Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Optimise scale length – Factor analysis
Each of the four theoretical constructs (Project process, People in projects, Project systems and structure, and Project environment) were subjected to exploratory factor analysis (EFA), using the BMDP (1993) to determine the underlying scales or factor structure. The factors indicated on a scree plot with eigenvalues of 1.0 and higher were considered and were further subjected to factor analysis using Principal Factor Analysis with Direct Quartinim rotation of the items. The sorted rotated factor loading pattern was evaluated and items with a factor loading < 0.35-0.5 (without influencing the theoretical construct of a holistic measurement tool) were eliminated.
This is in line with the recommendations of Hofstede and Neuijen (1990). A Cronbach alpha coefficient for each factor was set at >0.7. It is noted that the closer to 1.0 the alpha was, the better, but the theoretical basis of the tool should also be supported as a holistic tool (Clark and Watson, 1995). The final scale with factors (the test instrument or assessment tool) derived from this research process, was subjected to item analysis to confirm the item correlation and to ensure that item correlations was > 0,32.
The assessment tool was then pilot tested in the two independent organisations selected. The pilot test instrument (see Addendum C) in the form of a diagnostic survey questionnaire was distributed by electronic mail or hand delivered to the specific organisations. Each questionnaire was marked as A (organisation A) or B (organisation B) to ensure that the responses would not be contaminated. The mean responses in each data construct, was tested against the other by using the Mann-Whitney t-test.
Project management culture tool development (scale development)
The valid descriptive elements derived from the analysis above were used to compile a list of 135 items (variables), which were included in a survey questionnaire (see Addendum B) that was sent out to project managers and team members (as described in Chapter 4 and in Table 5.3).
The biographical information on the sample group is set out in Table 5.3. It is clear from the biographical information that the sample group is well educated and experienced in the field of project management across a broad spectrum of industrial sectors. This also shows that the sample groups’ perceptions represented a total industry perspective across various cultural groupings (especially relevant in the South African context).
The results and findings on the development of the project management assessment tool are reported sequentially (as the scale was developed), using the stages described by DeVellis (1991) in Chapter 2 (Literature study) and Chapter 4 (Research method).
Factor analysis
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with oblique rotation, direct oblimin, within the BMDP Statistical Software (1993) provided the results (see Tables 5.11to 5.24) obtained from the 236 responses for each of the four project management culture dimensions in the theoretical construct. A scree test was used to determine the number of factors with Kaiser’s eigenvalues higher than 1.0 for each theoretical construct. The factors were chosen based on the results of the scree test, their percentage variance contribution as well as their Cronbach alpha coefficient. They were further subjected to factor analysis. The rotated analysis results were used to analyse the factor loadings. Variables with factor loadings of < 0.5 were eliminated to improve reliability, as was described in the rationale for the methodology in Chapter 3, without compromising the theoretical framework of the holistic project management culture construct. It is clear from the percentage variance representation of the factors in Table 5.11 that a one-factor or possibly a three-factor scale is evident. Hence, further factor analyses on three-factors and one-factor were done to develop the scale instrument.
The three-factor analysis (see Table 5.12) on the project process construct shows that the one-factor is more reliable with a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.915 and representing 29.87%. The second factor has only three items with acceptable factor loadings and is therefore not suitable for a scale, although the Cronbach alpha coefficient is higher than 0.70. This explains the preference for one-factor (see Table 5.13) with a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.9483 for all the variables. The eight items (see Table 5.13 in bold) with factor loadings of < 0.50 were eliminated, resulting in 27
remaining items with a factor loading above 0.500. These 27 items were again factor-analysed (see Table 5.14). The Cronbach alpha for all the variables in Table 5.14 was 0.9301 and the total variance in data space was 34.15%. Even though some of the items in Table 5.14 had a factor loading lower than 0.500, they were not eliminated, because otherwise the theoretical construct would have been negatively affected.
1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS CONTEXT
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE
1.3 DEMARCATION AND SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH
1.4 THE OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH
2 LITERATURE STUDY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS
2.3 PROJECTS, PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND PROJECT SUCCESS FACTORS
2.4 ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT CULTURE
2.5 ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE ASSESSMENT
2.6 DEVELOPING AN ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE ASSESSMENT TOOL
2.7 CONCLUSION
3 RATIONALE FOR METHODOLOGY USED
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3.3 LIMITATIONS AND SHORTCOMINGS IN PREVIOUS RESEARCH
3.4 CONCLUSION
4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHOD
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 RESEARCH DESIGN
4.3 PARTICIPANTS AND SAMPLING
4.4 RESEARCH PROCEDURE
4.5 CONCLUSION
5 RESULTS AND FINDINGS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 RESULTS AND FINDINGS
5.3 CONCLUSION
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 CONCLUSION ON ANSWERS TO THE SUB-OBJECTIVES
6.3 VERIFICATION OF THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CULTURE MODEL BY EXPERTS
6.4 CONCLUSION AND ANSWER TO THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CULTURE ASSESSMENT TOOL (PMCAT)
6.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY
6.6 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY
6.7 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
6.8 CLOSURE
LIST OF REFERENCES
