This document summarizes a study examining the relationship between project management and productivity through a systematic literature review. It describes searching academic databases for papers related to project, program, and portfolio management and productivity, finding a total of 146 relevant studies. The studies were then coded based on factors like sector, research method, and whether they addressed topics like target setting and monitoring. Most studies were empirical and focused on the construction industry. Many used case studies or surveys and provided weak to moderate evidence. Definitions of productivity varied across the literature. The review provides a synthesis of the current state of research at the intersection of project management and productivity.

1. An APM Study
Project Management and
Productivity: A forensic
analysis
Paul W Chan and Obuks Ejohwomu
paul.chan@manchester.ac.uk
obuks.ejohwomu@manchester.ac.uk
Tweet: @PaulWChan @ObuksEjohwomu #macemop
#thepmpdp

2. Background
• Since the global financial crisis (GFC) a decade ago there has
been renewed interest in driving productivity improvements.
• In the UK policy discourse has shifted from ‘high performance
working’ (Stone et al 2012) to focus on productivity.
• Industry strategy (2017) – the term productivity featured 197
times in a 256 page report.
• “For all the excellence of our worldbeating companies, the
high calibre of our workforce and the prosperity of many
areas, we have businesses, people and places whose level of
productivity is well below what can be achieved.” (BEIS, 2017:
6).

3. Background Cont’d – Productivity
Conundrum
Source: Review report (Ejohwomu 2017)

4. Background – Cont’d 2
1. OECD 2015 report “The future of productivity” presented
evidence to indicate that productivity decline since the GFC
is different to previous recessions. Why?
3. The post-GFC policy drive to focus on productivity
improvements is about finding new ways of to boost economy
and standards of living by doing more with less.
4. At the micro level – MOP plays a vital role. The World Bank
and various estimates have indicated capital projects
constitutes a quarter and 30% of global GDP.
5. Despite the growing prevalence of project based work, and
the significant contribution that projects make to economic
development, the link between project management and
productivity is surprisingly under-researched.
6. Pollack and Adler (2014) argued that the relationship is
assumed; yet this assumption remains unexamined.

5. Purpose of the Study
“ […] the purpose of our systematic review is to examine
published evidence to establish quantitatively and
qualitatively how project management can contribute to
productivity.”
To determine the value of project management methodologies and
skills in driving productivity improvements in projects, at the workplace
and in industry/economy;
To compare productivity studies of a range of project-based industries
in order to identify points of convergence and points of divergence in
relation to project management methodologies and expertise;
To highlight key project management practices across target-setting,
incentivisation and monitoring that enable productivity improvements;
To produce qualitative vignettes that clearly show promising project
management practices that lead to productivity improvements.

6. Systematic Review Strategy
 SR adopted to evaluate studies on PM and
Productivity.
 Originated from the medical and health
sciences (Tranfield et al. 2003).
 Considered also were:
 Bibliometric analysis (e.g. Pollack and Adler
2015).
 Analysis of meta-narratives (e.g. Padalkar
and Gopinath, 2016).

7. Search Strategy
 Web of Science Keyword Search, including
“project manage*” + “productiv*”, repeated for
“programme manage*” / “program manage*”
and “portfolio manage*”
 Only peer-reviewed studies (n = 1,204)
 469 studies on ‘project management’ (424/124)
 140 studies on ‘programme management’
(115/14)
 595 studies on ‘portfolio management’ (457/59)

8. Flowchart showing the search and
process Search Web of Science, EBSCO database and Google
Scholar yielding 1,204 articles (November 2017)
Keyword search:
project manage* and
productiv*
469 articles found
Keyword search:
program* manage* and
productiv*
140 articles found
Keyword search:
portfolio manage* and
productiv*
595 articles found
Removal of 45
duplicates, resulting in
424 articles remaining
Removal of 25
duplicates, resulting in
115 articles remaining
Removal of 138
duplicates, resulting in
457 articles remaining
Review of abstracts to
check for relevance,
resulting in the removal
of 300 articles with 124
articles remaining
Review of abstracts to
check for relevance,
resulting in the removal
of 101 articles with 14
articles remaining
Review of abstracts to
check for relevance,
resulting in the removal
of 398 articles with 59
articles remaining
Analysis of full articles
Final sample of 126
articles (including 2
articles previously
categorised under
‘programme
management’)
Analysis of full articles
Final sample of 10
articles (removal of 2
articles that related to
‘project management’
and 2 further articles
that were not relevant)
Analysis of full articles
Final sample of 10
articles (removal of 49
articles that were not
relevant as these related
to financial and asset
management portfolios)
Final sample of 146 studies that explore the
relationship between project management (n =
126), programme management (n = 10), and
portfolio management (n = 10) and productivity

9. Definitions of project, programme and portfolio
management based on the APM Body of
Knowledge, 6th Edition.
“Project management is the application of processes, methods,
knowledge, skills and experience to achieve the project
objectives. […] A project is a unique, transient endeavour,
undertaken to achieve planned objectives, which could be defined
in terms of outputs, outcomes or benefits.” (APM, 2012: 12)
“Programme management is the coordinated management of
projects and change management activities to achieve beneficial
change.” (APM, 2012: 14)
“Portfolio management is the selection, prioritisation and control
of an organisation’s projects and programmes in line with its
strategic objectives and capacity to deliver.” (APM, 2012: 16).

10. Defining Management Practices
Source: Bloom, N., Genakos, C., Sadun, R. and van Reenen, J. (2012: 15) Management
practices across firms and countries. Academy of Management Perspectives,, 26(1), 12-33.
Shopfloor Management
Practices (e.g. lean
production)
Target Setting Practices
(e.g. resource and schedule
planning)
Performance Monitoring
Practices (e.g. reviews)
Incentivisation Practices
(e.g. remuneration and
compensation)

11. Coding structure for the SR
Scope: Project, programme or portfolio
Empirical approach: Research method(s) used
Type: Empirical, conceptual or discussion papers
Sector: Industry sector
Level: Micro, meso or macro
Activity: Context and unit or level of analysis
Bundle of practices: Target setting, monitoring, incentivisation and/or operations
Focus: Technique, education and/or sectoral investigation
Definition: Definition of productivity in the article (explicit or implied)
Key element: Input, output and/or process
Quality: Numerical rating of the strength of evidence
RQ: Research question from the introduction
Method: Short summary of research method
Finding: Key finding from the article
Agreement: ‘1’ – fully agree; ‘0.5’ – partially agree; ‘0’ – disagreement

12. Classification of reviewed studies drawing on
Tranfield et al. 2003.
1: very weak evidence based on personal experiences and/or
opinions;
2: weak evidence based on expert opinions (what constitutes an
‘expert’ is often not fully explained);
3: neither strong nor weak evidence, often based on a mixture of
personal opinions supported by data collected. It is not always
clear how the data was collected in these examples;
4: strong evidence based on systematic case study research,
and;
5: very strong evidence based on randomised experiments.

13. Results

14. Distribution of Papers 1978-2017
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

15. Distribution of articles on PM and
Productivity across journals

16. Distribution of articles on
Programme Management and
Productivity across journals
Journal of
Management
Information Systems
Applied Geography
Benefits Quarterly
Evaluation and Program
Planning
Journal of Operations
Management
Journal of
lntellectual and
Developmental
Disability
MIS Quarterly
Public Administration
Review
World Development
Programme Management and Productivity

17. Distribution of articles on PM and
Productivity across journals
Research-Technology
Management
International
Journal of
Project
Management
AACE
International
Transactions
Business Horizons
Long Range Planning
Strategic
Management
Journal
The Service
Industries
Journal
Portfolio Management and Productivity

18. Sector focus of journals
Computing, Software and
IT, 23, 18%
Construction, 66, 52%Education, 1, 1%
Engineering, 3, 3%
Engineering and
Construction, 13, 10%
Healthcare, 3, 2%
Management
Studies, 12,
10%
Manufacturing, 5, 4%
Sector Focus of Journal

19. Strength of evidence and research
methods used
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Modelling
Survey
Case study
Interviews
Review
Panel data analysis
Activity sampling
Experiment
Observational research
Personal experiences
Concept development
Discussion
Focus groups
Method development
Portfolio Programme Project Total

20. Conceptual versus Empirical Papers
0 50 100 150 200
Total
Project
Programme
Portfolio
Discussion
Empirical

21. Focus: Technique, Education,
Sector?
0 50 100 150 200
Total
Project
Programme
Portfolio
Sector
Education
Technique

22. Targets, Monitoring,
Incentivisation?
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Total
Project
Programme
Portfolio
Incentivisation
Monitoring
Target

23. Inputs, Outputs, or Transformation?
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Total
Project
Programme
Portfolio
Process
Output
Input

24. Quality of Evidence
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Personal
experience
Expert opinion Mix of self-
reporting and data
verification
Case study
research
Randomised
experiments
Total
Project
Programme
Portfolio

25. Definition of Productivity

26. Definitions in Project Management

27. Definitions in Programme Management

28. Definitions in Portfolio Management

29. Balancing Rigour and Relevance
Puerile
Science
Pedantic
Science
Pragmatic
Science
Popularist
Science
Low theoretical &
methodological rigour
High theoretical &
methodological rigour
Lowpractical
relevance
Highpractical
relevance
Source: Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003: 219) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14 207-222.

30. Key Observations and Reflections
 No unified framework on how project
management affects productivity.
 A third (n=47) of the studies reviewed were
based on self-perception surveys; another third
(n=48) were based on modelling factors deem
important to productivity.
 As Bloom et al (2012) highlighted, finding
associations between management practices
and productivity is often regarded as a hard
science by many economists.

31. Key Observations and Reflections –
Cont’d
 There is assumption that good, front-end planning is essential to
avoid changes and rework in the project life cycle.
 It is often difficult to establish the baseline productivity level upon
which to benchmark actual performance.
 However, emphasis on planning for minimal changes is
problematic for the following reasons:
 First, given that projects are defined as unique, temporary
endeavours, it is often difficult to establish the baseline
productivity level upon which to benchmark actual
performance.
 Second, there is also quite a number of studies that
demonstrate the Parkinson’s Law; that is, work expands to fill
the time available.
 Third, Third, the assumption that variations should be
minimised is based on the traditional
manufacturing/production paradigm.

32. Take away...
 Given the focus on repeatable tasks, there is an absence of
studies that examine productivity outcomes of internal projects
(e.g. organisational change).
 Although training and education are regularly featured in project
management research, it is surprising to see so few studies
explicitly refer to the productivity outcomes of training and
education.
 The absence of studies on productivity of change management
projects is perhaps due to the problems of relating such contexts
to conventional production measures like productivity.
 Indeed, the value of change management projects is a
challenging area of inquiry:
 Over what timeframe should an outcome be measured?
 What does ‘success’ look like, and how is a ‘good’
performance outcome framed?
 Is ‘productivity’ even an appropriate measure to evaluate
the management of change projects?

33. Thank you for
your attention.
Q and A