The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0140-9174.htm

Project management tools

and techniques in
high-technology SMEs
Alan Murphy and Ann Ledwith

Project
management
tools
153

Enterprise Research Centre, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to examine the use of project management practices in small
high-technology firms and to identify what contributes to project success.
Design/methodology/approach The results presented in this paper are based on a survey of
Irish high-technology small-to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). A questionnaire was distributed to
over 200 organisations via e-mail and a response rate of 20 per cent was achieved.
Findings Results suggest that the existence of a project manager and the use of project planning
significantly contribute to project success. Control for projects resides primarily with ownermanagers and achieving quality standards is a significant success criterion. Additionally, having
clear goals/objectives and top management support are identified as the most important success
factors in the firms surveyed.
Research limitations/implications This paper presents the findings of an initial investigation
into the management of projects within SMEs. The study has been limited by the number of
respondents and also by the use of a survey as a research instrument. Further research to develop a
deeper understanding of how projects are managed in SMEs and how project success can be
improved would require a more varied research methodology.
Practical implications Findings suggest that project management tools and techniques are being
used to a limited extent by high-technology SMEs. Analysis suggests that the employment of a
project manager and the implementation of project planning techniques are likely to contribute to the
overall success of projects. SMEs also strongly believe that past experiences are a vital factor in
implementing effective management procedures and determining future success.
Originality/value While most research into the use of project management has concentrated on
practices within large firms, there has been a lack of investigation into project management in small
firms as addressed by this paper.
Keywords Project management, Technology led strategy, Small to medium-sized enterprises
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Project management is a well-established discipline that defines in detail the tools and
techniques that are required to define, plan, and implement any project. However, while
many researchers have addressed the issues surrounding the management of projects
within large firms (White and Fortune, 2002; Bryde, 2003), there has not been much
published to date about the management of projects in small-to medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs).
This paper examines previous empirical studies on project management
implementation in various industry sectors and the success criteria and factors most
frequently adopted. The paper also examines the results of a survey distributed to 200
owner/managers of high-technology SMEs in Ireland that attempts to recognise the
general characteristics of projects undertaken by SMEs, the issues they encounter and
their opinions on how SMEs can use project management to achieve greater efficiency
and competitiveness.
SMEs, ranging from the dynamic, innovative and growth-oriented to the traditional
enterprises satisfied to remain static, are critical to the economy as an engine of

Management Research News

Vol. 30 No. 2, 2007
pp. 153-166
# Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0140-9174
DOI 10.1108/01409170710722973

MRN
30,2

154

economic and social development (Hallberg, 1999). Increased importance has been
given to SMEs within European Union (EU) industrial policy (Floyd and McManus,
2005). According to the European Competitiveness Report of 2003, SMEs account for
99 per cent of activity in the EU. The focus on high-technology SMEs derives from
their importance to the Irish economy with their capacity for generating employment
and promoting innovation (Warren and Hutchinson, 2000).
Project management is a well-established well area of professional expertise and
academic research aimed at encouraging improvement in a system (White and Fortune,
2002). Project management offers a systematic approach to all stages of a project by
ensuring that every step is carefully planned, monitored, and measured. Although
initially intended for application in large organisations with complex systems that
require such a process (Baccarini, 1999), modern methods of project management can
be adapted and altered to suit the needs of the smaller organisations.
This paper aims to develop an understanding of project characteristics and how they
are managed within SMEs, what factors enhance project success and the perception of
the potential of project management as a process. These findings will contribute to the
development of a simplified approach to managing projects in SMEs.
Characteristics of SMEs
The definition of an SME has varied over time and there has been a lack of consensus
about what constitutes a small or medium sized firm (McAdam et al., 2005). For the
purpose of this research, using the European Commissions definition, SMEs have fewer
than 250 employees, a turnover of less than E250 million and/or an annual balance sheet
less than E43 million. The above definition also considers the potential relationships that
exist between SMEs and other enterprises defining three categories of SMEs
autonomous, partner, and linked. Most SMEs are autonomous meaning that they are
completely independent or have only minority partnerships (less than 25 per cent). For
practical reasons within this study SMEs were defined by their staff count and annual
turnover. This approach has been adopted in many previous empirical studies (Johnson
and Turner, 2000; Hudson et al., 2001; Gray and Mabey, 2005; McAdam et al., 2005).
SMEs exhibit both advantages and disadvantages when compared to larger
organisations. Many SMEs have a greater potential flexibility and closeness to the
customer and an edge towards customisation and innovation (Audretsch et al., 1998).
They seek out markets where their advantages count and they are not in direct
competition with their larger counterparts. However, despite these key advantages,
SMEs lack economies of scale, scope, and learning.
SMEs also exhibit behavioural features that give them an innovative advantage over
large firms these include the ability to respond rapidly to external threats or
opportunities, more efficient internal communications and interactive management cycles
(Edwards et al., 2001). However, Rothwell (1992) found that SMEs were limited in their
ability to innovate as they, lack the material and technological resources that enable large
firms to spread risk over a portfolio of new products and fund longer-term R&D.
Yet is has been shown that project managers in small firms were weak in the areas
of motivation, marketing, and management (Ledwith, 2004). Small firms demonstrated
limited use of project management techniques and were not benefiting from project
management in terms of increased new product success. Despite this result it was
observed that by improving project planning, establishing clear priorities and setting
clear objectives, small electronics firms could improve new product development
performance by reducing project delivery times.

High-technology firms are predominantly founded by technical entrepreneurs who

form a business based on the discovery and belief in a new product (Oakey and
Mukhtar, 1999). High-technology SMEs are characterised by long lead times from basic
research to industrial application and short lead times in commercialisation. They
suffer accelerated obsolescence under global competitive pressures from new product
and process innovations (Litvak, 1992). High-technology SMEs tend to have
entrepreneurial management styles with organic structures and their success is often
based upon sound knowledge of the business, highly skilled employees and the ability
to spot a gap in the marketplace (Warren and Hutchinson, 2000).
Projects
The Project Management Institute (2000), define a project as a temporary, definitive
beginning and definitive end, endeavour undertaken to create a unique product or
service. Projects can be considered as the achievement of a specific objective and
involve the utilisation of resources on a series of activities or tasks. Munns and Bjeirmi
(1996), in their study on project success, differentiate between project success and
project management success. Their definition of a project suggests an orientation
towards longer-term goals such as return on investment, profitability and competition,
while project management focuses on short-term goals and a more specific context for
success. The following distinction between project success and project management
success (Cooke-Davies, 2002):
.

Project success is measured against the overall objectives of the project.

Project management success is measured against the widespread and traditional

measures of time, cost and quality.

Munns and Bjeirmi (1996) conclude that despite the differences between project success
and project management success they complement each other. A project can succeed
despite the failure of project management but successful project management
implementation can increase the potential for success on an overall project scale.
Project management
Project management has existed, in theory, for centuries with its informal application
by the Chinese and Egyptians in such feats as the Great Wall of China and the
Pyramids. However, modern project management is a recent phenomenon gaining
initial acceptance in the rapid development of the information technology industry
(Fox, 2004).
The Project Management Institute (2000) provides a simplified definition of project
management as the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project
requirements.
The emergence of modern project management owes to three core stimuli
(Baccarini, 1999):
(1) Complexity Growing complexity of tasks and a need for a greater degree of
specialisation.
(2) Change Increasingly dynamic environments with constant pressure within
organisations to implement change due to global competition.
(3) Time Demand for tasks to be completed as quickly as possible.

Project
management
tools
155

MRN
30,2

Over time modern project management has emerged as a discipline that has constantly
remoulded itself to allow for expansion in its practice. Crawford et al. (2005) suggest
that as a discipline, project management is dynamic facing new challenges, as tools,
methods and approaches to management that comprise the discipline are applied to
different areas, for different ends, and in different cultures.

156

Success criteria and success factors

When studying projects and their management a clear distinction should be made
between critical success criteria and critical success factors, for example:
Success criteria are the measures by which success or failure of a project will be
judged.
Success factors are the inputs to the management system that lead directly or
indirectly to the success of the project (Cooke-Davies, 2002).
This distinction is supported by Belassi and Tukel (1996) who recommend that
sound research on critical success factors has to:
.

Distinguish between success factors and success criteria.

Distinguish success factors within the control of the project manager and factors
outside his/her control.

Determination of a projects success criteria has recently become more complex (Belassi
and Tukel, 1996) with the traditional criteria of time, cost and performance no longer
sufficient. On any project, there can be numerous parties each with their own perception
of success. Pinto and Slevin (1989) recognised this ambiguity in determining project
success by concluding that it is still not clear how to measure success because the
parties who are involved in projects perceive project success or failure differently. For
the purpose of this study, senior managements perception of success was considered
based on their overwhelming influence in SME procedures.
Research has contributed to a significant quantity of factors that could be described
as critical to a projects outcome. But projects are individual and unique and each
project can have a different set of success factors. Belassi and Tukel (1996) stated that a
combination of many factors, at different stages of the project life cycle, result in
project success or failure. Table I outlines the key success criteria and success factors
seen to be most significant from previous empirical studies.
The three basic criteria of time, cost, and quality appear regularly in Table I.
Additionally, client satisfaction is seen as a significant factor in achieving overall
project success. Westerveld (2003) also considered the appreciation of the various
parties involved both directly and indirectly in the project.
The success factors listed in Table I include many items that could be implemented
within SMEs. But in considering the application of different success factors in SMEs
it is important to remember that SMEs are generally characterised as having basic
organisational structures with simple planning and control systems. This would
suggest that SMEs should adopt a simplified approach to managing projects. Having
reviewed the success factors in Table I, six were considered to have the greatest
potential benefit to SMEs:
(1) Clear goals/objectives
(2) Senior management support
(3) Resource allocation

Author

Success criteria

Success factors

Fortune and White (2006)

Not addressed

Top management support

Clear and realistic objectives
Efficient plan
Performance monitoring
Communications
Resources

Crawford et al. (2005)

Not addressed

Relationship management
Resource management
Time management
Cost management
Risk management

Westerveld (2003)

Budget, schedule, quality

appreciation by; client, project
personnel, users, contracting
partners and stakeholders

Leadership and team

Policy and strategy
Resources
Stakeholder management
Schedule
Risks

White and Fortune (2002)

Complete within schedule

Complete within budget
Meet Client requirements

Clear goals/objectives
Realistic schedule
Top management support
Adequate resources
Effective risk management
Clear communication
channels

Cooke-Davies (2002)

Not addressed

Risk management
Responsibilities plan
Scope change control process
Line of sight feedback
Learning from experience

Belassi and Tukel (1996)

Cost
Time
Quality
Client satisfaction

Clear goals/objectives
Top management support
Scheduling
Sufficient resources
Planning and control
Monitoring and feedback
Client consultaation

(4) Planning, monitoring and control

(5) Client consultation
(6) Risk management.
These six factors are investigated through a survey that measures the opinions of SME
owner/managers about the use project management within their organisations.
Methodology
A questionnaire was developed and distributed via e-mail to the owner-managers
of over 200 firms operating across many sectors that included medical devices,
telecommunications, electronics, and general engineering. A commercial business

Project
management
tools
157

Table I.
Literature review of
success criteria and
success factors

MRN
30,2

158

directory, Kompass, provides general information on organisations across Ireland

and was used as the source for the collection of organisations for the distribution list.
Selection of SMEs from the database was dependent on two factors; number of
employees and industry sector. In line with the SME definition provided earlier,
employment levels had to be less than 250 people. The study concentrated on hightechnology SMEs because of their importance to the Irish economy in terms of
employment and wealth creation. Additionally, Oakey and Mukhtar (1999) highlight
that poor business skills among technical entrepreneurs often cause their firms to be
badly managed, both during formation and through expansion.
The questionnaire was piloted in three SMEs, with two academic personnel
working in related disciplines, and two project management professionals with
extensive SME experience. These pilot studies led to the addition and removal of
questions and general improvements in wording. The questionnaire was designed
using the Survey Monkey survey tool and data were analysed using SPSS.
The main objectives in developing the questionnaire were to explore the following:
(1) The basic characteristics of projects and perceived success of projects to date.
(2) The level of recognition of project management as a process within SMEs.
(3) Success criteria and success factors for projects.
(4) Project management tools and/or techniques in use and their contribution to
project success.
Forty responses, yielding a response rate of 20 per cent were returned. The data
collected is presented and analysed below.
Results and discussion
Descriptive analysis
Responses to the questionnaire came from the following sectors: Medical devices
(25 per cent), electronics (22.5 per cent), manufacturing (32.5 per cent), telecommunications
(5 per cent), Engineering and Construction (15 per cent).
On average the firms employed 65 staff, the largest firm employing 210 and the
smallest having 22 employees. Questions were asked about current organisational
structures and general project characteristics. Table II reports the percentage
responses from these questions. Most firms described themselves as having either a
traditional functional structure or a matrix structure (i.e. a mix of functional and pure
project structures). Only two firms were described as being organised around projects.
Most of the projects undertaken by SMEs who responded to this survey were small;
63 per cent of the firms reported that project expenditure was between 0-20 per cent of
turnover, and 85 per cent had only 1-10 staff working on projects. Project durations
varied considerably from under 3 months to over 12 months. However, there was
agreement that projects undertaken were complex in nature.
Over half the respondents, 60 per cent, reported that project management was an
identifiable process within their firms with 88 per cent of them (or 53 per cent of the
complete sample) employing full-time project managers. The remaining sixteen firms
(40 per cent) were not using project management.
Respondents were asked to rate success criteria and success factors on a scale of 1 to 5
in terms of their importance to the firm (where 1 not important and 5 very important).
Table III shows the average values reported for each success criteria and success factor.

Characteristic

% of sample
(n 40)

Organisational structure
Projectized
Project-matrix
Matrix
Matrix-functional
Functional

5
2
38
22
33

Project expenditure (% turnover)

0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100

63
20
10
2
5

Characteristic
Project duration
Under 3 months
3-6 months
6-12 months
Over 12 months
Project staffing
1-10 people
10-30 people
>30 people
Firm size
1-50
51-100
101-250

% of sample
(n 40)

25
33
27
15

Project
management
tools
159

85
13
2

Table II.

50
25
25

Organisational and
project characteristics

Quality is rated as the most important success criterion; the literature would suggest
that this is not the case in larger firms with more mature quality management systems
in place. The results also suggest that project success is based more on internal than
external factors. This result is supported by the level of agreement with the statement
Success of projects within my organisation is mainly determined by internal factors
in Table III. Clear goals/objectives and Senior management support were both
considered the most important success factors, this supports existing literature.
Resource allocation was also identified as an important success factor. This is not
surprising as resources are frequently an issue for SMEs.
Respondents were also asked to identify the most influential decision makers
within projects in their firms, average results are shown in Table IV. Not surprisingly,
owner-managers were found to have the most influence in decisions relating to
projects, followed by project and functional managers. This supports the belief that
owner-managers are closely involved in all aspects of operations with few layers of
management in most SMEs (Ghobadian and Gallear, 1997).

Most important success criteria

Meets required quality standard
Meets specification
Appreciation by users
Completed within budget
Completed within schedule
Appreciation by stakeholders
Appreciation by project personnel

4.80
4.70
4.30
4.30
4.20
3.78
3.44

Most important success factors

Clear goals/objectives
Senior management support
Resource allocation
Planning, monitoring and control
Client consultation
Risk management

4.56
4.56
4.22
4.00
3.63
3.22

Table III.
Success criteria and
success factors
(mean scores)

MRN
30,2

160

Respondents indicated their support for a range of statements, presented in Table V.

These results suggest that SME owner-managers understand the importance of a welldefined project management process and also feel that there is a difference between how
large and small firms approach projects. This supports the findings of Ghobadian and
Gallear (1997) who found that in managing projects large organisations possess greater
capital and resources and a greater degree of specialisation than their small counterparts.
The firms surveyed also appear to work closely with customers and suppliers.
Respondents were asked how they could improve project performance; some of
their comments are listed below:
Prioritisation of project tasks over other work
Reviewing EVMS (Earned Value Management System) methods and honing CPI
(Cost Performance Index) and SPI (Schedule Performance Index) introduction of a strong
matrix management structure

Table IV.
Influential decision
makers (mean scores)

Most influential decision-makers

Owner/managing director
Project manager
Functional managers
Project steering group
Board of directors

Statements

Table V.
Levels of agreement to
statements (five-point
Likert scales, mean
scores)

Previous experience is a key factor to implementing an effective system of project

management
A well defined project management process is a necessity for successful
implementation of projects
Organisational structure affects the management of projects
Large organisations approach projects in a different manner to SMEs
Projects undertaken by my organisation involve close collaboration with the
suppliers
Success of projects within my organisation is mainly determined by internal
factors (e.g. project management, proficiency)
Projects undertaken by my organisation involve close collaboration with client
organisations
Project management can be applied in similar fashion in SMEs as in large
organisations
Success criteria measures used by my organisation are sufficient to determine
project success
Sufficient research and analysis is carried out before undertaking a new project
within my organisation
Projects undertaken by my organisation are generally complex in nature
Large organisations possess advantages over SMEs in project implementation
A change of organisational structure would have a positive impact on project
execution in my organisation
Adequate research and facilities on best practice in the field of project
management are available to SMEs
Success of projects within my organisation is mainly dependant on external
factors (e.g. market demand, government regulations)
A project can be successful despite the failure of project management

4.67
4.03
3.92
3.63
3.00

Mean score

4.18
4.06
4.06
4.00
3.82
3.79
3.67
3.52
3.48
3.39
3.30
3.23
3.22
2.90
2.61
2.52

By people being trained to understand the principles and benefits of same

Training of Project Managers. Clearer Goals being set and communicated to all staff involved.
Better client or fact finding on site at conception stage

Project
management
tools

More control of project team

When asked if they thought that project management was too complex a process to
implement in SMEs the responses were as follows:

161

No, it can actually be easier to implement in a smaller organisation.

No. I have worked in industries of various sizes the approach is different but the tools are
the same
You would want to be clearly identifying the benefits of it and then it may not be that complex
to achieving the implementation of same
No, I do not agree, it is as easy to implement. It is just that in SMEs it is very difficult to afford
the time and the resources . . . it is a growing issue for a company and a mindset
No, if adequate time and resources are given then there should not be any problems

Finally, the level of usage of a variety of project management tools and techniques was
measured. These results are shown in Figure 1. They show that while many of the
firms use project teams and actually plan projects few SMEs are using the more
complex project management tools such as Earned Value or Critical Path Method.
The data also raises a question about how SMEs use Microsoft project if they are not
using it to implement the various project management techniques listed in Figure 1.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses in the form of independent sample t-tests and Pearson correlations
were performed to further explore the responses and the potential relationships
between them. One of the aims of the survey was to try to understand how
Tools & Techniques
20

Project Teams
19

Project Planning
16

Microsoft Project
14

Gantt Chart
10

Change Control Processes

8

Project Control
Critical Path Methods

Stage Gate Process

4
1

Earned Value Management

0

Figure 1.
5

10

15

Number of Firms

20

25

Project management tools

and techniques in use

MRN
30,2

162

high-technology SMEs manage projects and to identify management practices that

may be linked with success.
In order to determine if there was a relationship between a firms organisational
structure, size and project expenditure, and the decision to employ a full-time project
manager a series of t-tests was performed, see Table VI. The results show that there is
a relationship between the organisational structure in place and the existence of a
project manager. Firms that employ a project manager were more likely to have a
matrix-like structure. Firms without a project manager were more likely to have a more
functional structure. The results also show that there is no relationship between
the number of employees and the employment of a project manager. In other words the
very small firms in the sample are as likely to have full-time project managers as the
larger firms surveyed. However, it was found that the firms with a project manager
employed were more likely to spend a greater percentage of turnover on projects.
Table VII examines the relationships between the existence of an identifiable project
management process and the same factors examined in Table VI above. Again a
relationship between organisation structure and the presence of an identifiable project
management process was identified. This suggests that firms who employ full-time
project managers or have project management as an identifiable process are more
likely to be organised as project organisations where the work undertaken by the
organisation is in the form of projects.
For the purpose of this research three components of project success were
measured:
(1) Budget completion within the proposed or allocated budget.
(2) Schedule completion within the estimated duration.
(3) Performance completion to specification and meeting clients requirements.

Factor

Table VI.
Impact of full-time
identifiable project
manager

Firms without
full-time identifiable
project manager

Comparison of
means, sig (2-tailed)

3.42
1.88
2.00

4.36
1.64
1.14

0.009*
0.516
0.020**

Firms with
identifiable project
management process

Firms without
identifiable project
management process

Comparison of
means, sig (2-tailed)

3.42
1.77
1.95

4.25
1.80
1.31

0.017*
0.910
0.080

Organisation structure
Number of employees
% turnover spent on projects

Note: t-test significance: *p < 0.01; **p < 0.05

Factor

Table VII.
Impact of identifiable
project management
process

Firms with
full-time identifiable
project manager

Organisation structure
Number of employees
% turnover spent on projects
Note: t-test significance: *p < 0.05

Overall project success was calculated as the average of these three components. The
data were tested for any significant relationships between key project management
variables and project success; results are presented in Table VIII. Success was
considered both in terms of the three components described above, budget, schedule
and performance, and in terms of overall success. One of the most interesting findings
from the analysis was that there was a significant positive relationship between the
employment of a project manager and overall and performance success. While neither
the application of project management nor the use of Microsoft project were found to
significantly enhance project success organisations that use project planning
techniques were more likely to achieve success in project budget and schedule. This
result is supported by the level of agreement to the statement A well defined project
management process is a necessity for successful implementation of projects as was
seen in Table V.
The data were analysed to identify any relationships between the rating by firms of
difference success criteria and project success, see Table IX. The only success criterion
that was linked with overall project success was completion within schedule. In other
words, firms who consider completing a project within schedule as an important
success criterion are more likely to achieve project success. This result is interesting in
the light of the results reported in Table III where completion within schedule was not
reported as one of the most significant success criteria. However, previous research
(White and Fortune, 2002) has identified completion within schedule as an important
success criterion. It is also worth noting that the relationship between two success
Question

Project
management
tools
163

Overall Budget Schedule Performance

Does your organisation have one or more full-time

identifiable project managers?
Is project management an identifiable process in your
organisation?
Does your organisation apply Microsoft Project as
a tool?
Does your organisation apply project planning
techniques?

0.018*

0.077

0.216

0.002**

0.500

0.673

0.869

0.117

0.663

0.831

0.845

0.232

0.016*

0.017*

0.037*

0.114

Table VIII.
Notes: Responses to the questions above were based on a bi-polar scale. t-test significance
(2-tailed): *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

Success criteria
Completed within budget
Completed within schedule
Meets required quality standard
Meets specification
Appreciation by user
Appreciation by stakeholder
Appreciation by project personnel
Note: *Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

Pearson correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

0.253
0.448
0.072
0.064

0.257
0.072

0.139

0.136
0.006*
0.675
0.712
0.131
0.675
0.419

Project management
and project success

Table IX.
Relationship between
success criteria and
overall project success

MRN
30,2

164

criteria, appreciation by user, and appreciation by project personnel, and project

success is negative. This implies that firms who are concerned about the extent to
which users and project personnel approve of (or appreciate) a projects progress are
less likely to achieve project success.
Finally, the data were tested to identify any significant relationships between the
success factors that firms considered important and project success, no significant
relationships were identified.
Conclusion
The findings presented in this paper are an attempt to understand the current project
management practices in high-technology SMEs. The paper also reviews the major
contributors to project success in SMEs. Results suggest that a majority of SMEs have
identifiable project management processes and also full-time project managers, but
that owner/managers are still the most influential when it comes to making decisions
about projects. Also, these SMEs are more likely to be organised along projects rather
than functional lines.
Meeting quality standards and specification are considered to be the most important
success criteria by the SMEs surveyed while clear goals/objectives and senior management
support were judged to be the most important success factors. Additionally, the results
show that having a full-time project manager and applying project planning techniques
are most likely to increase the chances of success. Despite the presence of a project
management process being considered by the respondents as a necessity to success it is
not found to contribute to project success. Finally, SMEs that consider meeting completion
schedules to be a success criterion are more likely to have successful projects than those
who do not.
These findings can be summarised in terms of implications for projects
management within SMEs as follows:
.

Project success is more likely in firms that have full-time identifiable project
managers and that apply project planning techniques.

Project success is more likely in firms that consider completion schedules to be

important.

This study begins to identify the manner in which SMEs manage projects and also
some project management practices that are linked with success. However it also raises
several questions about the use of project management tools and techniques within
SMEs and how these tools and techniques can be used to increase project success.
Further investigation is required to answer these questions, to deepen the
understanding of project management in SMEs and to develop an approach to project
management that can increase the likelihood of project success within SMEs.
References
Audretsch, D.B., Prince, Y.M. et al. (1998), Do small firms compete with large firms?, Tinbergen
Institute of Rotterdam, Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) and Georgia State
University.
Baccarini, D. (1999), History of project management, School of Architecture Construction and
Planning, Curtin University of Technology.
Belassi, W. and Tukel, O.I. (1996), A new framework for determining critical success/failure
factors in projects, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14, pp. 141-51.

Bryde, J.D. (2003), Project management concepts, methods and application, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 775-93.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The real success factors on projects, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 20, pp. 185-90.
Crawford, L., Pollack, J. et al. (2005), Uncovering the trends in project management: journal
emphases over the last 10 years, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 175-84.
Edwards, T., Delbridge, R. et al. (2001), Linking innovative potential to SME performance: an
assessment of enterprises in industrial South Wales, 41st European Regional Science
Association Meeting, Zagreb, Croatia.
Floyd, D. and McManus, J. (2005), The role of SMEs in improving the competitive position of the
European Union, European Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 144-50.
Fortune, J. and White, D. (2006), Framing of project critical success factors by a systems model,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24, pp. 53-65.
Fox, G.M. (2004), Is there a role for project management in achieving improved success rates for
start-up business?, University of Limerick, Limerick.
Ghobadian, A. and Gallear, D. (1997), TQM and organisation size, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 121-63.
Gray, C. and Mabey, C. (2005), Management development: key differences between small and
large businesses in Europe, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 467-85.
Hallberg, K. (1999), Small and medium scale enterprises: a framework for intervention, small
enterprise unit, Private Sector Development Department, The World Bank.
Hudson, M., Smart, A. et al. (2001), Theory and practice in SME performance measurement
systems, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 8,
pp. 1096-115.
Johnson, D. and Turner, C. (2000), European Business: Policy Challenges for the New Commercial
Environment, Routledge, London.
Ledwith, A. (2004), Management of new product development in small Irish electronics firms,
University of Brighton.
Litvak, I.A. (1992), Winning strategies for small technology-based companies, Business
Quarterly, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 47-51.
McAdam, R., Reid, R.S. et al. (2005), Innovation and organisational size in Irish SMEs: an
empirical study, Department of Economics and Enterprise, Glasgow Caledonian
University.
Munns, A.K. and Bjeirmi, B.F. (1996), The role of project management in achieving project
success, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 81-7.
Oakey, R.P. and Mukhtar, S.M. (1999), United Kingdom high-technology small firms in theory and
practice: a review of recent trends, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 48-64.
Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1989), Critical success factors in R&D projects, Research Technology
Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 31-5.
Project Management Institute. (2000), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge,
PMBOK Guide 2000 edition, Project Management Institute, Pennsylvania.
Rothwell, R. (1992), Successful innovation: critical factors for the 1990s, R&D Management,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 221-40.
Warren, L. and Hutchinson, W.E. (2000), Success factors for high-technology SMEs: a case study
from Australia, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 88-91.

Project
management
tools
165

MRN
30,2

166

Westerveld, E. (2003), The project excellence model: linking success criteria and critical success
factors, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, pp. 411-8.
White, D. and Fortune, J. (2002), Current practice in project management an empirical study,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20, pp. 1-11.
About the authors
Alan Murphy is a research student with the Enterprise Research Centre at the University of
Limerick. He is investigating the use of project management tools and techniques in small hightechnology firms. E-mail: [email protected]
Ann Ledwith is a lecturer in the Department of Manufacturing and Operations Engineering
and a member of the Enterprise Research Centre at the University of Limerick. Her research
interests include project management, the management of innovation and new product
development in small firms. She is a member of the PDMA UK & Ireland Steering Group. Ann
Ledwith is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints