Studying the Use of Tools and Techniques as a Means of Studying Professional Practice
Project Management is an applied field. For this reason, a clear understanding of the state and the evolution of professional practice is particularly important to its future development. This paper focuses on one important aspect of project management practice: the use of the tools and techniques that are specific to the field. A rich array of project management tools and techniques has emerged from practice, as witnessed by the content of the PMBOK® Guide. Identifying the set of project specific tools and techniques is an important part of defining the frontiers of the profession.
“The primary purpose of the (PMBOK Guide) is to identify and describe the subset of the PMBOK that is generally accepted. Generally accepted means that the knowledge and practices described are applicable to most projects most of the time, and that there is widespread consensus about their value and usefulness” (PMI, 2000, p. 3).
The PMBOK Guide does not focus only on tools and techniques, but taking this focus, the PMBOK Guide can be seen as providing an inventory of generally applicable and generally valued tools and techniques. This inventory is an important starting point for understanding project management practice. However, this inventory gives no indication of the relative importance of the different tools and techniques nor the ways in which usage varies with context and project type. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of project management practice by investigating the general variability of usage of project management tools and techniques and the variations among differing contexts and project types. A survey of project management practitioners was used as the basis of this investigation.
The Literature Review
Wirth (1992) argued that project management is largely generic, that is to say applicable to many industries with little adaptation. The very existence of the PMBOK Guide is itself an illustration of the generic nature of project management, although the PMBOK Guide does emphasize that adaptation is required (PMI, 2000, p. 3). On the other hand, Payne and Turner (1998) and Shenhar (1998) have shown that project management practices do vary significantly from one type of project to the next. The proliferation of Specific Interest Groups within PMI, and the publishing of the Government and Construction Extensions to the PMBOK Guide (PMI, 2002, 2003) are also clear indications of the belief that project management varies by industry. Crawford, Hobbs, and Turner (2002) have presented a literature review of project categorization systems and are presenting the final results of a research project on this same topic at the present conference (Crawford, Hobbs, & Turner, 2004). There is, therefore, widespread recognition of the variability of project management practice by industry and by project type. The questions now deal with the extent of the variation, the project characteristics and contextual variables that are associated with the greatest variability, and the detailed identification of which practices vary in which contexts. In order to contribute to this debated, this paper investigates similarities and differences among project management practices on different types of projects and in different contexts.
Organizations and their project managers must choose the tools that will be part of their toolbox. This set of tools should be aligned with project characteristics and organizational contexts. The unique nature of each project combines with the constantly changing environment to amplify the challenge facing the project manager in choosing which tools are most appropriate. Milosevic and Ozbay (2001) have shown that a more compatible set of project management tools enhances “project delivery capability.” Milosevic (2003) suggested a model in which the PM toolbox stands as the foundation of the strategic project management process. In this model, the toolbox and the choice of project management tools and techniques need to be aligned with the organization's mission and strategy. Adaptation to the organizational strategy can be seen either as adapting to organization specific strategy or as adapting to the dominant strategy in an industrial sector and/or the characteristics of a specific type of project.
Several other papers have been published in recent years on the use of project management tools. McMahon and Lane (2001) identified tools and techniques specific to the management of project quality. They classified the tools by phase to underline the variation in usage throughout the project life. They argued that the more quality tools and techniques the project manager knows and uses, the more the project will be quality oriented. Raz and Michael (2001) examined the use of risk management tools in Israeli high-tech industries investigating the frequency of use, the perceived contribution of usage to project success and extent to which usage was associated with high performance. Thirty-eight tools were included in this survey. Zeitoun (1998) presented the ease of use of 14 tools and processes and investigated implementation issues. He argued that the usefulness of tools depends on the quality of the implementation process and the training that accompanies their implementation. Hargrave and Singley (1998) presented a comprehensive study of the use of project management tools, techniques, and processes in a specific context. The research surveyed project managers in the Army Corps of Engineers on the use of the 37 processes and 116 techniques and tools. The analysis highlighted the tools, techniques, and processes that show a gap between importance and excellence in use. Thamhain (1998) published a study of the use and perceived value of 29 project management tools and techniques. The study further investigated the barriers to their use. He concluded that the contribution of project management tools and techniques to project performance is conditional upon their integration into project management processes and acceptance by the project team. Each of these studies focused on a specific application area, knowledge area, or a specific aspect of the use of tools (e.g., the barriers to use or implementation).
This paper draws upon and combines the research questions and methodological approaches of these two streams of literature. Methodologically the research is in continuation with the approaches used by those that investigate the use of project management tools empirically. However, by also gathering information on the types of projects being managed and the contexts in which they are being carried out, this paper will also be able to contribute to the debate on the generic nature of project management and the importance of project typologies. Variations in the usage of project management tools across project types and contexts will be considered here as a means of studying variation in project management practice.
Methodology
Once the purpose and scope of this research project had been established the balance of the project was managed in four phases:
- Selection of project management tools and techniques to be investigated;
- Design of the web-based questionnaire;
- Soliciting practitioners;
- Data analysis and writing up results.
Selection of Project Management Tools and Techniques to be Investigated
The approach in the present study is to survey project management practitioners asking them to select the project management tools they use from the list provided in the questionnaire. For this reason, the list provided must be quite extensive. Drawing from the PMBOK Guide, the work cited above and other sources, the authors selected what they feel are the tools and techniques that are identified with the practice of project management. The sources consulted by the authors most often included both very general concepts and processes (e.g., training programs, performance measurement) and very specific tools (e.g., WBS, project charter), they do not make explicit distinction between tools and processes. The present research investigates only tools and techniques that are project specific, but not general processes. The authors considered tools and techniques to be those things that project management practitioners use to “do the job,” to “execute a process.” Metaphorically the tools are used to “execute the recipe” or to “play the partition.” They are concrete and specific means to apply rules and principles. The tools and techniques are closer to the day-to-day practice, closer to the things people do, closer to their tacit knowledge. Their use and skillful practice require practical know-how and “tacit knowledge equals practical know-how” (Koskinen, Pihlanto, & Vanharanta, 2003). An experienced cook can give details about his recipe, but it is really looking at him in the kitchen, using his tools, that one can really learn what has to be done. Restricting the investigation to well-know tools and techniques that are specific to project management ensures that the questionnaire is well understood by practitioners.
A list of 70 project management tools and techniques was prepared in line with the approach described above. The tools were then sorted to approximately follow the project life cycle, but in order to help respondents make clear distinctions, tools with similar names or related meanings were placed next to each other in the list. For example, “critical path” was placed next to “critical chain.” The complete list is presented in Exhibit 1. A definition of each of the tools and techniques was provided. The primary sources of definitions were the PMBOK Guide and Max Wideman's Comprehensive Glossary of Project Management Terms (Wideman, 2002). These were completed by definitions by the authors.
For some members of the project management community the expression “project management tool” refers to computer-based tools and specific software products. The term is used here in a broader sense analogous to the use found in the PMBOK Guide. There has been an enormous interest in the evaluation of these computer-based tools over the years (PMI, 1999). Research has also been conducted on the use and usefulness of these specific tools (Fox & Spence, 1998). From the point of view of this research, these tools are among the many found in the project management toolbox and they will be included in the investigation. Rather than investigate specific software products, the present study has used a more generic approach identifying eight categories of uses often served by project management software. These are presented in Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1. The 70 PM Tools in Alphabetical Order
Design of the Web-based Questionnaire
The questionnaire is comprised of three sections. The first section gathers demographic information on the respondents including position, education, and level of experience. The second part of the questionnaire gathers information on industry, organizational context, and project characteristics. The questions on these two first groups of variables used in the questionnaire were in great part drawn from the questionnaire Lynn Crawford developed for her well-known research into project management competency (Crawford, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000). The authors wish to thank her for her generosity in allowing them to use these questions.
The third part of the questionnaire gathers information on each of the 70 tools chosen for the study. Questions were design to investigate the actual usage of project management tools and techniques in the work place. A five-point scale was used with responses from “not used” to “very extensive use.”
Soliciting Practitioners
The web-based questionnaire was pretested to evaluate ease of understanding and the time required to complete. Practitioners were then invited to complete the questionnaire. The solicitation of practitioners was done through different networks to which the authors have access. The large majority of the questionnaires were completed by Project Management Professionals (PMPs) responding to an invitation from the PMI® Research Department to participate in the study. PMP practitioners, that is to say PMPs that are not consultants, trainers, or academics, were solicited. The authors wish to thank Harry Stefanou, Manager of PMI‘s Research Department, for his support. The 753 practitioners that completed the questionnaire had the following demographics:
- Male (67%);
- Aged 30-50 (74%);
- Current primary role:
- Team Member (8%);
- Project Manager (51%);
- Program Manager/Director (24%);
- Other (17%).
The respondents are well qualified to provide information on the use and usefulness of project management tools and techniques. The respondents work on projects that produce different types of products, as indicated below. Data was gathered on both the sector of activity of the respondent's organization and the type of deliverable produced by the respondent's primary project. An individual working in the financial services or defense industries, for example, may be working on Information Technology (IT) projects. Youker (2002) and others argue that product type is a more useful classification of projects that the classification by industry. The percentages below pertain to project type, not industry.
| • Engineering and Construction | 12.3% |
| • Business Services | 11.8% |
| • IT and Telecommunications | 58.6% |
| • Industrial Services | 4.2% |
| • Personal Services | 0.6% |
| • Other | 12.5% |
The majority of respondents are in IT projects, which is not out of line with PMI membership of which 38% are in IT industries and 13% are in business and financial services (PMI, 2004). PMI‘s membership statistics probably underestimate the proportion of members involved in IT projects because the membership data is based on industry rather than product type. In the present research sample 43% reported that their organization's primary business activity was IT, while 58.6% reported that their current primary project was in IT. If the proportions are similar, the representation of IT projects in this sample is in line with PMI‘s membership.
Is Project Management Practice Generic or Specific to Different Contexts and Different Project Types?
If project management practice is generic then the pattern of practice observed for the entire population will be similar to the patterns observed across differing contexts and different types of projects. If project management practice is context specific or specific to differing project types them statistically different usages would be found when comparing across contexts and project types. Somewhat paradoxically, the data gathered during this study lends support to both; on a background of similar patterns of practice several statistically significant differences have been identified.
What is Similar?
The rank ordering of tools and techniques by decreasing levels of usage produces the list presented in Exhibit 2 for the entire sample. Splitting the sample in two using contextual variables or project characteristics and then rank ordering the tools by usage produces lists that are surprisingly similar. Rank ordering is not, however, the best measure of similarity and does not readily lend itself to statistical verification. Visual inspection of the different lists, nevertheless, indicates that the most often used and the least often used tools are virtually the same in the split and full samples. For example, the ten most commonly used and least used tools in the overall sample are among the 15 most and least used tools in almost all the subpopulations. We conclude, therefore, that there is a common pattern of usage across the project management community, a commonality that spans differences in context and project type.
However, in examining the Exhibit 2, it must be remembered that small changes in average use can change the rank ordering significantly. The exact position in this list is, therefore, not meaningful. Moreover, the investigation of differences in context and project type revealed several statistically significant and important differences. These are presented in the next sections, following the analysis of Exhibit 2.
Exhibit 2. The 70 Tools in Decreasing Order of Average Use
An examination of Exhibit 2 reveals usage levels that are, for the most part, what one might expect. In fact, throughout the data analysis very few counterintuitive results were encountered. This is an indication of the face validity of the results. Exhibit 2 has been organized in accordance with the labels that were used to qualify the levels of use in the questionnaire. The interpretation of this exhibit is rather straightforward; the tool used most extensively is the progress report and the least often used is the Monte-Carlo analysis. The reader is invited to examine it more closely.
The “less than very limited use” list requires some interpretation. The usage levels of these tools are very low. Several factors may explain the presence of a tool on this list. Individuals can use some tools without any organizational investment or support. The use of a Gantt chart, for example, does not require any specialized resources. However, the use of databases does require significant organizational resources and support. All of the database tools are in the bottom half of the overall list and two are in the last column. The difficulty in using these tools without organizational support may explain their low usage levels.
All the tools on the list have been in wide circulation for over ten years with the exception of the critical chain method and quality functional deployment. The relatively recent arrival of these tools on the project management scene may, at least partially, explain their low usage level.
The survey distinguished eight uses of project management software, which the exhibit shows vary greatly in their frequency of use. Use for task scheduling is very near the top of the list. In fact, all three related to scheduling are among the most frequently used. Use for simulation, on the other hand, is near the very bottom of the list. The other four uses of project management software are in the middle list. This shows very clearly that project management software is used primarily for scheduling.
Some tools are used more often on some types of projects and less often on others. Life cycle costing, for example, is used in certain industries but not in others. This must contribute to its low average usage in the overall sample. However, this explanation does not account for very much of the variation in this study. The highest usage score for this tool in all the different subgroupings examined is just above “very limited use.”
Three tools in the list are related to competitive bidding: bid documents, bidders’ conference, and bid/seller evaluation. These are found in the middle column. However, when engineering and construction projects were examined alone, the usage levels rose significantly. These are examples of tools with contextually differentiated usage levels, the identification of which is the object of the following section of the paper.
What are the Differences?
A t-test was used throughout to identify dissimilarities in usage across subgroups of responses. Among the different subgroupings two standout as showing the greatest differences in usage levels. Comparisons made across organizations of different levels of maturity reveal statistically significant differences in usage for all project management tools. Comparisons on the basis of project size also identified large numbers of statistically significant differences in average usage. The following sections present the analyses of these and other variations in context and project type.
Relationships among Contextual Variables
A relationship might exist between level of organizational maturity and project size. The authors checked for such a relationship using cross tabulations and Chi-square statistics. Size and maturity level are only very weakly related. Maturity level and project size, therefore, influence the frequency of usage of project management tools independently. The same concern exists with respect to relationships between any of the contextual variables in this study. These relationships have been examined and will be reported where they are noteworthy. Unless it is stated otherwise, the reader should assume that the influences of different contextual variables reported here are independent of each other.
Variation by Organizational Maturity Level
Respondents rated the level of maturity of their organizations on a scale of one to five similar to the Software Engineering Institutes Capability Maturity Model (CMM) scale. The responses were recoded in two groups, those reporting maturity levels one and two and those reporting level three and above, thus dividing the sample into almost equal groups (56% and 44%). The test of the differences in the mean usage revealed statistically significant differences for all the tools; all tools being used more often on projects in the context of a mature organization than in less mature organizations. For 66 tools the level of statistical significant is p < 0.001, for four tools the level is between p = 0.001 and p = 0.013.
There are, therefore, very significant differences in the practice of project management in mature and less mature organizations. But it is interesting to observe that the most frequently used and the least frequently used tools in both mature and less mature organizations are virtually the same. The last two columns of Exhibit 3 show the ten tools with the highest levels of usage for each maturity subgroup. The difference between project management practice in mature and less mature organizations is first and foremost in the overall frequency of use of project management tools. The first column of Exhibit 3 presents the ten tools for which the differences in usage levels are the greatest, in decreasing order. These tools are not necessarily the ones most often used, but they are used much more in organization with mature project management systems. A small star indicates which of the tools with the greatest differences are also very highly used. Caution needs to be exercised in interpreting these lists because the cut-off for selecting just the top ten tools for presentation is arbitrary.
Exhibit 3. Tools Showing Most Significant Differences Between Mature and Less Mature Organizations
Project Size Makes a Difference
Project size is the second variable for which marked differences in usage were observed for a very large numbers of tools. Dollar value was used as a metric. This is not a perfect measure of size, but it is an approximation of size for which data can easily be gathered. The responses were divided into two groups, less than and greater than $1,000,000, which produced a 46% / 54% split. Analysis of this grouping revealed statistically significant differences in average usage for 64 of the 72 tools, larger projects using tools more often than smaller projects in all cases. The level of significance of the differences was p < 0.001 for 50 tools and p < 0.038 and > 0.001 for 14 other tools. Exhibit 4 shows the tools for which the differences are the greatest in decreasing order. A small star indicates which of the tools with the greatest differences are also very highly used. Caution must be used again in interpreting these lists.
Exhibit 4. Tools Showing Most Significant Differences Between Large and Small Projects
Data on project duration was also collected. A large number of tools were found to be used more often on projects lasting over one year than on projects lasting less. In total 42 statistically significant differences in usage were found. As might be expected, a strong relationship was found between project duration and dollar value. Both are measures of project scope and as such produce a similar effect on project management practice, part of which is an increased usage of a large number of project management tools.
Differences across Product Types
As was indicated earlier, the sample is weighted toward IT projects but includes sufficient respondents from engineering and construction and from business services to allow comparisons among the three. This was done using three separate tests each of which compared one type of project against the rest of the entire sample. This produced three sets of comparisons: engineering and construction (E&C) against the rest of the population, IT against the rest, and business services (BuS) against the rest. Each of the comparisons identified statistically significant differences in usage for several tools. In each case, some of the tools were used more often and others were used less often. The comparisons among the three domains show complex relationships.
The results can be summarized in several ways. Exhibit 5 presents the number of significant differences in usage that were identified for each type of project. Some of the differences involve using a particular tool more often than in the rest of the sample and others less often. Only tools with usages that differ with significance level of p < 0.05 are presented and discussed.
Exhibit 5. Comparison of the Number of Tools Used Significantly More and Less Often, for Three Product Types
The much larger sample size for IT projects may explain the larger number of tools for which statistically significant differences in usage were identified. One might expect that the tools that are used more in IT would be used less on the other product types and vice versa. However, the relationship is more complex.
Comparisons between two types of projects are much easier to present and understand. Comparing three very different sets of practices across a large number of variables at the same time is more difficult. Comparing E&C projects with IT projects highlights a few similarities and many differences. The BuS projects are in turn quite different from either of these other two types. The comparisons will, therefore, be made first between E&C projects and IT projects, which will be followed by comments on BuS projects and how they differ from the other two types. The comparisons among the three are presented in Exhibit 6.
Care must be exercised in interpreting the results portrayed in Exhibit 6. One must avoid confusion between the identification of the more frequently used tools and the identification of tools for which significant differences in usage levels have been identified. Exhibit 6 focuses on the latter. The fact that a tool is not mentioned does not mean it is not used. It means that its usage is neither greater nor less that the usage observed in the overall sample. The “Gantt chart,” for example, is not mentioned in Exhibit 6. This does not mean that it is not used. Quite to the contrary, it remains among the most frequently used tools on all types of projects. The same is true for five other tools on the list of the most frequently used presented in Exhibit 2—milestone planning, statement of work, activity list, lessons learned/post evaluation, and customer satisfaction survey. Tools appear in Exhibit 6 because significant differences in their usage have been identified. A small star has been inserted in the table to identify the tools that are among the most frequently used on each type of project. Those that do not have a small star remain at lower usage levels. Thus, a particular tool may be used relatively more frequently and still show limited usage, indicated by “more” without a star. Likewise, a tool used relatively less frequently can still be among the most frequently used tools, as indicated by the note “less *.”
Exhibit 6. Significant Differences in Usage Across Three Types of Projects
Contrasting usage between E&C projects and IT projects can be observed for ten tools. This is to say that these tools are used more on one type of project than in the rest of the total sample and less on the other type. Requirement analysis and the tools related to bidding are examples of this phenomenon. Contrasting differences highlight very important differences between the two types of projects.
In Exhibit 6, the tools have been grouped according to the purposes they serve in managing projects. Five tools have been grouped under “scope and requirements definition,” of which three concern E&C and IT. Both E&C and IT projects use the scope statement more often than the rest of the sample. Additional analysis revealed that this tool is used more often on IT projects than E&C (p = 0.005; this information is not shown in Exhibit 6). However, the two types of projects contrast in their use of requirements analysis, IT using it more often than the rest of the sample and E&C less often. In E&C projects requirements are often established and documented before the project is initiated. In this type of project, the mandate is to meet the prespecified requirements. In contrast to this, in IT projects analysis to develop of the requirements is a long and complex process with several iterations. Validation, re-evaluation and revalidation of the requirements are important parts of managing the project. These take place over time, as functionality is progressively defined.
The project charter is another tool used to define project scope. This tool is used less in E&C than in the rest of the sample. E&C projects rely more heavily on contracts to specify the mandate and less on project charters. This can be seen in the next group of tools.
Awarding contracts by competitive bidding is a very important part of project management in E&C and very much less so in IT projects. The three tools in the survey dealing with bidding show contrasting usages between the two types of projects. All of the tools in this survey dealing with bidding were thus identified as being used more often in E&C and less often in IT projects.
IT projects seem to rely more on tools for communicating and for organizing. Communication plans show contrasting usage, with more usage in IT and less in E&C than the overall sample. The communication or war room and the project website are also powerful communication tools, the use of which is greater in IT projects. The responsibility assignment matrix and kick-off meeting are both communication and organizational tools. Both are also used more in IT projects. The increased usage of organizational and communicational tools may be an adaptation to more complex organizational environments and the association of IT projects with organizational change. The indication that self-directed teams are used less on IT projects than in the rest of the sample is a counterintuitive result. This is the only such result encountered during data analysis.
Both IT and E&C projects make extensive use of tools for planning and control. However, the tools that show markedly greater usage are different for each type of project. Only the quality plan is common to both. This is consistent with the concern for managing scope as seen with the use of the scope statement.
An examination of the entire set of tools for planning and control reveals that E&C projects are more centered on cost in general and estimating in particular, while IT projects are more focused on schedule and resource allocation. The contrasting usage of financial measures and of databases for cost estimating highlight this difference. Earned value and trend charts or S-Curves are associated in practice with each other and with the management of tangible deliverables such as those found in E&C. This may explain the contrast in usage between the two types of projects in the use of these tools. The greater use of the client acceptance form in IT projects is consistent with the progressive definition of requirements and multiple partial deliveries found in these projects. While the greater use of work authorizations on E&C projects is consistent with the preplanned work and contractual relations found on this type of project, the fact that people of IT projects are more familiar with and more at ease with TI products may influence the usage of these types of tools. The evidence is inconclusive at best as E&C shows greater usage of some of the IT-based tools.
Risk management is an area where IT projects show a greater usage of tools and techniques, with three tools being used more often than in E&C. Inversely, E&C show greater use of value analysis and QFD, tools associated historically with the design of tangible products. The use of value analysis contrasts between the two.
Each of these two types of projects calls for significantly greater usage of a relatively large number of project management tools, only two of which are common to both, and many of which show contrasting usage. The comparison between these two types of projects, on the one hand, and business services projects, on the other, reveals significant differences in project practices. Only five tools are used more on business services projects than on projects of other types. Only one, the use of financial measurement is common with increased usage in E&C and none are common with IT projects. Furthermore, no tools that are specific to planning and control are used more often on business services projects than on other types of projects and nine such tools are used less often. Overall, business services projects make less use of project management planning and control tools than do other types of projects.
However, business services projects make greater use of stakeholder analysis to analyze their complex organizational environments. Cost-benefit analysis is used in project evaluation and selection, which is consistent with increased use of financial measures. The documentation of the project's mandate using the project charter is more important in this type of project. The team and team-building activities are also more important in business services projects.
The examination of the three types of projects for which the sample here provides sufficient data has revealed very different patterns of practice in each. This is strong support for the idea that different types of projects are managed differently. The analysis presented here adds a great deal of empirically-founded detail in the comparison among project management practices observed on these three types of projects. As can be seen in Exhibit 6, comparisons of project management practice across sectors are complex. It is easy to state that engineering and construction projects are different from IT projects, and this is true. However, these two different types of projects share significant characteristics that simplistic contrasts do not bring to light.
Conclusions
The purpose of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of project management practice by investigating the general variability of usage of project management tools and techniques and the variations among differing contexts and project types. Project management practice can be described in many different ways. We have chosen to build a description of project management practice based on a survey of the use of tools and techniques that are specific to project management. This is a partial view of project management practice, but restricting the investigation to well-known tools and techniques that are specific to project management ensured that the questionnaire was well understood by practitioners.
Project management has established itself as a specialized field within the area of management. The identification of that which differentiates project management from general management is an important aspect of the establishment of the field. As project management matures, the field is going beyond the uniform generic description of project management practice, often by evoking differences among projects of different types. The results presented here support both the image of project management as a field with relatively uniform generic practices and the existence of significant differences across different types of projects. This research has identified a common pattern of practice across the project management community, a commonality that spans differences in context and project type. This commonality manifests itself most clearly when the lists of most frequently used tools are compared across different types of projects, as in Exhibits 3 and 4. Significant variability in project management practice has also been identified across differences in context and project type.
These results support the approach taken by PMI‘s Standards Department in publishing both the PMBOK Guide presenting the project management practices applicable to “most projects most of the time” and extensions to the PMBOK Guide presenting the particularities of different application areas. The results of this survey can contribute to verifying the basis of the project management practice as it is applied to most projects most of the time and can also contribute to better identifying practices in specific application areas. The examination of project management practices across three types of projects has revealed very different patterns of practice in each. No consistent and simple relationship was found among usage levels in the three types of projects. Quite to the contrary, the comparisons across project types were multifaceted and complex. We conclude that significant differences exist across project types, but that detailed analysis may be required to uncover their true nature.
The results presented in this paper can be viewed from different perspectives. Those that are interested in the study of project management specific tools and techniques and their usage in the work environment will find a great deal of relevant and detailed information on this subject. The results can also be seen as a window into the specifics and particularities of project management and the dynamics of project management as a field of professional practice.