PAPERS Managing Global Projects: A Structured
Approach for Better Performance
Vittal Anantatmula, College of Business, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC, USA
Michael Thomas, College of Business, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC, USA
ABSTRACT ■
The purpose of this research effort is to develop
a model for improving the performance of global
projects using the underlying relations among
the important enablers and barriers of global
project performance. A number of factors are
identified in the study, using a literature review
to develop the model. A survey was used to
determine the impact of these factors on global
project performance. The model suggests differ-
ent management practices for global projects
versus traditional, co-located projects. Different
from the outcomes of traditional projects,
research results suggest that leadership and
establishing trust is a first step in the initial
stages of the global project.
KEYWORDS: global projects; virtual teams;
interpretive structural modeling; project
performance factors; enablers and barriers of
global projects
Project Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 2, 60–72
© 2010 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com)
DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20168
60 April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
INTRODUCTION ■
n this global environment of intense competition, to realize and sustain
I competitive advantage, organizations must place importance on how
they practice project management (PM). Specifically, it is critical, in the
context of global projects and geographically dispersed project teams, to
integrate information technology (IT) tools and manage cultural differences
in dealing with project risk and complexity with a focus on improving effi-
ciency, effectiveness, and innovation.
A review of journals and publications provides ample evidence of
research interest in global projects. However, only a few research studies
focus on identifying enablers and barriers of global projects and implement-
ing them successfully (Dodson, 1998; Grosse, 2002; Jarvenpaa & Leidner,
1999; Lientz & Rea, 2003; Nidiffer & Dolan, 2005; Sarker & Sahay, 2002). None
of these studies have addressed the interaction of enablers and barriers or
how well their relationships to one another could be used to improve project
performance. The purpose of this research effort is to develop a model for
improving the performance of global projects using the underlying relations
among the important enablers and barriers of global projects.
This study begins with the premise that global projects and global virtual
teams are inextricably linked with each other. The focus of the study is to
understand how enablers and barriers of global projects interrelate with one
another. Using these interrelationships, a model is developed to analyze the
roles and responsibilities of the project manager and the team to successful-
ly manage global projects. In this article, as a first step, enablers and barriers
of global projects are identified using the literature review. Second, the
research methodology for collecting data to develop underlying relations
among these factors and their level of impact on project success is presented.
Then the structural linkages between these factors are identified, analyzed,
and discussed. The analysis of these linkages will determine individual and
team roles in project success from the research and practitioner’s perspectives.
Finally, we will present limitations of the study and suggest opportunities for
future research efforts.
Literature Review
For the purposes of this study, a global project is defined as a transnational
project, a temporary endeavor with a project team made up of individuals
from different countries; working in different cultures, business units, and
functions; and possessing specialized knowledge for solving a common
strategic task (Adenfelt & Lagerström, 2006: Marmer, 1998; Schweiger, 1998).
Likewise, a global virtual team is defined by three dimensions: (1) no com-
mon past or future, (2) culturally diverse and geographically dispersed, and
(3) communicating electronically (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999).
Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999) define a global virtual team to be a
temporary, culturally diverse, geographically dispersed, electronically
communicating work group. Further,
they clarify that the notion of temporary
in the definition describes teams whose
members may have never worked
together before and who may not expect
to work together again as a group.
Jarvenpaa and Leidner concluded that
in global virtual teams, communication
that rallies around the project and tasks
appears to be necessary in order to
maintain trust. Social communication
that complements rather than substi-
tutes for task communication may
strengthen trust. Advantages of employ-
ing virtual teams are flexibility, respon-
siveness, lower costs, and better utilization
of resources that are necessary to meet
ever-changing requirements in highly
turbulent and dynamic global business
environments (Mowshowitz, 1997;
Snow, Snell, & Davison, 1996).
Enablers and Barriers
As noted earlier, global virtual teams go
hand-in-hand with global projects. The
virtual team effectiveness plays an
important role in project performance.
Dubé and Paré (2001) contend that
global virtual teams face significant
challenges over and above virtual
teams located locally due to cultural
differences and language issues. Dubé
and Paré identified people and tech-
nology as key issues for global virtual
teams.
Communication was found to be an
important component of project suc-
cess in virtual teams (Beranek, Broder,
Reineg, Romano, & Sump, 2005;
Khazanchi & Zigurs, 2005; Lin & Berg,
2001). Diallo and Thuillier (2005) and
Tavcar, Žavbi, Verlinden, and Duhovnik
(2005) underlined the importance of
establishing strong communication
and cooperation among the project
manager, stakeholders, and team mem-
bers and argued that these factors are
critical for the success of the project.
Rad and Anantatmula (2009) suggest
that a major source for the failure of
global virtual teams is due to the reality
that virtual teams are denied most of
the traditional modes of synchronous
communication, an effective way to
resolve conflicts.
Global projects can use time zone
differences to increase the number of
productive work hours in a day, and
secure scarce resources such as knowl-
edge experts and other specialized
resources no matter where they reside
(Nidiffer & Dolan, 2005). Global projects
can also employ more people since
there are no space constraints. However,
Nidiffer and Dolan caution that these
benefits come with increased risks due
to the lack of face-to-face interaction,
which may result in lack of trust and
ineffective communication, leading to
difficulty in collaboration. IBM has used
this concept very well in its global proj-
ect teams (Singer, 2001).
Research has shown that team
member trust is a key antecedent to col-
laboration (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999;
Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002).
Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999) argue that
the use of electronic communication,
cultural diversity, and no history of
working together challenge the potential
existence of trust in global virtual teams.
They conclude that communication
that supports the project and tasks
makes it possible for the existence and
maintenance of trust. Kanawattanachai
and Yoo (2002) also found that trust
results in open communication, coop-
eration, higher-quality decision making,
and risk taking. It is in this context that
project leadership plays an important
role in establishing clarity in generating
collaboration and trust among the proj-
ect team members (Anantatmula, 2008).
It is obvious that cultural differ-
ences and different time zones are bar-
riers to effective communication within
the project team as well as between the
project team and its external stakehold-
ers. In the past, local traditions, includ-
ing the language and culture, have been
confined to the physical location
(Sarker & Sahay, 2002). In recent history,
technological advances, such as the
Internet, satellite television, and wire-
less communication networks, and the
global economy are bringing more
April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
changes to local language and culture.
However, Sarker and Sahay (2002),
observe that the cultural identity of
individuals is still inextricably tied to
their native language. Citing other
research studies, Sarker and Sahay
argue that individuals still have a strong
preference for conducting business in
their native language.
The study of the impact of culture
on the operation of international orga-
nizations is well documented from using
institutional theory to analyze conflicts
on global projects (Mahalingam &
Levitt, 2007; Orr & Scott, 2008) to using
the life-cycle framework to analyze
global project conflicts (Byosiere &
Luethge, 2007; Khang & Moe, 2008;
Wang & Liu, 2007) to using a heuristic
model for resolving cross-cultural ethi-
cal conflicts (Hamilton, Knouse, & Hill,
2009). The seminal work of Hofstede’s
cultural values framework has been
used in a variety of cultural studies
(Hofstede, 1991). The use of psychic dis-
tance first defined by Beckerman in
1956 has been used to describe “. . . the
distance between home market and a
foreign market, resulting from the per-
ception of both cultural and business
differences” (Evans & Mavondo, 2002,
p. 516).
However, in this study the authors
are more concerned with the broader
values of culture as described herein.
Other cultural characteristics define
who we are and how we interact while
managing a global virtual team. For
instance, Horii, Jin, and Levitt (2005)
used the two dimensions proposed by
Hofstede (1991): practice differences
and value differences. In a project they
define three practice differences: “the
level of centralization of authority,
the level of formalization of communi-
cation, and the depth of the organiza-
tional hierarchy” (Horii et al., 2005, p.
307). Value differences in a project are
defined by “. . . how project participants
make work-related and communication
related decisions” (Horii et al., 2005,
p. 308). Similarly, the idea of what con-
stitutes a good performance differs
61
 Managing Global Projects: A Structured Approach for Better Performance
PAPERS
from country to country. These differ-
ences impact the project performance,
and the risk of project failure escalates
(Simons, 2006). Likewise, an individual’s
idea about what constitutes accountabil-
ity can also vary within different cultures
(Dubé & Paré, 2001). Project managers of
global virtual teams must be mindful
of these differences.
Barczak, McDonough, and
Athanassiou (2006) found that the main
challenges facing a global project leader
are associated team members who
speak different native languages, come
from different cultural backgrounds,
live and work in multiple countries, and
come from different companies.
Yasin, Martin, and Czuchry (2000),
citing other studies (Halpin & Huang,
1995; Kerzner, 1995), suggest that proj-
ect managers dealing with internation-
al projects should be trained to develop
sensitivity to cultural differences and
should be knowledgeable about inter-
national environmental regulations
and standards. Grosse (2002) and
Dodson (1998) conclude that speaking
the language, knowing the culture, and
being sensitive to cultural differences
could also help communication.
In their study, Sennara and Hartman
(2002) found that although major cul-
tural risks on domestic and global proj-
ects are superficially similar, their
impact on project effectiveness and
success are different. They list six issues:
organizational culture, networking,
project selection, contracts and negoti-
ation, project leadership, and foreign
agent selection, which need to be con-
sidered before deciding to go forward
with a global project. Organizational
structure, communication, culture, and
trust are considered to be four areas for
risk mitigation in virtual organizations
by Grabowski and Roberts (1999).
The main issue between cultures
seems to be the role of trust. Majchrzak,
Rice, Malhotra, King, and Ba (2000)
defined this issue further, developing
three practical outcomes that can
improve trust in global project teams:
(1) creating an environment where
62 April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
team members are comfortable openly
discussing conflicts, (2) avoiding rigid
structures that are not adaptable, and
(3) using telephone conferences as well
as the Internet.
Apart from culture, Damodara
(2000) argues—in the context of engi-
neering and construction projects—
that organizations need to change their
project management practices in at
least six areas to remain competitive
globally. They are:
• Become a cost-effective organization
in the global environment.
• Maintain state-of-the-art information
systems.
• Hire team members who can think
globally.
• Use global suppliers effectively.
• Take advantage of local existing facili-
ties.
• Achieve global quality.
Most of these project management
issues are relevant irrespective of the
industry to which the global project is
executed as is evident from the study of
Adenfelt and Lagerström (2006), who
observed that organization structure is
considered an important enabler in
global projects to promote a culture of
collaboration, learning, and trust.
Lientz and Rea (2003) have identi-
fied a number of factors that add com-
plexity to global projects: lack of control
due to external issues such as local pri-
orities, diverse cultures, different time
zones, volatility associated with local
and foreign exchange currencies, differ-
ing rules and regulations in different
geographical locations, political pres-
sures, and greater public visibility of
these projects. Political risks are often
significant depending on political rela-
tions specifically, if projects are execut-
ed in developing countries (Khattab,
Anchir, & Davies, 2007).
A research study examining issues
related to enabling and sharing knowl-
edge in transnational projects has iden-
tified communication technology as an
enabler (Adenfelt & Lagerström, 2006).
Lehmann (2004) points out the difficulty
of setting up a global information sys-
tem for a large multinational firm, with
issues being the definition of require-
ments, the internal politics of the orga-
nization, and the changing strategic
direction of the organization.
Yasin et al. (2000), in their study of
81 project managers, observed that
compared to project managers with no
international experience, those with
global project management experience
have more knowledge in international
law, international finance, internation-
al economics, and international market-
ing. More interestingly, global project
managers are more knowledgeable
about integration management, cus-
tomer satisfaction, and leadership.
According to their study, project man-
agers with global experience consid-
ered procurement management to be
important when managing their proj-
ects. Lee-Kelley (2006) also found that
selection of team members in the glob-
al team is critical to project success.
Team building is considered essen-
tial for virtual project teams (Project
Management Institute [PMI], 2008).
Nidiffer and Dolan (2005) observed that
building virtual teams with a minimum
of face time, clearly defining work,
measuring cybernetic worker produc-
tivity, and managing employee commu-
nications across time zones are major
management priorities. Based on their
study of virtual teams using WebCT,
Sarker and Sahay (2002) suggested that
attention to technical and social com-
ponents of virtual teams would mini-
mize the friction related to location and
temporal distances.
Research Methodology
Two research methods were used in this
study. The first one, interpretive structur-
al modeling (ISM), examines the under-
lying dependency relations among the
factors identified from the literature
review (Table 1). The second method was
designed to establish the importance
and level of impact of each of these fac-
tors on the success of global projects
in general and type of global project in
particular. To obtain this information, a
survey was sent to project management
professionals working in virtual teams
on global projects. Using the survey
results in conjunction with the ISM
results, the most important success fac-
tors were identified and strategies devel-
oped to manage them.
Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)
The ISM methodology is used to deter-
mine underlying relations among the
factors (see Table 1), which is normally
used for structuring of goals and ob-
jectives into a hierarchical model
(Warfield, 1973). ISM is chosen because
human brains experience problems in
coping with complex problems with a
significant number of elements and
relations among elements (Waller,
1975). ISM has its other advantages too;
it uses an interactive discussion method
to collect data, which forces the partici-
pant in the research study to carefully
analyze links between these factors.
After identifying a set of global proj-
ect management factors (Table 1), an
Excel spreadsheet (Figure 1) is used for
collecting the data.
ISM uses a process in which indi-
viduals or a group of people participate
in structuring their collective knowl-
edge and modeling interrelationships
in a way that enhances the understand-
ing of the complexity associated with the
elements. In the process, ISM facilitates
identifying structure within a system of
related elements and creates an oppor-
tunity to analyze it from different per-
spectives. Once these relations are
modeled, they can be validated using
case studies or through surveys. This
research effort is expected to serve as a
foundation for such studies and for val-
idating these relations.
Figure 1 was used when discussing
the barriers and enablers with the par-
ticipants in the study and they were
asked to fill out the white cells of the
matrix shown in the figure by following
the steps outlined in Appendix A. Data
is gathered from discussions and inter-
views. The participants included project
management professionals and acade-
micians in the project management dis-
cipline and were actively involved in
global projects. Thus, we used qualita-
tive research data as input to the ISM
software to generate ISM data, and the
computational results are shown in
Appendix B. Using these results, ISM
software has generated the model
(Figure 2), which shows: (1) how we can
identify the direct and indirect relation-
ships between attributes of project per-
formance and (2) how to include softer
variables in the analysis.
Survey Results
The survey was sent to around 100 proj-
ect management professionals who are
actively involved in global projects.
Seventy-six responses were received.
The higher response rate could be
attributed to the fact that managing or
working in these projects offers incen-
tives and challenges to learn about
what success entails. Although 55% of
respondents are project managers, a
total of 91% of the respondents are
directly involved in either managing or
participating in a global project team.
Respondents represented global proj-
ect teams of considerable size, with 71%
of them having more than 20 members
in the team and 29% of them have more
than 50 members. The survey also
revealed that over 68% of respondents
had more than six years of project man-
agement experience, with 45% having
more than ten years of project manage-
ment experience. Referring to global
projects and virtual teams, 83% of the
respondents have three or more years
of experience with global project teams.
All the participants have basic edu-
cational qualifications, with 31% of
them holding PMP certification, with
an additional 22% holding advanced
certification or a graduate degree in
project management. Represented
organizations are large organizations in
terms of revenue, with 71% of them
having annual revenue exceeding $500
million and 62% exceeding $1 billion.
There are more than 1,000 full-time
April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
employees in 78% of the organizations,
with 58% employing more than 10,000.
Of the organizations, 85% are multina-
tional organizations.
A wide spectrum of organizations is
represented in the study, with technol-
ogy (24%) leading the group, followed
by the health care industry (20%),
financial services (13%), and the com-
munication sector (7%).
All the respondent organizations
used e-mail for communication with
virtual team members. Intranet was
second (83%) in usage. The respon-
dents used videoconferencing (75%),
virtual data sharing (75%), and project
management software tools (63%).
Among all the electronic communica-
tion tools, instant messaging was the
least used (68%).
Respondents were asked to rate all
the global project factors, identified in
Table 1 on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 repre-
senting low impact and 5 representing
high impact. The complete results are
shown in Table 2.
Looking at the results, it can be seen
that communication is the key factor
and is likely to have a high impact on
project success. Considering that virtual
teams are less successful compared to
teams working using face-to-face com-
munication (Baker, 2002), communica-
tion assuming greater importance than
the other factors is justified. Communi-
cation is followed by the importance
of leadership and establishing trust.
The high impact of stakeholder and
customer satisfaction implies the signif-
icance of communicating with the
stakeholders and managing their expec-
tations. The factors planning, execution,
and control, and fast and reliable infor-
mation systems are means to employ
effective communication, and manage
the project and team to meet stakeholder
and customer satisfaction. The culture
in which the project team performs
influences all the factors of high impact
listed previously. Close attention to cul-
tural differences and similarities must
be made to carve out a unique working
culture for every global project.
63
 Managing Global Projects: A Structured Approach for Better Performance
PAPERS

Communication Language and associated cultural differences—an
obvious obstacle to communication—but its importance
is apparent with the increasing use of the World Wide Web.
Cultural Values Religion has an impact on a project in terms of work
ethics, values, holidays, who will work with whom,
and the like. Beliefs, an outcome of culture, can
influence work practices. Local, regional, and national
management practices can vary from country to country
and could be different from Western norms such as time
off from work, hierarchical authority, gender issues, and
the like.
Global Business International market, international economics,
Environment international finance, and currency—an understanding
of all these global business environmental issues will
facilitate making better project decisions throughout the
project life cycle.
Legal and Country-specific laws, environmental regulations,
Political Issues political issues, and acceptable standards can
impact a global project.
Integration Vertical (within the organization) and horizontal
Management (external to the organization) integration are critical
and can become difficult across regions and countries.
Project A cost-effective organizational structure will be
Organizational decentralized and flexible to collaborate and manage
Structure global projects successfully to meet customer needs.
Global Procurement management in global projects will have
Procurement no geographical boundaries. Therefore, it is a challenge
Management to possess the knowledge of the best places to go for
materials and labor, which can impact global project
success.
Leadership and Treating a global project as a standard project can lead to
Establishing problems. Leadership and people skills are more important
Trust for global projects. They help in establishing trust.
Micromanaging is a temptation in global projects
because of a lack of understanding of the capabilities of
the project team members including contractors, and
the absence of trust.
Planning, Planning, execution, and control—which include risk
Execution, and management—are impacted by cultural differences,
Control varying working conditions, and local issues.
Beranek et al. (2005), Diallo and Thuillier (2005), Dodson
(1998), Grosse (2002), Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999),
Khazanchi and Zigurs (2005), Lientz and Rea (2003), Lin
and Berg, (2001), Nidiffer and Dolan (2005), Rad and
Anantatmula (2009), Sarker and Sahay (2002)
Dubé and Paré (2001), Grosse (2002), Horii et al. (2005),
Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999), Lientz and Rea (2003),
Nidiffer and Dolan (2005)
Lientz and Rea (2003), Yasin et al. (2000)
Halpin and Huang (1995), Kerzner (1995), Lientz and Rea
(2003), Yasin et al. (2000)
Damodara (2000), Erickson and
Ranganathan (2006), Lientz and Rea (2003), Nidiffer and
Dolan (2005), Yasin et al. (2000)
Damodara (2000), Erickson and Ranganathan (2006),
Yasin et al. (2000)
Damodara (2000), Erickson and Ranganathan (2006),
Lee-Kelly (2006), Sennara and Hartman (2002), Yasin et al.
(2000)
Anantatmula (2008), Damodara (2000), Dodson (1998),
Erickson and Ranganathan (2006), Grabowski and Roberts
(1999), Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999), Kanawattanachai
and Yoo (2002), Lientz and Rea (2003), Majchrzak et al.
(2000), Lientz and Rea (2003), Majchrzak et al. (2000),
Nidiffer and Dolan (2005), Sennara and Hartman (2002),
Yasin et al. (2000)
Al-Tabtabai and Alex (2000), Erickson and Ranganathan
(2006), Nidiffer and Dolan (2005), Sennara and Hartman
(2002), Yasin et al. (2000)

Stakeholder and Stakeholder and customer satisfaction—cultural, Nidiffer and Dolan (2005), Yasin et al. (2000)
Customer financial, and communication complications can occur
Satisfaction in terms of determining what the customer considers to
be a successful project.
Stakeholders need to be part of the global project
process and should be made to feel that they are
in a win-win situation with respect to the
project outcomes.
Fast and Reliable Fast and reliable information systems are essential Adenfelt and Lagerström (2006), Dubé and Paré (2001),
Information for success in global projects. Lehmann (2004), Lientz and Rea (2003), Sennara and
Systems Communication and control systems that are standard, Hartman (2002), Yasin et al. (2000)
compatible, and reliable are essential for knowledge
sharing and those that can be used in participating
countries are essential.
Time-Zone Time zone differences can create communication Lientz and Rea (2003), Nidiffer and Dolan (2005),
Differences (meetings) problems, specifically in synchronous Yasin et al. (2000);
mode. However, time zone differences can also allow
work to proceed 24 hours a day.
Table 1: Factors of influence on performance of global projects.

64 April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

 Global business environment, inte-
gration management, legal and politi-

Legal and environmental regulations and policies

cal issues, organizational structure, and

Stakeholder and customer satisfaction

global procurement management had a

Leadership and team management

Fast and reliable information systems

Global procurement management
Planning, execution, and control

Project organizational structure

relatively low impact compared to the
Global business environment

Integration management
Time zone differences
top six noted in the previous paragraph.
Communication

Cultural values

It is interesting to note that respon-

dents were not overly concerned with
time zone differences. It is suggested
that the reason for this could relate to
the fact that project team members are
now continually using asynchronous
communications and time difference is
a normal part of their experience.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Contextual relationship - leads to
By using ISM results in conjunction
1 Planning, execution, and control
1
2 Communication
with these survey results, we can add
2 3 Cultural values more clarity to the success model in
3 4 Global business environment
terms of highlighting the factors of
4 5 Legal and environmental regulations and
5 policies greater importance. Considering the
6 6 Time zone differences top six factors as having greater impor-
7 Integration management
7 tance than the rest and considering the
8 Project organizational structure
8
9 Global procurement management remaining as behind-the-scenes driv-
9 10 Leadership and team management
10 11 Stakeholder and customer satisfaction
ing factors, we have modified the com-
11 12 Fast and reliable information systems prehensive model shown in Figure 2 to
12 a simplified version, Figure 3, for man-
aging global projects successfully.
Figure 1: ISM for data collection. The relevance and importance of
the research findings, as reflected in
Figure 3, in the project implementation
phase are obvious. Culture influences
N ⴝ 76 the leadership style and resultant trust
that is established among the project
Mean Value team members. Leadership style must
Global Project Performance Factor (Impact) SD adapt to the prevailing cultures and the
cultural differences that are present in
Communication 4.86 0.34
the project environment. It is logical
Leadership and establishing trust 4.76 0.49 that cultural factors also dictate the
Planning, execution, and control 4.67 0.53 adoptability of technology and influ-
ence the design of the information sys-
Stakeholder and customer satisfaction 4.47 0.70 tem such as level of sophistication,
Fast and reliable information system 4.16 0.86 types of information tools, and com-
munication techniques. Once installed,
Culture 4.13 0.83
it is important to maintain and upgrade
Global business environment 3.95 0.97 the information system to ensure its
Integration management 3.92 0.83 performance at the desired speed and
reliability levels throughout the project
Legal and political issues 3.81 1.01 management life cycle. Likewise, lead-
Organization structure 3.79 0.87 ership and trust help create effective
communication that must be sustained
Global procurement management 3.78 0.99
throughout the project life. Geographi-
Time-zone differences 3.60 1.00 cally dispersed project teams that do
not have an opportunity to get the proj-
Table 2: Success factors and their impact.
ect status will result in decreasing levels

April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 65

 Managing Global Projects: A Structured Approach for Better Performance
PAPERS

Fast and reliable Global procurement

information systems management

Legal and political

issues

Global business Time-zone Integration

Communication
environment differences management

Planning, execution,
and control
Cultural values

Leadership and Project organization

establishing trust structure Stakeholder and
customer
satisfaction

Figure 2: Comprehensive global projects success model.

Likewise, results of ANOVA and

Fast and reliable
information
systems
Culture
Leadership and
establishing trust
Figure 3: Simplified global projects success model.
of motivation. Understanding the cul-
tural differences, engaging leadership,
building trust, and communicating
effectively would help to avoid such pit-
falls.
Figure 2 has its relevance in devel-
oping a detailed plan and strategy for
managing global projects, whereas
Figure 3 could be a reference model for
global project managers to sustain the
success strategy that is developed. We
argue that the simplified model shown
in Figure 3 should be used in conjunc-
tion with Figure 2, which presents a
larger picture, yet consider both the
models to be important.
Participants of the study were asked
about the type of global project they were
Planning,
Communication execution, and
control
Stakeholder and
customer
satisfaction
currently working on. Using this data, the
influence of project type was explored
with respect to performance factors that
impact project success (Table 3) and fac-
tors important for the project.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results
and Tukey-Kramer honestly significant
difference (HSD) mean comparisons
show that the mean scores of medical
and biotechnology projects (9) are sig-
nificantly different as compared to
the mean scores of IT projects (28) for
three factors as shown in Table 3. These
results imply that the impact of integra-
tion management, project planning,
execution, control, and time-zone dif-
ferences is higher for IT projects relative
to biotechnology and medical projects.
Tukey-Kramer HSD show that mean
scores of six factors that are considered
important for project success are signif-
icantly different for all the three types of
projects (see Table 4). They are: manag-
ing cultural differences, managing lan-
guage differences, understanding glob-
al business environment, procurement
management, leadership for establish-
ing trust, and fast and reliable informa-
tion systems. Further, these statistical
tests denote that the importance of
legal issues is different for IT projects
and biotechnology and medical proj-
ects only.
ANOVA results suggest that the
importance and impact of some of the
factors that contribute to the perfor-
mance of global projects vary depend-
ing upon the industry in which they are
executed.
Analysis, Discussion, and
Implications
Analysis
Our results show that the global business
environment and cultural values are the
two main driving factors that can be used
as a basis to build a successful project
management efforts in global projects. It
is imperative that the project manager
critically examine the prevalent global

66 April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

 Management Biotechnology
IT Systems and Medical
Project Type S Size Mean Size Mean Size Mean Probability
F
Integration management 28 4.25 12 3.83 9 3.44 0.0288
Planning, execution, and control 28 4.85 12 4.58 9 4.22 0.0028
Time-zone differences 28 4.03 12 3.66 9 3.00 0.0192
Table 3: ANOVA—Project type and mean values of performance factors that impact success.

Management Biotechnology
IT Systems and Medical
Project Type S Size Mean Size Mean Size Mean Probability
F
Managing cultural differences 28 4.32 12 4.16 9 2.77 0.0180
Managing language differences 28 4.25 12 4.25 9 2.77 0.0056
Understanding global business environment 28 4.18 12 4.33 9 2.44 0.0016
Legal issues 28 4.14 12 3.83 9 2.66 0.0208
Global procurement management 28 4.28 12 4.50 9 2.66 0.0004
Leadership of effective collaboration and trust 28 4.50 12 4.41 9 2.44 0.0007
Fast and reliable information systems 28 4.18 12 3.91 9 2.44 0.0028
Table 4: Factors important for project success.

business environment and its influence
on existing legal and political issues for
the applicable geographical regions
where the project will be managed.
Likewise, cultural values, which
include religious-based differences in
values, differences in local and national
management practices, work ethics,
and beliefs, will have an impact on
work practices and productivity, and
shape the leadership and team man-
agement of global projects. It is critical
for the project manager to be cognizant
of cultural values in formulating leader-
ship and team management strategies.
With all these factors in consideration,
a project manager will have to adapt
their leadership style and ways in
which the team is managed. As is true
with any project, among other things,
stakeholder and customer satisfaction
is the ultimate goal of global projects.
Project leadership and team man-
agement influence and, in turn, are
influenced by time zone differences
and fast, reliable information systems.
As defined earlier, time zone differences
help the project manager to engage the
project team round the clock. On
the downside, the project team may not
always have an opportunity to discuss
issues face-to-face or by synchronous
video-conference meetings because of
geographical dispersion. For the same
reason, fast and reliable information
systems play a major role in deciding
leadership and team management
styles. On the other side, cultural values,
which lead to the adoption of suitable
project leadership and team manage-
ment, will have a significant influence
on how time zone differences are man-
aged and what kind of information
system is required. Global project man-
agers must analyze and understand
these project-specific interdependen-
cies in formulating their approach.
These factors—information systems,
issues related to time-zone differences,
and project leadership and manage-
ment—together will influence procure-
ment practices in global projects. For
instance, time zone differences and infor-
mation systems will have a bearing on the
project manager’s decision to identify
places for obtaining human resources and
materials. Global project managers must
exercise prudence in exploring and iden-
tifying all the possible sources for pro-
curement of materials, services, and
people because there are no geographical
boundaries or other constraints. Similarly,
organizational structure, while adjusted
to project leadership and management
practices, is also influenced by informa-
tion systems and time zone differences.
Integration management is about
integration within the organization as
well as outside the organization. The
involvement of various agencies in dif-
ferent parts of the world makes inte-
gration extremely important. The
involvement of these agencies is a crit-
ical component of global projects and
represents a significant difference

April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 67

 Managing Global Projects: A Structured Approach for Better Performance
PAPERS
between global projects and traditional
projects. Involvement of various agen-
cies external to the parent organization
is decided by global procurement man-
agement practices, and their effective-
ness is a determinant of project com-
munications and the structure.
Several research studies have
shown that stakeholder and customer
satisfaction are the ultimate goals of
any project, and our research results
have confirmed this. However, for this
to happen in global projects, stakehold-
ers and customers should be made to
feel that they are in a win-win situation
and should be included in project com-
munication whenever feasible.
Discussion
The significance of ISM and its results
from the global project management
point of view is the emergence of this
logical flow of causal influences. These
causal influences are logically consis-
tent and provide a combined view of
the participants who participated in the
study. The contextual relevance of this
approach has important consequences
for successful strategies and manage-
ment practices in global projects.
In this research method, the result-
ant model permits us to understand how
each of these elements can behave as an
enabler and an inhibitor to global proj-
ect performance. In the models shown
in Figures 2 and 3, the weakness of an
element makes it an inhibitor, while the
strength of that very same element
makes it an enabler. For instance, the
presence of fast and reliable information
leads to effective and efficient commu-
nication among the project stakeholders
and creates a system for effective leader-
ship and team management, whereas
the absence of such an information sys-
tem will impede project team function-
ing because of its geographical disper-
sion. This research approach demon-
strates the dual role of all the elements in
terms of whether they are enablers or
barriers in global projects. Therefore, it
may not be helpful to classify these ele-
ments as enablers or barriers.
68 April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
The difference between the man-
agement practices the model suggests
for global projects (Figures 2 and 3) and
the management practices of tradition-
al, co-located projects is an important
outcome of this study. Defining roles
and responsibilities, employing consis-
tent processes, and communicating
expectations are the activities that are
addressed first in a traditional project
(Anantatmula, 2008). Likewise, early
studies on project success identified
success factors such as clearly defined
goals, adequate communication with
all of the stakeholders including the
project team, and the ability to handle
unexpected problems (Pinto & Prescott,
1987; Pinto, Slevin, & Dennis, 1987).
However, in global projects, which are
routinely managed with virtual teams
and diverse cultures, establishment
of leadership and the establishment of
trust that is sensitive to the culture in
context are initial steps and assume
importance during the early phases of
the project. Establishing leadership and
information systems in the initial phas-
es of the project life cycle exert signifi-
cant influence on the project success in
a global environment.
Implications
In order to manage a global project suc-
cessfully, organizations need to under-
stand the global business environment
and different relevant cultures. Further,
the impact and importance of factors
varies based on the type of project and
the industry in which it is executed. The
sponsoring organization and the proj-
ect manager must develop an under-
standing of the relevant legal and polit-
ical issues. The project-sponsoring
organization and all the key stakehold-
ers must recognize similarities and dif-
ferences in culture and values. If
required, the entire project team can be
considered for training on cultural val-
ues. However, developing and nurtur-
ing a culture of openness and trust is
usually a gradual process and will have
a significant impact on communica-
tions. It is critical that the global project
establish current, reliable, and fast
information systems because of the
geographical dispersion of project team
members and stakeholders. Integration
is a key success factor, and the primary
stakeholders will have to play impor-
tant roles in managing this aspect of the
global project. Finally, project man-
agers who are managing global projects
must adopt their leadership and team
management practices and processes
based on prevailing cultural values,
legal and political issues, time-zone dif-
ferences, and information systems.
Only after these aspects are addressed
in detail can we move on to the tradi-
tional project management life-cycle
phases of planning, executing, and
monitoring and control.
Limitations of the Study
A limitation to creating a structure is
that it is not easy to generalize these
results across organizations. Therefore,
caution should be exercised in using
these findings. As stated earlier, these
directional results need to be validated,
and this study is expected to serve as a
foundation for such a study. To increase
the validity of these results and to
develop a more robust shared mental
model, we plan to apply the model in
global projects in various industries for
its validation. These actions will facili-
tate the development of a more robust
structural model. Further research is
planned to validate the model to estab-
lish the importance and effectiveness of
each factor in the model, and establish
their dependency relations using statis-
tical methods.
Our research data represented proj-
ects of a few dominant industries. There
is scope to expand this study to include
a significant number of projects that
represent a wider range of industries.
Conclusion
Our research results suggest that
importance and impact of some of the
factors that contribute to performance
of global projects are industry-specific.
Depending on the type of industry
in which the project is executed, the
relative importance of these factors
may vary. Our results also show that
project management practices of global
projects differ from traditional, co-
located, and internal projects.
Through the use of ISM, the
research study has shown how we can
capture the behavior of important fac-
tors that can act as either enablers or
barriers to global project performance.
It has also shown that such a qualitative
approach allowed us to examine the
richness of the complexity associated
with the interactions among the factors.
From the standpoint of enablers and
barriers, this approach allows us to
understand how each of these elements
can behave as an enabler as well as an
inhibitor to the success of global proj-
ects. Consequently, these results will
help redefine some of the key project
management processes to improve per-
formance.
The model can be used to set prior-
ities within a global project and assess
the ability of global projects in meeting
their objectives. These models help to
evaluate global projects. They can be
used as tools to improve project man-
agement processes and they can also
serve as structures to develop project-
specific strategies and priorities. ■
References
Adenfelt, M., & Lagerström, K. (2006).
Enabling knowledge creation and shar-
ing in transnational projects.
International Journal of Project
Management, 24, 191–198.
Anantatmula, V. (2008). Role of tech-
nology in project manager perform-
ance model. Project Management
Journal, 39(1), 34–48.
Baker, G. (2002). The effects of syn-
chronous collaborative technologies
on decision making: A study of virtual
teams. Information Resources
Management Journal, 15(4), 79–93.
Barczak, G., McDonough, E. F., &
Athanassiou, N. (2006, May–June). So
you want to be a global project leader.
Research Technology Management,
pp. 28–35.
Beranek, P., Broder, J., Reineg, B.,
Romano, N., & Sump, S. (2005).
Management of virtual project teams:
Guidelines for team leaders.
Communications for the Association for
Information Systems, 16, 247–259.
Byosiere, P., & Luethge, D. J. (2007).
Project management processes across
borders: A comparison of EU-US cor-
porate subsidiary project activities.
Project Management Journal, 38(2),
18–29.
Damodara, K. U. (2000, November–
December). Global project
management—Not business as usual.
Journal of Management in Engineering,
pp. 29–33.
Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2005). The
success of international development
projects, trust and communication: An
African perspective. International
Journal of Project Management, 23,
237–252.
Dodson, W. R. (1998, April). Virtually
international: Managing globalized
project teams. PM Network, pp. 29–31.
Dubé, L., & Paré, G. (2001). Global vir-
tual teams. Communications of the
ACM, 44(12), 71–74.
Erickson, J. M., & Ranganathan, C.
(2006). Project management capabili-
ties: Key to application development
offshore outsourcing. Proceedings of
the 39th Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences
(pp. 199–208).
Evans, J., & Mavondo, F. T. (2002).
Psychic distance and organizational
performance: An empirical examina-
tion of international retailing opera-
tions. Journal of International Business
Studies, 33, 515–532.
Grabowski, M., & Roberts, K. (1999).
Risk mitigation in virtual organiza-
tions. Science, 11, 704–721.
Grosse, C. U. (2002). Managing com-
munication within virtual intercultural
teams. Business Communications
Quarterly, 65(4), 22–38.
Halpin, D. W., & Huang, R. Y. (1995).
Competition and future needs of
April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
international clients. Journal of
Professional Issues in Engineering
Education and Practice, 121, 191–196.
Hamilton, J. B., Knouse, S. B., & Hill, V.
(2009). Google in China: A manager-
friendly heuristic model for resolving
cross-cultural ethical conflicts. Journal
of Business Ethics, 86, 143–157.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and
organizations: Software of the mind,
intercultural cooperation and its
importance for survival. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Horii, T., Jin, Y., & Levitt, R. E. (2005).
Modeling and analyzing cultural influ-
ences on project team performance.
Computational & Mathematical
Organizational Theory, 10, 305–321.
Jarvenpaa, S., & Leidner, D. (1999).
Communication and trust in global
virtual teams. Organization Science, 10,
791–815.
Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2002).
Dynamic nature of trust in virtual
teams. Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, 11, 187–213.
Kerzner, H. (1995). Project manage-
ment: A systems approach to planning,
scheduling, and controlling (5th ed.).
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Khang, D. B., & Moe, T. L. (2008).
Success criteria and factors for inter-
national development projects: A life-
cycle-based framework. Project
Management Journal, 39(1), 72–84.
Khattab, A. A., Anchir, J., & Davies, E.
(2007). Managerial perception of polit-
ical risk in international projects.
International Journal of Project
Management, 25, 734–743.
Khazanchi, D., & Zigurs, I. (2005).
Patterns of effective management of vir-
tual projects—An exploratory study.
Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Lee-Kelley, L. (2006). Locus of control
and attitudes to working in virtual
teams. International Journal of Project
Management, 24, 234–243.
Lee-Kelley, L., & Sankey, T. (2008).
Global virtual teams for value creation
69
 Managing Global Projects: A Structured Approach for Better Performance
PAPERS
and project success: A case study.
International Journal of Project
Management, 26, 51–62.
Lehmann, H. (2004). The Australasian
produce cooperative: A global informa-
tion system project. Communications
of the Association for Information
Systems. 13, 220–232.
Lientz, B. L., & Rea, K. P. (2003).
International project management. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lin, B. W., & Berg, D. (2001). Effects of
cultural differences on technology
transfer projects: An empirical study of
Taiwanese manufacturing companies.
International Journal of Project
Management, 19, 287–293.
Mahalingam, A., & Levitt, R. E. (2007).
Institutional theory as a framework for
analyzing conflicts on global projects.
Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 133, 517–528.
Majchrzak, A., Rice, R., Malhotra, A.,
King, N., & Ba, S. (2000). Technology
adaption: The case of a computer sup-
ported inter-organizational virtual
team. MIS Quarterly, 24, 569–600.
Marmer, C. (1998, November).
Building teams across borders. Global
Workforce, pp. 13–17.
Mowshowitz, A. (1997). Virtual organi-
zation. Communications of the ACM,
40(9), 30–37.
Nidiffer, K., & Dolan, D. (2005,
September/October). Evolving distrib-
uted project management. IEEE
Software, pp. 63–72.
Orr, R. J., & Scott, W. R. (2008).
Institutional exceptions on global proj-
ects: A process model. Journal of
International Business Studies, 39,
562–588.
Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. (1987).
Variations in critical success factors
over stages in the project life cycle.
Journal of Management, 14(1), 5–18.
Pinto, J. K., Slevin, D. P., & Dennis, P.
(1987). Critical factors in successful
project implementation. IEEE
70 April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Transactions on Engineering
Management, 34(1), 22–27.
Project Management Institute (PMI).
(2008). A guide to the project manage-
ment body of knowledge (PMBOK ®
Guide)—Fourth Edition. Newtown
Square, PA: Author.
Rad, P. F., & Anantatmula, V. (2009
June-July). Attributes of a harmonious
project team. Presented at the AACE
International 53rd Annual Meeting,
Seattle, WA.
Sarker, S., & Sahay, S. (2002).
Information systems development by
US-Norwegian virtual teams:
Implications of time and space.
Presented at the 35th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System
Sciences.
Schweiger, D. M. (1998, January–
March). Networking global style.
Business Economic Review, pp. 3–6.
Sennara, M., & Hartman, F. (2002).
Managing cultural risks on interna-
tional projects. Proceedings of the PMI
Annual Seminars and Symposium.
Retrieved February 17, 2010, from
http://www.risksig.com/members/
2002_papers/global07.pdf
Simons, M. (2006). Global software
development: A hard problem requir-
ing a host of solutions. Communica-
tions of the ACM, 49(10), 32–33.
Singer, C. (2001, April). Leveraging a
worldwide project team. PM Network,
pp. 36–40.
Snow, C. C., Snell, S. A., & Davison, S.
C. (1996). Use transnational teams to
globalize your company. Organiza-
tional Dynamics, 24(4), 50–67.
Tavcar, J., Žavbi, R., Verlinden, J., &
Duhovnik, J. (2005). Skills for effective
communication and work in global
product development teams. Journal of
Engineering Design, 16, 557–576.
Waller, R. J. (1975). Application of
interpretive structural modeling to
priority-setting in urban systems man-
agement. In M. Baldwin (Ed.), Portraits
of complexity (Battelle Monograph
No. 9). Columbus, OH: Battelle
Memorial Institute.
Wang, X., & Liu, L. (2007). Cultural bar-
riers to the use of western project
management in Chinese enterprises:
Some empirical evidence from Yunnan
Province. Project Management Journal,
38(3), 61–73.
Warfield, J. N. (1973). Intent structures.
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man,
and Cybernetics, 3(2), 133–140.
Yasin, M. M., Martin, J., & Czuchry, A.
(2000). An empirical investigation of
international project management
practices: The role of international
experience. Project Management
Journal, 31(2), 20–30.
Vittal Anantatmula, DSc, PMP, CCE, is an associate
professor of project management in the College of
Business at Western Carolina University. His cur-
rent research is focused on integrating knowledge
management and project management, knowl-
edge management effectiveness, project manage-
ment performance, and leadership. He has had his
work published in journals such as the Journal of
Knowledge Management, the International
Journal of Knowledge Management, the Journal
of Information and Knowledge Management
Systems (VINE), the International Journal of
Knowledge and Learning, and Project
Management Journal. Prior to joining Western
Carolina University, he was at the George
Washington University teaching and directing a
graduate degree program. He has worked in the
petroleum and power industries for several years
as an electrical engineer and project manager. He
holds a B.E. degree (electrical engineering) from
Andhra University, an MBA degree from IIM-MDI,
and MS and DSc degrees in engineering manage-
ment from the George Washington University. He
is a Certified Project Management Professional
and Certified Cost Engineer.
Michael Thomas, PhD, MPM, BTP, PMP, is an
assistant professor of project management at
Western Carolina University. He holds his PhD
from the Business School at James Cook
University, Australia, and a Master of Project
Management (MPM) degree from Western
Carolina University. His research interests are in
the areas of the leadership development
process, global project management, and the
project lessons learned. He has published sever-
al articles in scholarly journals and has present-
ed papers at conferences on topics in these
domains. In addition to his current teaching
position, he has over 30 years of project man-
agement experience in the IT industry, town
management, factory management, and the iron
and steel industry.-

Appendix A: ISM Method

1. Identification of Elements:

The elements of the system are identified and listed. In this study, it is achieved using literature review. However, brain-
storming or other research methods can also be used.

2. Contextual Relationship:

A contextual relationship between elements is established, depending upon the objective of the modeling exercise.

3. Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM):

This matrix represents the respondent’s perception of an element-to-element directed relationship. Four symbols are used to
represent the type of relationship that can exist between two elements of the system under consideration. These are:
a. for the relation from element Ei to Ej, but not in the reverse direction;
b. for the relation from Ei to Ej, but not in the reverse direction;
c. for an interrelation between Ei and Ej (both directions); and
d. to represent that Ei and Ej are unrelated.

4. Reachability Matrix (RM):

A Reachability Matrix is then prepared that converts the symbolic SSIM Matrix into a binary matrix. The following conver-
sion rules apply:
If the relation Ei to Ej  1 in SSIM, then element Eij  1 and Eji  0 in RM
If the relation Ei to Ej  2 in SSIM, then element Eij  0 and Eji  1 in RM
If the relation Ei to Ej  3 in SSIM, then element Eij  1 and Eji  1 in RM
If the relation Ei to Ej  4 in SSIM, then element Eij  0 and Eji  0 in RM
The initial RM is then modified to show all direct and indirect reachabilities—that is, if Eij  1 and Ejk  1, then Eik  1.

5. Level Partitioning:

Level partitioning is done in order to classify the elements into different levels of the ISM structure. For this purpose, two
sets are associated with each element Ei of the system—a Reachability Set (Ri; that is, a set of all elements that can be
reached from the element Ei, and an Antecedent Set (Ai; that is, a set of all elements that element Ei can be reached by).
In the first iteration, all elements, for which Ri  Ri∩Ai, are Level I Elements. In successive iterations, the elements identi-
fied as level elements in the previous iterations are deleted, and new elements are selected for successive levels using the
same rule. Accordingly, all the elements of the system are grouped into different levels.

6. Canonical Matrix:

Grouping together elements in the same level develops this matrix. The resultant matrix has most of its upper triangular
elements as 0, and lower triangular elements as 1. This matrix is then used to prepare a digraph.

7. Digraph:

Digraph is a term derived from directional graph, and, as the name suggests, is a graphical representation of the elements,
their directed relationships, and hierarchical levels. The initial digraph is prepared on the basis of the canonical matrix.
This is then pruned by removing all transitivities, to form a final digraph.

April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 71

 Managing Global Projects: A Structured Approach for Better Performance
PAPERS

8. Interpretive Structural Model:

The ISM is generated by replacing all element numbers with the actual element description. The ISM, therefore, gives a
very clear picture of the system of elements and their flow of relationships.

Appendix B: ISM Data

Input
Element 1: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Element 2: 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Element 3: 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
Element 4: 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Element 5: 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
Element 6: 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0
Element 7: 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Element 8: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
Element 9: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
Element 10: 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
Element 11: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Element 12: 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1
Reachability Matrix
Element 1: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Element 2: 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Element 3: 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
Element 4: 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Element 5: 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
Element 6: 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0
Element 7: 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Element 8: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
Element 9: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
Element 10: 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
Level Partition
Level Element
1 11
2 1
3 7
4 2, 8, 9
5 6, 10, 12
6 3, 5
7 4
Canonical Matrix
Element 11: Level 1: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 1: Level 2: 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 7: Level 3: 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 2: Level 4: 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Element 8: Level 4: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
Element 9: Level 4: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
Element 6: Level 5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
Element 10: Level 5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
Element 12: Level 5: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
Element 3: Level 6: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
Element 5: Level 6: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
Element 4: Level 7: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1

72 April 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj