Towards a Taxonomy for Project Management Competences

(1)

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 194 ( 2015 ) 181 – 191

ScienceDirect

Peer-review under responsibility of Scientific Committee of IPMA 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.132

28th IPMA World Congress, IPMA 2014, 29 September – 1 October 2014, Rotterdam, The

Netherlands

Towards A Taxonomy For Project Management Competences

S.A. Nijhuis

a

*, R. Vrijhoef

a

, J.W.M. Kessels

b

a_{Utrecht University of Applied Science, POBox 182, 3500AD Utrecht, Netherlands} b Twente University, POBox 217, 7500 AE Enschede, Netherlands

Abstract

Recent research on project management competences did not use a standard set of competences. Twenty-five publications, published in or after 2000, show little agreement on their competences: of the 353 only twelve percent is named more than once. Of the 353, 31 are linked to communication, but a classification system is lacking to dictate whether they can be grouped (and how). Two taxonomies, the hyperdimensional taxonomy (Tett, Guterman, Bleier, & Murphy, 2000) and the open systems taxonomy (Shrivastava, 2008) are compared to recent research of project management competences and a high percentage of the 353 can be connected to both of them: 93% and 90% respectively. Comparing the work of two researchers (Everts, 2008; Krahn, 2005) with the hyperdimensional and open systems taxonomies, reveals that both taxonomies can be used to compare research on project management competences. The comparison favors the hyperdimensional taxonomy (Tett, Guterman, Bleier, & Murphy, 2000).

Peer-review under responsibility of Scientific Committee of IPMA 2014. Keywords: Competences, Taxonomy, Project Management, Comparing Research

1. Introduction

A taxonomy is used for classifying things in general. For the purpose of this paper it is a systematic classification of competences into hierarchical groups where each sublevel constitutes a breakdown of the higher level. Although a vast amount of research has been done in project management competences, there is no standard set of project management competences used (Nijhuis, 2012). The lack of a common base makes it hard to compare or aggregate

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 88 481 8129;

E-mail address: steven.nijhuis@hu.nl

(2)

research results. A taxonomy could help to compare research results, if a fitting taxonomy is found. This paper will describe the search for such a taxonomy and present two that serve this purpose.

The rationale of this research is given by reviewing recent research on project management competences. Having established the need for a taxonomy for project management competences we describe two potential taxonomies from management research. By comparing these taxonomies with recent published research on project management competences we find both to be suitable. In the discussion section we share some thoughts on the results and argue which of the two taxonomies is the best considering our purposes of comparing research results. Finally we suggest several future research directions.

2. Definition of competence

We use the integrate model of Crawford (Crawford, 2005) as our definition of competence. The integral model presented by Crawford dissects competence into three types: input, personal and output.

Input competences is the knowledge and understanding, skills and abilities that a person brings to a job, which has two pillars: knowledge and skills. Personal competencies are the core personality characteristics underlying a person's capability to do a job. Output competences is the ability to perform the activities within an occupational area to the levels of performance expected in employment (Crawford, 2005).

The model is a taxonomy in itself, competences are classified into different sort of (sub)competences.

3. Recent research on project management competences

Many researchers in project management published findings on project managers competence. A semi-chronologic review of recent publications, published after 2000, is presented here.

Concluding that a validated survey instrument did not exist, Golob constructed a survey instrument to research how project management competences could be implemented in the workplace (Golob, 2002). The instrument used 35 competences and provided a list of which competences are more or less important according to the respondents (mostly project managers and managers of project managers).

In 2005 the views of senior management on project management was published with sixteen competences, ranked in order of importance (Crawford, 2005). In the same year, three dissertations were published on project management competences: (Bauer, 2005; Krahn, 2005; Rodriguez, 2005). Rodrigues built on the list of Golob, but deleted almost half and added a few new ones. Krahn used almost fifty competences derived from a Delphi study, while Bauer used seven.

Two more publication tried to shed light on the competence of the project manager (Fisher, Schluter, & Toleti, 2005), in which a top ten is presented and another (Dainty, Cheng, & Moore, 2005), which presented nine clusters totaling 43 competences from previous research (Dainty, Cheng, & Moore, 2003) of which twelve defined performance excellence.

Turner and Muller researched how the fifteen leadership competencies of Dulewicz and Higgs are distributed among various project types (Turner & Müller, 2006). A comprehensive work that showed competency profiles in various types of projects divided between emotional, managerial and intellectual competences.

Two publications used almost the same foundation (Chen & Partington, 2006; Chen, Partington, & Wang, 2008). Both used seven key attributes (or competence), in the second publication one is replaced. In 2006 yet another article

(3)

on competences is published, which used nine categories to classify 78 competences (Brill, Bishop, & Walker, 2006).

In the meantime two master thesis were presented (Everts, 2008; Valencia, 2007). Valencia focused on traits and asked project manager to rate themselves, and their superiors to assess these project managers. Everts got responses of over hundred project managers on his new build list of 34 competences. Considerably more responses and competences than used for the dissertation published in that same year with twelve competences (McHenry, 2008).

Concluding that it is about management competences and not tools and techniques, Rose et.al. present seven software project management competences from their research: technical, process, team, customer, business, personal & uncertainty (Rose, Pedersen, Hosbond, & Kræmmergaard, 2007).

Patanakul and Milosevic point out that no research has been done on the special competences needed for project managers managing multiple simultaneous projects and found five unique competences: organizational experience, interdependency management, multitasking, simultaneous team, management and interproject success (Patanakul & Milosevic, 2008). Like the article of Dainty in 2005, Ahadzie et.al. focused on the performance of construction project managers, building a model with 64 performance behaviors classified in six groups: job dedication, interpersonal, facilitation, cognitive ability, job knowledge, task proficiency and experience (Ahadzie, Proverbs, & Olomolaiye, 2009).

In 2009 the IT business project management competence got attention in two articles (Napier, Keil, & Tan, 2009; Sauer & Reich, 2009). Focused on the same domain, but their findings cannot be easily compared with nine versus four competences: client management, communication, leadership, planning and control, problem solving, systems development, team development, personal integrity and general management versus clear sighted realism, personal responsibility, long term perspective & willingness to let go.

Although not published in a scientific journal or as thesis, the Benchmark Report in 2010 is noteworthy because of their large number of respondents: approximately thousand (Arras People & Thorpe, 2010). They used thirteen competences which are ranked by program managers, change managers, project managers and project support personnel.

Four main skills were presented as learning and teaching challenges: Interpersonal skills, Self management, Critical thinking and Communicate with others (Ojiako, Ashleigh, Chipulu, & Maguire, 2011).

Giammalvo used "Behavioral Profiling" and presented thirty-three different traits, classified into essential traits, desirable traits and killer attributes (Giammalvo, 2012). Starkweather and Stevenson provided fifteen competences of which ten score more than 50% in the options important and extremely important (Starkweather & Stevenson, 2011).

In 2013 three publications tried to shed light on competences, two of which were aimed at finding competences for training and/or education. Bentley et al summarized their research into four abilities: create an appropriate culture for effective project management, form a holistic governance structure for stakeholders, manage the dynamics of change and encourage and enforce effective communication (Bentley et al., 2013). Finding only important and extremely important clusters, Ortiz-Marcos et.al. described eight performance/knowledge competences and seven personal competences (Ortiz-Marcos, Cobo Benita, Mataix Aldeanueva, & Uruburu Colsa, 2013).

Focused on recruiting, a top ten of demands in job advertisements was presented (Ahsan, Ho, & Khan, 2013).

It is noted that these studies also vary in their purpose, so a difference in research base and findings is natural. All the mentioned categories, clusters, groups, characteristics, competences and attributes satisfy the definition of competence used in this paper. Of the incorporated studies in this overview, three supply more than twenty specific

(4)

competences and categorize them: nine clusters with 43 competences (Dainty, Cheng, & Moore, 2005), nine categories with 78 competences (Brill, Bishop, & Walker, 2006) and six groups with 64 performance behaviors (Ahadzie, Proverbs, & Olomolaiye, 2009). For the remainder of this paper we will work with their categories.

The publications mentioned here - 25 in total - have an average of 14,1 competence, or a total of 353 (this would be 514 if we did not use the categories mentioned before). Of these competences twenty-five are mentioned twice, five are mentioned in three publications and one in four publications (time management) and one in six publications (leadership), leaving 310 unique competences. A mere twelve percent is named in two or more publications. In total 31 instances of competences could be identified that share a link with communication. So the congruence could be improved by grouping competences that seem to be identical, like communication, communication skill and ability to communicate. But in the definition of competence used here, communication could be interpreted as the holistic competence, ability to communicate could be interpreted as the output competence and communication skill as a basic level input competence. Again, a taxonomy of project management competences could help in comparing and aggregating research by dictating how to group (or not) these 31 instances.

A list of 310 (somewhat) different competences sounds quite encompassing, but it is not. Environmental concerns or sustainability are not mentioned. Governance does not appear on the list as well.

Lacking a taxonomy, it is hard to interpret whether the research mentioned here support, complement or challenge each other. Without a taxonomy new research in the field of competences for project management will only add to the fragmentation. The rigor of competences researched is hard to test. Has governance not been found important (yet), or was this not included in the research?

4. Taxonomies of competences

A taxonomy is a hierarchal arrangement of an interrelated group of definitions or processes (Satava, Gallagher, & Pellegrini, 2003), it can be used to classify things, organisms or competences. Satava et al. use a taxonomy to classify the level of performance in a competence (ranging from novice, through proficient, competent and expert to master).

For a taxonomy on project management competences we turn to research in management competences, because of the apparent overlap between management and project management (a.o. D Anderson, 1992). Two published taxonomies are considered: the hyperdimensional taxonomy (Tett, Guterman, Bleier, & Murphy, 2000) and a open systems taxonomy (Shrivastava, 2008).

A recognized work on taxonomies for competences is the 'Hyperdimensional' taxonomy of managerial competence" (Tett, Guterman, Bleier, & Murphy, 2000), which has been cited numerous times since publication†

. They identified twelve previously published taxonomies and supplied two reasons why these were not sufficient. The first reason was no one model was clearly superior to another in aspects like method, population, purpose, content, complexity and comprehensiveness. Secondly, the focus of the previous models was on identifying general dimensions of performance and to reduce data, while Tett et al. (2000) felt it necessary to dissect some of the more broader dimensions into smaller parts. Having reached this conclusion the researchers created a first draft containing 47 competences, based on the twelve previously published taxonomies (containing 109 dimensions). The draft was validated using two studies. This resulted in adding six new competences. The resulting list of 53 competences was evaluated in a third study. This rigorous approach yielded a taxonomy of 9 domains, containing 53 competences (see table 1 for an overview). They concluded that the resulting taxonomy had a high level of specificity, expert judges

(5)

were able to classify behavioral elements into targeted categories with considerable agreement and accuracy. The hyperdimensional taxonomy used ‘future evaluated work behavior’ as competence. That does not seem to interfere with our purpose of constructing a taxonomy of project management competences, since the basic level competences can also be classified through their taxonomy.

More recently Shrivastava introduced a fractal and open system approach to competence and defined it as 'the ability of a system to create value in an optimal manner' (Shrivastava, 2008). Every competence uses input and transforms this input to produce output which in turn serves as input for another competence. The input part of the competence is described as the ability to bring to bear the resources needed for a given task. The transformation part of the competence is the ability to convert available resources into desirable outputs. The output part of the competence is the ability to retain and/or add value while delivering a finished product to the external environment. Shrivastava defined three clusters of competency: interface, growth and contingency with fourteen input-througput-output-competences and acknowledges that there is an slight overlap between those clusters. See table 2 for an overview.

Table 1. Hyperdimensional Taxonomy (Tett, Guterman, Bleier, & Murphy, 2000).

Domain Competences

Traditional functions Problem Awareness

Decision Making Directing Decision Delegation Short-Term Planning Strategic Planning Coordination Goal Setting Monitoring Motivating by Authority Motivating by Persuasion Team Building Productivity

Task Orientation Initiative

Task Focus Urgency Decisiveness

Person Orientation Compassion

Cooperation Sociability Politeness Political Astuteness Assertiveness Seeking Input Customer Focus Dependability Orderliness Rule Orientation Personal responsibility Trustworthiness Timeliness Professionalism Loyalty

Open Mindedness Tolerance

Adaptability Creative Thinking Cultural Appreciation

Emotional Control Resilience

Stress Management

Communication Listening Skills

Oral Communication Public Presentation Written Communication

(6)

Developing Self and Others Developmental Goal Setting Performance Assessment Developmental Feedback Job Enrichment Self Development

Occupational Acumen and Concerns Job Knowledge

Organizational Awareness Quantity Concern Quality Concern Financial Concern Safety Concern

Table 2. Open systems taxonomy (Shrivastava, 2008).

Cluster & definition Competences

Interface

Competences that ensure transfer of resources between and amongst systems in as seamless and frictionless a manner as possible.

Work Process Designing Skills

Negotiation and Conflict Resolution Skills Team Building Skills

Time Management Skills Emotional Intelligence Growth

Competences that enable to continually gauge the quality of value created so as to make changes when necessary and take the system in question to a higher plane by offering superior value.

Goal Setting Skills

Organization & Industry Knowledge Motivational Skills

Self and Subordinate Development Skills Performance Assessment Skills Contingency

Competences that enable to stabilize a system during a crisis and, if needed, turn it around so that the system in question can attain a new state of equilibrium in a different environment.

Visioning Skills Decision Making Skills Emotional Stability Problem Solving Skills

In the next section we compare both taxonomies, the hyperdimensional (Tett, Guterman, Bleier, & Murphy, 2000) and the open systems approach (Shrivastava, 2008) with the competences found in the described research on project management competences.

5. Comparing

In this section we assess whether the hyperdimensional taxonomy (Tett, Guterman, Bleier, & Murphy, 2000) or the open systems taxonomy (Shrivastava, 2008) can provide assistance in comparing recent research. For this we attempt to connect the 353 found competences in recent research with both taxonomies. In this process we distinguish three levels of connectivity:

1 - direct connection between a research competence (referred to as R-competence) and a taxonomy competence (referred to as T-competence),

2 - a connection between the R-competence with a cluster or domain of a taxonomy (referred to as T-cluster and T-domain) and

3 - the R competence cannot be connected in level 2 or 1.

An example of a level 1 connection is the R-competence 'industry specific knowledge' connects with the T-competence 'job knowledge' in the T-Domain Occupational Acumen and Concerns and with the T-T-competence Organization & Industry Knowledge in the T-cluster Growth.

(7)

In the connecting process a high specificity is pursued, we strive for the most detailed form of connection, favoring 1 over 2 over 3. An example of this pursuit can be found by connecting Communication. This connects with the T-domain Communication of the hyperdimensional taxonomy (level2), since all T-competences are specified forms of communication (see table 3). It can be argued that Communication is an overall competence, used in all T-clusters of the open systems taxonomy (level 3). Pursuing a higher specificity we favor to connect Communication with the T-cluster Interface (level2), since this cluster is about ensuring transfer (see table 2).

If a R-competence cannot be connected in level 2 or 1 - like experience - it is classified in a new T-domain and/or T-cluster named 'other'.

Of the 353 R-competences a high portion of them can be connected in level 1 or 2 to both taxonomies: 329 (93%) in the hyperdimensional and 319 (90%) in the open systems, a promising start for constructing a taxonomy for project management competences. Table 3 lists the results.

Table 3. Number of research competences in connecting levels

Hyperdimensional Open systems level 1 194 55% 244 69% level 2 135 38% 75 21% level 3 24 7% 34 10%

R-competences in level 3 are mostly combination competences spanning multiple clusters or domains, experience and education, albeit that the list of 'non-assignable R-competences' is not exactly the same for both taxonomies. The difference is mostly due to R-competences that can be connected in level 2 in only one of the taxonomies. Two 'education' related R-competences could be connected to the T-competence Job knowledge could not be connected in the open systems taxonomy. The split of these level 3 competences is given in table 4.

Table 4. Split of competences in level 3.

Both Hyperdimensional Open systems

Education 4 2

Experience 7

Overall 5 8 16

Underlying reasons why R-competences could not be assigned to a T-competence vary mostly between 'overall competence', 'multiple competence' or ´fitting T-competence is missing'. An example of overall is communication (assigned to 'Communication' in the hyperdimensional and 'Interface' in the open systems ). An example of multiple is report which could be written and oral communication. An example of 'missing' is 'conflict handling' in traditional functions of the hyperdimensional taxonomy. These R-competences that fall into the missing category could lead to additions in either taxonomy to make them better suited for project management.

The purpose of this paper is to identify a taxonomy that could help compare previous research, so the attention of the discussion is focused with this argument in mind.

6. Discussion

Our purpose is to find a taxonomy that will help compare research. The following parameters are available: compatibility with recent research and suitability for comparison. Both taxonomies showed compatibility with recent

(8)

research, with a slight favor for the open systems taxonomy: 208 R-competences could be connected to T-competences compared to 159 for the hyperdimensional taxonomy.

We test the suitability for comparison by comparing the works of Krahn (Krahn, 2005) and Everts ((Everts, 2008). Both build their list of competences to research on qualitative research and used a relative high number of competences (47 and 31 respectively) and both supplied an ordering in importance of their competences. Their competence lists share three competences: decisive, listening and proactive. In their 'most important' competences lists, they share the competence listening.

Looking through the lens of the hyperdimensional taxonomy, it appears that the domains 'developing self and others' and 'responsibility' have not been used by either of them. The list of Krahn supplies more items in the traditional functions domain, while Everts' list has more items in occupational acumen and concerns. Everts has no items in the open mindedness domain, while Krahn has three in this domain. Figure 1 gives a graphical representation.

(9)

Looking at the found important competences, the results of Krahn and Everts are ambiguous. They share important competences in the domains communication, traditional functions and occupational acumen and concerns, but in other domains only one of them has important competences. So on domain level (let alone on competence level) these two publications don't seem to agree. See figure 1 for an illustration. In the competence level, their respective lists agree on job knowledge, listening skills, short term planning and team building on being important. These four competences are interesting, which is an improvement of the original comparison which only revealed listening.

When we execute the same exercise with the open systems taxonomy, we notice that Krahn used relatively more competences in the contingency cluster while Everts used more competences in the growth cluster (figure 2). When looking through the lens of important competences the view changes. Everts found more competences in the contingency cluster than Krahn while Krahn found more growth competences to be important than Everts. Both find a comparable number of important competences in the interface cluster (figure 2). On the competence level they agree on decision making skills, team building skills and work process designing skills. These three competences are interesting, but we lost listening from the original comparison, because the open systems taxonomy has no special communications category.

Both taxonomies are suited for comparing research as this short case description shows. The higher specificity of the hyperdimensional taxonomy provides a little more in depth comparison and appears to be more suited mainly because the open systems taxonomy has no cluster or competence for communication competences. We found 31 communication competences in our review of recent research, therefore our choice of taxonomy is the hyperdimensional.

There are several limitations to our results. We did consider project management standards for a taxonomy, but did not report on it. We took the same path as the vast majority of researchers in our review, who did not use the project management standards as a basis for their research. Nonetheless, exploring whether project management standards could be served as a taxonomy is worthwhile. Again we considered but did not report on other taxonomies from project management literature itself.

We compared both taxonomies without expanding them with specific project management competences. This would make them more suited for project management. We only reported on the comparison of the work of two

(10)

researchers to both taxonomies for usefulness, which could affect our choice for the hyperdimensional taxonomie. We used the main groups of several researches instead of their detailed research results, which could have an impact on which the connectivity between the research results and the taxonomies.

7. Conclusions and further research

Two taxonomies appear to be fitting to be used in an augmented form for classifying project management competences: the hyperdimensional taxonomy (Tett, Guterman, Bleier, & Murphy, 2000) and the open systems taxonomy (Shrivastava, 2008). We argued that the hyperdimensional taxonomy shows a better fit for the purpose of this paper: comparing recent research.

Further research needs to be done. This is a preliminary step into creating a taxonomy for project management competences. The identified competences in the category missing could lead to an addition in the taxonomy. Research is also needed to identify potential obsolete competences with respect to project management in the hyperdimensional taxonomy. The resulting taxonomy can be used to compare and aggregate recent research for instance in identifying key educational challenges. Research is also advised to test whether the aggregation of recent research is a true reflection of the competences for project management, or whether some areas or domains have been left out.

References

Ahadzie, D. K., Proverbs, D., & Olomolaiye, P. (2009). Towards developing competency-based measures for project managers in mass house building projects in developing countries. Construction Management and Economics, 27(1), 89-102.

Ahsan, K., Ho, M., & Khan, S. (2013). Recruiting project managers: A comparative analysis of competencies and recruitment signals from job advertisements. Project Management Journal, 44(5), 36-54. doi:10.1002/pmj.21366

Arras People, & Thorpe, J. (2010). Project management benchmark report 2010. (). Retrieved from www.arraspeople.co.uk Bauer, B. J. (2005). A success paradigm for project managers in the aerospace industry (Phd).

Bentley, Y., Richardson, D., Duan, Y., Philpott, E., Ong, V., & Owen, D. (2013). Research-informed curriculum design for a master’s-level program in project management. Journal of Management Education, 37(5), 651-682. doi:10.1177/1052562912458642

Brill, J., Bishop, M., & Walker, A. (2006). The competencies and characteristics required of an effective project manager: A web-based delphi study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 54(2), 115-140. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-8251-y

Chen, P., & Partington, D. (2006). Three conceptual levels of construction project management work. International Journal of Project Management, 24(5), 412-421. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.02.009

Chen, P., Partington, D., & Wang, J. N. (2008). Conceptual determinants of construction project management competence: A chinese perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 26(6), 655-664. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.09.002

Crawford, L. (2005). Senior management perceptions of project management competence. International Journal of Project Management, 23(1), 7-16. doi:DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.06.005

D Anderson, S. (1992). Project quality and project managers. International Journal of Project Management, 10(3), 138-144. doi:http://dx.doi.org.www.dbproxy.hu.nl/10.1016/0263-7863(92)90002-Q

Dainty, A. R. J., Cheng, M., & Moore, D. R. (2003). Redefining performance measures for construction project managers: An empirical evaluation. Construction Management & Economics, 21(2), 209-218.

Dainty, A. R. J., Cheng, M., & Moore, D. R. (2005). Competency-based model for predicting construction project managers’ performance. Journal of Management in Engineering, 21(1), 2-9. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2005)21:1(2)

Everts, P. (2008). Een analyse van de huidige en gewenste projectmanagementcompetenties in de bouwsector (Master). Retrieved from http://www.pauleverts.nl/resultaten/

Fisher, D. J., Schluter, L., & Toleti, P. K. (2005). Project management education and training process for career development. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, 131(8), 903-910. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:8(903)

Giammalvo, P. (2012). Using "behavioral profiling" to identify "successful" project managers. PM World Journal, 1(1) Golob, M. P. (2002). Implementing project management competencies in the workplace (Phd). Available from Proquest. Krahn, J. (2005). Project leadership: An empirical investigation (Phd).

McHenry, R. L. (2008). Understanding the project manager competencies in a diversified project management community using a project management competency value grid (Phd).

Napier, N. P., Keil, M., & Tan, F. B. (2009). IT project managers' construction of successful project management practice: A repertory grid investigation. Information Systems Journal, 19(3), 255-282. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00264.x

(11)

Nijhuis, S. A. (2012). Learning for project management in a higher education curriculum. Project Management Institute Research and Education Conference 2012, Limerick, Ireland.

Ojiako, U., Ashleigh, M., Chipulu, M., & Maguire, S. (2011). Learning and teaching challenges in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 29(3), 268-278. doi:DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.03.008

Ortiz-Marcos, I., Cobo Benita, J. R., Mataix Aldeanueva, C., & Uruburu Colsa, A. (2013). Competency training for managing international cooperation engineering projects. Project Management Journal, 44(2), 88-97. doi:10.1002/pmj.21328

Patanakul, P., & Milosevic, D. (2008). A competency model for effectiveness in managing multiple projects. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 18(2), 118-131. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2007.12.006

Rodriguez, A. (2005). Critical factors in hiring, promoting and designing job descriptions for strategic project managers (Phd). Rose, J., Pedersen, K., Hosbond, J. H., & Kræmmergaard, P. (2007). Management competences, not tools and techniques: A grounded

examination of software project management at WM-data. Information and Software Technology, 49(6), 605-624. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2007.02.005

Satava, R. M., Gallagher, A. G., & Pellegrini, C. A. (2003). Surgical competence and surgical proficiency: Definitions, taxonomy, and metrics. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 196(6), 933-937. doi:http://dx.doi.org.www.dbproxy.hu.nl/10.1016/S1072-7515(03)00237-0 Sauer, C., & Reich, B. H. (2009). Rethinking IT project management: Evidence of a new mindset and its implications. International Journal of

Project Management, 27(2), 182-193. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.08.003

Shrivastava, S. (2008). Towards a new taxonomy of managerial competence an open systems perspective (PhD). Available from /z-wcorg/. Starkweather, J. A., & Stevenson, D. H. (2011). PMP (R) certification as a core competency: Necessary but not sufficient. Project Management

Journal, 42(1), 31-41. doi:10.1002/pmj.20174

Tett, R. P., Guterman, H. A., Bleier, A., & Murphy, P. J. (2000). Development and content validation of a `Hyperdimensional' taxonomy of managerial competence. Human Performance, 13(3), 205.

Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2006). Choosing appropriate project managers, matching their leadership style to the type of project. Pennsylvania, USA: Project Management Institute.