Background Information

Bagozzi, R. P., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Priester, J. R. (2002). The Social Psychology of Consumer Behaviour. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=115023657

Barnett, M. (2006). Using a Web-Based Professional Development System to Support Preservice Teachers in Examining Authentic Classroom Practice. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 701+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5017258327

Bonnette, R. (2006). Out of the Classroom and into the Community: Service Learning Reinforces Classroom Instruction This Process Was Put in Place to Replicate Real-World Practices and to Give Students a Sense of Accomplishment That Is Achieved When They Maintain Their Commitment to Community-Based Responsibilities. The Technology Teacher, 65(5), 6+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5013788041

Byrnes, D. M. (2006). Can Public Policy Be Counter-hegemonic? toward a Pragmatics of 'contingency' and 'disruption'. Tamara Journal of Critical Organisation Inquiry, 5(1/2), 73+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5044776792

Carlson, N. M., May, W. E., Loertscher, R., & Cobia, C. (2003). Apprenticeship: Applications in Adult Education. Journal of Adult Education, 32(1), 29+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5037461309

Chambers, S. M., & Wickersham, L. E. (2007). The Electronic Portfolio Journey: A Year Later. Education, 127(3), 351+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5031697461

Chatel, R. G. (2003). The Power and Potential of Electronic Literacy Assessment: Eportfolios and More. New England Reading Association Journal, 39(1), 51+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5037511446

Davies, L. (2010). Pedagogy for Digital Natives. Afterimage, 38(1), 33. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5044207775

Dubinsky, J. (2003). Creating New Views on Learning: ePortfolios. Business Communication Quarterly, 66(4), 96+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5007672740

Duncum, P. (2008). Holding Aesthetics and Ideology in Tension. Studies in Art Education, 49(2), 122+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5037469166

Fitch, D., Peet, M., Reed, B. G., & Tolman, R. (2008). The Use of ePortfolios in Evaluating the Curriculum and Student Learning. Journal of Social Work Education, 44(3), 37+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5031037189

Franklin, C., & Hopson, L. M. (2007). Facilitating the Use of Evidence-Based Practice in Community Organizations. Journal of Social Work Education, 43(3), 377+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5023847469

Freebody, P., Maton, K., & Martin, J. (2008). Talk, Text, and Knowledge in Cumulative, Integrated Learning: A Response to 'Intellectual Challenge'.Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31(2), 188+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5038563638

Geels, F. W., & J M Raven, R. P. (2007). Socio-cognitive Evolution and Co-evolution in Competing Technical Trajectories: Biogas Development in Denmark .International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 14(1), 63+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5035164444

Harrison, R. T., Dibben, M. R., & Mason, C. M. (1997). The Role of Trust in the Informal Investor's Investment Decision: An Exploratory Analysis.Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 21(4), 63+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002262272

Hoeltzel, S. (2004). Koistinen, Olli and John Biro, Editors. Spinoza: Metaphysical Themes. The Review of Metaphysics, 57(3), 628+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002099537

Keough, N. (2008). Sustaining Authentic Human Experience in Community. New Formations, (64), 65+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5045027882

Latham, G. P. (2001). The Reciprocal Effects of Science on Practice: Insights from the Practice and Science of Goal Setting. Canadian Psychology, 42(1), 1+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5035505464

Leuenberger, D. Z., & Wakin, M. (2007). Sustainable Development in Public Administration Planning: an Exploration of Social Justice, Equity, and Citizen Inclusion. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 29(3), 394+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5037634318

Lipscomb, G. B., Guenther, L. M., & Mcleod, P. (2007). Sounds Good to Me: Using Digital Audio in the Social Studies Classroom. Social Education, 71(3), 120+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5020737640

Lyons, P. J. (2008). Student Portfolio Web Sites: Valuable Communication Aids to Future Employers. Review of Business, 28(3), 33+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5030402594

Macleod, H. (2005). What Role Can Educational Multimedia Play in Narrowing the Digital Divide?. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 1(4), 42+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5035121243

Martin, P. (2007). Caring for the Environment: Challenges from Notions of Caring. 57+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5028587827

Matthies, B. (2010, June). Using I-google to Help Digital Immigrants Manage Business Information. Searcher, 18, 28+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5045052890

Miller, R. L., & Benz, J. J. (2008). Techniques for Encouraging Peer Collaboration: Online Threaded Discussion or Fishbowl Interaction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(1), 87+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5026746511

Milman, N. B. (2005). Web-Based Digital Teaching Portfolios: Fostering Reflection and Technology Competence in Preservice Teacher Education Students. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 373+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5011260675

Montague, M. (2008). Self-Regulation Strategies to Improve Mathematical Problem Solving for Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(1), 37+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5026368472

Pigg, S. L. (1995). The Social Symbolism of Healing in Nepal. Ethnology, 34(1), 17+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000282475

Poulshock, J. (2002). The Problem and Potential of Memetics. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 30(1), 68+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002465659

(1990). I Organizational Conflict. In Theory and Research in Conflict Management, Rahim, M. A. (Ed.) (pp. 1-3). New York: Praeger. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=25985329

Rahim, M. A. (Ed.). (1990). Theory and Research in Conflict Management. New York: Praeger. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=25985320

Shardlow, S. (Ed.). (1989). The Values of Change in Social Work. London: Tavistock/Routledge. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=109043555

Terry, M. (2007). The Supportive Roles That Learners' Families Play in Adult Literacy Programs. Educational Research Quarterly, 31(1), 27+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5035114915

Trigg, A. B. (2001). Veblen, Bourdieu and Conspicuous Consumption. Journal of Economic Issues, 35(1), 99. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001005002

Wadham, B. (2003). Understanding Bourdieu. Journal of Sociology, 39(3), 327+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002037118

Waging War over Public Education and Youth Services: Challenging Corporate Control of Our Schools and Communities. (2005). Social Justice, 32(3), 1+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5015870864

Wolf, M. A. (2006). Making Data Relevant: New Information Systems Are Helping States and Districts Individualize Instruction and Boost Student Learning. T H E Journal (Technological Horizons In Education), 33(12), 32+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5016129853

Yechiam, E., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2005). Comparison of Basic Assumptions Embedded in Learning Models for Experience-based Decision Making. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(3), 387+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5035544650

Zhang, G., Anderson, T. J., Ohland, M. W., & Thorndyke, B. R. (2004). Identifying Factors Influencing Engineering Student Graduation: a Longitudinal and Cross-institutional Study. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(4), 313+. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5035514983

Progress update

Analysis of the process of empowerment.
Autonomous structure reinstated.
Alternative approach implemented.
Status: Observation

Kloppenborg, T., Tesch, D. and Manolis, C. (2011). Investigation of the Sponsors Role in Project Planning.

Kloppenborg, T., Tesch, D. and Manolis, C. (2011).  Investigation of the Sponsors Role in Project Planning.  Management Research News, 34(4), 1 - 31.  Retrieved on February 2, 2011 from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/search.htm?st1=project%20initiation&ct=all&go=Go&


Introduction
Project leaders emerge as the individuals who take responsibility for ensuring the success of the entire project.  Strong organisational skills depict projected success. Support and backing is essential to mobilise the community.  Research indicates that initiation, planning, implementing and closure are significant stages in project management, but not much has been written about the activities or tasks that are embodied by leaders in their role of executive sponsor.


This paper researches the behaviour of sponsors during planning stages.  Critical analysis of established practice linked sponsor behaviour with project results.  The paper is organised thus: section one outlines the current role of sponsors; the method of research used, followed by empirical analysis of the results.  Conclusions and the discussion drawn from the results propose recommendations for sponsors.


The project sponsor
Sponsors provide financial backing for the project, which is more than a provision of resources.  Sponsors are key decision makers who locate stakeholders to share the role of delivery, and stakeholders to hold shares.  Project managers and sponsors are responsible for creating an environment that encourages open communication and relationships based on the concerns and issues of the group.


On exploration, two hypotheses highlight that: project sponsorship can be characterised as external client-based activities and internal supporting function; and the more effort a sponsor dedicates, the more apparent the perception of success.  Three factors of exploratory analysis are:

1. external stimuli (client activity);
2. internal stimuli (supporting activity); and
3. championing both together.

The results show a framework that is supportive of both external and internal focus.  Project sponsorship may be seen as a multi-dimensional structure that maximises project success when the role of sponsor has been defined and determined so there is no ambiguity about direction and sustained activity.


Sponsors are entrusted with the responsibility of overall activity for the project to support and direct achievements towards the objective.  Strong external alliances facilitate internal activity and communication.  Ensuring a shared vision with the project manager stabilises practice that provides the framework of collaboration.


Sponsor capacity is enhanced when identity integrates experience with status and socio-economic-political backing to make significant professional connections.  The ability to communicate and deliver this network, motivates and inspires group members to align with the objective.


Project planning stage
Initiation, planning, execution and closure are seen as phases of development that each project must meet through requisite deliverables.  The initiating stage has been described in earlier research.  Sponsor activity, while diverse, is more intensely felt during the planning stage post-project charter approval.  The end stage of project planning is an undetermined boundary as execution occurs during planning.


With focus on planning activities, merit is based on how well deliverables integrate with the plan as this moderates success in all four phases.  During active planning all factors should add up to the success of a project, staffing and trouble-shooting issues not withstanding.


Each project has its own unique feature making it difficult to assess exactly what will be needed.  In a study that examined the relationship between planning efforts and project success, results indicate that project success relies very little on management activity and surrounding technology.  Success correlated positively with developing and delivering technical specifications.  Focused organisational skills facilitate and propel project goals.


Internal information communication systems are vital to the success of a project and the way top management use the system makes an impact during project realisation.


Each phase of project development has different requirements.  Success criteria for one phase leads into the success criteria of the next.  Criteria in planning account for the approval and commitment levels of stakeholders, the security of financial backing and a core that supports and nurtures the objective.  Factors critical in planning are developing stakeholder priority, ensuring available resources, competence and effective leadership.  For the purposes of the study, these factors were numbered and prioritised.  Competency in project planners emerged as the number one priority.


Dimensions of project success
A method for measuring system performance expands the concept of time, cost and performance.  Furthermore, details take into account satisfaction constraints. The system was viewed from an external perspective.


Project success reflects many attributes.  When considering cost, schedule and performance, it was previously assumed that projects could deliver well on two of the three measures.  Latterly, performance has come to mean quality in scope and project deliverables.  In this frame are three dimensions:

1. meet design plan;
2. benefit clients; and
3. retain commercial success.

Time is used to consider the effectiveness of a project - is the current status of a project a valid representation of its potential?  Will it continue to accrue new business or opportunity?  Relevant dimensions to consider are project efficiency, impact to client, business success and realistic future targets as they relate to stakeholders.  Holistic aspects of measuring the success of a project include what was learned, its value and how useful it was to the system.

Vision describes the forecast of a planned future that allows individuals to activate the plan with comprehensive meaning.  Visions are necessarily easy to communicate, provide inspiration and motivation, and retain credibility to create a lead team to work smarter.

Necessary conditions for project success include a pre-determined criteria that has met and meets with stakeholder approval to ensure collaboration between sponsor and project manager.  Relevant and consistent information supports the flexibility to insert coping mechanisms during the unforeseen.  Guidance from the sponsor is a necessary activity.  Commensurate interest levels direct sponsor behaviour, hence responsibility for the project lies with its owner.

An earlier study into the role of sponsor behaviour during initiation identified three multi-item measures that promote project success.  This paper embraces what has previously been identified and validated to clarify the understanding required to lead sponsor activity during planning.


Research objectives and methodology
The authors tested identified sponsor behaviour with project results and predicted that planning behaviour significantly correlated with past experience.

Identifying sponsor behaviour
The research database provided sufficient information to extract eighteen types of behaviour that are associated with steering teams and sponsors during project planning.  New research extracted additional behavioural patterns.  Altogether, fifty six behaviours were evaluated by eighty practitioners, a large percentage of whom were certified project management professionals.  A process of elimination ensued when examined according to the Method for Priority Marking as MPM reduces and categorises language data.  The respondents identified thirty eight types of behaviour that supported project success.


The sample, procedure, and measures
To validate and test the list, a sample study of 145 respondents who represented project management professionals with active connections to a learning base was used.


The respondents were sourced from various areas of industry (e.g. consulting, manufacturing, healthcare, education, government, engineering, construction, retail, service, utilities) and more than half indicated that the life cycle of projects averaged one year.


Respondents were asked to incorporate behaviour that drives a successful project, beginning with a charter that seals commitment to a plan ready for implementation.  The description of the framework included a high ranking executive sponsor interested only in project results and the associated budget.


A survey involving the 38 sponsor behaviours was distributed for analysis.  The respondents were asked to prioritise the list according to relevance (e.g. 1 - strongly agree ... 7 - strongly disagree).  The survey included outcome statements that respondents used to correlate project success with sponsor behaviour.  


Based on principle component analysis, the authors identified 5 behaviour and 3 outcome variables.  Cronbach coefficient alphas computed internal-consistency reliability.  Sponsor behaviour factors are:

1. have a tight plan - shared vision on objectives, internal stability, discourse, leadership and endgame;
2. communicate plan through vision - clarity of expectations, delivery, issues and solutions;
3. professional unity - responsibility in maintaining internal connections, stakeholder ownership includes involved participation;
4. project champion - social and core identity are integrated; and
5. diversify - identify and locate the project manager.

Outcome factors are:

1. projections of the future - viable commercial success with opportunity to remain abreast of global patterns;
2. deliverables and schedules match - projected budget is relevant, commitments are upheld; and
3. commitment to client - ensuring deliverables match technical specifications.

Results
The authors found six separate sponsor behaviours that affect project results.  Heightened awareness brings in to focus the strategy of planning ahead to align the group (e.g. forewarned is forearmed).  How well a sponsor communicates strategy to a group corresponds to the levels of success attained.  The behaviour of sponsors during planning stages is directly linked to project deliverables and schedules.


When a sponsor clarifies intended output the effect can negatively position the groups' future.  The findings suggest that during planning, the sponsor directs project deliverables to a closed network that reduces future viability (e.g. improved market share).  Furthermore, developing deliverables according to sponsor specification temporarily reduces the client base.


The last two behaviours the authors listed were the benefits of having a strong group culture and the delegation of operations and future transmission to a project manager.  If the client is involved during the planning stage a better future can be predicted.  The addition or replacement of a project manager predicts similar outcomes.


Discussion
This paper links sponsor behaviour during planning to project outcomes as part of a continuing study that previously tested sponsor behaviour during initiating with project outcomes.


There are three consistent outcomes that measure project success.  This achievement depends on the standard of performance during the project.  The initiating and planning stages co-create a level of expectation that conceptualises project outcomes.  The enormity of the task is often under-appreciated until later (e.g. client waits for project deliverables, measuring the commercial success of a project requires time to assess market penetration).


There is a significant difference between initiating and planning stages.  The perspective taken during the initiating stage is that the sponsor and project manager use core team members to plan a strategy of agreed action (e.g where the scope of work is drafted without detail, a.k.a soft-circling).  The planning stage takes the perspective that stakeholders gain relevant and necessary information to generate comprehensive detailing within the framework according to financial capacity and schedules (e.g. where the scope of work is broken down into process and activity, a.k.a. hard circling).


The amount of detail accumulated depends on the stakeholders involved which places emphasis on the different demands that a sponsor can expect.  During initiating, sponsors are expected to establish, align, define and prioritise stakeholders.  During planning, sponsor behaviour includes five factors:

1. stick to the plan;
2. set a known standard for deliverables;
3. keep professional unity strong;
4. employ a project manager; and
5. champion the project.

There are a total of 31 items in the first four factors.


Meeting agreements
Ensuring there is a plan is the only sponsor behaviour to affect meeting technical specifications.  Better planning leads to levels of organisation that increase performance.  The following is an analysis of behaviour items that ensure planning and the relation it bears to meeting agreements.


The items include aspects of project planning that consider principles, discourse, flexibility, project goals and deliverables, also known as emotional quotient.  Sponsor behaviour translated into verbs describes the activity sponsors focus on: "do, help, lead, ensure and validate" (pg. 17) where 'doing' includes establishing expectations and development reviews.  The other factors focus on the leadership skills required to co-create and validate the framework with a project manager.


Customer success
Stabilising variable client success outcomes depends on meeting needs and producing deliverables that are of value.  When meeting technical specifications, attention is required to understand the variables that the client places on outcomes, therefore including the client during planning directs deliverables towards a satisfactory result.


Firm's future
The focus on this outcome factor concerns business development and market share associated with clarifying the objective, stakeholder participation and the appointment of a project manager.  Stakeholders engage actively when learning trajectories or the conceptualisation of a sequence of events is made available.  Building and aligning stakeholders improves the quality of the communication network over time which minimises the cause of doing the same work more than once.  The planning stage includes self-verification processes that strengthen the relationship network so that all stakeholders agree and commit to the planned objective and proposed method of activity.  To guard the future, focus includes capitalising on project outcomes and the potential to secure market share.  Knowing the demands of a group heightens situation monitoring.


The terminology used when appointing a project manager has negative connotations as it has been associated with initial project mismanagement or poor management performance.  Good management practice is connected to project success.


Conclusion
Sponsors are executives interested in gathering a portfolio of successful projects. Timing activities to reach a satisfactory closure is paramount.  Adopting behaviour that is associated with establishing and implementing a planned objective positively enhances favourable project outcomes.  Included in planning is investment in stakeholder relations.  Sponsors who also assume the role of project manager decrease levels of success.  Having a project manager delegate responsibility increases successful outcomes.


The participants of this study were active members of their profession and had a diverse range of experience in project management.  The authors question the potential of seeking a different demographic to understand comparisons.  This paper has focused on behaviour specifically adopted during planning.  A study of sponsor behaviour during project execution would prove useful.


This paper is a contribution towards new knowledge on understanding that sponsor behaviour is not static, but modifies to suit project maturity.  As managers are trained in management skills, the authors suggest that similar information be made available for sponsors.

Fitsilis, P., Kirytopoulos, K. and Leopoulos, V. (2011). Assuring the managerial capability of public organisations implementing projects: The Greek case.

Fitsilis, P., Kirytopoulos, K. and Leopoulos, V. (2011).  Assuring the managerial capability of public organisations implementing projects: The Greek case.  International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 4(2), 1 - 33.  Retrieved on February 2, 2011 from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/journals.htm?issn=1753-8378&volume=4&issue=2&articleid=1905904

Introduction

Organisational success depends heavily on its strategy for performance.  Without an initial core strategy, tacit knowledge cannot be made tangible.  It is understood that while individual strengths are acknowledged and required, it is necessary to explore living knowledge and its relation to transactive memory.

Delivery of information, or the manner in which direction or knowledge is imparted is in general initiated through management.  Managerial skills have been categorised as falling into two separate areas: managing mature projects and managing projects with maturity.  Terminology is standardised according to governing bodies so international continuity is assured.

Unsurprisingly, the larger the scale of operations the more complex the solution becomes.  Challenges facing leaders is to improvise methods that work and form the template for operations that can be carried forward as international standards to bind a global workforce.  Clarifying group objective determines the types of organisations that adapt and align to culture and mission.

This paper describes the management capability and skill required to organise public interest projects.  Standardising Greek public administration bodies developed the managerial maturity of EU funded projects.  An overview of the assessment needed to understand the scope of managerial function reviews current and relevant models that have had international success.

Managing projects of public interest in Greece

EU funded projects not only provide economic support, but provide a means to generate greater social cohesion.  Statistics reveal that from 2000 to 2006 17,000 projects were funded at an average cost of 1.8M Euros per project, and implemented by 2748 beneficiaries.

In 2005, cumulative knowledge revealed that 22% of beneficiaries were incapable of managing projects and between 30 - 65% were using outmoded technology.  This problem is global.  Main reasons cited for immaturity in project management are:

• that tacit knowledge has not been made clear to novices, or methods/systems in place are incomplete or unsuitable;
• the lack of internal auditing and review procedures;
• loose project control;
• informal communication through meetings or minutes;
• project organisation and project teams not formally appointed or unavailable and project manager authority not well established;
• lack of modern project management systems;
• the unavailability of legal support in a rather complex legal and contractual context;
• the inability to apply an effective and efficient change management system both at operational and contractual level;
• difficult, complex and time consuming project initiation processes requiring involvement of many heterogeneous stakeholders;
• the large number of involved public services, project stakeholders, and lack of a project champion.

Cumulative knowledge identified and categorised methods to propose structural changes to national programs drafted into projects that run from 2007 - 2013.  Specifically, Greece prioritised:

1. improving national transport that converges with the trans-European network;
2. adopting EU standards on sustainable development and terminology;
3. raising levels of national ICT competence to integrate the EU;
4. increasing national entrepreneurial skills to match international trade;
5. using HRD to bind a unified civic consciousness; and
6. raising human capital potential through lifelong learning and education for sustainable development.

In order to focus on sustaining the objective, the European Commission funds a variety of regional programmes to:

1. improve and harness the characteristics and attributes of entrepreneurship;
2. extend and upgrade intraregional and trans-regional infrastructures;
3. improve human capital;
4. prioritise education for sustainable development;
5. foster economic growth;
6. adopt tourism and culture as a means of generating national and international progress;
7. promote and support technology based communication for entrepreneurs.

As the budget for 2007 - 2013 was capped at 31M Euros and addresses close to 10,000 projects, beneficiaries were deemed responsible for:

• maximising the benefits gained as a result of supportive frameworks;
• improving quality of service; and
• raising the standard of managerial maturity levels.

ELOT1429: 2008 was developed to set national standards in public project initiation.  Increased support in managerial capability was provided for beneficiaries who complied with the standard, while simultaneously offering focus and mature logic.  Although EU members provide several working models in project management and implementation, the Hellenic Organisation for Standardisation developed their own model based on the following arguments:

1. choosing from the variety of international models would have caused endless debate resulting in pockets of disgruntled society as time limitations constrain full developing analysis;
2. existing Greek legislation prevents adopting standards that have not been transcribed with the relevant terminology;
3. identified problems were inherently cultural and localised knowledge was more in tune with environmental needs; and
4. it was more appropriate to create a country-specific standard that took into account national characteristics and relevant international standards.

Managerial capability models

Savvy communities recognise the efficiency of project management and use mature models from which innovative entrepreneurship enhances competitive capacity.  Understanding of success as it occurs and identifying solutions has been described as maturity.  Ergo, Project Maturity indicates the level of conditioning a community has had in dealing with projects, revealing mental agility commensurate with information, delivery and activity.  Mature logic defines the perspective that strategy and planning is sourced from.

A mature model provides the structure, or template, that has assessed methods and levels of capability and provides the framework for future levels of performance which in turn sets development targets.  Most models identify five levels of developing project maturity:

1. level 1 - the implementation of strategy and plan using feedback loops to diagnose and rectify or amend direction;
2. level 2 - repeated execution (i.e. single loop learning);
3. level 3 - methods are defined and are adopted as a community standard;
4. level 4 - situation monitoring to ensure standards are maintained; and
5. level 5 - group direction clarified and secured with maximum potential for development and growth (i.e. double loop learning).

Successful models retain the ability to stay agile by increasingly depending on internal insight to evaluate possibilities for growth (e.g. Hawthorne effect).  Standards to assess a community's level of maturity have been designed after investigation linked maturity with improved performance.  Standards are designed for upgrades and in general provide a service for a learning community.

The Project Management Institute propose OPM3 as an example of a mature model indicating that a detailed community portfolio integrates programme and project management that identifies and categorises an achievable work schedule.

Alternative terminology list the five levels as categories of:

1. common language;
2. common process;
3. singular methodology;
4. benchmarking; and
5. continuous improvement.

Literature reviews identify more than thirty models that have had success in different industries, but tellingly reveal the maturity of a community that has been conditioned over time.

The proposed system for assessing the managerial capability of organisations with respect to project management

ELOT 1429 standards' family

ELOT is the Greek acronym for the national governing body of internal standards (i.e. the Greek Standardisation Organisation) which is part of the International Organisation for Standardisation (i.e. ISO).  To ensure egalitarianism, stakeholders represent both Private and Public sectors.  In addition, ELOT is audited by the National Accreditation System and the Italian Accreditation Board.  The ELOT family form:

• ELOT 1429: lists the managerial capacity requirements for initiating public interest projects;
• ELOT 1431-1: guide for implementing ELOT 1429 in public interest projects;
• ELOT 1431-2: guide for implementing ELOT 1429 in public service and supply projects;
• ELOT 1431-3: guide for implementing projects of a special nature; and
• ELOT 1432: requirements for auditing communities that implement public interest projects.

ELOT 1429: 2008 overview

The ELOT was constructed from observations and practice of co-funded projects between Europe and Greece and serves the purpose of assessing managerial capability.  As with all standards, it categorises the minimum requirements needed to execute public interest projects.

As these standards are expected to support the project through to completion, the ELOT holds knowledge or data concerning the functions and processes of:

1. the group holistically (e.g. from management to legislature and operations);
2. human capital, economics and group structure (i.e. includes lifelong training and safety);
3. implementing, planning, building and control; and
4. internal audit systems that nurture group function (e.g. best practice policies, feedback loops).

Compatibility with ISO 9001: 2008 and PMBOK - OPM3

The ELOT 1429: 2008 grew as a result of Greek Quality Management Systems upgrading and integrating their standards taken from ISO 9001 to enhance ISO 9001: 2008.  Practice was re-written as it was introduced.  This decision reduced the intensity of training needed to develop and maintain the ELOT 1429:2008.  As the Greek Quality Management Systems is the brainchild of several organisations, continuity and integration of internal networks is assured.  Capitalising on existing frameworks has notable success as human capital is conditioned or primed to change with the environment.

The processes of the ELOT 1429: 2008 and the ISO 9001: 2008 differ in clause 7 substantially.  The ISO 9001: 2008 refers to Product Realisation with the following detail:

1. planning of product realisation;
2. customer related processes;
3. design and development;
4. purchasing;
5. production and service provision; and
6. control of monitoring and measuring equipment.

The ELOT 1429: 2008 categorise an altogether different perspective and refer to Project Implementation as:

1. project initiation;
2. project planning;
3. project execution;
4. project monitoring and control; and
5. project closing.

Maturity levels

Maturity models contain the ephemeral quality of experience.  Each experience marks an opportunity to gather more insight that drives development.  The ELOT 1429: 2008 identifies three levels:

1. level 1 - the minimum requirements of managerial capacity are recognising a project, understanding project needs, archiving best practice methods (e.g. includes terminology) and driving towards closure; one common practice within the group is yet to be determined;
2. level 2 - integrated systems where managerial capacity is known to be centrally operated, cumulative knowledge gained from past efforts is group ethos and a learning community has been established; and
3. level 3 - internal auditing systems are continuous and progress is chronic as checklists monitor incoming information; feedback serves multi-level activity as focus details both individual and group performance.

ELOT 1429: 2008 process groups description

Management and organisation

Centrally run management systems require dedication.  Top management provide committed environmental support that perpetuates the appropriate learning structures.  Archived standards are found embedded in activity.  Project management success depends on how hierarchy responds and adapts to feedback.  Traditional management schema prioritise the day to day activity that diminishes the reality of the project for group members.  Management prepares individuals to accept full responsibility to act as leaders, however this training is commensurate with experience.  Transforming communities integrate function with projections of expected activity.  Role designation match job responsibility.  Standards form the backbone of the group and integration of internal group function facilitates penetration of external environments (e.g. markets).  Knowing relevant legislative practice and procedure is embedded in the activity of annual learning cycles as improvement and strategic practice occurs from connections and relationships with knowledge based learning communities.

Human resources and technical infrastructure

From a HRD perspective human capital, support, performance and safety is linked to group environment.  Economic focus is maintained through the adaptation of external standards to fit the environment bi-directionally.  These developments create integrated management and workflow subsystems that are archived.

Project initiation

The strategic planning of a project incorporates the short term, medium term and long term goals of the group.  Forecasts for economic outlay add to the potential of realising the project.  Value is ascertained from gathering tangible evidence of the benefits, the costs and the feasibility of the project as project finance may depend on licensing.  Once the context of project initiation is finalised, project content assumes focus as objectives, schedules, deliverables and risks are identified and integrated with proposed activity.

Project planning

The ELOT 1429: 2008 define core subjects of a Project Management Plan:

• the project charter;
• the scope of the project that includes a detailed breakdown and structure of finance, human capital (e.g. work hours) and delivery;
• role identification, task and responsibility, and training needs;
• quality management systems with focus on role models;
• embedded short, medium and long term goals (e.g. scheduling, achievements, timetables);
• archived progress reports;
• active archived strategy reports (e.g. artefacts that list analysis, response and consequence);
• financing;
• delivery of plan; and
• change management plan.

Project execution

Some parts of a project may be out-sourced.  The ELOT 1429: 2008 places emphasis on securing data that directs a solid plan based on task activity, environmental support, managerial capacity, economics and industry related legislation.

Individually financed projects by necessity require more attention to environmental capacity and delivery.  Public organisations in Greece outsource project execution to contractors, so the ELOT 1429: 2008 highlights the focus needed for a system of procurement and are categorised as:

1. issuing tenders;
2. evaluating tenders;
3. claim management; and
4. contractual agreement.

Project monitoring and control

Active integration of project standards that chronically monitor and control prevent project deviation.  Active use of archives reduces the risk of losing knowledge.  As such, in-depth knowledge of the system produces measures that holistically create a dedicated path to the objective.  The ELOT includes planning for delivery of quality, viable channels, communication and archiving, change management and financial control (i.e. inclusive of industry regulation).

Project closing

The ELOT defines closing a project as the completion of all managerial effort (e.g.  finance is secured and exchanged) leaving only the physical manifestation of work.  Closing a project equates to having met all obligations that are required for deliverables to be executed.

Systems results review, analysis and evaluation

Internal auditing systems are vital for continuous improvement and feedback loops that link internal and external function evaluate performance.  Individual projects require standards that specify an evaluation of project objectives, stakeholder satisfaction, allowances for deviation and efficiency.

Discussion

Introducing new standards is a complex procedure, requires time-intensive process structuring and is specifically crucial when the public sector is involved and tied to a national project management system.

Expectations are that the ELOT 1429: 2008 defines managerial capacity required for project initiation in public interest projects to ensure improved delivery of objectives.

The ELOT 1429: 2008 is the strategy to bind Greece to a maturity model so standards are comprehensive archives of managerial capability and compliance is a prerequisite of EU funding.

Implementing the ELOT 1429: 2008 has caused an era of project management science as the entire Greek community address new stipulations for a more effective market.  Inevitable certifications arise over time as the community become more proficient.  Effective and efficient use of resources promise more projects with successful completion, as the performance index of Greece depends upon successful uptake.