Pergamon Internattonal Journal of Project Management Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.

21-26, 1998
~' 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
0263-7863/98 $19.00 + 0.00

PIh S0263-7863(97)00011-2

Effects of human resource

management on project effectiveness
and success: toward a new
conceptual framework

Adnane Belout
Universi O' of Montreal, School of Industrial Relations, Montreal, Canada

Project management strategy research has focused on the effects of structure and planning oper-
ations (such as budgets, date completion and quality) on project success. In the past, projects
have been managed as technical systems instead of behavioral systems. Relatively little attention
has been paid to human resource factor. However, the Project Management Institute in its offi-
cial definition of Project Management Body of Knowledge (P.M.B.K.) included human resource
management as one of the six fundamental basic functions of project management. 1 In this
arena which lacks theoretical foundation, a relatively recent study made the situation even
worse. Pinto and Prescott (1988) concluded that the 'Personnel factor' (independent variable)
was the only factor in their research that was marginal for project success (dependent variable).
This paper takes a critical look at this research and attempts to respond to their controversial
findings. The main objective is to improve the thinking aspects and to highlight the validity of
the measures used. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd and I P M A

Organizations are facing a dynamic environment tual scheme that contributes to a better
where the survival conditions are becoming draconian. operationalization of the Project Implementation
Their success is tributary to their capacity to adapt Profile (P.I.P.) instrument used in their study. In line
their structures and establish viable relations with their with the research of Tsui, 7'8 the construct validity of
surroundings. In this climate, administrators can no the human resources factor is examined and a model
longer ignore such influences and are obligated to proposed.
understand the factors which influence their activities,
objectives and effectiveness. 2
M a n y researchers agree that the human resource
S u m m a r y and criticism o f Pinto and Prescott's
function is one of the most crucial elements for an
organization's success. 3'4 Undoubtedly, today the study (1988)
h u m a n resource management ( H R M ) is renewing itself In the past, project management has gained increased
in the organizations 5-8 and affirming gradually its stra- attention a m o n g researchers in the field of organiz-
tegic role. However, in spite of this tendency, Pinto ation theory. ~°'54 According to some, project manage-
and Prescott 9 found surprising results in a relatively ment is today one of the most researched and
recent research. The authors conclude that the theorized topics in management. ~1 ~3 Among the main
Personnel factor, even if designated in theoretical lit- fields of interest, we can mention the training of the
erature as a crucial factor in project efficiency, is a project managers, ~4 the effectiveness of different project
marginal variable for project success (at any of the structures, ~5'~6 the project life cycles, ~7 and the identifi-
four project life cycles). These results contradict the cation of project critical success factor. 18'9 Increased
stream of H R M research in this topic. attention has been paid to this last point in recent
This paper reexamines Pinto and Prescott's findings 9 years. In line with this stream, Baker et al. 56 conducted
in order to clarify their surprising results. By doing so, empirical studies to synthesize a set of factors critical
we pay a particular attention to their theoretical to project success. They found seven factors related to
framework which still appear in a state of embryo. We perception. Slevin and Pinto, ~9 in their efforts to build
debate the flaws of their models which, we believe, led a conceptual model, addressed the generability issue by
to their controversial findings. Methodological incon- developing a framework of project implementation
sistencies are also discussed. We then present a concep- and a diagnostic instrument for the project manager.

21
Project effectiveness and success: A Belout

Table 1 In addition, as the authors mention in their discus-

l-Project mission 6-Momtoring and feed back sion, the items "comprising the Personnel scale are not
2-Project schedule 7-Communication useful from a construct validity standpoint for asses-
3-Chent consultation 8-Trouble-shooting sing the factor of personnel (page 16)". This may
4 Technical tasks 9-Personnel (recrmtment, explain the non effect of 'Personnel factor'. Finally,
selection and training). the questionnaires were mailed to 586 members of the
5 Client acceptance 10 Management support
Project Management Institute (PMI), which is essen-
tially a national organization of project managers.
This instrument, called Project Implementation Profile This means that essentially project managers have
(P.I.P.), was developed through field research. It evaluated the personnel factor. In this sense, the P.I.P.
measures 10 critical factors related to project success instrument does not evaluate the training, the motiv-
(Table 1). Two years later, Pinto and Prescott 9 con- ation, the experience, the commitment of the project
ducted a study to investigate changes in the import- managers as independent variables. This is another
ance of project critical success in the project life cycle. weakness in the research because the project managers
Their principal research question was: are considered in project management literature as a
central actors for success and effectiveness.
Are project implementation critical success factors of
equal and stable importance over the life of a project,
or does their relative importance (weighting) change as
the project moves through different stages of completion H u m a n resources and project management: toward
(page 6)? a conceptual framework
Projects usually involve attention to a variety of
The authors concluded that the 'Personnel factor' human, budgetary and technical variables. Although
was the only factor that was not significant at any of many definitions exist, most researchers agree that pro-
the four life cycle stages. Based on the extensive litera- jects generally possess the following characteristics:
ture stressing the importance of human factor in or- limited budget; date for completion; quality standards,
ganizational success, we question these results. and a series of complex and interrelated activities (gen-
More specifically, this study can be challenged on erally project structure or matrix structure)*. From a
the following grounds: review of the literature on project management, many
researchers and practitioners consider performance,
1. No theory,was advanced for the inclusion of H R M
effectiveness and success as synonyms. 15'16 This con-
in their model. Furthermore, no effort was deployed
to define the components of project human resource fusion in the definitions of these concepts is widely
management. Additionally, Pinto and Prescott, 9 reported in organizational theoryfl ~
tried to understand and to justify why 'Personnel'
had no effect on project success and concluded that The concept o f project's success (dependent variable)
in this type of organizational structure, qualified
It appears that it is the different conceptualizations of
personnel is "usually the rule rather than the excep-
organizations and their roles that lead to various
tion (pagel6)". This contradict other research in
models of effectiveness such as the "Goals models", z2
this topic which point to the contrary. 2°'14
the "Legitimacy models", 23 the "Internal processes or
2. The dependent variable 'project's success' lacks rig-
internal functioning approach", 24 the "System resource
orous definition and its measurement is not precise.
models", 25 the "Strategic constituencies models". 26
Furthermore, the authors present limited infor-
Each of these perceptions leads to different definitions
mation about the validity of their measure. The lat-
of organizational effectiveness and criteria. As
ter is very critical since a debate exists about the
Connoly et al. 27 reported, the central differentiation
complexity of this [Link]
among current effectiveness statements is in how they
3. From a methodological perspective, many aspects
specify the evaluative criteria used to define "how well
appeared to lack rigour. Even if the Cronbach
the entity is performing or could perform (page 211)".
alpha scores used in this study to assess raeasure re-
Historically, projects have been managed as techni-
liabilities for 10 critical success factors ranged from
cal systems instead of behavioral systems. The focus
0.70 to 0.90, the authors recognized serious multi-
was concentrated on the results with a mechanistic
collinearity problems. The correlation matrix pre-
approach. 28 Thus, the main objective was in general to
sented in page 11 of their article showed that the
attain target dates, to achieve financial plans and to con-
independent variables were strongly intercorrelated
trol the quality of the final product. 16 Success, effective-
(Pinto and Prescottg). They tried to resolve this pro-
ness and performance were related to these 3 principal
blem by 'Ridge Regression'; however they pointed
criteria. Gobeli and Larson, 15 in their study about the
out that this procedure produces biased estimates
effectiveness of different project structures, stress that
(Pinto and Prescott, 9 page 12). Thus, this methodo-
these criteria were each rated by respondents as the
logical issue may have invalidated their findings.
most important one for assessing effectiveness. The
foundation of this tradition in project context corre-
*Note: In the first structure, we describe an orgamzation m which a spond to a particular conception of organizations and
substantial proportion of the human and physical resources are a whole management philosophy (a project culture
under the direct control of the project manager; the second structure according to Elmes and Wilemon) 29 where effectiveness
we describe an orgamzation m which the project manager must bor-
row the bulk of the resources that he needs from functional orgamz- is related to the achievement of the goals. This tra-
ation. dition and tendency is perfectly compatible with the

22
 ProJect effectiveness and success: A Belout

Table 2
Frequency of mention (percentage of 14 papers
Success criterion Description reviewed)

Technical performance To what extend the technical requirements

specified at the commencement of the execuUon 93%
phase were achieved
Effioency of project execution The degree to which targets of time and cost
were met 93%
Managerial and organizational implications A mesure of client, parent and user satisfaction,
incorporatmg the degree to whtch the project
was carried out without disturbing corporate 43%
culture or values
Personal growth The satisfacuon of the project team, particularly
in terms of interest, challenge, and professional 29%
development
Project termination The completeness of the termination, the
absence of post-project problems, and the 14%
quahty of post-audit analysts
Technical innovativeness The success in identifying techmcal problems
during the project and solving them 14%
Manufacturability and business performance The ease with which the product resulting from
the project can be manufactured, and its 43%
commercial performance

conception of the "goals model which define effective- cant amount of skill, knowledge and attention to
ness by the degree of achievement of their goals." human resources. Managing people effectively influ-
In this optic, 'success' is corresponding to the effec- ences many results of a project. For instance, the im-
tiveness and the efficiency of the project. According to portance of training in project management context is
Brudney and England, 3° efficiency is broadly under- widely reported in the literature. 31'2°'~4 Hubbard 32
stood as the maximization of output for a given level underlined that the major project failures are usually
of input or resources while effectiveness is directed to sociological; these issues included unqualified staff, in-
the achievement of goals or objectives. Usually, success adequate training, inexperienced management etc.
represents a level of satisfaction expressed by the pro- Some researchers as Todryk 33 reveal that the project
ject manager in reference to the three criteria men- manager training is a key factor for increasing effec-
tioned above. This could be qualified as the traditional tiveness because he/she could be a team builder and
and the mechanistic approach to effectiveness in pro- create an effective team. Thornberry 34 and Rogers 35
ject context. Today however, we note an evolution of argued that the organizational behavior, the lack of
these concepts. Besides the traditional focus, concerns training in the planning process and the misdirected
for other criteria are analyzed. For instance, Freeman priorities affect directly the success in project context.
and Beale 18 identified seven criteria for measuring the As a large organizational literature reveals, the success
success of projects (Table 2). in organizations can never be reached without a quali-
They revealed that the evaluation of the success fied and motivated personnel. 36.37,6 At another level,
(effectiveness of the project) will vary with the type of Van de Ven and Koening 55 have proposed a qualitat-
rater. The authors proposed also that project success ive model which integrates the competencies required
could be measured from three viewpoints: sponsor's at any project stage. Afiesmama, 38 in his effort to
view, project manager's view and sponsor as project develop a quantitative framework, insists about the
manager's view. Therefore, success could be defined as crucial step in project context of assessing and fore-
the level of satisfaction expressed by at least one of the casting human resources needs. Considering that
three actors mentioned by Freeman and Beale t8 on the Prescott's study could be an embryo for future studies
basis of the seven criteria identified in Table 2. As well, and theoretical developments, we propose to retest the
users's satisfaction could be factored when necessary. impact of the ten independent variables (see Pinto and
This is a more innovative definition of success and Prescott 9) on the dependent variable of our model
effectiveness because it can provide (for instance from (Figure 1). Our general proposition H I is : The
the sponsors) information on the background, the ex- Personnel factor will affect significantly the project's
perience and the abilities of the project manager. From success.
users's view, it can provide information about the To test this proposition, researchers should modify
post-project problems and precise how much the pro- the 'Personnel' factor and clarify its construct validity.
ject has filled the need of the clients (Table 2, see man- Some knowledge of the personnel construct is available
agerial and organizational implications). in standard personnel textbooks 39,4° or in a conceptual
models of human resources. 4~ However, because of
their validity, we propose to use and adapt the eight
The independent variables
dimensions identified by Tsui and Milkovich 42, 7 (see
Undoubtedly, effectiveness is the central aim of every Table 3, points 1 to 8).
organization. The most productive companies in the The internal consistency reliability estimates (of
USA manage their human resources in ways that are these dimensions) were high across all the samples (all
different from less productive organizations. 6 To be coefficients exceeded 0.75 with a median 0.87).
effective in today's highly competitive environment, Further, their construct validity was demonstrated in
project management activities needs to devote a signifi- many empirical studies. 7' 4 2 - 4 4 This instrument could

23
Project effectiveness and success: A Belout

The intervening variables

, Project life cycles ]
M a n y academics argued that life cycles affect organiz-
Project mission | ational effectiveness. 46,47 In project management, this
Project schedule ~.~ _ ~ - ~ * concept is also very popular and has catched the atten-
Client consultation L .... - ~ - _ - - Dependent vanable
tion of m a n y researchers. As Pinto and Prescott 9 men-
tion, one of the most accepted project life cycle has
Technical tasks J_ _ _ ~ - ~ , ,
_ _ - ~ - f f r o j e c t succes been proposed by King and Cleland 48 and Adams and
Clientacceptance J I - . . . . ~-~fj~:~
Barndt. ~7 Four stages were identified: conceptualiz-
Monitor-inN __IL ..... ~- _ - . - ation, planning, execution and termination. Each pro-
Communication ~l-- ~ - . ject stage implies a different intensity of effort, a
i Trouble-shooting I - different type of task and kind of actors. Thus, the
] Management st~p_~p_ort I- variations of these cycles could eventually have an in-
fluence on success. According to Adams and Barndt ~7
personnel J
T and Pinto and Prescott 9 the effect of the critical factors
[ ,,o ec, I on success vary when the project cycles change. That
explains why, for instance, technical tasks have an in-
Figure 1 fluence on success only in the execution and termin-
ation stages. Accordingly, these findings suppose that
'project life cycles" could be considered as an interven-
eventually be completed by two items belonging to the ing variable. Indeed, Kervin 49 reports that " M o d e r a t o r
personnel factor in the P.I,P. (such as the commitment variables affect how a primary or a key independent
of the project team and the job description variable covaries with the dependent variable. A mod-
clearness, Table 3, points 9 and 10). Finally, as we erator variable (M) affects the degree or form of the
underlined in the precedent section, it is crucial to inte- relationship between an independent (X) and depen-
grate the training of the project manager in order to dent (Y) variable: M affects X - Y (page 167)". In this
evaluate its influence on the success (Table 3, point sense, we expect that the independent variables derived
11). In case of multicollinearity (as noted by Pinto and from the P.I.P. and discussed in the precedent section
Prescott's study), we propose to conduct a factor are under a moderator influence when they affect pro-
analysis in order to extract some factors. According to ject success (Figure 1). Due to the fact that the selec-
2 recent Canadian studies using Tsui's dimensions to tion of human resources, the employee support and
evaluate the effectiveness of human resources manage- the legal requirements are crucial at the beginning of
ment in large industries, it appears that these dimen- every project and because the training, the commit-
sions could be reduced into 2 principal components ment and the policy adherence are so important at the
based on a factor analysis. 43' 45 Factor 1 measured other stages of the project, our proposition H2 is: The
more traditional human resources activities and was relation between the independent variables and the
labelled HR; factor 2 measured dimensions pertaining project's success of the model will be positively affected
to more traditional labour relations and was labelled by the four project life cycles.
LR. On the other hand, during the last decade, the study
of the structural impact of organizations has won
more and more attention on a theoretical base to
measure their effectiveness. 46'5° In project management,
one of the most interesting investigation was the
Table 3 Tsui's dimensions for assessing human resources manage-
merit7 Gobeli and Larson study. Is The authors pointed out
that each organizational structure in project context
(1) Staffing/human resource planning: recrmtment, selection, has its strengths and weakness. According to them, the
forecasting human resource demands and supplies, career
planning... type of structure chosen will significantly affect the
(2) Organization/employee development (organizational needs success of the project (page 81). Their aim was to
analysis, job needs analysis, person needs analysis, programs assess the relative effectiveness of five structures:
and budgets for training Functional, Functional matrix, Balanced matrix,
(3) Compensation/employee relations; efforts to implement
policy and equal pay, process salary acuons, commumcate to Project matrix and Project team. In their findings, they
management the strategy related to employee relatmns, carried out that the project matrix and the project
provide advice and counsel to management on employee team were rated as the most effective. These structures
relations problems, try to avoid conflicts among affect the project manager roles 17"51 the coordination of
employees... the activities, the intensity of the conflicts 52 and (by
(4) Employee support: all actions conducted by the direction of
the project to help employees m their work to reform them this process) amplify or reduce indirectly the effective-
and assist them in case of need ness of the project. At this level, our proposition H3 is:
(5) Legal requirement/comphance: efforts to treat employees The more the structure adopted in projects will be a
fairly according to their contracts, to legislation 'project team' oriented, the more the relation among
(6) Labor/union: efforts in order to negotiate labor agreement
with union,administer labor [Link] labor the independent variable and the dependent variable
strategy with union will be positively affected (intervening effect).
(7) Policy adherence: assure proper administration and
disciplinary procedures, ensure equitable administration
(8) Administrative services
(9) Commitment of the project team Conclusion
(10) Job descriptions clearness A central concern of project management is the
(11) Training of project managers
improvement of its conceptual foundations. As Fabi

24
 Project effectiveness and success: A Belout

and Petersen revealed, 53 human resources management 16. McCollum, J. and Sherman, D The matrix structure: B a n e o r
benefit to high tech organizaUons. Project Management Journal
in project context is still elementary. Publications are
14(2), 1993, 23-26.
relatively rare, the majority of the researchs is simply a 17. Adams, J. R. and Barndt, S. E., Behavioral Implications of the
case study or expert's reports. The effort in future Project Life Cycle. In Project Management Handbook, eds D. 1
research should concentrate on overcoming the gaps Clelend and W. R. Kings, New York, 1983, pp. 183-204.
that charaterizes the P.I.P. instrument and improve the 18. Freeman, M. and Beale, P. Measuring project success. Project
Mangement Journal 13(1), 1992, 9-16.
theoretical foundation in this topic. Researchers should 19. Slevin, D. P. and Pinto, J. K. The project implementation pro-
attempt to retest the conclusions of Pinto and file: New tool for project managers. Project Management
Prescott 9 that corroborate a non impact of the Journal 18, 1986, 57-71.
'Personnel factor' on project success. Specifically, they 20. Kerzner, H., Formal education for project management. Project
should emphasize two fundamental questions: (1) is Management Quarterly, 1979, 38-44.
21. Cameron, K. S. and Whetten, D., Organizational effectiveness.
personnel a significant factor for project's success? and A comparison of Multiple Models. Academic Press New York,
(2): does the organizational structures and the project 1983.
life cycles have an intervening effect on the relation 22. Cameron, K. S. Critical questions in assessing organizational
among the independent variables and the project's suc- effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics 9, 1980, 66-80.
cess? Traditionally many key variables affecting the 23. Miles, R. H. and Cameron, K. S., Co~n Nails and Corporate
Strategws. Englewood Cliffs New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1982.
project effectiveness have not been integrated in the 24. Benms, W. G., The concept of organizational health. In
same studies. In this sense, the integration in the pro- Changing Orgamzatlons, ed W. G. Bennis. McGraw-Hill, New
posed model of the intervening impact (structures and York, 1966.
the life cycles), two fundamental variables in project 25. Seashore, S. E. and Yuchtman, E. E., Factorial analysis of or-
g a n i z a t i o n a l performance. Administrative Science Quarterly (12),
management, will be a first step for a real theoretical 1967, 377-395.
improvements to this topic. 26. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R., The External Control of
Organizations. Harper and Row, New York, 1978.
27. Connoly, T., Conlon, E. J. and Deutsh, S. J. Organizational
effectiveness: A multiple constituency approach. Academy of
Acknowledgements Management Review 5(2), 1980, 211-217.
28. Murdick, R. G. and Shuster, F. E. Managing human resources
in project management. Project Management Quarterly 7(2),
I wish to acknowlege the financial support of the 1976, 21-25.
University of Montreal (CAFIR grants) and the com- 29. Elmes, M. and Wilemon, D. Organizational culture and project
ments of professor Gary Latham (Faculty of leader effectiveness. Project Management Journal 19(4), 1988,
Management, University of Toronto, Ontario, 54-63.
30. Brudney, J. L. and England, R. E. Urban policy making and
Canada). subjevtive service evaluaUons: Are they compatible Public
Administration Review 42(2), 1982, 127 135.
31. Baker, J. T., Josvold, D. and Andrews, R., Conflicts
approaches of effective and ineffective project managers: a field
References study in a matrix organization. Journal of Management Studies,
1. Stuckenbruck, L. C., Project management framework. Project 1988.
Management Journal, August 1986, pp. 25 29. 32. Hubbard, D. Successful utility project management from les-
2. Dolan, S. L. and Schuler, R., Human Resource Management" sons learned. Project Management Journal 11(3), 1990, 19-23.
The Canadian Dynamw. Scarborough. Nelson Canada, 1994. 33. Todryk, L. The project manager as a team builder: Creatmg an
3. Fitz-Enz, J., How to Measure Human Resource Management. effective team. Project Management Journal 16(4), 1990, 17-21.
McGraw Hill, New York, 1984. 34 Thornberry, N. E. Training the engineers as project manager.
4. Ulrich, D. Organizational capability as a competitwe advan- Training and Development Journal 10(4), 1987, 60 62.
tage: Human resource professionals as strategic partners. 35 Rogers, L. Project team training: A proven key to organiz-
Human Resource Planning 10(4), 1987, 169-184. ational teamwork and breakthrough in planning performance.
5. Crozier, M., L'Entreprise a(c) l'Fcoute. Inter Editions (Semi), Project Management Journal It(2), 1990, 9-17.
Paris, 1994. 36. Goldstein, 1. L. et Associ6s, Training and Development in
6. Schuler, R., Managing Human Resources, 5th edn. West Organtzattons. J.C.L. Inc. Publishers, 1989.
Publishing company, New York, 1994. 37. Peters, J. M. and Waterman, R. H., Le Prix de l'Excellence.
7. Tsui, A. Defining the activities and effectiveness of the human Ga~tan Morro Edit., Paris, 1983.
resources department: A multiple constituency approach. 38. Afiesmama, B. T., Aggregate manpower requirements for stra-
Human Resource Management 26(1), 1987, 35-69. tegic project planning. Computers Ind. Eng. 4 (12), 249-262.
8. Tsui, A. A multiple-constituency model of effectiveness: An 39. Heneman, H. G., Schwab, D., Fossum, J. and Dyer, L.,
empirical examination at the human resource subunit level. Personnel/Human Resources Management, 2nd edn. Homewood
Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 1990, 458-483. I11. Richard D. Irwin Inc., 1984.
9. Pinto, J. K. and Prescott, J. Variations m success factors over 40. Milkovich, G. T. and Glueck, W., Personnel: A Diagnostic
the stages in the project life cycle. Journal of Management Approach. Dallas, Business Publications Inc., 1985.
14(1), 1988, 5-18. 41 Miles, R. E. and Snow, C. C., Designing strategic human
10. Genest, B. A. and Nguyen, T., Princtpes et Techniques de la ges- resources systems. Orgamzational Dynamtcs, 1984, 36-52.
tion de projets. Edit. Sigma Delta, 1990. 42. Tsui, A. and Milkovich, G. T., Dimensions of personnel depart-
I1. Beck, D. R., Implementing top Management Plans through ment activities: an empirical study, Working Paper, Duke
Project Management. In Project Management Handbook, eds D. University, 1985.
I. Clelend and W. R. Kings. New York, 1983, pp. 166-184. 43. Dolan, S. L., Gregoriades, C. and Belout, A., The effectweness
12. Katz, R. The effects of group longevity on project communi- of human resources departments in the Quebec Pulp and Paper
cation and performances. Administrative Science Quarterly 27, Industry: a multiple constituency approach. Actes du
1982, 81-104. Congre(c)s de l'Association des Sciences Administratives du
13. Nun, P. C. Implementation approaches to project planmng. Canada (ASAC), Windsor, 1995.
Academy of Management Review 8, 1983, 600-61 I. 44. Tsui, A. and Milkovlch, G. T. Personnel department activities:
14. Thamhain, H. J. Developping project management skills. Constituency perspectives and preferences. Personnel
Project Management Journal 12(3), 1991, 39-44. Psychology 40, 1987, 519-537.
15. Gobeli, D. and Larson, W. Relative effectiveness of different 45. Belout, A. and Dolan, S., L'6valuation des directions des
project structures. Project Management Journal 18(2), 1987, 81- r e s s o u r c e s humaines par l'approche 'Multiple constituency': une
85. &ude empirique. Actes du lOe Congre(c)s de l'Instttut

25
Project effectiveness and success." A Belout

International de l'Audit Social de Paris (I.A.S.), Universit6 d'6t& 56 Baker, B. N., Murphy, D. C. and Fisher, D., Factors affectmg
France, 1994, pp. 57 66. project management. In Project Management Handbook, eds D.
46. Cameron, K. S and Whetten, D Perceptions of organizational I. Cleland and W. R. Kings. N.Y., 1983, 669 685.
effectiveness over organizational life cycles Admtmstrattve
Science Quarter O, 26, 1981, 525 544.
47 Chandler, A D., Strategy and Structure. Cambridge, MIT
Press, 1962 Dr. Adnane Belout obtained in 1987
48. King, W. R. and Cleland, D 1., Life cycle management In a Master o/" Sciences degree in
Prolect Management Handbook, eds D. 1. Cleland and W R. Project Management from the
Kings. New York, 1983, pp. 209 221. Unlversi O' o[ Qu¢~hec at Montreal
49. Kervin, J. B , Methods Jbr Business Reasearch. Harper colhns and a Doctorate degree ( Ph.D ) in
Publishers, 1992. hutastrtal Relations (theories ~!
50. Mlntzberg, H , Structure et [Link] des Orgamsatlons management functions and human
Edit. d'Organlsation, Pans, 1984. resource management) /rom the
51. Petersen, N. Selecting project managers: An integrated ll~t of Unive~sl O' (~[ Montreal. Canada, in
predictors. Project Management Journal 2(22), 1991, 21 26. 1994. He is currently assistant pro-
52. Thamhaln, H. J. and Wilemon, D. C., Conflict management in /essor o/ management and human
Project Life Cycles, Sloan Management Review (17), 1975, 31- resource management at the School
50. o[" Industrial Relatton~ ( UniverstO'
53. Fabi, B. and Petersen, N. H u m a n resource m a n a g e m e n t prac- o[ Montreal). For the last 8 years,
tices in project m a n a g e m e n t International Journal o[ PJolect he has been teachmg courses tn
Management 10(2), 1992, 81-87 human resource management, orgamzattonal behavtour and in pro-
54. Gullet, R. Personnel m a n a g e m e n t m project organization. lect management. Hta research interests [ocus on prolect manage-
Pubhc Personnel Review 1(3), 1972, 17 22. ment and human resource managenlent issues. Dr. Be[out is
55. Van de Ven, A. H. and Koemg, R. A process model for pro- current O' revolved m several projecta financed by the World Bank
gram planning and evaluation. Journal o/ Economics and as an adviser, aucht agent attd trainer m the area o[ prolect man-
Business 28( 11 ), 1976, 161-170. agement.

26