H.G. Mooi
Please Note
5 records found
1
Project Steering Committee members and project success
A quantitative study on individual responsibilities, shared goals and mutual trust
Projects that pose high risks to the funding or owning organizations, or those that require support, need oversight by senior managers. This is typically conducted through a Project Steering Committee (PSC). PSC members each have individual responsibilities stemming from the permanent and temporary (project) organizations. The PSC needs shared goals and mutual trust to balance those responsibilities. The relationship between PSC members acting according to individual responsibilities, shared goals, mutual trust and project success is unclear. This paper quantitatively tests these relationships and verifies the use of roles for members.
Design/methodology/approach
A conceptual model of the relationship between PSC members acting according to individual responsibilities and project success is tested using a survey with 178 valid responses. Additionally, the survey gathers opinions of PSC members and project managers on PSCs.
Findings
PSC members acting from individual responsibilities positively affect project success regardless of the degree of shared goals and mutual trust. Four representation roles are generally covered: funders, user groups, suppliers and groups that maintain the project’s products.
Originality/value
The study is unique in including PSC members as respondents. PSC members are agents for their stakeholder group and, at the group level, for the funding and owning organization. The study confirms the value of four stakeholder-representation roles for members. It emphasizes the importance of defining clear and distinct individual responsibilities for members, rather than focusing solely on shared goals and mutual trust. ...
Projects that pose high risks to the funding or owning organizations, or those that require support, need oversight by senior managers. This is typically conducted through a Project Steering Committee (PSC). PSC members each have individual responsibilities stemming from the permanent and temporary (project) organizations. The PSC needs shared goals and mutual trust to balance those responsibilities. The relationship between PSC members acting according to individual responsibilities, shared goals, mutual trust and project success is unclear. This paper quantitatively tests these relationships and verifies the use of roles for members.
Design/methodology/approach
A conceptual model of the relationship between PSC members acting according to individual responsibilities and project success is tested using a survey with 178 valid responses. Additionally, the survey gathers opinions of PSC members and project managers on PSCs.
Findings
PSC members acting from individual responsibilities positively affect project success regardless of the degree of shared goals and mutual trust. Four representation roles are generally covered: funders, user groups, suppliers and groups that maintain the project’s products.
Originality/value
The study is unique in including PSC members as respondents. PSC members are agents for their stakeholder group and, at the group level, for the funding and owning organization. The study confirms the value of four stakeholder-representation roles for members. It emphasizes the importance of defining clear and distinct individual responsibilities for members, rather than focusing solely on shared goals and mutual trust.
Sustainability is one of the most important challenges of our time. Projects play a pivotal role in the realization of more sustainable business practices and the concept of sustainability has also been linked to project management. However, how managers of projects consider sustainability in their operational daily work is still to be explored. This paper uses Q-methodology to investigate the consideration of sustainability aspects in the decision making processes of project managers. The research question was How are dimensions of sustainability considered in the decision-making processes of project managers in relation to the triple constraint of time, cost and quality? Based on the Q-sort of selected respondents, the study found that the consideration of sustainability principles is underrepresented, compared to the triple constraint criteria. However, the analysis of the individual Q-sorts revealed four distinct perspectives that differ significantly in their consideration of sustainability principles and triple constraint criteria.
Head impact location, angle and velocity during side impact
A study based on virtual testing
One of the current activities of EEVC Working Group 13 (WG-13) "Side Impact Test Procedures" is to develop a test procedure for Free Motion Head impact tests supplementary to the full-scale mobile deformable barrier (MDB) test specified in ECE Regulation 95. Amongst the factors needed for development of the test procedure, is the determination of "worst case" test conditions for specifying contact point and approach angle. The goal of this research project was to give an objective prediction of head impact location, related head impact angle and impact speed for small, average and large sized belted front occupants in realistic seating positions in a wide range of side impact crash scenarios. Head contact at A-pillar, B-pillar and Roof-rail in two vehicle types (light / heavy) and for different interior dimensions were studied. The prediction of head impact location, velocity and angle was realized by means of virtual testing using MADYMO. Simple but efficient multi-body vehicle models were used in combination with human body models. In this study head impact horizontal and vertical angles were found between 50 deg and 115 deg and between -35 deg and -5 deg respectively. The corresponding head impact velocities were between 3 and 9 m/s, with an average value of 6.7 m/s.