PMBoK vs. PRINCE2 in the context of Polish construction projects: Structural Equation Modelling approach

IF 1 Q3 ENGINEERING, CIVIL Archives of Civil Engineering Pub Date : 2023-11-06 DOI:10.24425/ace.2021.137185
Janusz Sobieraj, Dominik Metelski, Paweł Nowak
{"title":"PMBoK vs. PRINCE2 in the context of Polish construction projects: Structural Equation Modelling approach","authors":"Janusz Sobieraj, Dominik Metelski, Paweł Nowak","doi":"10.24425/ace.2021.137185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses the approaches of Polish construction managers in terms of their preferences for the use of the two most popular project management (PM) standards and methodologies, namely PMBoK and PRINCE2. Our empirical survey was carried out in a group of managers and construction experts and involved 192 Polish SME companies from the Polish construction sector. The answers to the questionnaire were carefully analysed and interpreted with the use of the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Method. The results show what can affect the choice of management methodology, with a particular focus on such latent variables as PM flexibility, rigidity, knowledge and control. Our study provides empirical evidence which contributes to more effective management of investment projects undertaken by construction companies. The most important conclusions from our study are that PMBoK is more likely tied to flexibility and knowledge and PRINCE2 to rigidity and control. However, it does not necessarily mean that PMBoK has an advantage over PRINCE2. Simply put, the choice of the right methodology may depend on a number of other additional factors, such as: project size, its specific environmental conditions, size of a company implementing specific project, etc. Therefore, under certain conditions (e.g. for larger and more complex projects, etc.) it may be advisable to rely on the PRINCE2 methodology.","PeriodicalId":45753,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Civil Engineering","volume":"16 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Civil Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24425/ace.2021.137185","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

This paper discusses the approaches of Polish construction managers in terms of their preferences for the use of the two most popular project management (PM) standards and methodologies, namely PMBoK and PRINCE2. Our empirical survey was carried out in a group of managers and construction experts and involved 192 Polish SME companies from the Polish construction sector. The answers to the questionnaire were carefully analysed and interpreted with the use of the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Method. The results show what can affect the choice of management methodology, with a particular focus on such latent variables as PM flexibility, rigidity, knowledge and control. Our study provides empirical evidence which contributes to more effective management of investment projects undertaken by construction companies. The most important conclusions from our study are that PMBoK is more likely tied to flexibility and knowledge and PRINCE2 to rigidity and control. However, it does not necessarily mean that PMBoK has an advantage over PRINCE2. Simply put, the choice of the right methodology may depend on a number of other additional factors, such as: project size, its specific environmental conditions, size of a company implementing specific project, etc. Therefore, under certain conditions (e.g. for larger and more complex projects, etc.) it may be advisable to rely on the PRINCE2 methodology.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
波兰建筑项目背景下的PMBoK与PRINCE2:结构方程建模方法
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Archives of Civil Engineering
Archives of Civil Engineering ENGINEERING, CIVIL-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
28.60%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: ARCHIVES OF CIVIL ENGINEERING publish original papers of the theoretical, experimental, numerical and practical nature in the fields of structural mechanics, soil mechanics and foundations engineering, concrete, metal, timber and composite polymer structures, hydrotechnical structures, roads, railways and bridges, building services, building physics, management in construction, production of construction materials, construction of civil engineering structures, education of civil engineers.
期刊最新文献
Shape identification of the jet-grouted column based on the thermal analysis and differential evolution Permeability of sandy soils estimated from particle size distribution and field measurements Proactive-reactive repetitive project scheduling method – the concept of risk consideration at the project planning and execution stage Laboratory tests of pull-off strength of chosen USPs attached to concrete sleepers Behaviour of soil-steel composite structures during construction and service: a review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1