STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT OFFICE: EFFECT ON PROJECT RESULTS

Rabechini Jr., Roque; Abarca, Eddy Alberto Morris; Salcedo, Nestor U.; Saldaña, Cesar Jhonnatan P. Horna; Paiva, Danielle Cruz

doi:10.1590/S0034-759020220606

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista de Administração de Empresas

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ARTICLES • Rev. adm. empres 62 (06) • 2022 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020220606 copy

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT OFFICE: EFFECT ON PROJECT RESULTS

Gestión de stakeholders y oficina de gestión de proyectos: Efecto en los resultados

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Managing stakeholders is relevant for project management, as they affect project results. Likewise, the support of a Project Management Office (PMO) improves these results. This study analyzes the positive influence of stakeholder management on project results, specifically on the likelihood of concluding projects within the predicted time and cost, together with the moderating effect of PMOs. A conceptual model was validated through logistic regression, with data collected through a survey responded by 216 experienced professionals studying in graduate programs on project management. Findings indicate that stakeholder management improves project results in terms of time and cost and confirm that PMO enhances the influence of stakeholder management on these results. As its contribution, the study reinforces stakeholder management and PMO as key elements for successful project management. Sampling was sufficient for research replicability but restricted to professionals of project management living in Peru. Thus, future studies could target a broader population.

Keywords:
prescriptive stakeholder management; relational stakeholder management; project management office; project results.

Type/ Variable (Code)	Description	Measure
Independent
Prescriptive stakeholder management (PSM)	Prescriptive stakeholder management with 6 items	Scale
	PSM1 - stakeholders were mapped by the level of urgency and legitimacy in the project.
	PSM2 - stakeholders had their objectives translated into actions and activities.
	PSM3 - during project execution, inclusions and/or changes in activities were planned to adapt to identified needs of stakeholders.
	PSM4 - PMO established frequent communication with key project stakeholders.
	PSM5 - there were actions to engage stakeholders throughout the project lifecycle.
	PSM6- stakeholders have worked as a team, causing interaction with project members, which promoted project results.
Relational stakeholder management (RSM)	Relational stakeholder management with 6 items	Scale
	RSM1 - project stakeholders, especially those with high power and influence, had their needs deployed unfolded in actions and activities throughout the project lifecycle.
	RSM2 - the PMO was one of those responsible for the commitment of stakeholders to the project.
	RSM3 - trust between team members favored project performance.
	RSM4 - stakeholder engagement was relevant to project performance.
	RSM5 - conflicts among stakeholders were resolved without external interference.
	RSM6 - emotional intelligence improves decision-making and the development of effective relationships between stakeholders.
Moderating
Project management office (PMO)	Project Management Office with 4 indicators	Scale
	PMO1 - the PMO, through its team, identifies the project stakeholders throughout the entire project lifecycle.
	PMO2 - the PMO can distinguish the project’s internal and external stakeholders.
	PMO3 - stakeholders were ranked by their level of influence, power, and interest by PMO staff.
	PMO4 - activities to strengthen relationships with stakeholders took place throughout the project lifecycle, with the PMO participation.
Dependent
Projects concluded on schedule (proj_time)	Project on schedule (0 = No = schedule overrun, 1 = Yes = on schedule)	Dummy
Projects concluded within predicted cost (proj_cost)	Project within predicted Cost (0 = No = cost overrun, 1 = Yes = within cost)	Dummy
Control
Project budget (ln_budget)	Natural logarithm of project budget	Ratio
Firm size (ln_size)	Natural logarithm of the number of employees of the firms mentioned in the survey	Ratio
Age of professionals (ln_age)	Natural logarithm of the age of professionals/respondents	Ratio
Descriptive
Proj_budget	Budget of the project mentioned in the survey	Ordinal
Firm employees	Number of employees of the firm mentioned in the survey	Ordinal
Age of professionals	Age of professionals/survey respondents	Ordinal

	EFA				CFA
Variable	F₁	F₂	F₃	Uniqueness	λ₁	λ₂	λ₃	δ=1- λ²
PMO_1	0.899			0.192	0.808			0.347
PMO_2	0.893			0.203	0.811			0.342
PMO_3	0.880			0.225	0.828			0.314
PMO_4	0.835			0.303	0.866			0.250
PSM_1		0.765		0.414		0.669		0.552
PSM_2		0.812		0.341		0.715		0.489
PSM_3		0.787		0.381		0.678		0.540
PSM_4		0.834		0.305		0.850		0.277
PSM_5		0.867		0.248		0.848		0.280
PSM_6		0.802		0.357		0.790		0.376
RSM_1			0.784	0.385			0.746	0.444
RSM_2			0.776	0.398			0.817	0.332
RSM_3			0.889	0.209			0.842	0.290
RSM_4			0.866	0.250			0.808	0.347
RSM_5			0.797	0.365			0.696	0.515
RSM_6			0.802	0.357			0.729	0.469
KMO	0.823	0.870	0.870
Eigenvalue	3.077	3.953	4.035		EV	0.873	0.755	0.783
Var. Explained	0.769	0.659	0.673		AVE	0.687	0.581	0.600
Cronbach's α	0.900	0.896	0.902		CR	0.898	0.892	0.900

Variable	Obs.	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max
PSM	216	0.000	1.000	-2.661	1.568
RSM	216	0.000	1.000	-2.815	1.411
PMO	216	0.000	1.000	-2.365	1.333
proj_budget	216	20,700,000	62,700,000	5	395,000,000
ln_budget	216	13.865	2.666	8.517	19.794
employees	216	1,126	2,626,865	4	22,000
ln_size	216	5,364	1,938	1,386	9,999
age	216	32.981	7.509	22	65
ln_age	216	3.473	0.210	3.091	4.174
proj_time	216	0.519	0.501	0	1
No	104 (48.15%)
Yes	112 (51.85%)
proj_cost	216	0.546	0.499	0	1
No	98 (45.37%)
Yes	118 (54.63%)

	Projects running over time (N=104)				Projects on schedule (N=112)				Diff. in means test
Variable	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max	(N=216)
PSM	-0.204	1.006	-2.661	1.568	0.190	0.960	-2.417	1.568	0.394^* ***** p<0.001	[0.134]
RSM	-0.199	0.980	-2.815	1.305	0.184	0.987	-2.699	1.411	0.383^* ***** p<0.001	[0.134]
PMO	-0.176	1.025	-2.365	1.333	0.163	0.951	-2.214	1.333	0.339^ p<0.01,	[0.135]
ln_budget	14.089	2.666	8.517	19.679	13.657	2.662	8.517	19.794	-0.432	[0.363]
ln_size	5.309	1.820	1.386	9.999	5.415	2.048	1.609	9.826	0.106	[0.264]
ln_age	3.475	0.216	3.091	4.078	3.471	0.206	3.091	4.174	-0.005	[0.029]

	Projects exceeding Cost (N=98)				Projects within Cost (N=118)				Diff. in means test
Variable	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max	(N=216)
PSM	-0.150	0.989	-2.552	1.568	0.124	0.996	-2.661	1.568	0.274^ p<0.01,	[0.136]
RSM	-0.158	0.985	-2.815	1.411	0.131	0.997	-2.815	1.411	0.288^ p<0.01,	[0.136]
PMO	-0.057	0.933	-2.365	1.333	0.047	1.054	-2.365	1.333	0.104	[0.137]
ln_budget	14.253	2.764	9.210	19.679	13.542	2.549	8.517	19.794	*-0.711^ * p<0.05,**	[0.362]
ln_size	5.223	1.935	1.386	9.999	5.481	1.941	1.609	9.826	0.258	[0.265]
ln_age	3.469	0.210	3.091	4.078	3.476	0.211	3.091	4.174	0.006	[0.029]

	proj_time	proj_cost	PSM	RSM	PMO	ln_budget	ln_size	ln_age
proj_time	1.000
proj_cost	0.369^* ***** p<0.001	1.000
SP	0.197^ p<0.01,	*0.137^ * p<0.05,**	1.000
SR	0.192^ p<0.01,	*0.144^ * p<0.05,**	0.885^* ***** p<0.001	1.000
PMO	*0.170^ * p<0.05,**	0.052	0.816^* ***** p<0.001	0.786^* ***** p<0.001	1.000
ln_budget	-0.081	-0.133	0.065	0.064	0.035	1.000
ln_size	0.027	0.066	-0.014	-0.048	-0.003	0.024	1.000
ln_age	-0.011	0.015	-0.107	-0.034	-0.069	0.116	-0.128	1.000

	H1a	H2a	H3a	H4a	H1b	H2b	H3b	H4b
Control Variables:
Project budget (ln)	-0.079	-0.121^ p<0.05,	-0.077	-0.120^ p<0.05,	*-0.089^ * p<0.1,**	-0.142^ p<0.05,	*-0.095^ * p<0.1,**	-0.139^ p<0.05,
	(-1.49)	(-2.24)	(-1.46)	(-2.22)	(-1.65)	(-2.56)	(-1.74)	(-2.50)
Firm size (ln)	0.040	0.088	0.045	0.093	0.050	0.108	0.066	0.121
	(0.55)	(1.18)	(0.63)	(1.26)	(0.67)	(1.39)	(0.88)	(1.61)
Age of the respondents (ln)	0.268	0.595	0.120	0.500	0.243	0.626	0.031	0.353
	(0.39)	(0.86)	(0.18)	(0.73)	(0.36)	(0.91)	(0.05)	(0.52)
Independent Variables:
Prescriptive stakeholder management (PSM)	0.438^* ***** p<0.01	0.325^ p<0.05,			0.513^ p<0.05,	0.825^* ***** p<0.01
	(2.96)	(2.16)			(2.07)	(2.94)
Relational stakeholder management (RSM)			0.424^* ***** p<0.01	0.337^ p<0.05,			0.583^ p<0.05,	0.833^* ***** p<0.01
			(2.86)	(2.22)			(2.36)	(3.03)
Moderating Variable:
Project Management Office (PMO)					0.077	-0.372	0.131	-0.334
					(0.33)	(-1.39)	(0.60)	(-1.35)
Interactions:
PSM x PMO					*0.227^ * p<0.1,**	0.299^ p<0.05,
					(1.80)	(2.18)
RSM x PMO							0.360^* ***** p<0.01	0.316^ p<0.05,
							(2.73)	(2.22)
N	216	216	216	216	216	216	216	216
Log likelihood	-144.081	-143.543	-144.336	-143.338	-142.526	-139.500	-140.628	-139.322
df.	4	4	4	4	6	6	6	6
Wald χ²	10.455	9.400	9.905	9.548	12.742	16.388	16.468	16.591
Wald χ² test (p-value)	0.033	0.052	0.042	0.049	0.047	0.012	0.011	0.011
Pseudo R²	0.037	0.035	0.035	0.037	0.047	0.062	0.060	0.064

Fundação Getulio Vargas, Escola de Administração de Empresas de S.Paulo Av 9 de Julho, 2029, 01313-902 S. Paulo - SP Brasil, Tel.: (55 11) 3799-7999, Fax: (55 11) 3799-7871 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: rae@fgv.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.