Search

Purpose – There is growing recognition that effective project control systems (PCS) are critical to the success of projects. The relationship between the individual elements of PCS and successfully achieving project objectives has yet to be explored. This research investigates the enablers and barriers that influence the elements of PCS success and drive project objectives. Design/methodology/approach – This study adopts a mixed approach of descriptive analysis and regression models to explore the impact of six PCS elements on project outcomes. Petroleum and chemical projects in Saudi Arabia were selected as a case study to validate the research model. Findings –Data from a survey of 400 project managers in Saudi’s petroleum and chemical industry reveal that successful PCS are the key to achieving all project outcomes, but they are particularly critical for meeting project cost objectives. Project Governance was identified as the most important of the six PCS elements for meeting project objectives. A lack of standard processes emerged as the most significant barrier to achieving effective project governance, while having skilled and experienced project team members was the most significant enabler for implementing earned value. Practical implications – The study offers a direction for implementing and developing PCS as a strategic tool and focuses on the PCS elements that can improve project outcomes. Originality/value – This research contributes to project management knowledge and differs from previous attempts in two ways. Firstly, it investigates the elements of PCS that are critical to achieving project scope, schedule and cost objectives; secondly, enablers and barriers of PCS success are examined to see how they influence each element independently.

[EN] This research is exploring the values and beliefs of academic assessors around Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) in order to better understand their mindset and provide a foundation for best practice informed by all actors. An interpretative research design and random stratified sampling allowed for 31 interviews with assessors in an institute of technology setting in Ireland. Bernstein’s theories of classification and framing of knowledge and the related ideas of power and control provided the conceptual framework for analysis of the data. The notion of assessors as actors within the totally pedagogised society also supported analysis. Two themes emerge from the data. The first relates to the primary values and beliefs of assessors around RPL that are related to defending the standards of the formal learning system. The second theme balancing, diverges from this and provides further understanding of positions taken with the assessment of RPL. The research concludes that practitioner networks are necessary to cultivate pedagogic agency for RPL through both the official and pedagogic recontextualisation fields

[EN] This research is exploring the values and beliefs of academic assessors around Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) in order to better understand their mindset and provide a foundation for best practice informed by all actors. An interpretative research design and random stratified sampling allowed for 31 interviews with assessors in an institute of technology setting in Ireland. Bernstein’s theories of classification and framing of knowledge and the related ideas of power and control provided the conceptual framework for analysis of the data. The notion of assessors as actors within the totally pedagogised society also supported analysis. Two themes emerge from the data. The first relates to the primary values and beliefs of assessors around RPL that are related to defending the standards of the formal learning system. The second theme balancing, diverges from this and provides further understanding of positions taken with the assessment of RPL. The research concludes that practitioner networks are necessary to cultivate pedagogic agency for RPL through both the official and pedagogic recontextualisation fields

Efforts continue to identify new product development (NPD) best practices. Examples of recognized studies include those by the Product Development and Management Association's Comparative Performance Assessment Study and the American Productivity Quality Center NPD best practices study. While these studies designate practices that distinguish top-performing companies, it is unclear whether NPD practitioners as a group (not just researchers) are knowledgeable about what represents a NPD best practice. The importance of this is that it offers insight into how NPD practitioners are translating potential NPD knowledge into actual NPD practice. In other words, are practitioners aware of and able to implement NPD best practices designated by noteworthy studies? The answer to this question ascertains a current state of the field toward understanding NPD best practice and the maturity level of various practices. Answering this question further contributes to our understanding of the diffusion of NPD best practices knowledge by NPD professionals, possibly identifying gaps between prescribed and actual practice. Beginning the empirical examination by conducting a Delphi methodology with 20 leading innovation researchers, the study examined the likely dimensions of NPD and corresponding definitions to validate the NPD practices framework originally proposed by Kahn, Barczak, and Moss. A survey was then conducted with practitioners from the United States, United Kingdom, and Ireland to gauge opinions about perceptions of the importance of different NPD dimensions, specific characteristics reflected by each of these dimensions, and the level of NPD practice maturity that these characteristics would represent. The study is therefore unique in that it relies on the opinions of NPD practitioners to see what they perceive as best practice versus prior studies where the researcher has identified and prescribed best practices. Results of the present study find that seven NPD dimensions are recommended, whereas the 2006 Kahn, Barczak, and Moss framework had suggested six dimensions. Among practitioners across the three country contexts, there is consensus on which dimensions are more important, providing evidence that NPD dimensions may be generalizable across Western contexts. Strategy was rated higher than any of the other dimensions followed by research, commercialization, and process. Project climate and metrics were perceived as the lowest in importance. The high weighting on strategy and low weighting on metrics and project climate reinforce previous best practice findings. Regarding the characteristics of each best practice dimension, practitioners appear able to distinguish what constitutes poor versus best practice, but consensus on distinguishing middle range practices are not as clear. The suggested implications of these findings are that managers should emphasize strategy when undertaking NPD efforts and consider the fit of their projects with this strategy. The results further imply that there are clearly some poor practices that managers should avoid and best practices to which managers should ascribe. For academics, the results strongly suggest a need to do a better job of diffusing NPD knowledge and research on best practices. Particular attention by academics to the issues of metrics, project climate, and company culture appears warranted. © 2012 Product Development & Management Association.

peer-reviewed Purpose: The purpose of this research paper is to present a modified framework for the waves of change of new product development of McGrath. Design/methodology/approach: A qualitative study of new product development (NPD) in four electronic firms (two small indigenous/two large multinational) was conducted. In-depth interviews were held with employees, including the founding entrepreneur in each of the small firms. Findings: Analysis of strategic, organisational and development factors shows that firms face different challenges during their NPD process, some related to size. Also, as firms grow, NPD learning may be lost. Research limitations/implications: The research findings are stated as a result of four cases studies, two in large firms and two in small firms. Further research will establish the generalisability of these findings. Practical implications: The electronics industry is renowned for its aggressive competitive environment where successful entrepreneurs continuously innovate product and process development. The framework presented will be of use to entrepreneurs who focus on NPD. Originality/value: A modified version of McGraths framework, showing separate categories for small and large firms, is presented. These modifications recognise that there are differences between NPD in small and NPD in large firms.