on the back-
ground and preliminary findings of this research at the confer-
ence and invited those in attendance to contribute insights by
participating in the survey. Because of the limitations of the
conference schedule, we were only able to distribute question-
naires to 300 of the conference participants during the two-day
conference. The questionnaire respondents were selected based
on the location of their seats (which are not assigned in
advance), so the sample can be largely regarded as random.
A total of 245 valid responses was collected, achieving a satis-
factory response rate of 81.7%. Considering the exploratory
nature of this study, we only utilized the data from the respon-
dents who are at least familiar with project management knowl-
edge, and at the same time, have more than three years of
experience. The descriptive statistics of the respondents are
listed in Table 3. With nearly one half of the respondents hav-
ing the Project Management Professional (PMP)® certification
and most of them having more than five years of experience,
the sample is eligible to provide valuable information. The
sample size also adequately satisfies the requirements of
PLS-SEM (Wong, 2013).
Model Testing
In the conceptual model, PMCC is measured as a second-order
formative construct to reflect the fact that PMCC is composed
of multiple lower-level competence indicators, which are not
necessarily strongly intercorrelated (Chin, 1995). PCP con-
structs, on the other hand, are modeled by reflective measures,
because PCP is embodied in various aspects of project perfor-
mance, which are dependent on and hence closely related to one
another. This formative competence-reflective performance
model paradigm was widely applied in previous studies (Dia-
mantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001). With this model specifica-
tion, covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM)
methods have difficulties in coping with formative constructs
(Wong, 2013). In order to conduct model testing, partial least
squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) is an applica-
ble alternative.
Project Management Journal 50(3)
The model estimation process of PLS-SEM is achieved by
maximizing the variance of the dependent variable (PCP)
explained by the independent variable (PMCC) (Chin, 1995).
In this way, PLS-SEM can pinpoint the PMCC dimensions
(first-order constructs) and indicators best explaining PCP.
Thus, it exactly satisfies the research objective to identify
PMCC based on PCP.
Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s a) and compo-
site reliability are calculated to evaluate the reliability of the
reflective constructs. Thereafter, PLS-SEM is employed to esti-
mate the model. The indicator reliability, convergent validity,
and discriminant validity of the constructs are assessed to test
the validity of the measurement model. Thereafter, the predic-
tive ability of the model is evaluated, and the most influential
PMCC dimensions and indicators are identified based on the
model path coefficients.
Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA)
The weights of indicators in the PLS-SEM model measure the
contribution of each indicator to the overall PMCC construct,
and hence, indicate their relative importance. The average rat-
ing of each indicator, on the other hand, reflects project man-
agers’ average level of strength (or “performance”) in terms of
that PMCC indicator. Therefore, following Hair, Hult, Ringle,
and Sarstedt’s (2016) IPA approach, we aim to find the indi-
cators with relatively high importance but low average perfor-
mance as the crucial aspects requiring more attention.
Besides, in view of the fact that most existing research on
project manager competence implicitly focused on the plan-
ning and execution phases, we also compared our results with
previous studies to identify the competences that were partic-
ularly crucial for project closing. Specifically, we used “project
manager competence” as the keyword to retrieve the recent
studies (since 2010) published in the Project Management
Journal® and the International Journal of Project Manage-
ment. This resulted in 45 studies, among which 35 studied
project manager competence as the major topic. We reviewed
the 35 studies and coded whether they researched each of the
14 PMCC indicators (as shown in Appendix, Table A2). Then,
we counted the number of times each PMCC indicator
appeared in these studies to reflect the research attention on
that indicator.
Empirical Analysis Results
With a Cronbach’s a value of 0.932 (higher than 0.7), the
reflective second-order construct of PCP is reliably measured
as a whole. The reliability of PCP dimensions (first-order con-
structs) is also established, with Cronbach’s a values greater
than 0.7 (as listed in Appendix, Table A1).
PLS-SEM analysis was performed to test the whole concep-
tual model, and the results of the measurement model are pre-
sented as the indicator loadings (weights) for reflective PCP
constructs (formative PMCC constructs) in Figure 2. All of the
Wen and Qiang 367

Identification Target
Identify
Coordination and Demands
Negotiation (bb1)
(bb2) Timely
Transfer
0.253** (ab1)
0.244**
Closing
Contract 0.596***
0.336*** Budget
(bb3)
Control
0.830*** (ab2)
Communication 0.380*** External
Skills Stakeholder
Professional (bb4) Project 0.842*** Quality
Management Control
Knowledge Closing
(ba1) 0.317*** Efficiency (ab3)

Management 0.843*** Customer

0.239*** Knowledge 0.306*** Satisfaction
Experience
and Skills 0.841*** (ab4) Strategy
(ba2)
Alignment
0.248***
0.774*** (aa1)
Risk 0.629***
Awareness 0.811***
Project 0.879*** Organizational 0.815*** Terminate Non-
(ba3) Project Closing
Manager’s Closing Strategic Value Value-Adding Effort
Performance Integration (aa2)
Inspiring Competence
Team Staff
(bc1) 0.417*** Partnership
0.833*** Development
0.344***
Knowledge Base (aa3)
Technical 0.876***
0.352*** Leadership in Augmentation
Guidance 0.246**
(bc2) Project Team 0.901*** (ac1)

Knowledge 0.939*** Experience

Help with Career 0.417***
Asset Accumulation
Development
Participating Organizational Accumulation (ac2)
(bc3) 0.246***
in Decision Level
(bd1) Capability Capability
0.919***
Improvement
Senior Manager (ac3)
Support 0.109
(bd2)
0.364*** 0.448***
Other Department
Support Strategic
(bd3) Vision
(bd4)

Figure 2. PLS-SEM: partial least squares structural equation model results.

Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001. The coefficients of formative indicators are weights (contributions to the constructs, which are assessed by
significance) instead of loadings (correlations with the constructs, which should be higher than 0.5).

PCP (reflective) indicator loadings are above 0.5, indicating
satisfactory indicator reliability. Most of the PMCC (forma-
tive) indicator weights are significant (suggesting strong indi-
cator reliability) except for obtaining support from senior
managers (bd2), which, however, has an indicator loading
higher than 0.5 (0.742, p < 0.001). According to Wong
(2013), the absolute contribution of this indicator is strong, and
its indicator reliability is also established. Taken together, these
results suggest that the measurements of constructs and indi-
cators are reliable.
The validity of constructs is evaluated based on the correla-
tion, average variance extracted (AVE), and redundancy
indices listed in Table 4. The relatively strong correlations
between the constructs indicate the potential for common
method bias (CMB). Thus, Harman’s single-factor test was
performed by conducting EFA (exploratory factor analysis)
on all the indicators. With the first factor explaining only
36.8% of variance (well below 50%), the CMB problem is not
significant, and the strong correlations should be interpreted as
the meaningful relationships between the latent constructs
(Schriesheim, 1979). As for the reflective PCP constructs (1–
3 in Table 4), their convergent validity is established with AVE
values higher than 0.5. According to the Fornell–Larcker cri-
teria, their discriminant validity is also established with the
square root of AVE (denoted in parentheses) higher than their
correlations with any other constructs (Fornell & Larcker,
1981). As for the formative first-order PMCC constructs (4–7
in Table 4), the redundancy measures are all higher than the
threshold of 0.8, indicating strong convergent validity (Hair
et al., 2016). Combined with the above construct reliability
368 Project Management Journal 50(3)

Table 4. The Correlation Among Constructs

AVE Redundancy 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. OSVI 0.653 – (0.808)

2. PCE 0.616 – 0.637 (0.785)
3. KAA 0.845 – 0.612 0.628 (0.919)
4. K&S – 0.915 0.580 0.567 0.613 –
5. ESM – 0.849 0.578 0.633 0.634 0.686 –
6. LPT – 0.863 0.624 0.583 0.639 0.640 0.667 –
7. OLC – 0.943 0.638 0.622 0.580 0.660 0.729 0.704
Note: The coefficients on the diagonal line (in parentheses) are the square root of AVE ¼ average variance extracted. The variable names are acronyms of the latent
variables in Figure 1.

test, these results suggest that the measurement model is reli-

4.20
able and valid, and hence, further analysis on the structural Number of times
appearing in literature
model is meaningful. bb1 20
4.10 5 10
Because of the predictive orientation of PLS-SEM, the
structural model should be assessed in terms of its predictive bd2
4.00
ability (Chin, 1995). First, the predictive power of the structural bc1
bd1
model is measured by the coefficient of determination (R2). An ba1
R2 value of 0.658 indicates that the model is of moderate-to- 3.90 ba2
bd4
Average Score

bb4 ba3
high predictive power according to Wong (2013) (i.e., PMCC
bb2 bb3
explains 65.8% variance of PCP). Second, the collinearity 3.80
bc2 bd3
problem of the measurement model and the structural model
is tested with variance inflation factor (VIF). With VIF values 3.70

ranging from 1.224 to 4.380 and 2.229 to 2.729 (below the

conservative threshold of 5) in the measurement model and the 3.60
structural model, respectively, the collinearity problem is not a
significant concern. Third, the F2 (or f 2) effect size of each 3.50
exogenous construct or indicator is measured by the change in bc3

R2 when it is absent from the model. The constructs and indi-
cators all have a significant effect size with positive F2 (or f 2)
values. Fourth, the Stone-Geisser’s Q2 predictive relevance of
each endogenous construct is calculated through the blindfold-
ing method, which uses part of samples to predict the rest (Hair
et al., 2016). The Q2 values of endogenous constructs range
from 0.321 to 0.440 (above the 0.150 threshold level), so the
PCP constructs can be relevantly predicted by the structural
model. Taken together, the structural model (as illustrated in
Figure 2) has satisfactory predictive ability and is eligible for
further interpretation.
As shown in Figure 3, we mapped the indicators according
to their importance (indicator weights in the model) and the
current average performance levels (average scores) into a two-
dimensional coordinate to identify the important but weak
aspects of PMCC. Furthermore, the sizes of the points corre-
spond to the number of times the indicators appeared in previ-
ous literature and reflect the research attention on them (see
Appendix, Table A2, for the list of studies reviewed). Some
indicators (such as bc3 helping with career development plan-
ning and bd3 obtaining support from other departments) are
important for project closing (with weights above average) but
relatively weak (with scores below average) with little research
attention, indicating the need to focus on them in research and
practice.
3.40
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
Weights
Figure 3. IPA: importance-performance analysis of the PMCC:
project manager’s closing competence indicators.
Note: The horizontal and vertical dashed lines are the average level of indicator
weights and scores.
Discussion
An Integrated Framework of PMCC
Combining the fragmented insights on PMCC distributed in
many previous studies, the findings operationalize PMCC into
an integrated framework of PMCC dimensions and indicators.
According to Figure 2, knowledge and skills, external stake-
holder management, leadership in project team, and
organization-level ability emerge as four dimensions (first-
order constructs) with similar contributions to the overall
PMCC.
Project managers’ knowledge and skills originate from pro-
fessional knowledge on project technology (ba1), management
experience (ba2), and risk awareness (ba3). According to Fig-
ure 3, risk awareness (ba3) has the highest contribution (indi-
cator weight), but the lowest average score and least research
Wen and Qiang
attention among the three indicators. The closing phase
includes many tasks with managerial uncertainty, such as pay-
ment settlement, quality defect detection, and deliverable trans-
fer (Davis & Venkatesh, 2004; Xiong, Zhang, & Chen, 2015),
which can have considerable effects on project performance. In
the face of these challenges, previous studies suggested several
practical measures, such as trial operation emergency plans
(De, 2001), end-user testing (Davis & Venkatesh, 2004), and
commissioning preparation (Dvir, 2005). To effectively lead
these tasks, project managers should be clearly aware of the
underlying risks. Professional knowledge and management
experience are also essential for this purpose.
External stakeholder management is composed of identify-
ing external stakeholders’ demands (bb1), coordination and
negotiation with external stakeholders (bb2), closing contract
relationships (bb3), and communication and interpersonal
skills (bb4). Corresponding to the intensive interactions with
external stakeholder in project closing, communication and
interpersonal skills (bb4) is the most influential indicator. This
substantiates the imperative of effective communication with
external stakeholders in project closing (Butt et al., 2016), and
not surprisingly, it is also the most highly researched indicator.
Because project managers represent the first point of contact
and responsibility in project teams, their abilities to identify
external stakeholders’ demands, negotiate and coordinate with
them, and govern the relationships with them by contracts are
critical for successful project closing (Bakker, 2016). Commu-
nication and interpersonal skills are fundamental prerequisites
in this process. Especially in prematurely closed projects,
effective communication with external stakeholders is essential
for retaining future collaboration opportunities (Butt et al.,
2016; Xiong et al., 2015). Besides, according to Figure 3, the
four indicators of external stakeholder management all have
relatively high scores (above or slightly below the average of
all indicators) and research attention except for closing contract
relationships (bb3). This can be understood by the fact that
contract closures do not frequently happen in other phases of
the project life cycle (Khang & Moe, 2008) and are overlooked
in many previous studies to a large extent. Because these rela-
tionships are the second most important among the four indi-
cators of external stakeholder management, they deserve more
attention in future research on project closing management.
Project managers’ leadership in project team involves three
complementary aspects: inspiring team staffs (bc1), providing
technical guidance (bc2), and helping with career development
planning (bc3). Project closing tends to invoke negative emo-
tions across the project team (Shepherd et al., 2014). Under
such circumstances, project managers’ ability to incentive proj-
ect staffs and inspire team morale becomes crucial. The ability
to guide staffs in project closing tasks, which may be rather
different from the tasks in the execution phase, helps alleviate
staffs’ work stress. In addition, the ability to help with staffs’
career development also eliminates staffs’ anxiety about the
future (Madter, Bower, & Aritua, 2012), and hence, makes it
easier to inspire them. However, as shown in Figure 3, project
369
managers’ competence in helping with career development
planning (bc3) has the lowest score and is the least mentioned
in previous studies. This is attributable to the fact that project
managers are traditionally considered to be not responsible for
training project staffs or planning their careers (Medina &
Medina, 2014), and to the fact that this competence is not
particularly relevant in other project phases. The analysis
results suggest that it is beneficial for project managers to
improve such competences in order to adequately lead project
closing.
In parallel to leadership in project team, organization-level
ability is another important internal stakeholder management
competence, including participating in closing decision (bd1),
obtaining support from senior managers (bd2), obtaining sup-
port from other departments (bd3), and organization strategic
vision (bd4). Among them, organization strategic vision (bd4)
is the most prominent indicator. This coincides with the fact
that the closing phase involves many strategic decisions. It has
been widely reported that even though the costs of continuing
some projects significantly outweigh the benefits, they may be
hard to “kill” as a result of organization internal conflicts
(Royer, 2003). In such situations, project managers’ strategic
vision to balance competing objectives and act for organiza-
tional strategic development is crucial to reduce conflicts and
achieve superior PCP (Lechler & Thomas, 2015). The aspects
of bd1 participating in closing decision and bd3 obtaining sup-
port from other departments drew little attention in previous
project manager competence research and are relatively spe-
cific to the closing phase. Many interactions are needed
between the project team and the parent organization to support
important decisions during project closing, such as deliverable
transfer and contract settlement. Therefore, the two aspects
play significant roles in organization-level ability (with signif-
icant weights) and should be further investigated in future
studies on project closing.
Enabling Organizational Ending Competence With
PMCC
The four dimensions of PMCC delineate project managers’
competences that significantly contribute to PCP. The strong
predictive power of the PMCC dimensions can be understood
not only at the individual level but also at team and even
organization levels to enable organizational project ending
competence.
In general management literature, project managers are typi-
cally studied as temporary team leaders, whose competences
are “team-level individual factors” directly associated with
team performance (Ahearn, Ferris, Hochwarter, Douglas, &
Ammeter, 2004; Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2006). With projects
approaching closure, there tend to be far fewer technical uncer-
tainties, and the remaining uncertainties are more attributable
to managerial activities (Saunders, Gale, & Sherry, 2016). So,
effective project management to address managerial uncertain-
ties is particularly valuable and thus explanatory of PCP. The
370
effects of the four PMCC dimensions are all significant, with
similar relative importance. Project managers need to be
balanced in all four aspects in order to improve PCP. This
contributes to explain the phenomenon of dividing the respon-
sibilities of the project manager into several complementary
roles. In practice, not all project managers are competent in all
the four dimensions, so professionals with different compe-
tence advantages can be assigned to different tasks. In many
product development projects, the role of project manager is
horizontally divided into delivery manager (a technical expert
responsible for delivering the product) and product manager
(responsible for demand identification and customer relation-
ship management), who closely collaborate with each other
throughout project life cycles (Loufrani-Fedida & Missonier,
2015). Some other firms vertically divide the role of project
manager by execution and closing phases. A separate termina-
tion manager is assigned to perform project closing tasks,
which may be rather different from the tasks in the execution
phase and require a different set of competences (Dvir, 2005).
The findings on the PMCC dimensions and indicators provide
theoretical foundation and practical guidance on assigning a
project manager with required competences for project ending.
At the organization level, the PMCC dimensions also pro-
vide implications for developing organizational ending compe-
tence. As shown in Figure 2, the indicator weight of obtaining
support from senior managers (bd2) is insignificant (0.109,
p > 0.05), while its indicator loading is high (0.742,
p < 0.001). According to Hair et al. (2016), this phenomenon
suggests that the indicator’s absolute contribution to the con-
struct is large, while after controlling the effects of other indi-
cators, its relative contribution is small. That is to say, the
effects of obtaining support from senior manager (bd2) is par-
tially mediated by the other three indicators. As argued in many
previous studies (Lechler & Thomas, 2015), a moderate level
of senior management involvement is beneficial for project
closing, whereas too much senior management involvement
is detrimental. The findings provide further implications for
the underlying mechanism of this argument. If project manag-
ers are supported with well-defined organizational institutions
so that they can effectively participate in decision making (bd1)
and work with other departments (bd3) based on their organi-
zational strategic vision (bd4) and other competences, then
senior managers’ personal support (bd2) is no longer indispen-
sable (insignificant). On the contrary, if their competences are
insufficient or a supportive organizational institution is not
established, then the ability to utilize senior management invol-
vement is significant (Felekoglu & Moultrie, 2014). These two
situations correspond to the organization cultures of govern-
ance by institution and governance by senior managers’ discre-
tion, respectively.
In fact, the organizational environment of projects is gaining
increasing attention in recent research and practice. For exam-
ple, as a major update in the most recent A Guide to the Project
Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) – Sixth
Edition (PMI, 2017), an individual chapter (Chapter 2) is
Project Management Journal 50(3)
devoted to organizational environment with a focus on organi-
zational process assets. Based on the findings on PMCC and
PCP, we argue that PMCC is crucial for both current project
outcomes and organizational process asset accumulation,
which in turn develops the organizational environment for
future projects. Despite the limited attention on project closing,
the growing awareness of the importance of organizational
process assets and the organization environment indicates the
need for organizational ending competence. PMCC is an indis-
pensable component of organizational project ending compe-
tence, which in turn creates an organizational environment for
PMCC to take effect. This suggests that PMCC development
can act as a critical step in developing organizational project
ending competence.
Conclusion
This study identifies PMCC dimensions, indicators, and their
relative importance based on PCP. The findings have theore-
tical and practical implications.
From the theoretical lens of contingency theory, this study
pinpoints project managers’ competences specific to project
closing (PMCC) and develops a PMCC framework. The find-
ings operationalize the PMCC and PCP constructs into detailed
dimensions and indicators. The proposed PMCC framework
has strong explanatory power and can act as a starting point
for studying the project closing competence of project teams
and project-based organizations. The identified PCP dimen-
sions and indicators also provide a measurement instrument
that can be utilized for quantifying the PCP construct in sub-
sequent studies. Comparing the relative importance of PMCC
indicators, their average scores, and mentions in previous stud-
ies, we identify risk awareness, closing contract relationships,
helping staffs with career planning, participating in project
closing decisions, and obtaining support from other depart-
ments as the crucial aspects of PMCC deserving more attention
in research and practice. Besides, the findings also act as a call
for more systematic investigations on project closing as a stra-
tegic but largely unexplored project phase.
In practice, the identified PMCC framework can be directly
utilized in project manager evaluation to analyze competence
strengths and weaknesses. Based on the evaluation results,
corresponding managerial measures, such as initiating project
manager training programs and assigning a separate termina-
tion manager, can be formulated. The findings also identify the
multiple dimensions of PCP beyond the traditional time–cost–
quality iron triangle. This acts as a call for more practical
attention on strategic value integration and knowledge accu-
mulation performance in project closing.
Limitations and Future Studies
The above implications should be viewed with respect to the
limitations of this study, which imply directions for future
research.
Wen and Qiang 371

First, the findings are based on data from the Chinese con-
text, where the managerial culture may be unique. The study is
also explorative in nature, and the generalizability of the pro-
posed PMCC framework should be further tested based on data
from other cultural backgrounds. Second, drawing on the
notion of “team-level individual factors,” PMCC is the only
factor analyzed in this study. This serves the research purpose
of identifying PMCC dimensions and indicators, but also
leaves a considerable proportion of variance in PCP unex-
plained (34.2%). By taking more endogenous variables into
consideration, future studies can explore the determinants of
PCP at various levels, such as project staffs’ individual pres-
sure, project teams’ cohesiveness, and senior management
involvement.

Appendix
Table A1. Constructs and Corresponding Questionnaire Items

Constructs Questionnaire Items Reference Cronbach’s a

Please rate the closing performance of the project in terms of:

Organizational strategic
value integration
Project closing efficiency
Knowledge asset accumulation
Please recall the last project you participated in and rate the project manager’s capability in terms of:
Knowledge and skills
External stakeholder management Identifying the demand of external stakeholders (bb1)
Leadership in project team
Organization-level capability
Alignment to organizational strategy (aa1) Unger et al. (2012) 0.708
Termination of non-value-adding efforts (aa2) Unger et al. (2012)
Strategic partnership development and maintenance (aa3) Dvir (2005)
Timely project closure and transfer to end user (ab1) De (2001) 0.784
Budget control in the closing phase (ab2)
Quality defect detection and elimination (ab3)
Key customer satisfaction (ab4)
Organization knowledge base augmentation (ac1) Joslin & Müller (2016) 0.910
Accumulation of project experience (ac2)
Improvement in the capability of delivering future projects (ac3)
Professional knowledge on project technologies (ba1) Dvir (2005) -
Experience in managing similar projects (ba2) Havila et al. (2013)
Awareness of the risks in project closing (ba3) De (2001)
Havila et al. (2013) -
Coordinating and negotiating with external stakeholders (bb2)
Closing contract relationships adequately (bb3)
Communication and interpersonal skills (bb4)
Inspiring team morale and aligning staffs’ objectives (bc1) Shepherd et al. (2014) -
Providing technical guidance to team members (bc2) Shepherd et al. (2014)
Helping staffs with career development planning (bc3) Havila et al. (2013)
Participating in project closing decision (bd1) Beringer et al. (2013) -
Obtaining support from senior managers (bd2)
Obtaining support from other departments (bd3)
Understanding and conforming to organization strategy (bd4)

Table A2. PMCC Indicators in Recent Studies on Project Manager Competences

Research Journal ba1 ba2 ba3 bb1 bb2 bb3 bb4 bc1 bc2 bc3 bd1 bd2 bd3 bd4
p p p
Lai, Hsu, and Li (2018) IJPM p p p p p p
Vuorinen and Martinsuo (2018) IJPM p p p
Müller, Zhu, Sun, Wang, and Yu (2018) IJPM p p
Engelbrecht, Johnston, and Hooper. (2017) IJPM p p p p p
Meng and Boyd (2017) IJPM p p p
Pinto, Patanakul, and Pinto (2017) IJPM p p
Marzagão and Carvalho (2016) IJPM p p p p p
Millhollan and Kaarst-Brown (2016) PMJ p
Saunders et al. (2016) IJPM p p p
Hodgson and Paton (2016) IJPM p p p p p p
Mazur and Pisarski (2015) IJPM p p p p p p p
Medina and Francis (2015) PMJ p p p p p p p
Loufrani-Fedida and Missonier (2015) IJPM
(continued)
372 Project Management Journal 50(3)

Table A2. (continued)

Research Journal ba1 ba2 ba3 bb1 bb2 bb3 bb4 bc1 bc2 bc3 bd1 bd2 bd3 bd4
p p p p p p p p p
Takey and de Carvalho (2015) IJPM p p p
Bredillet et al. (2015) IJPM p p
Medina and Medina (2014) IJPM p p p p p p
Mazur, Pisarski, Chang, and Ashkanasy. (2014) IJPM p p
Creasy and Anantatmula (2013) PMJ p p
Lundy and Morin (2013) PMJ p p p
Bredin and Soderlund (2013) IJPM p p p p p p p
Ortiz-Marcos, Benita, Aldeanueva, and Colsa (2013) PMJ p p p p p p p p p p p
Hwang and Ng (2013) IJPM p p p
Buganza, Kalchschmidt, Bartezzaghi, and Amabile. (2013) IJPM p p
Palacios-Marqués, Cortés-Grao, and Lobato Carral (2013) IJPM p p p
Verburg, Bosch-Sijtsema, and Vartiainen (2013) IJPM p p p p p p p p
Havila et al. (2013) IJPM p p p p p
Chronéer and Bergquist (2012) PMJ p p
Davis (2011) PMJ p p p p p
Stevenson and Starkweather (2010) IJPM p p p p
Müller and Turner (2010) IJPM p p p
Clarke (2010) IJPM p p p p p
Eskerod (2010) IJPM p p p p p p p
Crawford and Nahmias (2010) IJPM p p p p
Clarke (2010) PMJ p p p p p p p
Skulmoski and Hartman (2010) PMJ

Note: PMJ stands for Project Management Journal, and IJPM stands for International Journal of Project Management.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests success. International Journal of Project Management, 31(6),

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The present
study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (General Programs 51479100, 51179086, 51379104,
51779124), and grants (2015-KY-5, 2013-KY-5) from Tsinghua State
Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering. Qi Wen also wants
to thank the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence (2743975) and
Chinese Scholarship Council (201706210216) for financial support.
References
Ahearn, K. K., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., &
Ammeter, A. P. (2004). Leader political skill and team perfor-
mance. Journal of Management, 30(3), 309–327.
Andersen, E. S., Dyrhaug, Q. X., & Jessen, S. A. (2002). Evaluation of
Chinese projects and comparison with Norwegian projects. Inter-
national Journal of Project Management, 20(8), 601–609.
Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., & Ward, S. (2006). Fundamental uncer-
tainties in projects and the scope of project management. Interna-
tional Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 687–698.
Bakker, R. M. (2016). Stepping in and stepping out: Strategic alliance
partner reconfiguration and the unplanned termination of complex
projects. Strategic Management Journal, 37(9), 1919–1941.
Beringer, C., Jonas, D., & Kock, A. (2013). Behavior of internal
stakeholders in project portfolio management and its impact on
830–846.
Bredillet, C., Tywoniak, S., & Dwivedula, R. (2015). What is a good
project manager? An Aristotelian perspective. International Jour-
nal of Project Management, 33(2), 254–266.
Bredin, K., & Söderlund, J. (2013). Project managers and career mod-
els: An exploratory comparative study. International Journal of
Project Management, 31(6), 889–902.
Buganza, T., Kalchschmidt, M., Bartezzaghi, E., & Amabile, D.
(2013). Measuring the impact of a major project management edu-
cational program: The PMP case in Finmeccanica. International
Journal of Project Management, 31(2), 285–298.
Butt, A., Naaranoja, M., & Savolainen, J. (2016). Project change
stakeholder communication. International Journal of Project Man-
agement, 34(8), 1579–1595.
Chin, W. W. (1995). Partial least squares is to LISREL as principal
components analysis is to common factor analysis. Technology
Studies, 2(2), 315–319.
Chronéer, D., & Bergquist, B. (2012). Managerial complexity in pro-
cess industrial R&D projects: A Swedish study. Project Manage-
ment Journal, 43(2), 21–36.
Clarke, N. (2010). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to trans-
formational leadership and key project manager competences.
Project Management Journal, 41(2), 5–20.
Cooper, R. G. (2008). Perspective: The Stage-Gate® idea-to-launch
process—update, what’s new, and NexGen systems. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 25(3), 213–232.
Crawford, L. (2005). Senior management perceptions of project man-
agement competence. International Journal of Project Manage-
ment, 23(1), 7–16.
Wen and Qiang
Crawford, L., & Nahmias, A. H. (2010). Competencies for managing
change. International Journal of Project Management, 28(4),
405–412.
Creasy, T., & Anantatmula, V. S. (2013). From every direction—How
personality traits and dimensions of project managers can concep-
tually affect project success. Project Management Journal, 44(6),
36–51.
Davis, F. D., & Venkatesh, V. (2004). Toward preprototype user
acceptance testing of new information systems: Implications for
software project management. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 51(1), 31–46.
Davis, S. A. (2011). Investigating the impact of project managers’
emotional intelligence on their interpersonal competence. Project
Management Journal, 42(4), 37–57.
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2006). Leadership in team-based
organizations: On the threshold of a new era. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17(3), 211–216.
De, P. K. (2001). Project termination practices in Indian industry: A
statistical review. International Journal of Project Management,
19(2), 119–126.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction
with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development.
Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269–277.
Dupont, D. H., & Eskerod, P. (2016). Enhancing project benefit reali-
zation through integration of line managers as project benefit man-
agers. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4),
779–788.
Dvir, D. (2005). Transferring projects to their final users: The
effect of planning and preparations for commissioning on proj-
ect success. International Journal of Project Management,
23(4), 257–265.
Engelbrecht, J., Johnston, K. A., & Hooper, V. (2017). The influence
of business managers’ IT competence on IT project success. Inter-
national Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 994–1005.
Eskerod, P. (2010). Action learning for further developing project
management competencies: A case study from an engineering con-
sultancy company. International Journal of Project Management,
28(4), 352–360.
Felekoglu, B., & Moultrie, J. (2014). Top management involvement in
new product development: A review and synthesis. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 31(1), 159–175.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and sta-
tistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer
on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Havila, V., Medlin, C. J., & Salmi, A. (2013). Project-ending compe-
tence in premature project closures. International Journal of Proj-
ect Management, 31(1), 90–99.
Hodgson, D. (2002). Disciplining the professional: The case of project
management. Journal of Management Studies, 39(6), 803–821.
Hodgson, D. E., & Paton, S. (2016). Understanding the professional
project manager: Cosmopolitans, locals and identity work. Inter-
national Journal of Project Management, 34(2), 352–364.
373
Hwang, B.-G., & Ng, W. J. (2013). Project management knowledge
and skills for green construction: Overcoming challenges. Interna-
tional Journal of Project Management, 31(2), 272–284.
IPMA. (2006). ICB-IPMA-Competence Baseline Version 3.0. Nijkerk,
Netherlands: IMPA.
Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2016). The relationship between project
governance and project success. International Journal of Project
Management, 34(4), 613–626.
Jugdev, K., & Muller, R. (2005). A retrospective look at our evolving
understanding of project success. Project Management Journal,
36(4), 19–31.
Khang, D. B., & Moe, T. L. (2008). Success criteria and factors for
international development projects: A life-cycle-based framework.
Project Management Journal, 39(1), 72–84.
Lai, C.-Y., Hsu, J. S.-C., & Li, Y. (2018). Leadership, regulatory
focus and information systems development project team per-
formance. International Journal of Project Management, 36(3),
566–582.
Lechler, T. G., & Thomas, J. L. (2015). Examining new product
development project termination decision quality at the portfolio
level: Consequences of dysfunctional executive advocacy. Inter-
national Journal of Project Management, 33(7), 1452–1463.
Loufrani-Fedida, S., & Missonier, S. (2015). The project manager
cannot be a hero anymore! Understanding critical competencies
in project-based organizations from a multilevel approach.
International Journal of Project Management, 33(6),
1220–1235.
Lu, W., & Wang, J. (2017). The influence of conflict management
styles on relationship quality: The moderating effect of the level of
task conflict. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8),
1483–1494.
Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (1995). A theory of the temporary
organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4),
437–455.
Lundy, V., & Morin, P. (2013). Project leadership influences resis-
tance to change: The case of the Canadian Public Service. Project
Management Journal, 44(4), 45–64.
Madter, N., Bower, D. A., & Aritua, B. (2012). Projects and person-
alities: A framework for individualising project management
career development in the construction industry. International
Journal of Project Management, 30(3), 273–281.
Marzagão, D. S. L., & Carvalho, M. M. (2016). Critical success factors
for Six Sigma projects. International Journal of Project Manage-
ment, 34(8), 1505–1518.
Mazur, A., Pisarski, A., Chang, A., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2014).
Rating defence major project success: The role of personal attri-
butes and stakeholder relationships. International Journal of Proj-
ect Management, 32(6), 944–957.
Mazur, A. K., & Pisarski, A. (2015). Major project managers’ internal
and external stakeholder relationships: The development and vali-
dation of measurement scales. International Journal of Project
Management, 33(8), 1680–1691.
McLeod, L., Doolin, B., & MacDonell, S. G. (2012). A perspective-
based understanding of project success. Project Management Jour-
nal, 43(5), 68–86.
374
Medina, R., & Medina, A. (2014). The project manager and the orga-
nisation’s long-term competence goal. International Journal of
Project Management, 32(8), 1459–1470.
Medina, A., & Francis, A. J. (2015). What are the characteristics that
software development project team members associate with a good
project manager? Project Management Journal, 46(5), 81–93.
Meng, X., & Boyd, P. (2017). The role of the project manager in
relationship management. International Journal of Project Man-
agement, 35(5), 717–728.
Meyer, W. G. (2014). The effect of optimism bias on the decision to
terminate failing projects. Project Management Journal, 45(4),
7–20.
Millhollan, C., & Kaarst-Brown, M. (2016). Lessons for IT project
manager efficacy: A review of the literature associated with project
success. Project Management Journal, 47(5), 89–106.
Müller, R., & Turner, R. (2010). Leadership competency profiles of
successful project managers. International Journal of Project
Management, 28(5), 437–448.
Müller, R., Zhu, F., Sun, X., Wang, L., & Yu, M. (2018). The iden-
tification of temporary horizontal leaders in projects: The case of
China. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1),
95–107.
Ortiz-Marcos, I., Benita, J. R. C., Aldeanueva, C. M., & Colsa, Á. U.
(2013). Competency training for managing international coopera-
tion engineering projects. Project Management Journal, 44(2),
88–97.
Padalkar, M., & Gopinath, S. (2016). Six decades of project manage-
ment research: Thematic trends and future opportunities. Interna-
tional Journal of Project Management, 34(7), 1305–1321.
Palacios-Marqués, D., Cortés-Grao, R., & Lobato Carral, C. (2013).
Outstanding knowledge competences and web 2.0 practices for
developing successful e-learning project management. Interna-
tional Journal of Project Management, 31(1), 14–21.
Papke-Shields, K. E., Beise, C., & Quan, J. (2010). Do project man-
agers practice what they preach, and does it matter to project
success? International Journal of Project Management, 28(7),
650–662.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). Critical success factors across the
project life cycle. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management
Institute.
Pinto, J. K., Patanakul, P., & Pinto, M. B. (2017). “The aura of
capability”: Gender bias in selection for a project manager job.
International Journal of Project Management, 35(3), 420–431.
Project Management Institute (PMI). (2013). Project manager
competency development framework. Newtown Square, PA:
Author.
Project Management Institute (PMI). (2017). A guide to the project
management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) – Sixth edition.
Newtown Square, PA: Author.
Royer, I. (2003). Why bad projects are so hard to kill. Harvard Busi-
ness Review, 81(2), 48–57.
Saunders, F. C., Gale, A. W., & Sherry, A. H. (2016). Responding to
project uncertainty: Evidence for high reliability practices in large-
scale safety-critical projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 34(7), 1252–1265.
Project Management Journal 50(3)
Schriesheim, C. A. (1979). The similarity of individual directed and
group directed leader behavior descriptions. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 22(2), 345–355.
Shepherd, D. A., Patzelt, H., Williams, T. A., & Warnecke, D. (2014).
How does project termination impact project team members?
Rapid termination, “creeping death,” and learning from failure.
Journal of Management Studies, 51(4), 513–546.
Skulmoski, G. J., & Hartman, F. T. (2010). Information systems proj-
ect manager soft competencies: A project-phase investigation.
Project Management Journal, 41(1), 61–80.
Stevenson, D. H., & Starkweather, J. A. (2010). PM critical compe-
tency index: IT execs prefer soft skills. International Journal of
Project Management, 28(7), 663–671.
Stingl, V., & Geraldi, J. (2017). Errors, lies and misunderstandings:
Systematic review on behavioural decision making in projects.
International Journal of Project Management, 35(2), 121–135.
Takey, S. M., & de Carvalho, M. M. (2015). Competency mapping in
project management: An action research study in an engineering
company. International Journal of Project Management, 33(4),
784–796.
Turner, J. R. (1993). The handbook of project-based management:
Improving the processes for achieving strategic objectives. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Unger, B. N., Kock, A., Gemünden, H. G., & Jonas, D. (2012). Enfor-
cing strategic fit of project portfolios by project termination: An
empirical study on senior management involvement. International
Journal of Project Management, 30(6), 675–685.
Verburg, R. M., Bosch-Sijtsema, P., & Vartiainen, M. (2013). Getting
it done: Critical success factors for project managers in virtual
work settings. International Journal of Project Management,
31(1), 68–79.
Vuorinen, L., & Martinsuo, M. (2018). Program integration in multi-
project change programs: Agency in integration practice. Interna-
tional Journal of Project Management, 36(4), 583–599.
Wen, Q., & Qiang, M. (2016). Coordination and knowledge sharing in
construction project-based organization: A longitudinal structural
equation model analysis. Automation in Construction, 72,
309–320.
Wen, Q., Qiang, M., & Gloor, P. (2018). Speeding up decision-making
in project environment: The effects of decision makers’ collabora-
tion network dynamics. International Journal of Project Manage-
ment. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.02.006.
Winch, G. M., (2014). Three domains of project organising. Interna-
tional Journal of Project Management, 32(5), 721–731.
Wong, K. K.-K. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation mod-
eling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin,
24(1), 1–32.
Xiong, W., Zhang, X., & Chen, H. (2015). Early-termination compen-
sation in public–private partnership projects. Journal of Construc-
tion Engineering and Management, 142(4), 04015098.
Author Biographies
Qi Wen is a PhD candidate in the Institute of Project Manage-
ment and Construction Technology at Tsinghua University and
Wen and Qiang
a visiting scholar at the MIT Sloan School of Management. His
current research interests include organizational project man-
agement, project delivery systems, and social network analysis.
He can be contacted at q-wen14@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn
Maoshan Qiang is a professor in the Department of Hydraulic
Engineering and the Department of Construction Management,
Tsinghua University, China. His principal research interests are
project delivery and organizational structure and the project
schedule. His current research interests include project
375
governance, organizational project management, project-
based enterprise resources integration, business process reen-
gineering and enterprise resource planning, engineering project
management, intelligent monitoring of construction processes
and public sentiment, immigration resettlement, and social
restructure of large hydraulic engineering projects. He has
coauthored more than 100 publications. Maoshan Qiang spent
30 years in the industry consulting for large enterprises and
governments on their project management and governance.
He can be contacted at qiangms@tsinghua.edu.cn