Impact of Monitoring on Employee Behaviour in Project Management - Assignment Example

Assignment question: Part I (Approximately 1500 words) In a recent article, Mahaney and Lederer (2009) investigate the impact of monitoring on employee behaviour in project management and concluded: This paper examined the effect of monitoring on shirking, and the effect of shirking on information systems project success in the holistic context of both project implementation and ongoing use. It contributed by finding monitoring to be a four dimension construct and shirking to be of two dimensions. It found that monitoring via planning and meetings appears to reduce shirking (for both poor focus and loafing), but fails to do so via responsibilities and comparison (again for both poor focus and loafing); in other words, it warns that diligent monitoring of task completions may fail to focus developers on the essential tasks and may fail to discourage them from slacking off. It found that shirking via poor focus predicts project failure whereas shirking via loafing does not; in other words it warns that effort on the wrong tasks may doom a project even if the effort is diligent. Such findings provide a basis for project managers to improve the successfulness of their projects by better use of monitoring to encourage developers to focus on the most appropriate tasks, and for researchers to further investigate and enhance our understanding of project management by studying such management using broader and more diverse approaches. Mahaney, R.C. and Lederer, A.L. (2009 – in press), ‘The role of monitoring and shirking in information systems project management’. International Journal of Project Management doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.03.001 Critically discuss the implications of these findings for effective project management. Part II (approximately 2000 words) For an organization of your choice, design an information technology (IT) project that will contribute to the achievement of its strategic goals. Your report should include a project brief that sets out the objectives, scope, deliverables and critical success factors (CSFs) for the project, together with details of benefits realization, and a plan for its execution. Your plan should place particular emphasis on both how effective project monitoring will take place and how the necessary change management will be accomplished to ensure that planned benefits are realized. You should include an introduction to the organization discussing its maturity in the use of information systems and you should use appropriate theoretical material to support each aspect of your answer. Rudi Coulter (ID No. 079012110, Reg No. 2115377TOUR216) Distance Learning MBA, Oct 2007 Cohort, 07966 000946 / rudicoulter@btopenworld.com Part I Introduction The findings by Mahaney and Lederer in 2009 prove to be an interesting and significant development, they shed light within the important project monitoring field that could change the way many current Project Managers carry out their work as well as giving greater insight into why IT projects have failed in the past. Findings Mahaney and Lederer’s study outlines a four dimension construct for monitoring, planning, responsibility, comparison and meeting, as well as a two dimension construct for shirking, loafing and poor focus. The paper highlights that monitoring via planning and meetings appears to reduce shirking (for poor focus and loafing), whereas controlling via responsibility and comparisons does not reduce shirking (for poor focus and loafing), therefore suggesting that a Project Manager would be better devoting more time and resources to monitoring and meetings to improve project success rather than simply relying on responsibility (sign of off deliverables when completed) and periodic comparisons. The paper also highlights that shirking via poor focus predicts project failure, whereas shirking via loafing does not necessarily predict project failure, thus underlying the fact that a poorly focused project team can be highly detrimental to a project. This is supported again in the study where it finds that diligent monitoring of task completions may also fail to focus developers (project team members) on the essential tasks and may fail to discourage them from slacking off. These are issues within the Project Management field that have not been largely addressed before. There has not been a great deal of research into Agency Theory in the project management field up until Mahaney and Lederer’s study, hence the significance of their findings. Literature in project management theory has focused heavily on project management functioning and processes, the technical aspects of the project itself with less focus on the capabilities and motivation of those performing the project and in particular the affect this has on the success of a project (REF). Looking at PRINCE2 for example which many IT Project managers use in the UK and in Europe, teaches a lot of good monitoring practices and processes however it doesn’t go far to address interacting with project teams and the issue of developers/team members shirking, this is followed by comparatively little literature looking at project failure due to project team incapability and under performance, perhaps this is because it is covered in other management fields, nevertheless it is not recognised significantly enough as a major reason for project failure. In (the author’s/writer’s) my own reasonable experience of Project Managing, I (He has) have found that no matter how well planned a project is and indeed it needs to be well planned, if the project team are not focused on the appropriate tasks, the project will be a struggle and will likely not be successful in meeting its full acceptance criteria on time and within budget. Within project management, the literature that addresses the project team tends to focus more on general motivation and understanding, but doesn’t directly address how to approach and address the shirking aspect as laid out by Mahaney and Lederer. For example, Cadle and Yeates outline four key areas that a Project Manager should have as a skills set in order to motivate their team - time management, one-to-one interactions and negotiation skills, one-to-many interactions with teams and monitoring skills (2008, p403), which are all excellent people management skills, however doesn’t address the actual issue of shirking. As stated earlier, the findings of the study dissect the problem of shirking into loafing and poor focus and shows that shirking (poor focus and loafing) can be eradicated through monitoring meetings and good planning, whereas responsibility and comparisons against planned results do not. This highlights to a Project Manager the importance of monitoring the team and not just the task in hand in order to achieve a successful project. The study also distinguishes between loafing and poor focus, stating that poor focus is more likely to lead to project failure than loafing, thus as stated earlier poor focus is of much greater concern to the Project Manager. Project Success & Failure There have been many definitions of project success over the years, including well recognised definitions such as, Pinto and Slevin’s Ten Critical Success Factors (1987), Levy and Dvir’s Four Dimensions of Project Success (1997), as well as simply satisfying the customer and completing the project on schedule and within budget. Mahaney and Lederer’s findings shed light on what could be a major source of project failure, it could be that project failure has occurred because it has ended up over budget or taken longer than planned, but the part shirking and more accurately poor focus has played in the result of being over budget or taking than longer than planned has been over-looked. These findings have therefore flagged up another potential critical underlying cause of project failure and with this in mind and being taken forward can potentially increase the success of any future projects. Of course projects can and will still fail for other reasons, but the findings do encourage Project Managers to improve and address their developer/team member monitoring procedures, pushing them to focus properly on the appropriate tasks. Choosing the right people for the project team is a key element if the Project Manager wants to ensure that the team is focused, motivated and capable. Selection of a project team is a topic that has historically often been overlooked, however as outlined by Thomas et al (2008, P111), “It is understood by most practitioners that the best of plans can be sabotaged with a poorly developed team, and that the most effective team cannot overcome a poor project plan. The most successful projects are almost always characterised as having had a well-considered plan, developed by an outstanding and committed team”. Traditionally the development of the project team has been considered a soft science or skill with very few in project management having established the link between production, planning and control and team building. Thomas et al believe that “Using the Project Team to develop the PP&C (Production, Planning and Control) is a natural process for giving team members active participation in creating the project, a process aimed at developing individual commitment from team members” (2008, p111-112). Failure to recognise this can lead to inter-team conflict, thus resulting in the lengthening of the project as well as jeopardising the chances of the project’s success. The study raises the importance of individual motivations within a project team and flags up therefore to the Project Manager potential issues that could be faced during the project. Project Managers could therefore prepare their monitoring and controlling practices depending on whether team members are classified as Theory X or Theory Y. McGregor’s recognised Theory X and Theory Y classifications in its most simplistic form, where it classifies workers as either inherently lazy and with an inherent dislike for work (Theory X) or self-motivated, ambitious and enjoy work (Theory Y) (REF). These classifications are obviously not mutually exclusive, however if the Project Manager can dedicate some time to evaluate which team members are in which classification and to what extent, or even better if the project manager has the luxury of choosing the project team, they can then adjust the monitoring processes in order to maximise the project team’s output and thus the project’s success. There is great empirical evidence to support McGregor’s classifications which tie-in very well with Mahaney and Lederer’s findings and thus give the findings further validation. In order to obtain the optimal level of developer/team focus it is important that the Project Manager must appreciate and acknowledge that any project task should not be beyond the experience and capabilities of the developer/team member, and indeed the Project Board should not assign a project to a Project Manager without the required capabilities, as this has many fundamental failings and distinctly decreases the chances of project success (REF). A successful project must also not be have a culture of concealing risks and problems by project team, there must be an established culture of raising issues at the earliest possible time to the appropriate person (REF). A project manager also needs enough degree of authority over its team in order to be successful (REF). Conclusion The findings of Mahaney and Lederer have interesting implications for Project Managers, they give a greater insight as to where any monitoring should be focused, with more energy and effort to be focused on monitoring and effective team and project meetings as well as ensuring that appropriate work/tasks are under development, as well as ensuring that the project has been well planned. They have demonstrated the importance of team meetings to address and prevent shirking issues, it is also key in ensuring that the developers/team members have the capabilities to perform the required tasks before the Project Manager can consider shirking and in particular poor focus. The study has also highlighted potentially a major cause of project failure, where a project has failed, ended up over budget or taken longer than planned. This therefore in theory can be eliminated from future project failure contributors. Although of course a project could still fail for other reasons. Poor focus is of greater concern to the Project Manager than loafing, as it is more likely to lead to project failure. It has always been clearly understood by most that the Project Manager’s role includes the motivation of the team and the monitoring and control of the project, however, Mahaney and Lederer’s work highlights the impact of individual agency on a project and the potential problems it can cause including project failure. This research therefore gives project managers an insight for future projects in addressing the shirking issues discussed and should encourage Project Managers to focus more greatly on getting developers/team members to focus on appropriate tasks and improve focus overall. The findings of Mahaney and Lederer have interesting implications for project managers and as their paper states, should be researched and investigated further for the benefit of Project Managers and IT projects everywhere. Part II Project Brief Document Implementation of Evolutive to Locate in Kent Commissioned by Paul Wookey (Chief Executive, Locate in Kent) In association with: Alcium Software and ZEST 10th December 2009 This document has been produced to provide a first and firm foundation of the project prior to the initiation of the project. This document outlines the plans for the scope, investment, dependencies on other projects and anticipated benefits, potential risks and results. It also outlines customer quality expectations, acceptance criteria, potential known risks, monitoring management and change management. Any significant changes away from this document during the project will have to be referred to the corporate management (Chief Executive). The Project Brief will provide the basis for the Project Board to decide to authorise the initiation of the project and a Project Initiation Document. Introduction Locate in Kent is the Inward Investment Agency (not-for-profit organisation) for Kent & Medway funded by public and private money. Its role is to assist business investment into the area by helping with business locational needs and associated issues. The inward investment sector is currently a highly competitive sector in the UK, and Locate in Kent has historically been and is still one of the leading sub-regional development agencies in the UK. In order to maintain and further establish its position, its IT infrastructure needs to be able to facilitate its strategic future plans for development and progression. Locate in Kent would not currently be considered a learning organisation, however with new ambitions of IIP and new IT infrastructure there is now a desire to head in this direction. Maturity According to Nolan’s Stage Model of maturity, Locate in Kent is currently at the stage 3 - Control, but, however, is looking to progress eventually to stage 6 Maturity via stage 5, Data administration (increasing understanding of how important data is for reporting and monitoring purposes). However this project will directly help the organisation achieve stage 4, integration, whereby disparate systems will be joining to work together and fit in with the organisation’s IT programme (REF for Nolan’s Model). Similarly according to Earl’s model of maturity, this project will help the organisation move from stage 3 to achieve stage 4 and possibly stage 5, increasing the complexity and activity of the IT systems as well as looking to gain competitive advantage through its IT infrastructure (REF for Earl’s Model). This project is a mixture of a design and implementation and a change project. Background to the project Locate in Kent is currently looking at having its budget cut for the next financial year due to the current economic climate, and is therefore looking to cut overheads where viable. Its current office premises are a potential vehicle for this as they are currently expensive and have therefore been identified as a viable cost saving. Locate in Kent intend to rent much smaller offices and operate with a hot-desk environment and remote working strategy. A decision was taken by the Chief Executive to overhaul the IT infrastructure in August 2009 in order to support future working conditions and operational requirements and therefore allow almost total remote working. Locate in Kent currently runs an independent in-house CRM system (not on-line, ACT!) and Property Database (on-line via CPD). These two systems work independently of each other and are unable to talk to each other. ACT! was the first computer based CRM system used by Locate in Kent, introduced in 2000, and CPD was the first computer based property database used, introduced in 2002. Previous to this all record management and property searches were performed by hand with paper records. The major issues with the current systems are that they are unable to talk to each other and are therefore labour intensive from an administrative point of view. ACT! is also near capacity for recording information and number of users and therefore crashes often (ever increasing amount of downtime) and operates slowly (designed for small business use). Apart from these issues, it is unable to adapt to support the continually growing monitoring and reporting applications that Locate in Kent is having to perform. It is also difficult to establish cost-effective support for ACT!. CPD works well in isolation, but doesn’t offer much possibility for further required additions and developments. Locate in Kent also hosts many events each year and does not have a specialist event management system in place, which makes organising events time consuming and ad-hoc. This is a further request for implementation. Locate in Kent is also looking to operate a more sophisticated and automated arrangement for information exchange in the future with the local district and borough councils. A report was submitted to the Chief Executive and Board in April 2009 highlighting the potential benefits of improved remote access and potential solutions and estimated costs. Locate in Kent has looked at various options and has decided on an information technology solution whereby the CRM system and Property Database are part of the same product. Investigations included looking at the two leading products in the sector, Alcium Software’s Evolutive and RE: Systems’ Tractivity as well as considering CPD’s offer to help build and trial a new joint CRM and property database CPD product. A decision was made to go with Alcium Software’s Evolutive product (web based system) as the system of choice after much consideration. This project is part of a bigger programme to establish remote access to all Locate in Kent’s systems and operations and involves a significant increase in investment in IT infrastructure. The mandate for this project is to implement to Locate in Kent the working and joined up CRM and property system (Evolutive), which must be accessible easily through the internet; be able to power and support the Locate in Kent web site; will have an Event Manager function; will be able to support Locate in Kent’s monitoring and supporting needs; and will be reliable and easy to use. On top of this the information technology solution will reduce current labour intensive administration as well as have the ability to foster for continual development as Locate in Kent’s needs change to take the organisation forward. Alcium Software and Locate in Kent have agreed terms in principle for the operation and installation of the Evolutive system to Locate in Kent’s outlined specifications. Project Definition This section outlines the definition of the project. It is not a highly detailed specification for the project but rather a high level view of its aims and objectives. Project objectives The aim of the project is to establish and implement Alcium Software’s Evolutive CRM and Property Database system to the required standard, successfully incorporating an on-line commercial property search for Locate in Kent’s web site, the ability to report on project activity and property activity, an event management and mail-out function. The overall system must work taking into account ever exchanging and expanding needs of Locate in Kent and must therefore be future proofed as much as feasibly possible. The target date to have the Evolutive up and running is, March 2010. Project scope & exclusions This project will initially be involved in performing current operations and activities more efficiently and remotely (via the internet), as well as the addition of an Event Manager facility. The new system is to be web based and secure. Security will be the same as on-line banking with a three tier security system. All software must be compatible with Locate in Kent’s current web site and other future IT infrastructure plans. ZEST (Locate in Kent’s out-sourced marketing company), must be kept fully briefed and up-to-date at regular intervals, to ensure that all software will tie-in with current web site specifications. All staff members will have to be fully trained to a competent level before Evolutive goes live. Though in the future Locate in Kent will potentially want to add in E-newsletter and Questionnaire software additions, these modules are not part of this project, except to ensure that the capability is there to add in the future. Exclusion is also true for joint working with local councils as this project will not establish the joint using of the system with local councils, but will ensure that there is easy capability to do so in the future. Project deliverables and desired outcomes Integrated CRM and Property Database (Evolutive) which will power Locate in Kent’s property search facility on web site. Successful and comprehensive transfer of all information accurately from ACT! and CPD to the new Evolutive system. Improve client property search experience (thus generating further enquiries) Hosting to be moved from Locate in Kent’s servers to Alcium Software’s servers. Working Event Manager software/facility. Browser/web based access. Flexibility to develop software in future. Saving of staff time Increased reporting and monitoring ability. All staff trained to competent standard of using Evolutive. ACT! and CPD records to be stored and archived. Constraints The total budget for this project is £20,950 (see budget information later). No more than 2 Locate in Kent members of staff to work on the project for no more than 25% of their normal hours (approx. 9 hours per week) for the duration of the project (2 months). All other staff members to work no more than 4 hours in total each excluding training. The project is to be completed by May 30th 2010 within two months of commencement (April 5th 2010, the beginning of the financial year). Locate in Kent cannot be without a working CRM system/property system at any point, there is no possibility of down time without a working system. As smooth a transition as possible is required. Evolutive must be ready for pilot usage at least 2 weeks before live implementation in order that any major technical issues can be sorted. CPD property information cannot be transferred electronically and will have to be manually input. Interfaces/interdependencies This project ties in with Locate in Kent’s programme to upgrade all of its IT systems and infrastructure moving to web based operations and remote working. Also this will allow future ability to share information and thus access to Evolutive with local authorities (currently Medway Council, Gravesham Borough Council, Ashford Borough Council and Maidstone Borough Council are interested). It might be also that Evolutive powers their web site property search facilities in the future. Constant communication between Locate in Kent, Alcium Software and ZEST is imperative for smooth running of the project. This project will involve tactical input from all three organisational departments when transferring data from ACT! and CPD. Alcium Software will perform all the programming software work, except on the web site where ZEST will assist as required. Outline Business Case The business case for this project is outlined below in a series of reasons for the project and the benefits of the project if successfully delivered. Reasons Current CRM system (ACT!) is falling over too often, leading to too much downtime. It is at its capacity regarding usage and additions as well as being too slow. Property database (CPD) has limited to no ability to develop as Locate in Kent requires. Locate in Kent is moving toward remote access for its employees and therefore remote access is vital for CRM system and property database CRM system and property database do not currently talk to each other/link together. Locate in Kent does not have an effective event management organiser. The current systems (ACT! and CPD) have very limited further development possibilities. Locate in Kent is being asked to report on and monitor activity in greater detail continually. There is too much downtime when current CRM system falls over. No current cost effective support contract/facility available for ACT! Benefits A web based CRM and Property Database that interlink. New possibilities for Property Search facility on Locate in Kent’s web site. More detailed performance monitoring and reporting possible. Saving of staff time A helpdesk to support Evolutive users. No longer need to host the software and information in-house. More powerful software. Event management software. Ability for remote access working and therefore flexible working patterns. Budgets/Project Tolerances Item Budget Tolerance Notes 1. 15 concurrent Evolutive licences £8,500 £0 Per annum cost 2. Data conversion from ACT! to Evolutive. £1,250 £0 3. Set-up Evolutive and Property Search registration transfer link. £3,000 £0 4. Evolutive to power Locate in Kent’s on-line Property Search £3,000 £750 Tolerance is if ZEST has to incur any work for this. 5. Automatic Property Match on web site Property Search facility £1,500 £750 Tolerance is if ZEST has to incur any work for this. 6. Creation of Event Manager £1,500 £0 7. Evolutive training to staff (2 days). £1,700 £850 If another day’s training is required, there will be budget made available 8. CPD property information to be populated into Evolutive £500 £500 Temp staff hired to input CPD property information into Evolutive (estimated to take one week) TOTAL £20,950 Customer’s Quality Expectations Locate in Kent’s quality expectations are obviously key factors to the success of the project: The project is delivered on time and within budget The deliverables are met. Staff is happy that they can competently use the system before going live. ZEST are happy with the new relationship and software interaction for the web site The Event Manager works well and more efficiently than current processes. A smooth transition from the old systems to new. System downtime all but eradicated Acceptance Criteria Locate in Kent will accept the project according to the following criteria, as agreed by Alcium Software and ZEST. Systems to be completely operational and 95% snag free and fully tested when going live. Staff fully trained and able to work with Evolutive immediately. The Event Manager is operational and usable. Staff are happy using the new system Access to full user guides and help desk. Web site is unaffected negatively and Property Search is improved. Known Risks Risks Probability (1 to 5, low to high) Impact (1 to 5, little to high) Score (Probability + Impact) Counter measures 1. Locate in Kent staff unable to give enough time to assist with project 1 5 6 Project timing will have to be increased in order that the project is carried out at the required standard. 2. Staff unable to make training days due to other work commitments 4 1 5 Re-arrange training days or add additional training days to ensure all staff receive required training Insufficient funds for any unforeseen development needs 2 4 6 Locate in Kent, Alcium Software and/or ZEST will have to discuss changes to specifications Low level of user cooperation during migration to new system. 3 5 8 Chief Executive, Project Board and Project Manager to ensure staff are well briefed of the project and its importance and are involved in important user issues. Anything happens to internet connection or Alcium Software servers. 1 3 4 Any significant internet connection problems will lead to potential extension of project length Locate in Kent/Remote working location internet connection is not quick/good enough 1 5 6 This is unlikely as tests have been performed, however if there are significant problems, Locate in Kent will have to look at increased internet speed and download options. Data information is not transferable (compatible) 2 5 7 Temp staff will be employed to enter the information manually, this may have an affect on the project timing schedule. Alcium Software go into administration 1 5 6 Locate in Kent have agreed that data backed up and held on the Alcium Software servers will be transferred back to Locate in Kent in this eventuality. Illness or sickness to key contributors 1 3 4 Alcium Software have sufficient staff to cover individual sickness, however epidemics could mean an extension to project timings. Sickness to key Locate in Kent members of staff will have less impact and may mean a short extension of project timings. Assumptions have been outlined throughout the Project Brief. Monitoring Project timing is of high importance in this project and an initial outlined project plan in Gantt Chart format is included in Appendix 1. The project will need to be tightly monitored and a Gantt chart will be used as a monitoring tool. The project will be broken into stages as highlighted on the Gantt chart. Project review meetings will be the main monitoring vehicle used. Project reviews will need to happen regularly with the input of all parties and stake holders. Project review meetings will be held every two weeks by Locate in Kent’s Project Manager and Alcium Software’s Project Manager and Locate in Kent’s Project Manager will then report back to the Project Board (Chief Executive), as well as ZEST. The project review meetings between Locate in Kent and Alcium Software will be performed by way of a conference call. The Project Manager will report back to the Project Board (Chief Executive) in writing and in person. The budget will be monitored via cost schedule controls, these will include a budgeted cost of work schedule (BCWS), a budgeted cost of work performed (BCWP) and an actual cost of work performed (ACWP). These will be looked at with every project review. Project review meetings will discuss: - Is the project on schedule time wise? - Is the project within budget? - Any issues in the issue log? - Any potential risks that might arise in the next stage of the project? - Have all necessary stakeholders been kept up-to-date? - Quality review It has been decided that there is no need for separate Quality Review meetings, these can been incorporated into the Project Review Meetings. Change Control and Management Empirical evidence suggests that all IT projects need to include detailed plans for change management if they are to succeed (REF). Change requests away from the Project Brief must be approved by Project Board (Chief Executive). If the change request is within current tolerances, this can be approved by Locate in Kent’s Project Manager. If not, it must be elevated to the Project Board. Decision may be to implement change, delay change, defer a decision, ask for more information, and cancel the request. Any request for change must be raised with Locate in Kent’s Project Manager who can then decide if the change request is relevant and if so whether it is within the project’s tolerances or needs to be elevated to the Project Board. Issues during the project should be logged in an issue log., which is accessible to all relevant stakeholders i.e. Locate in Kent, Alcium Software and ZEST. Associated documents Associated documents to this project include: The Advantages of Evolutive as a Contact Management, Property and Reporting System, commissioned by the Chief Executive of Locate in Kent and produced by Alcium Software Software. Bibliography Anon. (2007). Master of Business Administration, Project Management for IT, 20th ed. University of Leicester. Anon. (2005). Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2, 4th ed. Office of Government Commerce (OGC). Bennington, P. and Baccarini, D. (2004). Project Benefits Management in IT Projects – An Australian Perspective. Project Management Journal, Vol. 35 (2), p20-30. Bentley, C. (2006). PRINCE2 revealed, 1st ed. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK. Beranek, P. M. et al. (2005). Management of Virtual Project Teams: Guidelines for Team Leaders. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 2005 (16), p247-259. Bradley, K. (2005). Understanding PRINCE2, 5th ed. SPOCE project Management Ltd., Dorset, UK. Brenner, D. (2007). Achieving a Successful Project by Motivating the Project Team. Cost Engineering, Vol. 49 (5), p16-20. Cadle, J. and Yeates, D. (2008). Project Management for Information Systems, 5th ed. Pearson Education, Harlow. Dmytrenko, A.L. (1996). Successful Project Management. Records Management Quarterly, Vol. 30 (1) Hartman, F. and Ashrafi, R.A. (2002). Project Management in the Information Systems and Information Technologies Industries. Project Management Journal, Vol.33 (3), p5-15 Ives, M. (2005). Identifying the Contextual Elements of Project Management within Organisation and their Impact on Project Success. Project Management Journal, Vol. 36 (1), p37-50. Ivory, c. and Alderman, N. (2005). Can Project Management Learn Anything from Studies of Failure in Complex Systems. Project Management Journal, Vol. 36 (3), p5-16. Kloppenborg, T.J. and Petrick, J.A. (1999). Leadership in Project Life Cycle and Team Character Development. Project Management Journal, Vol.30 (2), p8 Mahaney, R. C. and Lederer, A. L. (2009). The role of monitoring and shirking in information systems project management. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. March 2009. Mahaney, R.C., and Lederer, A.L. (2006). The effect of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for developers on information systems project success. Project Management Journal, Vol. 37 (4), p42-54. Messmer, M. (2004). Project Teams The Get Results. Strategic Finance, Vol. 85 (8), p13-14. Prabhakar, G, P. (2005). Switch Leadership in Projects: An Empirical Study Reflecting The Importance of Transformational Leadership on Project Success Across Twenty-Eight Nations. Project Management Journal, Vol. 36 (4), p53-60. Robertson, S. and Williams, T. (2006). Understanding project failure: using cognitive mapping in an insurance project. Project Management Journal, Vol 37 (4), p55-71. Robey, D., Smith, L. and Vijayasarathy, L.R. (1993). Precerptions of Conflict and Success in Information Systems Development. Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 10 (1), p123-139. Shenhar, A.J. and Dvir, D. (2007). Project Management Research – The Challenge and Opportunity. Project Management Journal, Vol. 38 (2), p93-99. Shore, B. (2008). Systematic Biases and Culture in Project Failures. Project Management Journal, Vol. 39 (4), p5-16. Stefanou, H. (2002). Supporting Project Management Research – An Update. Project Management Journal, Vol.33 (2), p4. Sutterfield, J.S., Friday-Stroud, S.S. and Shivers-Blackwell, S.L. (2006). A Case Study of Project and Stakeholder Management Failures: Lessons Learned. Project Management Journal, Vol. 37 (5), p26-35. Thomas, M., Jacques, P.H., Adams, J.R. and Kihneman-Wooten, J. (2008). Developing an Effective Project: Planning and Team Building Combined. Project Management Journal, Vol. 39 (4), p105-113. word count c. 3,500 Appendix 1. Initial Evolutive Implementation Project Gantt Chart Activity Key Dates w/c 5th April w/c 12th April w/c 19th April w/c 26th April w/c 3rd May w/c 10th May w/c 17th May w/c 24th May w/c 7th June 1. ACT Data Conversion                     Collect Data Samples 5th April 5th April                 Write export/import scripts                     Test scripts                     Receive final data & perform conversion 1st May       1st May           Alcium release conversion to Locate in Kent 4th May         3rd May         Locate in Kent test and review                     2. Format & set-up Locate in Kent trial Evolutive                     3. Format & Set-up Locate in Kent live Evolutive                     4. User training 5th May         5th May           6th May         6th May         5. Development of additional modules (Event Manager, and Property Database builds)                     6. Web integration                     7. Temp staff to transfer CPD property information over to Evolutive                     8. Live Operation Use of the System                     8. Review Meeting 7th June                 7th June Read More