Effects of project management training on professional individual performance related to engineering and construction projects development

Abstract

This paper presents an approach on the project management training effect on actual engineering and construction project performance. The first part includes a literature review on several studies conducted on this matter around the world, and a detailed review of three of them. The second part displays a doctoral thesis research proposal (in progress) regarding the above mentioned topic, specifically considering Peruvian firms and practitioners, and the training products related to A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide).

Introduction

Among South American countries, Peru has a favorable combination of political stability, represented by an civilian electoral system for more than 30 years; continuous economic growth for more than 10 years; and an important investment opportunities portfolio in several industries, such as mining, oil and gas, energy, metals and machining, construction, agriculture, fishing, airports and ports, financial services, and tourism. In 2011, foreign investment exceeded 15 billion dollars (Banco Central de Reserva del Perú [BCRP], 2012, p. 17).

During the past few years, the construction industry has been one of the most important for Peruvian economic development (Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática, [INEI], 2012), showing a continuous growth. The construction industry fund sources are related to new real estate initiatives, national civil infrastructure, and private equity (local and foreign) projects.

Peruvian Construction GDP Yearly Variation

Exhibit 1. Peruvian Construction GDP Yearly Variation

The current situation has revealed an important deficit in project management human resources teams. One view for increasing the competitiveness of the project teams was the need to apply a valid project management standard. In the private equity companies, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) is one of the main references for these activities. The knowledge of the PMBOK® Guide as a practitioners preferred tool for project management has been increased importantly in the last years in Peru. Personal and corporate initiatives prefer the PMBOK® Guide instead of other similar products.

Regarding the managerial training needs in Peruvian engineering and construction industries, the Labor Bureau, Ministerio de Trabajo y Promoción Social [MTPS] (2001), suggests that professional training has evolved from technical knowledge, abilities, and skills creation to technological development to personal relationships, also known as soft skills.

Background

According to the PMBOK® Guide (PMI, 2008, p. 6), project management is “the application of knowledge, skills and techniques to execute projects effectively and efficiently. It's a strategic competency for organizations, enabling them to tie project results to business goals—and thus, better compete in their markets.” The PMBOK® Guide is one of the most recognized reference books for project management practitioners. PMI currently has more than 380,000 members around the globe, and more than 470,000 Project Management Professional (PMP®) credential holders (PMI, 2012). Based on PMI statistics, Peru, after Brazil, has the largest quantity of PMI local chapter members in South America, and PMBOK® Guide training is the most popular among the private project management community. Therefore, there is an individual and corporate interest in the PMBOK® Guide, and it is required to study the impact of this training in execution results.

PMI training products are widely known in Peru. At least four top universities offer different programs, in online, in-house, and on-campus versions. Several private companies adopted the PMBOK® Guide as the preferred standard for project management practitioners. In addition to the PMBOK® Guide, PMI also intends to define the main competences for project management practitioners, in Project Manager Competency Development (PMCD) Framework (2007). PMI defines competences of three types: (a) knowledge, (b) professional, and (c) personal. In the same way, construction industry training investment represents an important initiative in the search for performance improvement. Only two Peruvian main contractors invested annually more than 100,000 labor hours (Cosapi, 2012; Graña & Montero, 2012).

Part 1: Literature Review

Introduction

Several project management best practices are compiled in the PMBOK® Guide. They are recognized as the best practices used in project development, shared by different project management teams around the globe. The PMBOK® Guide is not a methodology guide, but a reference for project management planning and control. The specific methodology for each project is developed by the project team assigned and the organization in charge (PMI, 2010, pp. 4, 13–14, 37–65). On the other hand, PMI (2007) proposed the professional competences required by the project management practitioners. The competences described are classified as (a) knowledge, (b) professional, and (c) personal. Knowledge competence is “what the project manager knows about the application of processes, tools and techniques for project activities” (p. 2). Performance competence is “how the project manager applies project management knowledge to meet the project requirements” (p. 2). Personal competence is “how the project manager behaves when performing activities within the project environment; their attitudes, and core personality characteristics” (p. 2). Both hard skills and soft skills are proposed and detailed by PMI publications; therefore, a majority of project practitioners' training needs could be accomplished with training about the PMBOK® Guide and PMCD.

Approach to Training Evaluation

Kirkpatrick, D. L., and Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). proposed a model for evaluating management training programs. The model comprised four dimensions to be measured:

  • Satisfaction/Reaction—Thoughts, insights and feelings from the participants regarding the training.
  • Learning—Changes in knowledge or skills. Changes in attitudes. This evaluation is handled during the training (demonstrations, presentations, tests, etc.)
  • Behavior—Knowledge, skills and attitudes (acquired in the classroom) applied on the job. Changes in behavior. This evaluation is applied 3–6 months post-training, while the trainee is performing the job.
  • Results—Results or performance changes (improvement) because of attendance and participation in a training program (can be monetary, performance-based, etc.)

Adding to the Kirkpatrick model, Phillips (1996) included a return on investment (ROI) evaluation level, in order to compare the results measured in the fourth level of the Kirkpatrick model versus the overall costs of training.

Kirkpatrick and Phillips Models for Training Program Evaluation

Exhibit 2. Kirkpatrick and Phillips Models for Training Program Evaluation

The impact of managerial training has been studied for decades. In 1963, House and Tosi reported the great difficulty in evaluating training effectiveness. They tested two hypothesis: (a) that a management training program, beginning with the top levels of the organization and requiring policy and operational commitments and repeated at every level, is sufficient to precondition the leadership climate and bring about significant changes in the characteristics measured; and (b) certain pre-training characteristics would be significantly correlated with the change resulting from the training effort. In this study, the training program included 252 engineering managers in a 3,000-employee organization. The participants all had engineering backgrounds (science and mathematics), and their managerial knowledge (except in one case) was obtained from experience and personal development. The training program main objective was “to make the participants more aware of the formal knowledge of management” (p. 305). The method of analysis was described as:

In order to evaluate the results of the training a set of scaled questionnaires was administered immediately prior to, and following the training. The respondents were the trainees, their subordinates, and their superiors. The questionnaires were administered at the same time to an untrained control group consisting of members in another department. An 18-month interval elapsed between the pre-and post-training measurement. This evaluation is primarily concerned with differences between the control group and the experimental group for the characteristics measured. The measured characteristics were perceived responsibility, perceived authority, perceived delegation and various measures of satisfaction. Scores attained for each characteristic were analyzed to determine whether or not a significant change occurred which can be attributed to the training program. To test the second hypothesis, that certain pre-training characteristics were correlated with change, a multiple correlation analysis, using the pre-training scores and such items as age, level of job, time with company, and time in present job was conducted. This analysis sought to determine if certain factors may be used to predict effectiveness of training. (pp. 308-309)

J. A. Brook, Shouksmith, and R. J. Brook (1993) elaborated a study regarding management training needs. The study intended to “valuate a management training course designed especially for a group of research scientists and senior technical staff employed by several government and quasigovernment organizations engaged in scientific and industrial research” (p. 23). The researchers identified nine training categories. The mentioned categories definitions are related to the PMCD classification. The results indicated that there was “no significant difference between the means of the difference scores obtained when the trained group was compared with the untrained group” (p. 310). However, the differences between the trained and untrained group were noted when certain pre-training variables were applied.

In the same way, several authors (Carbone, 2004; Cardoso et al., 2006; Gale & Brown, 2009; Rozenes & Vitner, 2009; Turner & Huemann, 2000) researched project management training and approaches to measure training effectiveness. On the other hand, research by Campbell (1994, 1995); Elliott, Dawson, and Edwards (2009); Murray and Efendioglu (2007); Pineda (2010); and Plant and Ryan (1993) proposed several topics regarding project investment evaluation. Following is an analysis of two selected papers, and references for three other works of interest.

Paper 1: Developing Top Managers: The Impact of Interpersonal Skills Training (Hunt & Baruch, 2003)

This work is not directly related to project management training; however, it represents an approach to the study of general managerial training effectiveness and personal skills evaluation. The authors prepared a study in order to assess the impact of interpersonal skills training on top managers. Their research focused on three questions about training and development:

  • Style theorists: Are leadership skills more relevant than technical skills?
  • Training and development practitioners: What is the actual value of training and how to measure it?
  • Competency theorists: Are there skills or competencies that differentiate “effective” from “less effective” managers?

The evaluation of the training was based on subordinate feedback from 252 executives from 48 organizations, conducted before, and six months after, the training program took place. They set three hypotheses:

  • H1. The impact of interpersonal skills training on subsequent skill performance will improve the effectiveness of those skills.
  • H2. The impact of interpersonal skills training on subsequent skill performance will be positive but modest.
  • H3. The impact of interpersonal skills training on subsequent skill performance will vary across different skills.

The program studied was a concentrated five-day training and development workshop for top-level managers, drawn from very different backgrounds, countries, and industries. Its stated objectives were to improve the perceived interpersonal skills of the participants:

  • Structuring: envisioning, target setting, prioritizing
  • Motivating: enthusing individuals, team building, innovating
  • Assessing/Rewarding: giving positive and negative feedback, coaching, encouraging development
  • Leading: giving direction, sensitizing, focusing, information searching, scanning, differentiating

A total of 252 chairpersons, chief executives, heads of functional and divisional or regional managers, from 48 different organizations, participated in 14 interpersonal skills programs, conducted in London, over a four-year period (1993-1997). Of the participants, 84% were male; 67% were employed by large global firms (telecommunications, banking, oil, chemicals); 30% by national or local firms (financial institutions, transport, food, retail); and 3% by local government departments, city councils, or international public sector organizations (United Nations, World Bank, European Bank). The mean age was 42.78 years; the age range was 34–60 years. A total of 22 national cultures were represented. No organization was permitted more than three representatives on any program to preserve confidentiality and increase heterogeneity; in the 14 programs, the limit was reached twice.

In order to measure the training efficacy, the managers' direct reports evaluated their supervisors, using a 180° evaluation approach. Only direct reports (1808) were asked to assess the training participants. The respondents were asked, on two occasions (pre- and post-training program), to complete a paper questionnaire to record their level of satisfaction with their manager's interpersonal skills. In all, 29 questions, representing the skill sets already discussed above, were ranked. Four to six questions assessed each skill set, using a 5-point scale: (a) very satisfied, (b) satisfied, (c) neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, (d) dissatisfied, or (e) very dissatisfied. The preprogram survey (T1) was conducted six weeks before the participants attended the training program. The post-program survey was conducted, using the same instrument, six months after the program (T2). The actual time elapsed between the first survey and the statistical analysis of the second survey was, on average, 7.9 months. The delay comes from the fact that surveys distributed at six months may have taken a further two months to be returned for processing. The assessment at T1 and T2 was consistent with other research. To ensure confidentiality, a third party (a business school) processed the data. None of the staff processing the data was involved in the training program.

Results

H1—Improvement in subsequent skill performance. The average number of questions on which the 14 groups produced statistically significant (p # 0:05) improved means was 4.85. The percentage of cases of positive impact was 84%, and if omitting the first four groups (due to possible learning curve for the program facilitators), its percentage rose to 90%. The findings provided support for H1.

H2—Positive but modest improvement. The results had shown a considerable dispersion. For example, group B had 12 questions for which the post-program mean was an improvement on the first survey but, of these, only two were statistically significant (p, 0:05) while group N had 16 significantly different means. Most of the cases—342 (84%)—indicated improved results, although only 68 (17%) were statistically significant, and if looking for the 0.05 threshold, the number was reduced to 35 (less than 9%). These findings supported the second hypothesis: the impact of interpersonal skills training was modest. Refinement, rather than radical change, is possible.

H3—The impact on skills performance will vary with specific skills. H3 was supported; the impact by skill was variable, some direct reports believed that the program had a strong positive impact on certain skills, whereas the impact on other skills was minimal.

Conclusions

The results supported the three proposed hypotheses. The questionnaire respondents (direct reports of the program participants), noted various skills improved after the training program.

Paper 2: The Impact of a Design Management Training Initiative on Project Performance (Bibby, Austin, & Bouchlaghem, 2006)

This work is quite closer to the typical project management training program approach. The authors studied the impact of a training initiative in the Design Management Handbook (DMH) on individual and project performance. The program consisted on a design management training initiative to improve performance in a major UK civil and building design and construction company. The research intended to measure the impact of (a) the DMH training program, (b) critical practices application, and (c) a suite of 25 tools on design management performance across the company.

The methodology for research included (a) a structured questionnaire, (b) a design management maturity assessment, (c) semi-structured interviews, and (d) a case study.

The structured questionnaire identified who, out of 46 employees exposed to the training initiative as part of a pilot study, had used the Design Management Handbook's practices and tools. This first step results indicated who was to be interviewed in more detail. Interviewees comprised 15 design managers, five project planners, eight quantity surveyors, five project directors, five project managers, three bid managers, two systems managers, one document controller, and two procurement managers, spread over 14 projects.

The design management maturity assessment was developed in three stages:

The first and second stages were carried out immediately before and after all 46 respondents received awareness training. This was to establish the change in opinion on the company's design management performance resulting from the training. The final assessment took place as part of the semi-structured interview exercise and aimed to capture the change in design management maturity delivered by the training initiative. As this final assessment was carried out with those that had used design management handbook practices and tools, only these results have been used to identify the impact of the training initiative on design management maturity within the company. While it would have been preferable to capture the opinion of all 46 respondents at the final assessment stage, the results are still considered valid as the exercise captured the change in opinion of individuals over the period of the training initiative. (pp. 9-10)

Semi-structured interviews were applied to 20 respondents. The interviews' intent was to record “the impact of the practices and tools presented by the training initiative on individual and project performance as well as the difficulties people had in applying the practices and tools” (p. 10). The 20 interviewees included 14 design managers, a quantity surveyor, a project director, a project manager, a bid manager, a systems manager and a document controller, spread over eight projects. Interview results were coded and analyzed in order to study the impacts of, and the barriers to, each of the design management practices and tools.

The case study was carried out to assist in the understanding of issues and barriers presented initially in front of the deployment of the design management practices and tools. The views of the project team, the client, and designers were “sought throughout the exercise to determine the appropriateness of the tools, how they integrated with other project processes, whether any modifications or additions were required and how to overcome the selection, pre-application and application barriers” (p. 11).

Conclusions

The paper reported on the impact of a design management training initiative within a major UK civil and building design and construction company. The study draws several conclusions regarding the usefulness of the handbook and the handbook application significant impact on work performance.

Other Papers for Reference and Review

Ammeter, A. P., & Dukerich, J. M. (2002). Leadership, team building, and team member characteristics in high performance project teams. Engineering Management Journal 14(4), 3–26.

Fisher, D. J., Schluter, L., & Toleti P. (2005). Project management education and training process for career development. Journal of Construction, Engineering and Management 131(8), 903–910. doi 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:8(903).

Rehman, A. U., Khan, A. M., & Rashid A. (2002). Measuring training effectiveness: A case study of public sector project management in Pakistan. Journal of Diversity Management 6(1), 39–48.

Part 2: Research Proposal (Draft) Summary

Problem Statement

An education industry related to project management has been rising in recent years. For example, Instituto para la Calidad PUCP (ICPUCP) has been increasing the quantity of training programs constantly since 2007. On the other hand, the construction industry's overall investment in project management training programs is estimated at 5 million dollars annually for external training programs, and a similar amount for assigned internal resources. However, there is no evidence that performance has improved due to this training. Therefore, we will study three aspects of the effects of the training: (a) about the knowledge of the standard as a tool itself; (b) about the application in project performance, and (c) about the ROI obtained for such training initiatives.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this quantitative research study is to determine the impact of PMI training on Peruvian teams' professional and personal performance on engineering and construction projects. This study also intends to measure the impact of other moderator and mediator variables, such as (a) moderator: the firm's attitudes about training; (b) moderator: the hierarchical level of training program attendees; and (c) mediator: whether the training program was conducted internally or externally to the company.

Significance of the Study

The results of the study should contribute to knowledge on the impacts of training on project performance. It may also indicate if the training program efficacy could be adjusted depending on (a) the firm's general training and development strategies; (b) the seniority of the training program attendees; and (c) the teaching approach, internal or external to the firm.

Nature of the Study

The study will be a quantitative approach to the referred variable correlation.

Surveys will be applicable to the selected project management practitioners. As well, post-positivist paradigm and inductive epistemology are applicable for this work. We are constraining the study on a period of time, applying a cross-sectional test.

Conceptual / Theoretical Framework

The study will try to explain the correlation among the PMBOK training in the professional competences and the project performance. The training is the independent variable, as we may define it as a standard product. The level of competences and performance will be the dependent variables. Based in Changchit, C. et al. (1999) experiment design we will define three variables for this purpose:

  1. Effectiveness: accuracy of decision making based in PMBOK training.
  2. Efficiency: the time used to accurely decision making based in PMBOK training.
  3. Perception: own perceptions related to the PMBOK training.

The internal or external training method, named type of course (TC) will be used as mediator. And finally, the firm attitude regarding training (FA) and the seniority level (SL) of the attendees will be moderator variables.

Research theoretical framework

Exhibit 3 – Research theoretical framework

The individual performance to be evaluated will be, for example: (a) technical knowledge in project management, (b) ability to create a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), (c) capacity to define a project time schedule, (d) accuracy for cost estimating, (e) risk evaluation and assessment knowledge, (f) communication techniques, (g) interpersonal skills, among others. Project performance, on the other hand would consider: (a) project plan knowledge, (b) project baseline deviations management, (b) schedule accomplishment, (c) budget control, (d) risk responses, and others.

Research Questions / Hypotheses

These are the present research questions which are intended to be solved at the end of the research:

Question 1 : Is the current educational offer accurate and satisfactory for the attendees? This means that even the important training programs offer, the actual customer expectative is accomplished.

H1 : The PMBOK training program suitable (satisfactory) for the attendees.

Question 2: Do the attendees obtain new and practical knowledge for their project management activities? In addition to the question 1, this question intends to assure if the attendees acquired the formal concepts and knowledge.

H2: The attendees gain knowledge on Project Management concepts and practices after the training program.

Question 3 : Is the training attitude towards the training program an success factor for the individual performance improvement? Even if the professional or the firm have paid for the training course, the company attitude towards the training is relevant to the individual activities effectiveness?

H3: The competences are improved if the firm attitude towards training is positive.

Question 4: Is the training more effective for improving new entry level workers that senior ones? The training should be more significant for less experienced attendees due to the senior practitioners should have acquired the knowledge from the job routine.

H4: The seniority level is inversely correspondent to the competences improvement after the training.

Question 5: Is the external teaching training course more effective that the in-house program? Finally, is the external training company condition is relevant for attendees? Are the external lecturers more effective than the internal ones?

H5: The external teaching approach is more effective than the internal (in house) training.

Definitions

One of the most difficult topics is to define individual performance and project performance. For instance, Andersen (2010) referred to several key factors to be evaluated individually through surveys in order to measure the project success based on practitioners' evaluations.

Project management practitioners are project team members related to any project management activities in an engineering or construction firm with current contract development from 2009. These persons may or may not receive formal training programs in the PMBOK® Guide. The group without formal training could serve as control group. Finally, training programs will be defined as formal academic activities related with project management, with at least 80 lesson hours between online and classroom activities.

Assumptions

The main assumption is to consider that the surveys will be answered appropriately, and they will reflect the actual individual and project performances. As well, we consider applying the survey to practitioners directly involved in project planning and execution. No administrative or support personnel will be involved.

As well, the research will consider training program from the following educational providers: ICPUCP, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC), Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería (UNI) and Universidad ESAN (ESAN), and we expect to have full access to their alumni databases in order to contact former students.

Limitations

The research will be cross-sectional. Practitioners will be contacted from the top five engineering and construction local firms: Graña y Montero (GyM), Cosapi, JJC, SSK, and Odebrecht. The mentioned firms and the PMI Lima Chapter databases will be used in order to identify the practitioners. Our intent is to have a random and representative sample. The surveys will be applied online in order to have a wide application for different project teams across the country. However, we are aware that the surveys will be answered based on individual impressions, and they will not be confirmed against actual performance.

Delimitations

The existing training programs offered by referred providers are from 36 hours to more than 200 hours. For this study we will consider only formal training programs of at least 80 hours. The quantity of training hours will not be studied. It could be considered for a future research. The unit of analysis will be the practitioners. As indicated, we will analyze the top five firms. It is understood that the survey results should reflect the actual project performance. Key success factors will be qualified based on project practitioners' individual evaluation.

Research Design

Based on Changchit, Holsapple, and Madden's (1999) experiment design, we will define three variables:

  • Effectiveness (E1): accuracy of decision making based on PMBOK® Guide training
  • Efficiency (E2): the time used to accurately make decisions based on PMBOK® Guide training
  • Perception (P1): own perceptions related to PMBOK® Guide training

In order to measure the first two variables, two test groups will be defined, composed of at least 50 similar project management practitioners each. The first group will be named CG, control group; and the second, PMT, project management trainees.

Testing will be performed using typical case development, individually for each practitioner. A typical case is a written simulation of several project management situations. Each question will have four possible responses, with only one correct response. The presented issues would be solved individually. Three typical cases will be developed. The first one will be applied for both groups, previous to the PMBOK® Guide training. The second and the third typical studies will be applied after that. The second typical case will be used as essay and experience equalizer prior to the third typical case solving. The results for the groups will be compared among groups in order to measure the PMBOK® Guide training impact among two different practitioners groups; and among the same group, before and after the training. Effectiveness and efficiency will be quantified in accordance to typical case responses to the proposed questions.

Comparisons Among Typical Test Results

Exhibit 4. Comparisons Among Typical Test Results

For the perception variable, a questionnaire will be given to project management practitioners with and without PMBOK® Guide training. The study will be a quantitative approach on the training impact; it will measure the relation of PMBOK® Guide training, the personal competences, and the project development results. Postpositivist paradigm and inductive epistemology are suitable for this research. In order to compare the results, the surveys will be applied to a control group composed of practitioners without formal training on the PMBOK® Guide. With this data collection we will analyze the proposed hypotheses. Finally, we consider developing the study on a defined period of time, applying a cross-sectional approach.

The results in both comparisons will be evaluated with T-student test, as well for independent samples as for paired samples. The study will evaluate the influence of the variables regarding firm attitude (FA), seniority level (SL), and type of course (TC) with a MANOVA test.

References

Ammeter, A. P., & Dukerich, J. M. (2002). Leadership, team building, and team member characteristics in high performance project teams. Engineering Management Journal 14(4), 3–26.

Andersen, E. (2010). Are we getting any better? Comparing project management in the years 2000 and 2008. Project Management Journal 41(4), 4–16. doi: 10.1002/pmj.

Bibby, L., Austin, S., & Bouchlaghem, D. (2006). The impact of a design management training initiative on project performance. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 13(1), 7–26. doi: 10.1108/09699980610646476.

Brook, J. A., Shouksmith, G. A., & Brook, R. J. (1993). An evaluation of management training, part I: Training needs. Journal of European Industrial Training 7(4), 23–28. doi: 10.1108/eb002152.

Brook, J. A., Shouksmith, G. A., & Brook, R. J. (1993). Research report training, part II: Changes in understanding. Journal of European Industrial Training 7(7), 11–15. doi: 10.1108/eb002161.

Brook, J. A., Shouksmith, G. A., & Brook, R. J. (1993). An evaluation of management training, part III: Changes in work behaviour. Journal of European Industrial Training 8(3), 11–16. doi: 10.1108/eb002172.

Campbell, C. P. (1994). A primer on determining the cost effectiveness of training – Part 1. Industrial and Commercial Training 26(11), 32–38. doi: 10.1108/00197859410073772.

Campbell, C. P. (1995). A primer on determining the cost effectiveness of training – Part 2. Industrial and Commercial Training 27(1), 17–25. doi: 10.1108/00197859510078398.

Carbone, T. A., & Gholston, S. (2004). Project manager skill development: A survey of programs and practitioners. Engineering Management Journal 16(3),10–16. doi 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:8(903).

Cardoso, J. M., Minasowicz, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Ustinovichius, L., Migilinskas, D., Pellicer Armiñana, E., Nowak, P. O., & Grabiec, M. (2006). Training needs in construction project management: A survey of 4 countries of the EU. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 12(3), 237–245.

Changchit, C., Holsapple, C., & Madden, D. (1999). Positive impacts of an intelligent system on internal control problem recognition. Paper presented at 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI.

Cosapi. (2012). Memoria Anual 2011. [Annual Report 2011]. Lima, Perú: Author.

Elliott, M., Dawson, R., & Edwards, J. (2009). Providing demonstrable return-on-investment for organisational learning and training. Journal of European Industrial Training 33(7), 657–670. doi: 10.1108/03090590910985408.

Fisher, D. J., Schluter, L., & Toleti P. (2005). Project management education and training process for career development. Journal of Construction, Engineering and Management 131(8), 903–910. doi 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:8(903).

Gale, A., & Brown, M. (2003). Project management professional development: An industry led programme. Journal of Management Development 22(5), 410–425. doi: 10.1108/02621710310474769.

Graña & Montero. (2012). Memoria Anual 2011. [Annual Report 2011]. Lima, Perú: Author.

House, R. J., & Tosi, H. (1963). An experimental evaluation of a management training program. The Academy of Management Journal 6(4), 303–315.

Hunt, J. W., & Baruch, Y., (2003). Developing top managers: The impact of interpersonal skills training, Journal of Management Development, 22(8), 729–752. doi: 10.1108/02621710310487882.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática. (2012). Perú: Informe Económico Trimestral Octubre Diciembre 2011. [Peru: Quarterly Economic Report October December 2011]. Lima, Perú.

Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Ministerio de Trabajo y Promoción Social. (2001). Diagnóstico de la Formación Profesional en el Perú. [Diagnosis of Professional Training in Peru]. Lima, Perú.

Murray, L. W., & Efendioglu, A. M. (2007). Valuing the investment in organizational training. Industrial and Commercial Training 39(7), 372–379. doi: 10.1108/00197850710829085.

Phillips, J. (1996). How much is the training worth? Training and Development, 50(4), 20–24.

Pineda, P. (2010). Evaluation of training in organisations: A proposal for an integrated model. Journal of European Industrial Training 34(7), 673–693. doi: 10.1108/03090591011070789.

Plant, R. A., & Ryan, R. J. (1993). Training evaluation: A procedure for validating an organization's investment in training. Journal of European Industrial Training 16(10), 22–38. doi: 10.1108/03090599210021720.

PMI. (2007). Project manager competency development (PMCD) framework (2nd ed.). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

PMI. (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (4th ed.). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

PMI. (2012).PMI fact file [Supplement]. PMI Network 10(8)

Rehman, A. U., Khan, A. M., & Rashid A. (2002). Measuring training effectiveness: A case study of public sector project management in Pakistan. Journal of Diversity Management 6(1), 39–48.

Rozenes, S., & Vitner, G. (2009). The training methodology of project management office (PMO) personnel. Industrial and Commercial Training 41(1), 36–42. doi: 10.1108/00197850910927741.

Servicio Nacional de Capacitación para la Industria de la Construcción. (2012). Memoria Anual 2011. [Annual Report 2011]. Lima, Perú.

Turner, R., & Huemann, M. (2000). Current and future trends in the education in project managers. Project Management – The Professional Magazine of the Project Management Association Finland 6, 20–26. Retrieved from: http://www.wu.ac.at/vw4/pmg/publikat/trends.pdf.

This material has been reproduced with the permission of the copyright owner. Unauthorized reproduction of this material is strictly prohibited. For permission to reproduce this material, please contact PMI or any listed author.

© 2012, Renzo J. Toledo, MBA, PMP
Originally published as a part of 2012 PMI Global Congress Proceedings - Vancouver, BC, Canada

Advertisement

Advertisement

Related Content

Advertisement

Publishing or acceptance of an advertisement is neither a guarantee nor endorsement of the advertiser's product or service. View advertising policy.