Edited by Foxit PDF Editor
Copyright (c) by Foxit Software Company, 2004 - 2007
HOW GENERIC ARE PROJECT MANAGEMENT
KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE?
ABSTRACT
Project management knowledge and
practice are often considered to be
generic and suitable for standardization.
However, projects are also viewed as fun-
damentally unique pieces of work. This
paradox of project uniqueness lies at the
heart of project management. This paper
discusses this tension between unique-
ness and similarity, before reporting on
the results of a series of assessments of
practitioners’ project management
knowledge and use of project manage-
ment practices. Results are analyzed
across countries, industry sectors, and
application areas, and interpreted in
relation to the ongoing development of
standards for project management.
Keywords: standards; body of knowl-
edge; project management practice;
competence
©2007 by the Project Management Institute
Vol. 38, No. 1, 87-96, ISSN 8756-9728/03
For Evaluation Only.
LYNN CRAWFORD, University of Technology, Sydney, and ESC Lille, Australia
JULIEN POLLACK, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
“You could not step into the same river twice, for other waters are ever flowing on to you.”
Heraclitus, On the Universe (540 BC – 480 BC)
Introduction
s more organizations adopt project management approaches and the
A demand for project managers grows, there is increasing interest in the
competence of project managers and in standards for development and
assessment of project management competence. Project management standards
are being used extensively throughout the world in training and development,
professional certification programs and corporate project management
methodologies, based on the assumption that there is a positive relationship
between standards and effective workplace performance.
The assumption that standards are of value can be linked to a societal pref-
erence for uniform rules and firm expectations (Krislov, 1997). Standards
appear to be accepted as desirable, and in instances such as the standardization
of currency, basic weights, and measures, the process of exchange would be con-
siderably more difficult, if not impossible without them. They clearly play a sig-
nificant part in our lives.
However, there is surprisingly little critical review of the concept and appli-
cation of standards in project management. This paper starts by examining the
role that standards play in the profession of project management. It is arguable
that creating standards for project management is significantly more compli-
cated than setting a standard for measurement, due to the significant scope for
interpretation for many of the central concepts of project management.
This paper also reports on assessments of project management knowledge
and use of project management practices by project managers. These assess-
ments have been used to identify significant differences between project man-
agement knowledge and use of project management practices between
countries, industry sectors, and application areas. Results from these assess-
ments are interpreted in relation to the ongoing development of standards for
project management.
M A R C H 2007 Project Management Journal 87

Standards and Project Management:
A Review of the Literature
A standard is considered to be a meas-
ure, devised by general consent as a
basis for comparison against which
judgments might be made as to levels
of acceptability. Standards can be fur-
ther classified into three categories
(Duncan, 1998, p. 57):
• Descriptive standards tell the facts,
details, or particulars of something, e.g.,
a document that described the charac-
teristic symptoms of a flu sufferer
• Normative standards provide guide-
lines (norms) to be used as a basis for
measurement, comparison, or deci-
sions, e.g., a document that listed
alternative approaches to treating flu
• Prescriptive standards define a partic-
ular way of doing something, e.g., a
document that specified a two-week
course of a specific antibiotic.
The term “standards” has an offi-
cial ring to it, but interestingly, the
development and application of stan-
dards is primarily a voluntary process.
Many standards begin by voluntary
acceptance and may later receive offi-
cial status such as recognition by a
standards-setting body or by a regula-
tory agency. Certainly, in the case of
project management, standards are for
certification and credentialing, rather
than state-enforced licensure.
However, even purely unofficial stan-
dards may have significant following
and force.
Standards are often appealed to in
settling disputes. For instance, Krislov
(1997, p. 8) noted that resolvers of
conflict are often willing to accept even
informal standards, as they usually
have legal expertise but not technical
know-how. In cases where no formally
accepted standards exist, there is often
an assumption by “… judges, arbitra-
tors, or insurance agents that when
there are established standards, the
party not following them has positive
duty to inform the other of the intent
to ‘opt out’ of even a ‘voluntary’ stan-
dard.” Consequently, many voluntary
standards may be used in a highly
coercive way, and standards do not
need to have official status to have
widespread acceptance and effect.
88
Edited by Foxit PDF Editor
Copyright (c) by Foxit Software Company, 2004 - 2007
For Evaluation Only.
The Benefits of Standardization
One of the most common arguments
for professional standardization relates
to the protection of public welfare and
assurance of a minimum quality of
service (Leland, 1979, p. 1329).
Eskerod and Ostergren (1998) identi-
fied efficiency, legitimacy, and
power/control as reasons for voluntary
acceptance of standardized approaches
to the management of projects. In the
interests of efficiency, standards can
provide confidence that project person-
nel share a commonly accepted termi-
nology, common project management
tools and techniques, and have the
capability to satisfy project objectives.
Project management research
suggests that demand for ways for
practitioners to provide evidence of
competence comes from practitioners
who have a skill they want recog-
nized, graduates looking for project
management specific work, compa-
nies selling project management serv-
ices who wish to demonstrate a
certain level of staff competency, and
from purchasers of services looking
for assurance of the competence of
people they employ (Morris, 1996,
p. 120). Research in other fields sug-
gests that the pressure to regulate pro-
fessions through licensing or
certification usually comes from with-
in the profession to be regulated,
instead of consumers of their services
(Friedman, 1962, p. 140; Wolfson,
Trebilcock, & Tuohy, 1980, p. 182).
Standardization can increase the
legitimacy afforded to a profession.
Standards can provide a guarantee of
career progressions for project person-
nel through evidence of competence
and recognition of prior learning for
those who do not have formal aca-
demic qualifications. They can also
provide stakeholders with a sense of
confidence based on the certified
competence of project personnel,
which can in turn translate into
greater income for personnel who
meet such standards. Indeed, research
has demonstrated a direct link
between professional incomes and
the degrees of regulation and stan-
dardization within some professions
(Clarkson & Muris, 1980, p. 108).
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Standards and the Development of a
Profession
Professions can be considered to
begin either with the recognition by
people that they are regularly doing
something that is not covered by other
professions and through the forma-
tion of professional associations
(Abbot, 1988). The impetus behind
the formation of professional associa-
tions is considered to be “… derived
from the perceived need of a relevant
group to occupy and defend for its
exclusive use a particular area of com-
petence territory” (Eraut, 1994, p.
165). Standards are a way of marking
professional territory.
A separate body of knowledge is
important in the development of pro-
fessional standards (Berry & Oakley,
1994; Dean, 1997; Gedansky, Fugate,
& Knapp, 1998; Morris, 1995, 2000;
Williams, 1998). Credentialing can
then be used as a process whereby pro-
fessionals are recognized as meeting
the standards of the profession by
demonstrating mastery of the body of
knowledge (Dean).
Even though it is often cited that
projects have been managed since the
pyramids (e.g., Stretton, 1994; Morris,
1994), it is only in the second half of
the 20th century that project manage-
ment began to emerge as a distinct field
of practice with its own tools, tech-
niques, and concepts (Stretton).
As project-based work takes over
from position-based work and careers
are defined less by companies and
more by professions (Stewart, 1995),
project personnel are keen to achieve
professional status and independent
recognition of their project manage-
ment competence. If people are to be
evaluated, not by rank and status, but
flexibly according to competence
(Stewart), then evidence of this compe-
tence becomes extremely important to
individuals as well as to organizations.
The Paradox of Project Uniqueness
The creation of professional stan-
dards, however, implies a certain
level of similarity in the actions
taken by members of a profession. As
project management is being prac-
ticed in an ever-increasing range of

contexts, it is no longer clear that all
project managers manage projects in
comparable ways.
At the heart of the field of project
management is a basic tension between
uniqueness and generality. Shenhar
(1996) noted that the traditional
approach to project management
regards projects as being fundamentally
similar, and thus amenable to standard-
ization. By contrast, the characteristic of
uniqueness is regularly identified as a
defining attribute of a project, and new
tools for project categorization and clas-
sification continue to appear in the liter-
ature, distinguishing between different
project types.
This raises the question: How can
one thing, at the same time, be both
fundamentally unique and standard-
ized? Atkinson (1999, p. 338) asked a
similar question in relation to the defi-
nition of the whole field of project
management. “Is there a paradox how-
ever in even attempting to define proj-
ect management? Can a subject which
deals with a unique, one-off complex
task … be defined?”
Project Management as a Generic Activity
The development of project manage-
ment standards, by implication, has
lent support to the notion of the
“generic” project and that there are sets
of generic knowledge, skills, and prac-
tices that are applicable to most proj-
ects most of the time. Evidence for this
can be found in the competency stan-
dards for project management available
worldwide (e.g., APM, 2000; British
Standards Board, 1996; BSTA, 2004;
ECITB, 2002; IPMA, 1999; PMI, 2002;
PMSGB 2002). Arguments for stan-
dardization of the field center around
the development of project manage-
ment as a professional discipline
(Dean, 1997). Indeed, Kloppenborg
and Opfer (2000, p. 55) found that the
“… most frequently considered future
trend was support for increased stan-
dardization …” with the expectation
that increased attention to standards
was likely to contribute to more consis-
tent achievement of project success.
A Guide to the Project Management
Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)
directly contributes to the process of
Edited by Foxit PDF Editor
Copyright (c) by Foxit Software Company, 2004 - 2007
For Evaluation Only.
standardization, partly through official
recognition as a standard (IEEE, 2000;
PMI, 2004), and partly through
expressed intent. At the start of the
PMBOK® Guide, it is stated that within
the field of project management “…
there is relatively little commonality in
the terms used” (PMI, 2000, p. 3). The
PMBOK® Guide seeks to redress this
notion by providing a common lan-
guage, the assumption being that the
same tasks are being performed, while
different terms are used to discuss them.
The PMBOK® Guide also notes the “…
presence of repetitive elements …” (p. 5)
in project work, which allow the field to
be discussed in terms of generalities.
Similar assumptions can be found
in the academic and professional liter-
ature: “… many publications on the
management of projects tend to
assume that all projects are fundamen-
tally similar” (Shenhar & Dvir, 1996,
p. 607) and “… have employed the
universal approach …” (p. 609). Most
practitioner books are very general,
and tend to describe project manage-
ment as a standard set of activities,
such as organizing, planning, and
budgeting the project (Shenhar, 1996,
pp. 1–2). Furthermore, aspects of proj-
ects that have been found to be repeat-
ed in some projects are assumed to be
general characteristics of many, and
have become prerequisite for some
project management planning tech-
niques (Andersen, 1996).
Categories and Types of Projects
Whether or not projects are essentially
alike is open to question, as the ability
to recognize the fundamental differ-
ences between types of projects, with
respect to project goals, environments,
and stakeholders, and their different
ramifications for project management,
can be shown to influence project suc-
cess. This is because for each different
category of project “… a whole different
set of problems and potential project
management techniques may apply”
(Evaristo & van Fenema, 1999, p. 280).
The value of the assumption that
all projects should be treated generical-
ly is challenged by the variety of proj-
ect categorization tools to be found in
the project management literature,
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
which illustrates the differences
between project types (Crawford,
Hobbs, & Turner, 2005). For instance,
Turner and Cochrane (1993) catego-
rized projects according to the degrees
of definition of project goals and defi-
nition of the methods to be used to
achieve them. Bubshait and Selen
(1992) developed a categorization sys-
tem for projects grounded in terms of
industry sector and application area,
on the understanding that different
approaches will be applicable in differ-
ent areas.
Systems of categorization similar
to this are used in many of the surveys
of project management practice (e.g.,
Pinto & Slevin, 1988; White & Fortune,
2002; Zobel & Wearne, 2000). Youker
(1999) categorized projects by the
project product or deliverable, suggest-
ing that similar products lead to simi-
lar approaches to their delivery.
Floricel and Miller (2001) grouped
projects based on the strategic system
used for uncovering and coping with
risk. Hassen (1997) distinguished
between technical and bureaucratic
projects, stating that while technical
projects are more stable and appropri-
ate for tools such as PERT, bureaucrat-
ic projects involve multiple processes
in a political environment and can be
stifled by some traditional project
management techniques.
Projects are also differentiated as
being either hard or soft. McElroy
(1996) classified projects as either hard
or soft based on the tangibility of proj-
ect outputs, ease of estimation, and
ambiguity of logical relationships.
Crawford and Pollack (2004) expand-
ed on this, developing a framework for
the analysis of hard and soft projects
based on seven project attributes.
These frameworks align with a
study by Stretton (2000), who overlaid
observations made by Yeo (1993) with
Turner and Cochrane’s (1993) goals
and methods matrix, finding correla-
tion between the degree of definition of
objectives in a project and a project’s
hardness or softness. This bears similar-
ity to a classification of project types by
Turner (1999), between technical and
cultural projects, having quantitative
and qualitative objectives, respectively.
89

In a study of the categorization of
projects, Crawford, Hobbs, and Turner
(2005) pointed out that there are
many different purposes for categoriz-
ing of projects, including strategic
alignment, capability specialization,
and as a way of distinguishing those
aspects of organizational work that
will be managed as projects. Many dif-
ferent attributes can be used to catego-
rize projects for these purposes. The
wide variety of ways in which projects
have been classified in the literature
suggests that many see benefit in dis-
tinguishing between types of projects,
instead of seeing project management
as fundamentally generic.
Projects as Unique Endeavors
Uniqueness is regularly cited as a
defining attribute of a project. For
instance, the PMBOK® Guide (PMI,
2000, p. 5) refers to “… the funda-
mental uniqueness of the project
work.” Andersen (1996, p. 89) sup-
ported this, stating that most authors
agree that projects are unique endeav-
ors; special tasks that have not been
done previously. Given the wide range
of application areas for projects, the
definition of a project is necessarily
vague. Regarding the wide range of
endeavors that can be called a “proj-
ect,” Shenhar and Dvir (1996, p. 609)
stated that in the majority of cases, the
differences between projects outweigh
the similarities between them.
Many project managers have
found the literature too general to be of
use, while at the same time they have
“… frequently emphasized the unique-
ness of their project …” (Shenhar,
1996, pp. 1–2). Evidence suggests that
the differences between projects can be
a result of the different areas of appli-
cation, with different application areas
focusing on different parts of the bod-
ies of knowledge (Morris, Patel, &
Wearne, 2000, p. 160), and the domain
specific nature of the project manage-
ment life cycle (Stewart & Fortune,
1995, p. 279).
Evidence in the literature suggests
that “… projects exhibit considerable
variation, and their specific manage-
ment styles seem anything but univer-
sal” (Shenhar & Dvir, 1996, p. 607).
90
Edited by Foxit PDF Editor
Copyright (c) by Foxit Software Company, 2004 - 2007
For Evaluation Only.
Shenhar (1996, p. 5) stated that the
typical characteristics of a project are
less common than traditionally
thought and calls for a modification of
the tendency to regard all projects as
alike by the adoption of a project spe-
cific theoretical approach.
The bodies of knowledge created
by the various national project man-
agement professional associations tend
to seek to draw out the commonalities
between practice, in effect standardiz-
ing practice. If project management was
one generic activity, then similarity
could be expected between the ways
that project management is portrayed
in the different associations’ bodies of
knowledge, and yet “… amazingly, the
professional project management soci-
eties currently have quite different ver-
sions of the BoK” (Morris, Patel, &
Wearne, 2000, p. 156).
Survey of Project Management
Knowledge and Practice
A study was conducted enquiring into
a group of practitioners’ project man-
agement knowledge and project man-
agement practice. This study was
conducted in order to develop an
understanding of how generic project
management knowledge and practice
are across countries, industry sectors,
and application areas.
There were 352 participants that
completed two separate assessments,
one assessing knowledge and the other
assessing their use of practices. The
sample comprised groups of between 5
and 10 project personnel from organi-
zations willing to participate in the
study. Assessments were conducted in
controlled conditions, under supervi-
sion by a researcher or organizational
nominee, in groups in the participants’
working environment. Participants
were predominantly project managers,
although some participants identified
themselves as either team members or
project/program directors.
Participants were based in
Australia, the United States, and the
United Kingdom. Participants came
from one of three industry sectors:
engineering and construction; business
services; or IS/IT and telecommunica-
tions. The industry sector, in this con-
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
text, refers to the overall business of
the organization. Participants were
also asked to identify the application
area of their primary project work.
Participants worked in one of four
application areas: engineering and
construction; business services; IS/IT
and telecommunications; or industrial
processes. Only 308 participants pro-
vided usable data regarding project
application area. Tables 1 to 3 provide
a breakdown of the distribution of
study participants.
Individual variables were explored
using univariate and bivariate analysis
techniques (e.g., frequency distribu-
tions and cross-tabulations). Testing of
hypotheses was done using analysis of
variance (ANOVA) techniques. ANOVA
is a procedure used to determine if
mean differences exist for two or more
samples. Post-hoc analysis using
Tukey’s honestly significant differences
(HSD) was used in association with
ANOVAs for testing of hypotheses.
Examination of the relationship
between scores for the knowledge and
the practices assessments was conduct-
ed using Pearson’s correlation.
Assessing Project Management Knowledge
Knowledge was assessed using a test
that was based on the nine knowledge
areas of project management, as out-
lined in the first edition of the
PMBOK® Guide (PMI, 1996). It used
multiple-choice questions similar to
those used in the Project Management
Institute’s project management profes-
sional (PMP®) exam. For both the
knowledge assessment and the practice
assessment, data was analyzed at mul-
tiple levels: an overall level, describing
the tendency for the representative
sample of a country, industry sector or
application area; the unit level, align-
ing with the nine PMBOK® Guide
knowledge areas; and the element
level. Tables analyzing results have
been provided where results demon-
strate a significant difference at the
overall level or unit level.
The knowledge test consisted of five
questions from each of the nine units.
Questions were designed to address key
items of project management specific
knowledge, and involved no calcula-

Industry Sector of Organization
IS/IT & telecommunications
Engineering & construction
Business services
Total
Table 1: Industry sector by country
Application Area of Project
IS/IT & telecommunications
Engineering & construction
Business services
Industrial processes
Total
Table 2: Application area by country
Application Area of Project
IS/IT & telecommunications
Engineering & construction
Business services
Industrial processes
Total
Table 3: Application area by industry sector
tions, as this would have increased the
time required for completion, which
was an issue in securing organizational
support for the study. Once initial devel-
opment of questions was complete for
the knowledge and practice tests, these
were reviewed by senior project manage-
ment practitioners, one each in
Australia, the United Kingdom, the
United States, and South Africa.
The results of the knowledge
assessment have been used to test three
different null hypotheses, relevant to
developing an understanding of the
generic nature of project management:
1. There are no significant differences
in performance against a project
management knowledge standard
(PMBOK® Guide) for practitioners
from different countries.
2. There are no significant differences
in performance against a project
Edited by Foxit PDF Editor
Copyright (c) by Foxit Software Company, 2004 - 2007
For Evaluation Only.
Country countries in all knowledge areas except
cost, quality, and communication (see
Australia U.S. U.K. Total Table 4), with the U.K. scores higher
59 39 19 117 than those in Australia and U.S. The
104 0 50 154 U.K. sample scored higher than the
U.S. sample in areas of time, human
46 28 7 81 resources (HR), and risk. The only area
209 67 76 352 of difference between Australia and the
U.S. was in integration where both
U.K. and U.S. scored significantly
higher than Australia. There were no
Country other areas of significant difference
Australia U.S. U.K. Total between Australia and U.S.
The null hypothesis that there are
25 33 5 63
there are no significant differences in
59 0 3 62 performance against a project manage-
67 19 6 92 ment knowledge standard (PMBOK®
Guide) for practitioners from different
30 5 56 91
countries may be rejected at the level
181 57 70 308 of overall performance against the
standard, but may not be rejected for
cost, quality, and communications
knowledge at the unit level.
Industry Sector
IS/IT & Eng. & Business Total Project Management Knowledge by
Telecom Con. Services Industry Sector
At an overall level of analysis, no signif-
44 4 15 63
icant differences in values of the meas-
19 40 3 62 ure of performance against the
16 25 51 92 knowledge test were found between
industry sectors (P=0.692). At the unit
15 67 9 91
level, significant differences were found
94 136 78 308 between industry sectors only for com-
munications, where business services
perform better than other sectors. The
management knowledge standard null hypothesis that there are no signif-
(PMBOK® Guide) for practitioners in icant differences in performance
different industry sectors. against a project management knowl-
3. There are no significant differences edge standard (PMBOK® Guide) for
in performance against a project practitioners in different industry sec-
management knowledge standard tors may not be rejected for any area of
(PMBOK® Guide) for practitioners knowledge other than communication.
working on projects in different
application areas. Project Management Knowledge by
Application Area
Project Management Knowledge When scores for the knowledge assess-
by Country ment were analyzed in relation to appli-
Analysis of results reveals that there are cation area at an overall level, significant
significant differences in values of the differences were apparent (P=0.002). At
measure of overall performance the unit level, significant differences were
against the knowledge test between seen in relation to integration, time, com-
countries (P=0.0005), with U.K. sam- munications, risk, and procurement (see
ple scores being higher than those of Table 4). The primary pattern is that those
either Australia or the U.S. working on industrial processes projects
At the unit level, significant differ- perform better than those working on
ences could be seen in performance on engineering and construction projects in
the knowledge assessment between all knowledge domains except risk.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L 91
 Edited by Foxit PDF Editor
Copyright (c) by Foxit Software Company, 2004 - 2007
For Evaluation Only.
3. There are no significant differences
Knowledge Knowledge Practice
Unit by Country by Application Area by Industry Sector in performance against a project
management performance-based
Integration U.K. and U.S. higher IS/IT and industrial processes competency standard (ANCSPM)
than Australia higher than E & C
for practitioners working on projects
U.K. and U.S. higher in different application areas.
Scope
than Australia

Project Management Practices by Country

U.K. higher than
Time Australia or U.S.
Cost
Quality
HR
U.K. higher than
Australia or U.S.
Communication
U.K. higher than
Risk Australia or U.S.
Procurement U.K. higher than
Australia
Table 4: Summary of significant differences in results at unit level
Therefore, the null hypothesis that
there are no significant differences in
performance against a project manage-
ment knowledge standard (PMBOK®
Guide) for practitioners working on
projects in different application areas
may be rejected at the level of overall
performance against the standard but
may not be rejected for scope, cost,
quality, and HR knowledge.
Assessing Use of Project Management
Practices
Practitioners’ use of practices was self-
assessed against the performance cri-
teria presented in the 1996 version of
the Australian National Competency
Standards for Project Management
(ANTA, 1996). The Australian
National Competency Standards for
Project Management were the first
performance-based competency stan-
dards for generic project management
to be endorsed by a national govern-
ment (1996, July). Since that time an
updated version has been released
(BSTA, 2004). The structure of these
standards was particularly suited to
this research as it mirrors that of the
PMBOK® Guide, comprising nine
functional units, which align with the
nine PMBOK® Guide knowledge areas.
Industrial processes
higher than others
Business services
higher than E & C
Industrial processes higher
than business services
Industrial processes
higher than E & C
The practice assessment com-
prised 9 units, 30 elements, and a
total of 94 performance criteria.
Participants were asked to use a 5-
point scale to report on the circum-
stances under which they have done,
or not done, the item referred to in
each of the performance criteria.
This assessment asked participants
to objectively answer whether they
have done the item and if so, under
what circumstances, not a subjective
judgment as to how well any of the
items have been done.
The results of the project man-
agement practice assessment have
been used to test three further null
hypotheses, relevant to developing
an understanding of the generic
nature of project management:
1. There are no significant differ-
ences in performance against a
project management perform-
ance-based competency standard
(ANCSPM) for practitioners from
different countries.
2. There are no significant differences
in performance against a project
management performance-based
competency standard (ANCSPM)
for practitioners in different indus-
try sectors.
IS/IT higher than
business services When analyzed at the overall level,
no significant differences could be
E & C and IS/IT higher
than business services found in different countries’ prac-
tices (P=0.593). However, at the unit
E & C and IS/IT higher level, significant differences could be
than business services
seen in cost, HR, and procurement
IS/IT higher than E & C practices. The U.K. scores higher than
and business services
the U.S. for use of cost practices and
both the U.K. and Australia score
higher than the U.S. for use of pro-
curement practices. The U.S. scores
E & C and IS/IT higher
than business services higher than either Australia or the
U.K. for HR practices.
E & C highest, then IS/IT,
then business services Therefore, the null hypothesis
that there are no significant differ-
ences in performance against a project
management performance-based
competency standard (ANCSPM) for
practitioners from different countries
may not be rejected at the level of
overall performance against the stan-
dard but may be rejected for cost, HR,
and procurement at the unit level.
Project Management Practices by Industry
Sector
Analysis indicates that there is a signif-
icant difference in project manage-
ment practice between industry sectors
(P=0.002). Overall, both IS/IT and
telecommunications and engineering
and construction score higher than
business services. At the unit level,
there are significant differences in all
areas except integration, scope, and
communications. These differences are
summarized in Table 4.
At the element level, the pattern of
lower scores for business services in
areas of time, cost, quality, risk, and
procurement is continued. Lower scores
for business services in implementation
of project activities throughout the life
cycle and information management
begin to appear. High scores for IS/IT
and telecommunications in the HR
areas of HRM planning and staff train-
ing and development provide further
insight in this area.

92 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L

Therefore, the null hypothesis that
there are no significant differences in
performance against a project manage-
ment performance-based competency
standard (ANCSPM) for practitioners in
different industry sectors may be reject-
ed at the overall level. It may also be
rejected at the unit level for time, cost,
quality, HR, risk, and procurement.
Project Management Practices by
Application Area
At the overall level, no significant dif-
ferences between practices were found
in the sample group when analyzed by
application area (P=0.131). At the unit
level, the only significant differences
are in cost where IS/IT and telecom-
munications scores lower than engi-
neering and construction and
industrial processes, and in procure-
ment where business services and IS/IT
and telecommunications score lower
than engineering and construction and
industrial processes.
The null hypothesis that there are
no significant differences in perform-
ance against a project management
performance-based competency stan-
dard (ANCSPM) for practitioners
working on projects in different appli-
cation areas may not be rejected at the
overall level, but may be rejected at the
unit level for cost and procurement.
The only practice for which the null
hypothesis may not be rejected at all
levels is scope.
Correlations Between Knowledge and
Use of Practices
Potential correlations between scores
for the knowledge and practice assess-
ments were also analyzed. Correlation
between practitioners’ total scores for
the knowledge and practice assess-
ments was apparent. Pearson’s correla-
tion was measured at 0.188 for total
scores, with the correlation significant
at the 0.01 level.
At the unit level, significant corre-
lation could also be seen between
scores for the knowledge and practice
assessments (see Table 5). The first
number in each box in Table 5 is a
measure of Pearson’s correlation, with
a higher number indicating a stronger
positive correlation. The second num-
Edited by Foxit PDF Editor
Copyright (c) by Foxit Software Company, 2004 - 2007
For Evaluation Only.
ber in each box describes the level at
which the correlation is significant,
with a number closer to zero indicat-
ing greater confidence in the correla-
tion. Correlations between unit scores
for the knowledge and practice assess-
ments were apparent for integration,
scope, cost, HR, risk, and procure-
ment. No significant correlations were
found between the knowledge and
practice assessments for time, quality,
or communications.
Some interesting correlations stand
out, such as a consistent positive corre-
lation between scope knowledge and
practice scores for all units other than
communication and procurement.
Correlation is also apparent for scores in
the knowledge and practice assessments
for both time and cost, and between
scores for cost and procurement.
Some units were found to be rela-
tively free from correlation. For
instance, communication knowledge
was only correlated to scope practice,
while communication practice was
only correlated to scores for procure-
ment knowledge. Scores for integra-
tion and HR knowledge were only
correlated to integration and HR prac-
tice, respectively. These results suggest
that knowledge of, and use of, prac-
tices associated with, communication,
integration, and HR are relatively inde-
pendent of other areas of project man-
agement knowledge and practice.
Conclusions From the Assessments
At the overall level project management
knowledge appears to be generic across
industry sectors. Use of project man-
agement practices at the overall level
appears to be generic across countries
and application areas but not across
industry sectors. Results show that the
most generic knowledge domains
across country, industry sector, and
application area are cost and quality. By
contrast, the use of practices most
generic across countries, industry sec-
tors, and application areas were scope,
integration, and communication.
However, significant differences
are apparent when project manage-
ment knowledge is analyzed by country
or application area, and when project
management practices are analyzed by
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
industry sector. These results suggest
that project management cannot legit-
imately be considered as one consis-
tent, generic activity.
One curious result from the
knowledge assessments related to the
strong performance of the U.K. sam-
ple against what survey participants
in the U.K. certainly considered to be
essentially a North American stan-
dard, developed for a North
American audience. This result might
be taken as suggesting that it is not
the country in which a standard was
written that determines how well a
sample performs when assessed
against it. Similarly, this result may
be explained by reference to the
methods of education practiced in
different countries or the particulars
of the samples chosen. However, data
collected during the survey are not
sufficient to definitively support
these possible explanations.
A consistently appearing signifi-
cant difference at the unit level related
to practice analyzed by industry sector.
In these results, the business services
sector consistently scores lower than
either IS/IT and telecommunications
or engineering and construction. These
results could reasonably be interpreted
as an issue of lower maturity of the
business services sector, resulting from
more recent adoption of project man-
agement approaches.
The significant differences found in
project management knowledge
between industry sectors and in the use
of project management practices
between areas of application do not sug-
gest that the standards are inappropriate
for use across these categories. However,
it may suggest that in the workplace,
practitioners in different industries and
application areas have greater recourse
to apply different project management
practices and knowledge.
It was found that results for the
knowledge assessment generally showed
greater variation than results for the prac-
tice assessment. The implication from
these results is that there is greater gener-
al similarity in project management
practice than in knowledge. This can be
taken to indicate that although project
management is relatively consistently
93
 Edited by Foxit PDF Editor
Copyright (c) by Foxit Software Company, 2004 - 2007
For Evaluation Only.

Knowledge Use of Practices Assessment (ANCSPM)

Assessment
(PMBOK® Guide)
Integr. Scope Time Cost Quality HR Comm. Risk. Proc.

Integration Pearson’s r * .122 .104 .105 .031 .018 .015 .071 .091 -.020
Sig.(2-tailed) .022 .052 .050 .567 .734 .774 .183 .089 .712

Scope Pearson’s r ** .141 * .127 * .113 * .121 * .120 * .113 .097 ** .147 .075
Sig.(2-tailed) .008 .017 .035 .024 .024 .034 .069 .006 .160

Time Pearson’s r * .111 .089 .063 * .107 .094 .061 .054 .098 ** .159
Sig.(2-tailed) .037 .096 .236 .045 .079 .251 .308 .067 .003

Cost Pearson’s r .023 .082 * .107 * .129 .090 .092 .067 .100 ** .141
Sig.(2-tailed) .674 .124 .045 .015 .092 .085 .213 .062 .008

Quality Pearson’s r ** .145 .081 .085 * .121 .060 .081 .071 .072 * .111
Sig.(2-tailed) .006 .128 .110 .023 .260 .131 .184 .177 .038

HR Pearson’s r .073 .086 .033 .084 .028 * .119 .081 .067 .014
Sig.(2-tailed) .172 .107 .542 .115 .598 .025 .128 .212 .788

Communication Pearson’s r .088 * .133 .058 .014 .010 .017 .070 .027 -.050
Sig.(2-tailed) .099 .035 .276 .791 .851 .755 .193 .618 .354

Risk Pearson’s r .093 .105 .029 .085 * .108 .057 .052 * .108 .104
Sig.(2-tailed) .081 .050 .583 .111 .042 .290 .328 .044 .051

Procurement Pearson’s r * .126 .099 .101 ** .162 .058 * .114 * .122 .100 ** .181
Sig.(2-tailed) .018 .064 .059 .002 .281 .033 .022 .060 .001

** - Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * - Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Table 5: Correlations between scores for against knowledge and practice assessments

applied, it is being conceptualized
differently. Potentially, there is then
greater scope for standardization of
project management, particularly at a
conceptual level.
At an overall level, and for the
majority of units, correlation was
apparent between scores for the
knowledge and practice assessments.
The many of these correlations were
significant at the 0.01 level, however,
the measures of Pearson’s correlation
were not high (< 0.2). There is con-
siderable confidence then that per-
formance in one assessment does
positively correlate with performance
in the other assessment, however, the
correlation is not strong. In other
words, it can be said with confidence
that participants who did well or
badly in one assessment tended to
respectively do well or badly in the
other assessment, but the score
received for one assessment was
rarely equivalent to the score received
on the other.
The correlation between compe-
tence measures against a performance-
based competency standard (ANCSPM)
and the knowledge tests (PMBOK®
Guide) is not surprising, as a direct link
between competent performance and
knowledge of relevant concepts seems
intuitive. The weakness of the correla-
tion between scores for assessments
against these standards is also to be
expected, as these assessments cannot
be thought of as simply taking different
approaches to directly measuring the
capability for project managers to deliv-
er successful projects. Instead, these
assessments were measuring different
attributes, both of which may be linked
to the capabilities of project managers.
Discussion
This tension between project unique-
ness and the assumption of fundamen-
tal similarity underpinning standards
development can be explained
through three avenues: what it means
to be unique; changes to the field; and
the needs of the field. For a project to
be unique does not mean that it is
completely dissimilar to all other proj-
ects. If this were truly the case, and
projects were not just unique, but also
incomparable, then it is likely the field
of project management would not
exist. Rather, projects do resemble each
other. For instance, a work breakdown
structure (WBS) can often be reused, as
many projects within a given organiza-
tion will have similar life cycles and
thus will have similar deliverables
required at each phase of the project
(PMI, 2000, p. 57). In many ways this
is reminiscent of the quote that started
this paper. The water is always chang-
ing, moving, making different noises,
and yet it is still a river, maintaining
similarity of form over time.
The tension between uniqueness
and similarity can also be viewed in
light of changes to the field. Originally,
single, large projects were the domain of
project managers, with particular empha-
sis on the construction, aerospace, and

94 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L

engineering industries. This has
changed. “The advent of the project-
oriented organization, matrix-managed
projects, networked projects, rapid
development projects, organizational
change projects and ‘social’ projects
have all changed the scope of what is
now termed a ‘project’” (Stewart &
Fortune, 1995, p. 279). Nevertheless,
the “… wide deployment of projects in
organizations today, has not been
accompanied … by a parallel develop-
ment in project management theory”
(Shenhar & Dvir, 1996, p. 607). It is
possible that the divide between per-
ceptions of uniqueness and similarity
represents, not a contradiction in any
one view, but a split between the views
of different groups: those who are
applying project management in new
application areas; and, those who con-
tinue to apply project management in
its original application areas and see no
reason to change.
The divide between uniqueness
and similarity can be examined in a
third way; in terms of the needs of the
industry. In reference to a survey on
project management education, Fabi
and Pettersen (1992, p. 85) found that
the project management industry “…
would rather see students trained as
generalists rather than specialists, with
industry providing the necessary
detailed instruction with on-the-job
training. Course work should be con-
structed to provide emphasis on tools
and their application, not theory.” The
divide here is based around what is
required for a general education in proj-
ect management and the education
required for application of project man-
agement in a specific industry. The gen-
eral guides to project management, the
standards, and the bodies of knowl-
edge, are written at a general level, with
the understanding that they provide
information that is relevant to most
projects, most of the time. Implicit in
this is the assumption that projects are
alike. As these are influential docu-
ments, it is only to be expected that this
implicit view should permeate to practi-
tioners, who might continue to hold it,
even after being initiated into the
specifics of particular areas of applica-
tion. This view might then never be
challenged if practitioners are not
Edited by Foxit PDF Editor
Copyright (c) by Foxit Software Company, 2004 - 2007
For Evaluation Only.
exposed to projects in different coun-
tries, industries, or areas of application.
As the profession spans a wide vari-
ety of application areas and interests, it
is unlikely that this tension will ever be
resolved. Indeed, we suggest that it is in
the interests of the field that this tension
should not be resolved and replaced by
a superficial unity. However, the tension
between uniqueness and similarity does
need to be managed, if the field is to
remain relevant to the wide variety of
countries, industries, and application
areas in which it is currently applied.
The authors suggest that the nature of
the links between measurements of per-
formance-based competence and
knowledge need to be further examined,
that future standards development
should address the needs of different
industries and application areas, and
any development of global standards for
project management needs to recognize
the potential variation in how project
management is practiced and thought
about in different countries.
References
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of
professions. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Andersen, E. S. (1996). Warning:
Activity planning is hazardous to your
project’s health! International Journal of
Project Management, 14(2), 89–94.
ANTA. (1996). (BSX90) National
competence standards for project manage-
ment. ACT, Australia: Business Services
Australia.
APM. (2000). Body of knowledge: 4th
edition. Available at: http://
www.apm.org.uk
Atkinson, R. (1999). Project man-
agement: Cost, time and quality, two
best guesses and a phenomenon, its
time to accept other success criteria.
International Journal of Project
Management, 17(6), 337–342.
Berry, A., & Oakley, K. (1994).
Consultancies: Agents of organization-
al development: Part II. Leadership and
Organisation Development Journal,
15(1), 13–21.
British Standards Board. (1996). Guide
to project management: BS6079:1996.
BSTA. (2004). National competence stan-
dards for project management. ACT, Australia:
Business Services Training Authority.
M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L
Bubshait, A., & Selen, W. (1992).
Project characteristics that influence the
implementation of project management
techniques: A survey. Project Management
Journal, 23(2), 43–47.
Clarkson, K., & Muris, T. (1980).
The federal trade commission and occu-
pational regulation. In S. Rottenberg
(Ed.), Occupational Licensure and
Regulation (pp. 107–141). American
Enterprise Institute for Public and Policy
Research.
Crawford, L., Hobbs, J., & Turner, J.
(2005). Project categorization systems:
Aligning capability with strategy for better
results. Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Crawford, L., & Pollack, J. (2004).
Hard and soft projects: A framework for
analysis. International Journal of Project
Management, 22(8), 645–653.
Dean, P. J. (1997). Examining the
profession and the practice of business
ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 16,
1637–1649.
Duncan, W. R. (1998). Is the
PMBOK® Guide a standard? PMNetwork
(April), 57.
ECITB. (2002). National occupational
standards for project management: Pre-
launch version. Kings Langley:
Engineering Construction Industry
Training Board.
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing profes-
sional knowledge and competence. London:
The Falmer Press.
Eskerod, P., & Ostergren, K. (1998).
Bureaucratizing Projects?—On the
Standardization Trend. IRNOP III—The
nature and role of projects in the next 20
years: Research issues and problems.
Evaristo, R., & van Fenema, P. C.
(1999). A typology of project manage-
ment: Emergence and evolution of new
forms. International Journal of Project
Management, 17, 275–281.
Fabi, B., & Pettersen, N. (1992).
Human resource management practices
in project management. International
Journal of Project Management, 10(2),
81–88.
Floricel, S., & Miller, R. (2001).
Strategizing for anticipated risks and
turbulence in large-scale engineering proj-
ects. International Journal of Project
Management, 19, 445–455.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism & free-
dom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gedansky, L., Fugate, M., & Knapp, J.
95

(1998). The development of bodies of knowl-
edge in the professions. Project Management
Institute & Knapp & Associates
International Inc.
Hassen, N. B. (1997). Soft project
methodologies—Using mind mapping,
and scenario/future mapping techniques
in business and public sector projects to
develop effective project plans. AIPM 1997
National Conference Proceedings, 276–286.
IEEE. (2000). 1490-1998 IEEE guide to
the project management body of knowledge.
Adoption of PMI Standard. Available at
http://standards.ieee.org/catalog/software2.h
tml#1490-1998
IPMA. (1999). IPMA competence base-
line: Version 2. Available at:
http://www.ipma.ch/?page=181
Kloppenborg, T. J., & Opfer, W. A.
(2000). Forty years of project management
research: Trends, interpretations, and pre-
dictions. Proceedings of the PMI Research
Conference (pp. 41–59). Newtown Square,
PA: Project Management Institute.
Krislov, S. (1997). How nations choose
product standards and standards change
nations. Pittsburgh, PA: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Leland, H. (1979). Quacks, lemons,
and licensing: A theory of minimum qual-
ity standards. Journal of Political Economy,
87(6), 1328–1346.
McElroy, W. (1996). Implementing
strategic change through projects.
International Journal of Project Management,
14, 325–329.
Morris, P. W. G. (1994). The manage-
ment of projects. London: Thomas Telford.
Morris, P. W. G. (1995). International
qualifications in project management.
APM Association of Project Managers: Project
Management Yearbook 1995/96 (pp.
15–17). Cheshire: McMillan Group PLC.
Morris, P. W. G. (1996). Project man-
agement: An international profession. In J.
S. Pennypacker (Ed.), The global status of the
Edited by Foxit PDF Editor
Copyright (c) by Foxit Software Company, 2004 - 2007
For Evaluation Only.
project management profession (pp. 118—
123). Upper Darby, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Morris, P. W. G. (2000).
Benchmarking project management bod-
ies of knowledge. IRNOP IV - Paradoxes of
Project Collaboration in the Global Economy:
Interdependence, Complexity and Ambiguity.
University of Technology, Sydney.
Morris, P. W. G., Patel, M. B., &
Wearne, S. H. (2000). Research into revis-
ing the APM project management body of
knowledge. Internal Journal of Project
Management, 18, 155–164.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988).
Critical success factors across the project life
cycle. Project Management Journal, 68–75.
PMI. (1996). A guide to the project
management body of knowledge. Upper
Darby, PA: Project Management Institute.
PMI. (2000). A guide to the project man-
agement body of knowledge. Newtown Square,
PA: Project Management Institute.
PMI. (2002). Project manager competen-
cy development framework. Newtown Square,
PA: Project Management Institute.
PMI. (2004). A guide to the project
management body of knowledge. Newtown
Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
PMSGB. (2002). South African qualifi-
cations authority project management compe-
tency standards: Levels 3 and 4. South Africa:
South African Qualifications Authority.
Shenhar, A. (1996). Project manage-
ment theory: The road to better practice.
Project Management Institute 27th
Annual Seminar/Symposium.
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (1996).
Toward a typological theory of project
management. Research Policy, 25, 607–632.
Stewart, R. W., & Fortune, J.
(1995). Application of systems think-
ing to identification, avoidance and
prevention of risk. International Journal
of Project Management, 13, 279–286.
Stewart, T. A. (1995). Planning a
career in a world without managers.
Fortune, 131(5), 72–80.
Stretton, A. (1994). A short history
of project management: Part one: The
1950s and 60s. Australian Project Manager,
14(1), 36–37.
Stretton, A. (2000). An investigation
of connections between organisational
change and project management. IRNOP
IV Conference—Paradoxes of Project
Collaboration in the Global Economy:
Interdependence, Complexity and Ambiguity.
Sydney: University of Technology, Sydney.
Turner, J. R. (1999). The handbook of
project based management. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Turner, J. R., & Cochrane, R. A. (1993).
Goals-and-methods matrix: Coping with
projects with ill defined goals and/or meth-
ods of achieving them. International Journal
of Project Management, 11, 93–101.
White, D., & Fortune, J. (2002).
Current practice in project management—
An empirical study. International Journal of
Project Management, 20, 1–11.
Williams, J. L. (1998). What makes a
profession a profession? Professional Safety,
43(1), 18.
Wolfson, A., Trebilcock, M., & Tuohy,
C. (1980). Regulating the professions: A
theoretical framework. In S. Rottenberg
(Ed.), Occupational Licensure and Regulation
(pp. 180–214). American Enterprise
Institute for Public and Policy Research.
Yeo, K. T. (1993). Systems thinking
and project management—Time to
reunite. International Journal of Project
Management, 11, 111–117.
Youker, R. (1999). The difference
between different types of projects. 30th
Annual Project Management Institute
Seminar & Symposium, PA, USA.
Zobel, A. M., & Wearne, S. H. (2000).
Project management topic coverage in
recent conferences. Project Management
Journal, 31, 32–37.

LYNN CRAWFORD, PhD, director, Human Systems Pty JULIEN POLLACK is an honorary associate of
Ltd., professor of project management, ESC Lille, France, the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS).
and director, Project Management Research Group, He has won national and international awards
University of Technology, Sydney, is involved in project for his research, which focuses on practical
management education, practice, and research. Through ways that systems thinking and project
human systems, she works with leading corporations management can be combined. He has
that are developing organizational project management worked on projects in a variety of fields,
competence by sharing and developing knowledge and including organizational change, strategic
best practices as members of a global system of project planning, IT development, and theatrical
management knowledge networks. She is currently projects. He received his PhD at UTS, with
involved in two PMI-funded research projects—Exploring previous degrees in computer science,
the Role of the Executive Sponsor and The Value of Project philosophy and theatre. Dr Pollack is currently
Management. Results of a completed study have been investigating practical ways of applying
published in Project Categorization Systems: Aligning learning from complexity theory to project
Capability with Strategy for Better Results. She has been management, and has recently co-authored a
leading the development of global standards for project book on tools for complex projects.
management since the late 1990s.

96 M A R C H 2007 P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T J O U R N A L