Effects of standardization-based coordination mechanisms in project performance

Moura, Ralf Luis de; Carneiro, Teresa Cristina Janes; Dias, Taciana Lemos

doi:10.1590/1806-9649-2021v28e5257

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ORIGINAL ARTICLE • Gest. Prod. 28 (3) • 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9649-2021v28e5257 copy

Effects of standardization-based coordination mechanisms in project performance

Efeitos dos mecanismos de coordenação baseados em padronização no desempenho de projetos

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract:

Among the coordination mechanisms present in an organization defined by Mintzberg, there are the mechanisms based on standardization of processes, employee skills and outputs. This study intends to investigate, through an exploratory and quantitative approach, the relationship between standardization-based coordination mechanisms, considered essential for project objectives accomplishment, and project performance. In addition, it is proposed to investigate whether project size, project manager power, technical system complexity and external environment stability affect the relationship between standardization mechanisms and project performance. In order to test the proposed model, the structural equation modeling technique was used in an empirical research with 216 professionals that have already worked on projects. The results showed that work processes standardization has a significant effect on the performance of projects and that their effectiveness is greater in smaller projects, when the project manager has power of action, when the external environment is stable and the technical system is not complex. This study also showed evidence that the proper use of standardization-based coordination mechanisms may have its effects enhanced when contingency factors are considered.

Keywords:
Standardization-based coordination mechanisms; Contingency factors; Project performance

Indicador	Referências
Scope	Agarwal & Rathod (2006); PMI (2017); Procaccino & Verner (2006); Toor & Ogunlana (2010); Wallace et al. (2004); Wateridge (1998)
Time	Agarwal & Rathod (2006); Kerzner (2017); Belassi & Tukel (1996); Lim & Mohamed (1999); PMI (2017); Procaccino & Verner (2006); Toor & Ogunlana (2010); Wateridge (1998)
Cost	Agarwal & Rathod (2006); Belassi & Tukel (1996); Kerzner (2017); Lim & Mohamed (1999); PMI (2017); Procaccino & Verner (2006); Toor & Ogunlana (2010)
Quality	Agarwal & Rathod (2006); Belassi & Tukel (1996); Kerzner (2016); Lim & Mohamed (1999); PMI (2017); Procaccino & Verner (2006); Toor & Ogunlana (2010); Wallace et al. (2004); Wateridge (1998)
Efficiency (in the use of resources)	Kerzner (2016); Lim & Mohamed (1999); Toor & Ogunlana (2010); Wateridge (1998)
Stakeholders’ satisfaction/expectations	Kerzner (2017); Lim & Mohamed (1999); Savolainen et al. (2012); Toor & Ogunlana (2010); Wallace et al. (2004); Wateridge (1998)

Code	Hypothesis
H1	The standardization of results positively impacts the performance of projects.
H2	The standardization of work processes positively impacts the performance of projects.
H3	The standardization of skills positively impacts the performance of projects.

H4 - Contingency factors have a moderating effect between coordination mechanisms based on standardization and project performance
H4.1	The size of the project has a moderating effect on the relationship between coordination mechanisms based on standardization and the performance of the project.
H4.2	The power of the project manager has a moderating effect on the relationship between coordination mechanisms based on standardization and project performance.
H4.3	The environment has a moderating effect on the relationship between coordination mechanisms based on standardization and project performance.
H4.4	The technical system has a moderating effect on the relationship between coordination mechanisms based on standardization and project performance.

Name	Description	Question
CF_T	Technical system	The technological sophistication of products / services in this project is changing rapidly.
		It is very difficult to forecast where the technology in our project will be in the next 2 to 3 years.
		Technological change provides big opportunities in your project.
		Many new product / services ideas have been made possible by technological advances in our project.
CF_S	Size	How many people did work on your project?
CF_E	Environment	Change occurs in organizational management during the project.
		Corporate politics with effect occurs during the project.
		The organizational environment was unstable
		The organization was in an undergoing restructuring
CF_P	Project Manager Power	I was dependent for materials, means, information from other organization areas in order to carry out my work adequately.

Name	Description	Question
PP_S	Scope	The client perceive that the Project meets intended requirements
PP_T	Time	The Project was completed within schedule
PP_Q	Quality	The overall quality of the Project deliveries is high
PP_CS	Customer satisfaction	The Project deliveries met the client expectation
PP_C	Cost	The Project was completed within budget
PP_E	Efficiency in the use of resources	There was quality in the project's resource planning

Name	Description	Question
CM_SO	Standardization of Outputs	Standardization of output was the primary coordinating mechanism in project
CM_SO	Standardization of Outputs	Communications in the project was regulated along formal lines
CM_SW	Standardization of Work Processes	Standardization of tasks was a primary coordinating mechanism in project
		Decision-making in the project was guided by standard procedures
		Decision-making in the project was guided by action-planning (planned activities)
CM_SS	Standardization of Skills	Standardization of skills was a primary coordinating mechanism in the project
CM_SS	Standardization of Skills	Employees skills were an important resource for the project

Construct	Indicator	Loads	Converging Validity	Composite Reliability	HTMT Fornell-Larcker Cross Loads
Construct	Indicator	>0.6	> 0.5	entre 0.6 e 0.9	HTMT Fornell-Larcker Cross Loads
Standardization of Work Processes	CM_SW_01	0.821	0.649	0.631	ok
	CM_SW_02	0.812
	CM_SW_03	0.865
Standardization of Skills	CM_SS_01	0.813	0.622	0.659	ok
Standardization of Skills	CM_SS_02	0.799	0.622	0.659	ok
Standardization of Output	CM_SO_01	0.729	0.694	0.774	ok
Standardization of Output	CM_SO_02	0.845	0.694	0.774	ok

Path	Coefficients	p-Value
SO → PP	0.128	0.175
SW→ PP	0.355	0.002
SS → PP	0.234	0.127

Hypothesis		Results
H1	The standardization of results positively impacts the performance of projects.	Not supported
H2	The standardization of work processes positively impacts the performance of projects.	Supported
H3	The standardization of skills positively impacts the performance of projects	Not supported

Path	Coefficients	p-Value
SW → PP	0.563	0.000

Moderator	Path	Coefficient Group 1	Coefficient Group 2
Size	SW → PP	0.588	0.579
Environment	SW → PP	0.682	0.540
Manager power	SW → PP	0.721	0.517
Technical system	SW → PP	0.651	0.514

Hypothesis		Results
H4.1	The size of the project has a moderating effect on the relationship between coordination mechanisms and project performance.	Supported
H4.2	The power of the project manager has a moderating effect on the relationship between coordination mechanisms and project performance.	Supported
H4.3	The environment has a moderating effect on the relationship between coordination mechanisms and project performance.	Supported
H4.4	The technical system has a moderating effect on the relationship between coordination mechanisms and project performance.	Supported

Universidade Federal de São Carlos Departamento de Engenharia de Produção , Caixa Postal 676 , 13.565-905 São Carlos SP Brazil, Tel.: +55 16 3351 8471 - São Carlos - SP - Brazil
E-mail: gp@dep.ufscar.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Note: Based on van Der Vegt et al. (2010)van Der Vegt, G. S., De Jong, S. B., Bunderson, J. S., & Molleman, E. (2010). Power asymmetry and learning in teams: the moderating role of performance feedback. Organization Science, 21(2), 347-361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0452.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0452... , Ika et al. (2012)Ika, L. A., Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2012). Critical success factors for world bank projects: an empirical investigation. International Journal of Project Management, 30(1), 105-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.03.005.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.201... , Jaworski & Kohli (1993)Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. J. (1993). Market Orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700304.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00222429930570... and Gordon & Narayanan (1984)Gordon, L. A., & Narayanan, V. K. (1984). Management accounting systems, perceived environmental uncertainty and organization structure: an empirical investigation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 9(1), 33-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(84)90028-X.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(84)9... .