The contribution of project and change managers to different project activities

University of Technology, Sydney

Dr. Chivonne Algeo

University of Technology, Sydney

Abstract

The project management and change management disciplines both contribute to the delivery of organizational change projects. However, evidence in the literature suggests conflict between these disciplines arising from a lack of consensus about how these disciplines should work together, which discipline should have overall ownership of the management of organizational change, and how specific activities should be divided between the disciplines.

This research has enquired into practitioners’ views of the contribution that project managers and change managers should make to specific project activities using an online survey. Practitioners’ responses were analyzed using a process of comparative ranking. From this process, an understanding was developed of how respondents perceived the involvement of project managers and change managers in the delivery of organizational change.

The analysis identified activities that clearly distinguished project management from change management. Activities were also identified that respondents commonly regarded as within the domain of both disciplines, suggesting activities that project and change managers would potentially need to jointly own. Areas of significant disagreement were also identified where there was a difference of opinion between the project and change managers who responded to the survey. Such areas are likely to be the sources of disciplinary conflict in the workplace, and this suggests areas where practitioners should take additional care in managing any disciplinary integration between project management and change management. This research will be of value to practitioners from either disciplinary background, providing assistance in identifying likely sources of conflict, and in developing an understanding of how both sides of this divide perceive the other.

Keywords: change management; organizational change; disciplinary boundary; activity ownership

Introduction

Project management and change management are two disciplines that both contribute to the management and delivery of organizational change projects. Examples can be found in both the project management literature (e.g. Winch, Meunier, Head, & Russ, 2012; Crawford & Nahmais, 2010) and the change management literature (e.g. CMI, 2008; Boddy & Macbeth, 2000), which support the assertion that both project management and change management can jointly make a positive contribution to the delivery of change initiatives.

However, evidence in the literature suggests conflict between these disciplines arising from a lack of consensus about how these disciplines should work together to deliver organizational change projects. It has been found that “there is evidence of a degree of rivalry between Project Managers and Change Managers concerning who should be managing business change” (Crawford & Nahmais, 2010, p. 405). Jorocki (2011) has referred to an “obvious overlap between the two disciplines” (p.69). Previous research by the authors of this paper (2013) has also demonstrated that project managers and change managers have quite different perspectives about how formal authority and ownership of organizational change projects should be distributed. The findings from their research also suggest that these disciplines perceive success in organizational change projects differently.

It is apparent that there is no clear agreement in the literature about what an optimal relationship between the project management and change management disciplines should be. One area where any conflict about ownership and authority should become manifest is in terms of the different activities that practitioners think that project and change managers should contribute to. The purpose of this research is to develop an understanding of practitioners’ perspectives on the relative contribution that these disciplines should make to specific aspects of the delivery of organizational change projects. It is also necessary to provide some feedback to the academic literature about how practitioners are making this relationship work in practice.

Literature Review

There is little consistency in the research literature with respect to the boundary between the roles of a project manager and change manager. However, if one were to take only a limited selection of the available literature it would be possible to develop a case to suggest that change management should be subservient to project management, part of project management, or at a lower organizational level than project management. For instance, evidence can be found in the works of some authors (e.g. Turner, Grude, & Thurloway, 1996; Boddy and Macbeth, 2000; Dover, 2002) that implies that project managers are responsible for managing change issues. Clarke (1999, p. 139) suggests that project management can be used by itself to manage change, while Crawford and Nahmais (2010, p. 409) state that in change projects, other than those with a weak supportive culture and/or leadership and a high degree of required behavioral change, the change can be managed by a project manager with some change management skills. This suggests that in most cases a change manager is not needed or can be considered supplementary to a project manager. When describing the relationship between project management and change management Lehmann (2010) states that a “project is conducted by a project manager … acting as a chief officer in command of a dedicated team” (p. 331), while a similar view is stated by Fiedler (2010, p. 377). It is also implied in some sources that change management is part of, or subservient to, project management. For instance, Cowan-Sahadath (2010) describes the “need for a proven, mature project management methodology that included effective communications, change management plans” (p. 400), while Nelson (2011) states that “there should be linking milestones and activities that are common in both the Change Management Workplan and the master project workplan”(p. 6). These latter two quotes both suggest that in these authors’ views change management is only one part of a larger project management operation.

However, a broader reading of the literature shows that evidence can also be found for a contrary perspective. Kotter (1996) views project management as being a component of the change management process, referring to “Project management and leadership from below: Lower ranks in the hierarchy both provide leadership for specific projects and manage those projects” (p. 143). According to Gareis (2010, p. 316), the major program management standards depict program managers and change managers sitting at comparable levels, both at higher organizational levels than project managers. Similarly, Cowan-Sahadath (2010) describes project management as more relatable to operational performance and middle management, and change management as being alongside vision, strategy, and senior management (p. 399), and at another point depicts change ownership at the same level as program management (p. 400).

There is also evidence in the literature to suggest that the roles of project and change manager should sit at a similar organizational level. Alsene (1998) has identified three case studies where change agents held personal responsibility for project success alongside the project manager. In such a case, project and change personnel may have separate reporting arrangements. For instance, as Stummer and Zuchi (2010, p. 391) note, a project manager may be responsible to a program manager, and a change manager may be responsible to a designated change owner, both with responsibility for the organizational change.

Regardless of the reporting relationship between these roles, it is commonly acknowledged that project management and change management are different activities. The skills required to practice project management have been identified as different from the skills needed in change management (Blake, 2009, p. 35; Baca, 2005; Alsene 1998, p. 373; Garfein & Sankaran, 2011, p.1). At present, “project management and change management have been, and in most cases are, sold, practiced, and managed as two almost mutually exclusive project disciplines” (Jarocki, 2011, p. 69); and yet Crawford (2011, p. 7) has identified that there are similarities between project management and change management roles. One possible interpretation is that project management and change management may be varyingly relevant to different project stages. Stummer and Zuchi (2010) have noted that the “change manager is responsible for the overall change and is in charge of the transitions between the change processes. Where the responsibility of the program or project manager ends, the responsibility of the change manager begins” (p. 391). Similarly, Ainscough, Neailey, & Tennant (2003, p. 245) note that change management may help with practice deployment in assistance to project management, suggesting that project management may be used as an antecedent to change management, while the need for a change manager to understand “the roles and relationships of the project manager, project team and other stakeholders and … to competently manage those relationships” has also been identified (CMI, 2008, p. 4).

The view presented by PMI’s Managing Change in Organizations: A Practice Guide (2013) adds greater complexity to this picture. This work examines the different demands on change management at the portfolio, program, and project levels of an organization. Recognition that change management may play a significant role at each of these levels goes some of the way to explaining how there may be differing opinions about the relationship between project management and change management in the broader literature. However, while emphasizing that “change management practices are essential for a standardized organizational project management practice” (PMI, p. 1), it is interesting to note that this guide makes no reference to the role of the change manager. Although not explicitly stated, the implication appears to be that this guide considers that change management activities will be undertaken by a portfolio, program or project manager, and potentially supported by additional resources.

This research starts from a contrary perspective, acknowledging that many organizations employ change managers as disciplinary experts with specialist knowledge in change management. The focus of this research is on projects, rather than programs or portfolios. The purpose of this research is to develop an understanding of how project and change managers work together to deliver organizational change. We have addressed this by focusing on different activities in projects that project and change managers may contribute to, in order to identify those activities where one discipline or the other clearly owns the work associated with that activity, and to identify activities where there is either ambiguous or disputed ownership.

PMI (2013) identifies a variety of activities relevant to managing organizational change. These have been listed in Table 1 alongside activities identified by Kotter (1996) and Hiatt (2006), two commonly recognizable models of change management. These activities, and an understanding of activities common to traditional project management, were used as the basis for the development of a list of 27 activities of varying relevance to project and change managers in delivering organizational change. These 27 activities were used as the focus of this research, as discussed in greater detail below.

PMI (2013) Kotter (1996) Hiatt (2006) Beckhard (1969) Lewin (1951)
Align projects and programs with strategy Establishing a sense of urgency Awareness of the need for change Setting goals and defining the future state Unfreeze – altering stable equilibrium
Assess change readiness Creating the guiding coalition Desire to support and participate in the change Diagnosing the present condition Change – develop new responses
Benefits realization, sustainment and transition Developing a vision and strategy Knowledge of how to change Defining the transition state activities and commitments required Freeze – stabilise new responses in the system
Overcome resistance to change Communicating the change vision Ability to implement required skills and behaviors Developing strategies and action plans
Vision and strategy development, clarification, and communication Empowering broad-based action Reinforcement to sustain the change
Empowerment and mobilisation of stakeholders Generating short-term wins
Identify and clarify the need for change and scope Consolidating gains and producing more change
Ensure leaders communicate effectively Anchoring new approaches in the culture
Coaching, training, workshops, and development of social networks

Table 1: Common change management activities.

Methodology

The data for this research was collected via an online survey which protected respondents’ anonymity. Three local industry bodies were contacted and assisted in distributing a link to the survey: the Project Management Institute; the Australian Institute of Project Management; and the Change Management Institute. Social media sites were also used to raise awareness of the survey, as were the researchers’ social networks. This resulted in a convenience sample of 455 respondents.

The data collected in this survey was analyzed using the statistical software SPSS 19, and focused on attempting to understand practitioner perspectives from their survey responses. As such, the researchers considered that an interpretivist perspective, instead of a positivist perspective, should be used to guide data analysis. It is more common to associate quantitative research with a positivist perspective, but it is possible to separate technique from the paradigm with which they are commonly associated. Reed (1985) may have described this as an imperialist approach to research, while Jackson (1997) may have described this as an oblique use of technique.

Use of an interpretivist perspective will influence method application and data analysis. It accepts that “interpretation plays key, unacknowledged roles in how quantitative methods are actually employed” (Westerman, 2006, p. 189). This is significant, as not only will the researchers’ personal history have affected the interpretation of results, the respondents’ interpretation of individual questions will have been influenced by a variety of factors. These factors may include the respondents’ experience of project management and change management, the context in which the questions were set, and perhaps even the respondents’ emotional state at the time they answered the survey. The researchers have attempted to develop an understanding of the respondents’ perspectives of the contribution that project management and change management make to specific project activities; however, it is acknowledged that alternate interpretations are also possible.

The researchers enquired into respondents’ views of the contribution that project managers and change managers make to a variety of different project activities. The survey included the following two questions: “In general, in which activities do you think Project Managers should be involved?” and “In general, in which activities do you think Change Managers should be involved?” Each of these questions was followed by the same list of 27 activities that may have relevance to project delivery. A list of the survey questions that are relevant to this paper have been provided as an appendix.

Survey Respondent Demographics

The data analysis should be understood in relation to the respondents’ demographics. The respondents’ median age was 45 (9.2 year standard deviation). 66.2% of the respondents were male, and 82.9% nominated Australia as the country where they gained most of their experience, with fifteen additional countries identified in the sample. This result is consistent with the way in which the link to the survey was distributed. Respondents also worked in a wide variety of industries (Figure 1).

Industry sector demographics

Figure 1: Industry sector demographics.

The survey included the question “How do you primarily professionally identify yourself?” Respondents were given the option of selecting, “Project Manager (including junior, senior, committee, and sponsor positions)”, “Change Manager (including junior, senior, committee, and sponsor positions)”; or “Other” with a free text field. Of the respondents, 56% were project managers (256), 14% were change managers (63), and 30% (136) either responded as “Other” or gave an invalid answer. The question “For how many years have you identified yourself in this way?” was also asked to provide information on respondents’ experience, and these results are summarized in Table 2. A result of 14% of respondents identifying themselves as a change manager suggests that there are is a significant body of professionals who are comfortable identifying themselves as disciplinary specialists in change management.

How do you primarily professionally identify yourself?
Project Manager Change Manager
For how many years have you identified yourself in this way? 0-5 73 36
6-10 78 15
11-15 66 7
16-20 22 3
21-25 9 0
26-30 4 0
31-35 3 2
36-40 1 0
Total 256 63

Table 2: Respondents’ years of experience.

The researchers anticipated a larger response to the survey from project managers than change managers, given that the survey link was distributed to significantly more of the former. In response, the researchers thought it worthwhile to take account of respondents’ knowledge of these different fields. Respondents had gained training and qualifications in project management and change management in different ways. The most frequent sources of project management education were “In-house or uncertified training” (16.2%), followed by “Diploma” (15.5%), and “Masters degree (>50% of PM subjects)” (14.6%). The most frequent sources of change management education were “In-house or uncertified training” (39.0%), then “No training” (31.7%), and “Masters degree (<50% CM subjects)” (7.9%).

However, it is acknowledged that not all knowledge of a discipline comes through formal training or qualifications. In response, questions were included that allowed the researchers to create a construct, representing a respondents’ knowledge of the field. The responses to two sets of seven-point questions were averaged, and this was used to categorize a respondent as having a low (<=3), medium (>3 and <5), or high (>=5) knowledge of that field.

Respondents’ option of their project management knowledge was assessed based on their stated familiarity with:

  • The role of a project manager;
  • A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)Fourth Edition (PMI, 2008);
  • PRINCE2 (OGC, 2002);
  • Project Management Institute (PMI); and
  • The Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM).

Respondents’ option of their change management knowledge was assessed based on their stated familiarity with:

  • The role of a change manager;
  • John Kotter's work (1996; and other work);
  • Prosci and ADKAR (2006); and
  • The Change Management Institute (CMI).

The respondents’ self-nominated knowledge of these two fields is represented in Figure 2. From these results it can be seen that the respondents as a group generally thought that they had a higher knowledge of project management than change management. There was also a significant section of the survey population who had no training in change management. This is consistent with how the respondents professionally identified themselves, and should be considered when reviewing the analysis of the results.

Respondents’ knowledge of project management and change management

Figure 2: Respondents’ knowledge of project management and change management.

The Project Managers’ Perspective

Respondents’ answers to the questions: “In general, in which activities do you think Project Managers should be involved?” and “In general, in which activities do you think Change Managers should be involved?” were recorded through a series of 27 check-boxes. A respondent’s answer that project managers or change managers should be involved in a particular activity was recorded as ‘1’, while no response was recorded as ‘0’. Responses about whether a project or change manager should be involved in an activity were independent, giving respondents the ability to answer that both or neither of these roles should be involved.

The average of the responses to each question for respondents who identified themselves as a project manager was calculated. The average was taken as an indicator of the degree to which the project managers as a population generally thought that project or change managers should be involved in a particular activity. The difference between the averages describing project and change managers’ involvement in each activity was then calculated, and the activities were sorted by this difference to provide a visualization moving from those activities where the project managers thought that project managers should be involved, but change managers should not, to those activities where the project managers thought that change managers should be involved, but project managers should not (Figure 3).

Project managers’ perspective on activity involvement

Figure 3: Project managers’ perspective on activity involvement.

From this figure it is clear that the project managers generally thought that project managers should have a much larger involvement in these project activities than change managers should. The project managers’ responses varied from 97.3% identifying that they should have a role in cost control, to 44.5% identifying that they should have a role in anchoring change in the culture, with an average of 80.7% across all activities. By contrast, the project managers’ perspective on change managers’ involvement in these activities varied from 91.8% identifying that change managers should be involved in anchoring change in the culture, while only 12.9% thought that they should be involved in cost control, with an average of 51.1% across all activities.

The Change Managers’ Perspective

A different picture emerges when these activities are considered from the perspective of the respondents who identified themselves as a change manager (Figure 4).

Change managers’ perspective on activity involvement

Figure 4: Change managers’ perspective on activity involvement.

The change managers’ responses varied from 98.4% identifying that project managers should have a role in cost control, to 27.4% identifying that they should have a role in anchoring change in the culture, with an average of 67.3% across all activities. By contrast, the change managers’ perspective on change managers’ involvement in these activities varied from 100.0% identifying that change managers should be involved in anchoring change in the culture, while only 6.5% thought that they should be involved in configuration control, with an average of 69.4% across all activities.

If we assume that there is conflict between these disciplines, then it is not too surprising to note that both sides of this divide think that they should be more involved in these activities than the other side thinks that they should be. However, this becomes more interesting when we first consider the impact of respondents’ knowledge of these fields on their responses, and then review both the specific areas where project managers and change managers agree with each other, and where there is an unusually large disagreement between the disciplines.

The Impact of Knowledge

Given the variety of levels of knowledge that the respondents had of project and change management, it was considered important to understand whether this impacted upon the relative weighting of the involvement of project and change managers in these activities. Each respondent’s answers about their familiarity with the project management and change management texts were used to create an average familiarity with these texts. This was then used to create an index between 0 and 1 describing each respondent’s knowledge of project management and change management separately, relative to all other respondents’ knowledge of that field. This index was then used as weighting to individual respondents’ answers. This technique will have emphasized the contribution of those who identified that they had a high familiarity with those texts, and reduced the influence on the total of those who identified that they had a low familiarity with those texts.

The results of this analysis are presented in Figure 5. In this figure, respondents’ knowledge of project management has been used to normalize their responses on which activities project managers should be involved in, while respondents’ knowledge of change management has been used to normalize their responses on which activities change managers should be involved in. This system will have reduced all scores, and so individual scores for each activity are not directly comparable to those provided in the previous two analyses; however, the relative ordering of activities remains comparable.

Perspective on activity involvement normalised by knowledge

Figure 5: Perspective on activity involvement normalised by knowledge.

A Comparative Disciplinary Identity

The analysis of the data compared the views of the project managers, the change mangers, and the whole population as normalized by the individual’s knowledge of the fields. Through using this approach it is possible to draw conclusions about areas where there is broad consensus about the activities that a discipline should be involved in. It also allows for conclusions to be made about where there is disagreement between the disciplines of project management and change management.

Cost control, procurement and contract management, scheduling, managing delivery, and quality control were consistently regarded as core project management activities by both project managers and change managers. Most respondents identified that project managers should be involved in these activities, while the least number of respondents identified that change managers should be involved in those activities. Risk management, initial project definition, detailed implementation planning, and configuration control were also consistently seen as activities more typical of project management than change management. Involvement in these activities appears to be some of the characteristics that distinguish project management from change management.

Anchoring change in the culture was consistently shown to be the most distinguishing characteristic of change management. Developing a vision and strategy, communicating the vision, creating a guiding coalition, communication management, training, and strategy development were also regarded as key activities that were central to change management, and less significant to project management, as was empowering action. Involvement in these activities appears to be some of the characteristics that distinguish change management from project management. These activities are summarized in Table 3.

Activities distinguishing project management from change management Activities distinguishing change management from project management
Cost control Anchoring change
Procurement & contract management Developing a vision and strategy
Scheduling Communicating the vision
Managing delivery Creating a guiding coalition
Quality control Communication management
Risk management Training
Initial project definition Strategy development
Detailed implementation planning Empowering action
Configuration control

Table 3: Characteristics activities distinguishing project management and change management from each other.

The suggested separation in disciplinary identity between project management and change management suggests, as discussed in the literature review, a required level of maturity of the project manager and the change manager when managing project activities. Through isolating activities associated with project management and change management, a typical identity of a mature project manager and change manager can be developed. However, this separation may isolate each discipline, potentially reducing the opportunity for shared areas of responsibility—something which may lead to problematic application.

Areas of Dispute

Activities such as benefits realization, facilitation, linking projects to strategy, embedding outputs with the client, stakeholder management, establishing a sense of urgency, generating short terms wins, consolidating gains, business case development and options analysis, and human resource management were not as clearly associated with either discipline. Broadly, both disciplines considered that they had some significant stake in these activities, suggesting that these are areas where the disciplines will need to work together.

It is also possible to analyze respondents’ perspectives on disciplinary involvement in specific activities in terms of response percentages, instead of their relative ordering. The following activities have been identified as areas where there was a significant difference between the project and the change managers’ responses (Tables 4 and 5). In each of these cases it is respondents from each discipline that considered that they should have greater involvement in the activity than respondents did from the alternative discipline. These are thus the areas where conflict and disputes about the ownership of specific activities are more likely to occur. With respect to ownership of these activities, there is also an increased potential, as discussed in the literature review, for either discipline to consider the other discipline subservient.

Activity Percentage of project managers who said that project managers should be involved Percentage of change managers who said that project managers should be involved Difference in percentage
Facilitation 87.1% 53.2% 33.9%
Communication management 89.5% 56.5% 33.0%
Training 59.4% 32.3% 27.1%
Strategy development 69.5% 43.5% 26.0%
Communicating the vision 70.3% 45.2% 25.1%

Table 4: Key differences of opinion about the activities in which project managers should be involved.

Activity Percentage of project managers who said that change managers should be involved Percentage of change managers who said that change managers should be involved Difference in percentage
Generating short term wins 41.4% 80.6% 39.2%
Linking projects to strategy 53.1% 91.9% 38.8%
Strategy development 53.1% 90.3% 37.2%
Initial project definition 32.0% 66.1% 34.1%
Establishing a sense of urgency 53.1% 85.5% 32.4%
Business case development and options analysis 44.9% 71.0% 26.1%

Table 5: Key differences of opinion about the activities in which change managers should be involved.

Interestingly, the only area where respondents from the one discipline nominated the other discipline for significantly greater involvement than they did for themselves was in the area of configuration control. In this case, 25.8% of project managers identified that change managers should be involved in configuration control, while only 6.5% of change managers identified this. This result can be attributed to a common misunderstanding among project managers about the nature of change management—namely that the discipline of change management is equivalent to the activities of change control and configuration management. This was anticipated in the survey design, and one of the early questions was designed to provide some insight into the degree to which this may have influenced the project managers’ answers. The survey respondents were asked “Which of the following group of terms do you most strongly associate with the term 'Change Management'? 1) Sense of urgency, guiding coalition, vision, strategy, empowering action, consolidating gains, cultural change; or 2) Configuration management, change control, variation processes, change requests.” Of the project managers, 27% identified that they associated change management more strongly with the latter group of concepts, while none of the change managers did. In order to counteract this anticipated misunderstanding, respondents were asked to consider change management to be related to the latter group of concepts after that question. However, it is likely that respondents’ bias may have persisted throughout the survey.

Conclusion

The academic research literature has suggested that there is workplace conflict between project managers and change managers regarding the ownership and management of organizational change projects. Previous research has identified that practitioners of these disciplines hold significantly different views about which of these disciplines should maintain overall authority over change projects, and that project management and change management practitioners may even view concepts as fundamental as success in different ways.

This research has enquired into practitioners’ views of the contribution that project managers and change managers should make to specific project activities. This area of inquiry was chosen as a key area in which potential disputes about participation in organizational change projects could become manifest. Using a process of comparative ranking, this research has revealed activities that practitioners of both disciplines view as characteristically distinguishing. The activities found to be predominantly associated with project management included: cost control; procurement and contract management; scheduling; managing delivery; quality control; risk management; initial project definition; detailed implementation planning; and configuration control. The activities found to be predominantly associated with project management included: anchoring change in the culture; developing a vision and strategy; communicating the vision; creating a guiding coalition; communication management; training; strategy development; and empowering action. These activities represent areas where it is less likely for there to be conflict, as both disciplines agree about their ownership.

Activities were also identified that practitioners commonly viewed as areas that both disciplines could contribute to. These included: benefits realization, facilitation, linking projects to strategy, embedding outputs with the client, stakeholder management, establishing a sense of urgency, generating short term wins, consolidating gains, business case development and options analysis, and human resource management. These activities were not as clearly associated with either discipline. This suggests that these activities are areas where project and change managers would need to work together.

This research has also identified areas of likely dispute or disagreement between the disciplines. In particular, the project managers identified that they should have involvement in the following activities with significantly more frequency than the change managers identified that project managers should be involved: facilitation, communication management, training, strategy development, and communicating the vision. The change managers identified that they should have involvement in the following activities significantly more frequently than the project managers identified that change managers should be involved: generating short term wins; linking projects to strategy; strategy development; initial project definition; establishing a sense of urgency; and business case development and options analysis.

The findings from this research will be of benefit to project managers and change managers working to deliver organizational change projects, by identifying those areas where there is agreement and those areas where there is clear ownership of tasks, either separately or jointly, and where conflict is likely to occur. It also provides a clear indication that such conflict is not likely to be resolved by practitioners, project managers, and change managers themselves, and extends to the supporting literatures of these disciplines, with resolution of these issues potentially requiring consideration at an organizational level. This research makes no statement about which of these disciplines should have ownership of those activities where there is a considerable difference of opinion, and it is not immediately apparent that there is a correct answer with respect to the ownership of any of these activities—the issue being rather a matter of emergent social perception than an optimal distribution of labor to undertake tasks.

References

Ainscough, M., Neailey, K. & Tennant, C. (2003). A self-assessment tool for implementing concurrent engineering through change management. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 425–31.

Alsene, E. (1998). Internal changes and project management structures within enterprises. International Journal of Project Management, 17, 367–76.

Baca, C. (2005). Project manager's spotlight on change management. San Francisco, CA: Harbor Light Press.

Beckhard, R. (1969). Organizational Development: Strategies and Models. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Blake, I. (2009). Project managing change: Practical tools and techniques to make change happen. New York, NY: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

Boddy, D. & Macbeth, D. (2000). Prescriptions for managing change: A survey of their effects in projects to implement collaborative working between organisations. International Journal of Project Management, 18, 297–306.

Change Management Institute (CMI). (2008). Change management practitioner competencies. Retrieved 7 January 2014 from http://www.change-management-institute.com/sites/default/files/cmi_accreditation_cmpcompetencymodel.pdf

Clarke, A. (1999). A practical use of key success factors to improve the effectiveness of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 17, 139–145.

Cowan-Sahadath, K. (2010). Business transformation: Leadership, integration and innovation - a case study. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 395–404.

Crawford, L. (August 2011). Adding change implementation to the project manager’s toolkit. In Proceedings of the Annual Project Management Australia Conference (PMOz): Project Management at the Speed of Light, Sydney, NSW, 2–5 August, 2011.

Crawford, L. & Nahmais, A. (2010). Competencies for managing change. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 405–12.

Dover, P.A. (2002). Change agents at work: lessons from Siemens Nixdorf. Journal of Change Management, 3, 243–57.

Fiedler, S. (2010). Managing resistance in an organizational transformation: a case study from a mobile operator company. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 370–83.

Gareis, R. (2010). Changes of organizations by projects. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 314–27.

Garfein, S. J. & Sankaran, S. (October 2011). Work preferences of project and program managers, change managers and project team members: The importance of knowing the difference. In PMI Global Congress, Dallas, Texas, 22–25 October, 2011.

Hiatt, J. (2006). ADKAR: A model for change in business, government and our community, Loveland, CO: Prosci Learning Center.

Jarocki, T.L. (2011). The next evolution - enhancing and unifying project and change management. San Francisco, CA: Brown and Williams.

Jackson, M. (1997). Pluralism in Systems Thinking and Practice. In Mingers, J. & Gill, A. (Eds.), Multimethodology: The theory and practice of combining management science methodologies (pp. 347-378). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Lehmann, V. (2010). Connecting changes to projects using a historical perspective: Towards some new canvases for researchers. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 328–38.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science, Harper & Row, NY, NY.

Nelson, K. (2011). Change management: Understanding the human dynamics of change, Proceedings from PMI Global Congress 2011, Dallas, TX, 22–25 October 2011.

Office of Government Commerce (OGC) (2002). Managing successful projects with PRINCE2. London: The Stationary Office.

Project Management Institute (PMI). (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) – Fourth edition. Newtown Square, PA: Author.

Project Management Institute (PMI). (2013). Managing change in organizations: a practice guide Newtown Square, PA: Author.

Reed, M. (1985). Redirections in organizational analysis. London, UK: Tavistock.

Stummer, M. & Zuchi, D. (2010). Developing roles in change processes – a case study from a public sector organisation. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 384–94.

Turner, J.R., Grude, K.V. & Thurloway, L. (1996). The project manager as change agent : Leadership, influence and negotiation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Westerman, M. (2006). Quantitative research as an interpretive enterprise: The mostly unacknowledged role of interpretation in research efforts and suggestions for explicitly interpretive quantitative investigations. New Ideas in Psychology, 24, 189–211.

Winch, G., Meunier, M., Head, J., Russ, K. (2012). Projects as the content and process of change: The case of the health and safety laboratory. International Journal of Project Management, 30, 141–152.

Appendix

The survey questions referred to in this paper

  • In general, in which activities do you think Project Managers should be involved?
  • In general, in which activities do you think Project Managers should be involved?
  • In which industry did you primarily gain your experience?
  • How do you primarily professionally identify yourself?”
  • For how many years have you identified yourself in this way?
  • Please select your highest level of Project Management training or qualification
  • Please select your highest level of Change Management training or qualification
  • How familiar are you with the role of a Project Manager?
  • How familiar are you with A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) – Fourth Edition (PMI, 2008)?
  • How familiar are you with PRINCE2 (OGC, 2002)?
  • How familiar are you with the Project Management Institute (PMI)?
  • How familiar are you with the Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM)?
  • How familiar are you with the role of a Change Manager?
  • How familiar are you with John Kotter's work (Leading Change and other work)?
  • How familiar are you with Prosci and ADKAR (http://www.prosci.com)?
  • How familiar are you with the Change Management Institute?

Dr. Julien Pollack started working in project management in the Australian public sector delivering organizational change programs, where he completed an Action Research Ph.D. on the ways in which systems thinking could be used with PM to address complex projects. This research won national and international awards. After completing his Ph.D., he managed telecommunications and heavy engineering projects before joining the University of Technology, Sydney in 2011 to teach courses in the Master of Project Management program. Julien has had one book published on project management, Tools for Complex Projects with Kaye Remington, five book chapters, eleven articles in peer-reviewed journals, and eight papers presented at peer-reviewed conferences.

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.

©2014 Project Management Institute Research and Education Conference

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.