Project Manager Competence

Interest in the role of the project manager and aspects of competence in that role can be traced back to an article by Gaddis in the Harvard Business Review of 1959 (Gaddis 1959) and another Harvard Business Review article, by Lawrence and Lorsch, in 1967, the "New Management Job: The Integrator." Since then, much has been written in project management texts (Kerzner 1998; Meredith and Mantel 1995; Dinsmore 1993; Turner 1993; Pinto 1998), magazines (Dewhirst 1996), and journal articles (Einsiedel 1987; Pettersen 1991) about what it takes to be an effective project manager, culminating with Frame's work on project management competence published in 1999.

The primary research-based reports on the subject began to appear in the early to mid-1970s based on the investigations of Thamhain, Gemmill, and Wilemon into the skills and performance of project managers (Cleland and King 1988; Gemmill 1974; Thamhain and Gemmill 1974; Thamhain and Wilemon 1977; Thamhain and Wilemon 1978). This research and work by Posner (1987) in the 1980s, Gadeken in the early 1990s (1990, 1991), Ford and McLaughlin (1992), and more recently by Zimmerer and Yasin (1998), and a major literature review-based study by Pettersen (1991) constitute the primary research contributions to the understanding of project management competence.

As for studies concerning project success factors, research-based literature on aspects of project management competence draws primarily upon the opinions of project managers and others concerning the knowledge, skills, and personal attributes required by effective project personnel (Posner 1987; Thamhain 1991; Ford and McLaughlin 1992; Wateridge 1996; Zimmerer and Yasin 1998).

Gadeken's work (Gadeken and Cullen 1990; Gadeken 1991) is based on critical incident interviews with sixty United States (US) and fifteen United Kingdom (UK) project managers from Army, Navy, and Air Force acquisition commands. The findings relate solely to personal attributes with identification of six behavioral competencies that distinguished outstanding project managers from their peers; five demonstrated at a slightly lower level of significance; and seven that were demonstrated but with no significant differences indicated between outstanding and average performers. This remains the most important work on behavioral competencies of project managers but the results should be addressed with some caution due to the focus on both acquisition and the armed forces.

Pettersen (1991) conducted a major literature review concentrating on American texts to develop a list of predictors, defined in task-related terms, intended for use in selection of project managers.

Morris (2000) reports on the work of the Centre for Research in the Management of Projects at UMIST, on behalf of the Association for Project Management (APM) and a number of leading UK companies, which focuses on the knowledge required by project managers. Findings are based on interviews and data collection in over 117 companies, seeking their opinion as to the topics they thought project management professionals should know and understand in order to be considered competent.

The same process as outlined for analysis of the research-based literature concerning project success factors was applied to the eight studies mentioned above. Respecting the strong links between project success factors and project manager competence, the ten critical and twenty-three necessary success factors identified by Baker, Murphy, and Fisher (1988) were again used as the starting point. The same twenty-four categories or concepts that emerged from the analysis of success factors emerged from the analysis of findings concerning the knowledge, skills, and personal attributes identified as important to effective project management performance. Only one change was made. Organizational support was renamed stakeholder management (parent organization) in the list of project manager competence factors.

The project management competence factors were ranked according to the number of mentions identified over the eight selected studies, and separately for those studies conducted pre-1995 (n = 4) and post-1995 (n = 4). A breakdown for engineering and construction versus IS/IT is not provided, as there were only two studies that related directly to IS/IT. The year 1995 was adopted as a break point as reports published prior to that date primarily related to studies conducted in the 1980s or very early 1990s. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Project Manager Competence Identified in the Literature—Ranked by Frequency of Mention

All Factors (N = 8)	Pre-1995 Factors (N = 4)	Post-1995 Factors (N = 4)
Leadership, Planning (Integrative), Team Development	Leadership, Planning (Integrative), Strategic Direction, Team Development, Technical Performance	Leadership, Monitoring & Controlling (Integrative), Planning (Integrative), Team Development, Communication
Communication, Technical Performance	Communication, Decision-Making & Problem Solving, Stakeholder Management (Parent Organization)	Stakeholder Management (Parent Organization), Technical Performance, Organization Structure, Project Definition
Organization Structure, Stakeholder Management (Parent Organization), Strategic Direction	Monitoring & Controlling (Integrative), Monitoring & Controlling (Cost), Monitoring & Controlling (Scope), Monitoring & Controlling (Time), Organization Structure, Stakeholder Management (Client), Team Selection	Administration, Stakeholder Management (Client), Stakeholder Management (Other), Decision-Making & Problem Solving, Monitoring & Controlling (Cost), Planning (Specialist-Cost), Planning (Specialist-Time), Strategic Direction
Monitoring & Controlling (Integrative)	Administration, Monitoring & Controlling (Risk), Planning (Specialist-Time), Project Definition, Stakeholder Management (Other)	Team Selection, Closing (Integrative), Monitoring & Controlling (Quality), Monitoring & Controlling (Risk), Monitoring & Controlling (Scope)
Decision-Making & Problem Solving, Monitoring & Controlling (Cost), Planning (Specialist-Time), Project Definition, Stakeholder Management (Client)	Closing (Integrative), Monitoring & Controlling (Quality)	Monitoring & Controlling (Time)
NB: Not all 24 literature-derived factors are listed here. See Appendix A for a full listing of literature-derived constructs and their relationship to Performance Criteria from the Australian National Competency Standards for Project Management.

It is interesting to note that leadership, a factor that relates almost exclusively to personality characteristics or personal attributes, appears consistently in the highest-ranking category amongst project manager competence factors, whereas it appeared no higher than the second ranking category for project success factors. Similarly, team development appears consistently in the first ranking category for project manager competence factors, but fell as far as fourth ranking in one case for project success factors. Communication and technical performance are consistently stronger for project manager competence than for project success factors. Planning (integrative) is clearly a strong factor, as it appears consistently in the first ranking for both project success factors and project manager competence factors. It is interesting to note that the increased ranking of monitoring and controlling (integrative) that appears in the post-1995 studies of project success factors is supported by post-1995 studies of project manager competence factors indicating an increased concern for control.