Organisational Culture And Leadership For Successful Project Management - Case Study Example

Organisational Culture And Leadership For Successful Project Management Question 1 Critically discuss why is it important to assess the culture of an organization before deciding what project management structure should be used to complete a project? Critically also discuss what do you believe is more important for successfully completing a project — the formal project management structure or the culture of the parent organization? Answer: Organisational culture may be defined as “a set of shared assumptions, values and behaviours that characterise the functioning of an organisation” (Schwalbe, 2010, p. 51). Sherrer (2010) maintained that the influence of organisational culture can vary from weak to strong and that there is even a chance of having subcultures within the same organization. Additionally, it is the culture of an organisation which defines it comfort in risk taking, innovation, change, strategy, reporting structure, power relationships, loyalty and work ethics. The culture of an organisation also affects the projects it undertakes. Kloppenborg (2009) underscored the importance of understanding an organisation’s culture among project managers as a prelude to understanding the structure of the parent organisation to the end that effective communication is achieved. Consequently, Turner (2007) maintained that the strategy and work design involved in project management is a function of an organisation’s culture. In the same vein, Lientz and Rea (2002) identified ways by which organisational culture impacts the execution of projects, and these are: (1) how issues are addressed; (2) how decisions are made; (3) how actions are taken; (4) how the company balances initiative and empowerment versus control; (5) how work is organized and reviewed; (6) how the company puts value on project management; (7) the degree of flexibility and structure in work; and (8) the approach and attitude towards technology. Grounded on the aforementioned influence of culture on various aspects of an organisation’s processes, it may be safely generalised that the decision as to which project management structure to be adopted depends largely depends on the culture of an organization. It should, therefore, be inherent in every organisation to critically evaluate the prevailing culture before deciding which structure to adopt for a project. As showcased in Sanghera (2007), culture wields a profound influence on many facets of an organisation, such as the work environment, management style, policies, values, as well as, program and project selection. Moreover, since structure is a function of culture, the project characteristics are bounded by the kind of organisational structure which oversees the project. A set of comparisons was performed by Sanghera (2007) describing how project characteristics are affected by the structure of the organisation. A functional structure limits the project manager’s authority from none to low, while in a matrix structure his / her authority ranges from low to high. In a projectised structure, the project manager’s authority expands from high to full. As far as role is concerned, the functional structure gives a part time role for the project manager, whereas a matrix structure allows his / her role from part time to full time. However, in a projectised structure, the project manager’s role is full time. As to the project management administrative staff, their role in a functional structure ranges from one to part time, while in a matrix structure, their role may be part time or full time, and in a projectised structure, their role is full time. In terms of who controls the project budget, in a functional structure, it is the functional manager; in a matrix structure, it is either the functional manager or the project manager, or at times, both of them; and in a projectised structure, control of budget is on the project manager. On the other hand, resource availability is low in a functional structure; limited to high in a matrix structure and high to full in a projectised structure (Sanghera, 2007). Given the multiplicity of instances where prevailing organisational culture impacts the processes in a project, and having previewed selected project characteristics in the light of each major project structure, organisations should, therefore, take it incumbent upon themselves to assess their culture before attempting to decide on an appropriate project structure. While existing research evidence points towards the link between project success and the amount of autonomy and authority among project leaders or managers, Koster (2010) underscored that since projects tend to be contextual, “each project may need its special structure” (p. 168). Koster’s position is support by Alsene (in Dwyer, Stanton and Thiessen, 2004), and Hitt, Ireland, and Hoskisson (2009), who believes that “no one organisational structure is inherently superior to the others” (p. 315). But whatever structure is right, best or optimal for one project, the fact remains that it is the culture of the parent organisation which defines the shape for such structure. The rationale for the need to assess culture prior to selection of an appropriate project structure is explained best in Galbraith (2006): “Each structure carries with it identifiable assumptions about the legitimacy of certain practices and relationships and defines the locus of authority, responsibility and bases of power differently. Each legitimises a different pattern of communication and interaction. In addition to “fitting” better with certain competitive situations …, some structures may be more acceptable than others in a given culture”. (Galbraith, 2006, p. 173). The above quotation from Galbraith (2006) may be interpreted in the sense that it is futile for a project to assume a “best structure” in a vacuum – without considering how the prevailing culture will react to such structure. Culture defines the essence of an organisation, from the dominant values being espoused, to the guiding philosophy, the politics or the rules of the game for getting along in the organisation, to the climate of work which conducts interaction among the various groups and the behaviour of the employees. A project structured in ways acceptable to the prevailing culture can expect more support and success in its bid to reach its target goal. Moreover, various studies revealed evidence on the crucial role that culture plays on the success of many organization. Denison and Mishra (1995) found that effectiveness in organisations are dictated by at least four traits of culture, namely: involvement, consistency, adaptability and mission. Similarly, Chatman and Jehn (1994) showed the relationship between the growth of an organisation and certain cultural values. Meanwhile, a much earlier study by Saffold (1988) supported the position that organisational culture influences organisational performance, and that careful assessment of culture is a prerequisite to the understanding of performance-related processes on the organisation. When the new millennium dawned, Detert, Schroeder and Mauriel (2000) singled out one common denominator which led to the failure of earlier efforts to enhance the quality of management in various organisations – their inability to alter the culture or the environment where the intervention towards quality management were being targeted. As a result of such oversight, Detert, et al. (2000) considers a company’s prevailing culture as a deterrent against reengineering efforts aimed at total quality management. Grounded on the findings of previous researches associating performance with strong corporate cultures, Sorensen (2002) went a step further by proving his hypothesis that strongly cultured firms positively affect performance only in stable environments, but not in volatile environments. Cappels’ (2004) recognition of culture as the foundation of the organisation on which it stands and grows lends credence to the significant role of culture in the choice of a suitable project management structure. As seen from Cappels’ perspective, when an organisation reaches a low point of its life cycle, a review of its culture should be conducted. Venturing into a new project is considered as a low point in the sense that it is a starting point. A strong organisational culture should also be able to adapt to its external surroundings. However, a strong but obstinate culture could do more harm than a weak one. This bolsters the importance of assessing culture prior to the selection of a project structure for a new endeavour. Interestingly, Biggs and Smith (2003) recognised the influence of organisational culture on the management of the project cycle and advocates utilisation of the culture theory in addressing failures in project management. Such failures may perhaps been precipitated by a mismatch between culture and the chosen structure. This brings to the fore another big reason for the need to assess culture prior to decisions pertaining to project structure: culture is an indispensable tool which can be used in defining acceptable behaviours, as well as in establishing control within the organisation. According to Darraugh (1999), culture may be regarded as a management resource to meet organisational objectives, in practically the same way as knowledge, machinery, raw materials, etc. However, it is believed that : “Before culture can be manipulated, … management needs to know what the culture is and how it works; recognize and use the “levers” that influence culture; and be clear about whether they want to maintain, change or establish a culture” (Darraugh, 1999, p. 3). In another sense, the wisdom of Darraugh’s philosophy is that culture can be an effective change agent to help an organisation direct its efforts towards the goals of its project (or projects). Even if the prevailing culture does not necessarily seem to be supportive of the goals of a new project, a good knowledge of such culture can help corporate leaders manoeuvre their culture to accept and sustain the project towards successful completion. Finally, the need to assess an organisation’s culture well enough before creating the management structure for a project is also anchored on the need to balance project requirement with organisational influences, such as its prevailing culture (Dinsmore and Brewin, 2006). In many instances, the uniqueness of some projects necessitate that the project culture be innovative and change leading. Such within-project cultures should be able to successfully manage the possible difference to the culture of the parent organisation in deference to the corporate leaders and to the organisation as a whole. Managing such a gap will not be do-able without a firm grasp of the prevailing organisational culture. As culture exerts a profound influence on the effectiveness of the management approach and the project structure being adopted, conversely Moodley (2002) stressed the necessity of considering “how the structure and management of a project should be adapted to take account of the way these dimensions influence working practices in a particular culture” (p. 235). It is only through such a symbiotic approach that the project team and the parent organisation can jointly spell success for their endeavours. As to the issue of which between the formal project management structure or the culture of the parent organization is more important for successfully completing a project, it is best that the relationship between these two variables are first established. In this regard, Morris and Pinto (2007) offered an excellent metaphor to describe the association between the two variables: “culture is the river and the project is the craft” (p. 35). Organisation and completion of projects are accomplished without much difficulty when organisational culture is conducive and supportive of project management. In which case, project management may be likened to a “craft” sailing downstream where the natural force of the “river” engenders progress towards the target destination (which in the analogy is the completion of the project). In such an organisation, there is teamwork and cross-functional cooperation, and culture may be described as project-friendly. On the other hand, when organisational culture hampers the effective management of a project, the progress of the “craft” towards its target destination may be compared to sailing upstream. In such a scenario, considerable time, effort and attention will have to be exerted by the project management team to successfully complete the project. In such a culture, competition is the dominant force and teamwork is less likely to be a norm. Hence, it may be stated that organisational culture is more important than project management structure for the successful completion of a project. This position is supported by many theorists (Morris and Pinto, 2007; Schwalbe, 2009) It is culture which is extremely difficult if not impossible to change in an organisation, whereas structure is easier to manipulate to address developments in an on-going project. Moreover, as posited by Kerzner (2004), “successful project management can flourish within any structure no matter how terrible the structure looks on paper, but the culture within the organisation must support the four basic values of project management – cooperation, teamwork, trust and effective communication” (p. 375). As suggested in Morris and Pinto (2007), a strong and negative cultural current requires a project structure with greater authority and resource availability. In contrast, when organisational culture exudes teamwork and cooperation for the successful completion of a project, management structure may be of less formal structure and lesser dedicated resources. Hossenlopp (2010) emphasised the need for project leaders to take into consideration the importance of organisational culture. Complications that could arise from overlooking this aspect include: (1) loss of opportunity to build a team culture based on trust; (2) inability to establish a productive partnership with stakeholders; (3) improper allocation of team resources to primary project goals; and (4) wrong focus on short-term and long-term objectives. In this regard, the existing corporate culture must be carefully evaluated in order to select which management structure to adopt and implement. Schwalbe (2010) emphasised the reason why gaining an understanding of organisational culture precedes the development of project management structure. Organizational culture can make or break a project’s success. There is a misconception that the main culprit of most of an organization’s ills is how things are organized. In reality, the culture of the group or how things are being done draws the line between project success and failure. In this regard, organisational culture is deemed more important than structure for the success of a project. Another indication that culture of parent organisation assumes paramount importance in project success is given in Kloppenborg (2009), who offered a roster of organisational culture characteristics which serve as driving forces to project success: “cross-functional teams, stakeholder involvement, integrity, innovation, open communication, continuous improvement, respect for individuals, project management competencies and a common project management language” (p. 54). Project managers would have to be able to read through and speak the culture which they are working in for them to come up with strategies, plans and actions which are more likely to be understood and accepted by the parent organisation. This way, the aforementioned keys to success from the organisational culture can be mobilised in support of the project objectives. Schein (2004) looks at the true importance of organisational culture as an explanatory concept in the context of current developments in management: “In an age in which leadership is touted over and over again as a critical variable in defining the success or failure of organisations, it becomes all the more important to look at the other side of the leadership coin – how leaders create culture and how culture defines and creates leaders” (Schein, 2004, p. xi). Even if culture is merely an abstraction, its influence over many aspects of an organisation can not be taken for granted. Culture comprises the synergy of the expertise of various leaderships through the years in the parent organisation and captures with it the essence of this organisation. It is this culture that moulds project leaders into effective strategists to transform project goals into successful realities. Hence, the culture of the parent organisation is more important than the project structure because it is culture which fuels the formal management structure of the project en route to positive outcomes. When organisational culture is healthy, it provides not only smooth internal integration, but promotes adaptation to the external environment, as well. A project in one such external environment. As Daft (2010) contended, culture can assume a dynamic role in the creation of an organisational climate that fosters innovative response to challenges, threats or new opportunities. Indeed, “the right culture can drive high performance” (Daft, 2010, p. 387). A formal project management structure may then be instituted to complement such a culture. The bottomline, however, is that culture takes precedence over structure in the realisation of the project objectives. Taken in a similar sense, Hitt, Ireland and Hoskisson (2009) looks at a vibrant organisational culture as an important source of competitive advantage, a decisive factor in fostering innovation and “the most valuable competitive differentiator for business organisations” (p. 354). Hitt, et al. views the culture of the parent organisation in terms of how it shapes the context within which the firm plans and animates its strategies. The project structure is then positioned after the strategies have been formulated. Again, this lends credence to the importance of corporate culture over the formal project management structure. Another support on the importance of culture in the parent organisation may be found in Phillips (2006), who posited the direct influence of organisational culture on project success. Phillips (2006), however, noted that project formality is characteristically aligned to such culture. The same position is shared by Barnwell (2006) and Mejia and Leute (2007). Barnwell (2006) maintained that “cultures will tend to both influence structure and be sustained by the structure” (p. 119). Similarly, Mejia and Leute (2007) jointly consider an innovation-fostering culture and a flexible project structure as factors relevant for project success. It should, however, be borne in mind that project structure can only be as flexible as it complements the prevailing culture. It is still culture which determines which type of project management structure is most applicable. Consequently, Young (2006) observed that whenever project results do not meet expectations or fail altogether, the current organisational culture is singled out as the culprit. This is the usual reaction because a project management structure may be inherently effective, but as long as the organisational culture reacts negatively, all expected benefits are nullified. Another observation made by Walker (2007) is that mainstream studies on project management focus too much on changing the prevailing organisational culture to improve organisational performance. While in the first place, project management should focus more on harnessing the current culture of the group and directing it towards the realisation of the project objectives. This explains the need for project management to understand the organisational culture or cultures that come into play in each project. This is the proper approach to gain insight on how to harness and guide the project to strategise based on the prevailing culture instead of going against it. Weinstein’s (2010) stand also scaffolds the importance of organisational culture over project structure as he emphasised that an effective project management structure should mirror and fit with the organisation’s culture. Deliberate efforts to change the culture of the organization are almost impossible since it will always gravitate towards the status quo. When a newly formalised project management structure is introduced, it is normal to expect resistance from stakeholders. It is but normal for a project manager to observe negative reactions such as indifference and criticism, but if these are not addressed, organisational growth and productivity will be hindered. Suppressive environments will cause project management structure to be ignored, denied or rejected. And this bolsters the importance of an organisation’s culture over project culture for project success. Assignment Part B Question 2 The following activities (see Table 1) have been scheduled for constructing a new building for AXBC PLC. All task durations have been given in days. Activity Optimistic time Most Likely time Pessimistic time Predecessors A 1 2 4 B 3 6 12 C 1 2 3 A B D 2 4 5 A E 3 6 10 A F 2 5 7 G 1 3 5 B D H 1 3 4 D E F I 1 2 6 K J 2 5 6 G F K 1 2 3 H L 2 5 6 G H M 3 4 7 K L N 5 8 12 J K L O 4 8 10 D Table 1 Answers: a) Predecessor-successor relationships for each activity. [Note: the column successor was filled in by analysing the AON network in (d).] Activity Predecessor/s Successor/s A none E, D, C B none C C A, B none D A G, H, O E A H F none H, J G B, D J, L H D, E, F K, L I K none J G, F N K H I, M, N L G, H M, N M K, L none N J, K, L none O D none Table 2. Predecessor and successor relationships b) Expected time and variance for each task. Formulas used: Expected time = OT + 4(MT) + PT (Swamidass, 2000) 6 Variance = PT – OT 2 (Tulsian and Pandey, 2002) 6 where: OT = optimistic time MT = most likely time PT = pessimistic time Activity Expected Time (days) Variance A 2.2 0.250 B 6.5 2.250 C 2.0 0.111 D 3.8 0.250 E 6.2 1.361 F 4.8 0.694 G 3.0 0.444 H 2.8 0.250 I 2.5 0.694 J 4.7 0.444 K 2.0 0.111 L 4.7 0.444 M 4.3 0.444 N 8.2 1.361 O 7.7 1.000 Table 3. Expected time and variance for each task c) Early Start, Early Finish, Late Start, Late Finish and Slack Formulas used (Bennett, 2003): ESJ= LSI + ETJ where: ESJ = early start of this activity LSI = late start of preceding activity EFJ= ESJ + ETJ ETJ = expected duration of activity EFJ = early finish of this activity LSJ= LFJ - ETJ LSJ = late start of this activity LFJ = late finish of this activity LFJ= ESI LFJ = late start of preceding activity SLJ = slack of this activity SLJ= LSJ - ESJ [Note: The early start (ES) of activities with no predecessor is 0. The early start (ES) of activities with more than one predecessor is the largest late start time of any of the preceding activities. The late finish (LF) of activities with more than one succeeding activity is the smallest early start (ES) time of any of the succeeding activities. The late finish (LF) time of an activity with no successor/s is the largest early finish (EF) time among activities with no successors.] Activity ES EF LS LF TF SL A 0 2.2 0 2.2 0 0 B 0 6.5 15.6 22.1 15.6 0 C 6.5 8.5 22.1 24.1 15.6 0 D 2.2 6 4.4 8.2 2.2 0 E 2.2 8.4 2.2 8.4 0 0 F 0 4.8 3.6 8.4 3.6 4.2 G 6 9 8.2 11.2 2.2 2.2 H 8.4 11.2 8.4 11.2 0 0 I 13.2 15.7 21.6 24.1 8.4 0 J 9 13.7 11.2 15.9 2.2 0 K 11.2 13.2 13.9 15.9 2.7 2.7 L 11.2 15.9 11.2 15.9 0 0 M 15.9 20.2 19.8 24.1 3.9 0 N 15.9 24.1 15.9 24.1 0 0 O 6 13.7 16.4 24.1 10.4 0 Table 4. Early start, early finish, late start, late finish and slack times d) AON network [Note: The AON network is shown next page] e) Critical path and duration for the project. The critical path is the longest closed path in the network. Its duration is determined by adding the expected duration (ET) of each activity in the path (Swamidass, 2000; Schwalbe, 2010). There are several closed paths in the network: A-F-H-K-I (15.7 days); A-F-H-L-N (14.3 days); A-F-H-K-M (16.1 days); A-D-G-J-N (21.9 days); A-B-C (10.7 days), etc. However, the longest closed path and is, therefore the critical path is: A - E- H - L – N [the path in the AON network defined by the red arrows] Duration of the project = 2.2 + 6.2 + 2.8 + 4.7 + 8.2 Duration of the project = 24.1 days f) Probability of completing this project in 22 days Formulas used: P(x) = x – μ (Swamidass, 2000) δ where: P(x) = probability of completing the project in x days x = number of days the probability of completion is being computed δ = standard deviation of the critical path time [Note that the formula for P(x) is actually the formula for z or the standard score.] Since the variance of each activity was already computed in Table 2 and standard is simply the square root of the variance, then: δ =  0.250+1.361+0.250+0.444+1.361 = 3.666 δ = 1.915 P(22) = 22 – 24.1 = - 1.10 1.915 From the table of cumulative normal probabilities (see below), when z=1.10, P=0.86433. but since z is negative, the probability that the project will be completed in 22 days is 1 – 0.86433 or 0.13567. Figure 2: Portion of table of cumulative normal probabilities with the value of z=1.10 highlighted g) Probability of completing this project in 23 days [Note: same formulas used as in (f)]. P(23) = 23 – 24.1 = - 0.57 1.915 From the table of cumulative normal probabilities (see below), when z=0.57, P=0.71566. but since z is negative, the probability that the project will be completed in 23 days is 1 – 0.71566 or 0.28434. Figure 3: Portion of table of cumulative normal probabilities with the value of z=0.57 highlighted h) Summary on the implications of the analysis. Based on the critical path, the expected project duration is 24.1 days. There is a small likelihood that the project can be completed earlier, say in 22 or 23 days, based on the probabilities computed in sections (f) and (g). Conscious effort must be given to the activities in the critical path A - E- H - L – N, since delay in any of these activities will result in the delay of the project. Values of the slack time for non-critical activities may be used to mobilise manpower and schedule the use of equipment to speed up some of the activities. It should, however, be remembered that slack time is usually shared by strings or groups of activities. In this regard, utilisation of the slack time in conjunction with an activity usually affects the slack values of other activities. As Sears, et al. (2008) maintained, “total float [or slack] data can be misleading to those who are involved with only restricted portions of a project” (p. 202). Caution should, therefore, exercised so that the control and usage of slack time be assigned only to personnel responsible for the overall project scheduling. Hence, if there is a need to expedite the completion of the project, crushing may be used instead of simply reworking slack values. References Barkley, B. T., 2004. Project risk management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bennett, F. L., 2003. The management of construction: a project life cycle approach. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Biggs, S. and Smith, S., 2003. A paradox of learning in project cycle management and the role of organizational culture. World Development, 31(10), 1743-1757. Cappels, T. M., 2004. Financially focused project management. Boca Raton (FL): J. Ross Publishing. Barnwell, H., 2006. Test of professional competence in management accounting. Oxford: Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA)Publishing. Chatman, J. A. and Jehn, K. A., 1994. Assessing the relationship between industry characteristics and organisational culture: how different can you be? Academy Management Journal, 37(3), pp. 522-553. Daft, R. L., 2010. Organisation theory and design. 10th ed. Mason (OH): South-Western Cengage Learning. Darraugh, B. ed., 1999. Info-line: research and evaluation – the how-to reference tool for training and performance professionals. Alexandria (VA): American Society for Training and Development. Denison, D. R. and Mishra, A. K., 1995. Toward a theory of organisational culture and effectiveness. Organisation Science, 6(2), pp. 204-223. Detert, J. R., Schroeder, R. G. and Mauriel, J. J., 2000. A framework for linking culture and improvement initiatives in organisations. Academy Management Review, 25(4), pp. 850-863. Dinsmore, P. C. and Brewin, J. C., 2006. The AMA handbook of project management. 2nd ed. New York: American Management Association. Dwyer, J., Stanton, P. and Thiessen, V., 2004. Project management in health and community services: getting good ideas to work. London: Routledge. Galbraith, J., 2006. Building organisations around the global customer. In H. W. Lane, M. L. Maznevski, and J. J. Distefano. eds. International management behaviour: text, readings and cases. 5th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 197-206 Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., and Hoskisson, R. E., 2009. Strategic management: competitiveness and globalization (concepts and cases). Mason (OH): South-Western Cengage Learning. Hossenlopp, R., 2010. Organizational project management: linking strategy and projects. Vienna (VA): Management Concepts. Kerzner, H., 2004. Advanced project management: best practices on implementation. 2nd ed. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley and Sons. Kloppenborg, T. J., 2009. Contemporary project management: organise / plan / perform. Mason (OH): South-Western Cengage Learning. Koster, K., 2010. International project management. London: Sage Publications. Lientz, B. P. and Rea, K. P., 2002. Project management for the 21st century. San Diego (CA): Academic Press. Mejia, L. R. and Leute, K., 2007. Bringing university technology into the private sector. In T. Davila, M. J. Epstein and R. Shelton, eds., The creative enterprise: managing innovative organisations and people. Westport (CT): Praeger Publishers, pp. 107-126. Moodley, K., 2002. Project organisation design / structure. In N. J. Smith, ed. Engineering project management, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science, pp. 222-237. Morris, P. W. G. and Pinto, J. F., 2007. The Wiley guide to project organisation and project management competencies. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley and Sons. Partington, D., 1996. The project management of organizational change. International Journal of Project Management, 14(1), pp. 13-21. Phillips, J., 2006. Project management professional study guide. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: McGraw-Hill. Robbins, S. P. and Judge, T. A., 2010. Essentials of organisational behaviour 10th edition. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall. Saffold, G. S. III., 1988. Culture, traits, strength, and organisational performance: moving beyond “strong” culture. Academy Management Review, 13(4), pp. 546-558. Sanghera, P., 2007. Program management professional exam study guide. Indianapolis (IN): Wiley Publishing. Schein, E. H., 2004. Organisational culture and leadership. 3rd ed. San Francisco (CA): Jossy-Bass. Schwalbe, K., 2010. Information technology project management. 6th ed. Boston (MA): Course Technology/Cengage Learning. Sears, S. K., Sears, G. A. and Clough, R. H., 2008. Construction project management: a practical guide to field construction management. 5th ed. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley and Sons. Sherrer, J. A., 2010. Your key to PMP certification and understanding the PMBOK® fourth edition. Newtown Square (PA): J. Alex Sherrer. Sorensen, J. B., 2002. The strength of corporate culture and the reliability of firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), pp. 70-91. Swamidass, P. M. ed., 2000. Encyclopedia of production and manufacturing management. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Tulsian, P. C. & Pandey, V., 2002. Quantitative techniques: theory and problems. Singapore: Pearson Education. Turner, R., 2007. Gower handbook of project management. Hampshire: Gower Publishing. Walker, A., 2007. Project management in construction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Young, T. L., 2006. Successful project management. London: Kogan Page. Read More