Abstract
This article reports on the application of Research-Informed Curriculum Design (RICD) for the development and implementation of an MSc Program in Project Management. The research focused on contemporary issues in project management and provided an analysis of project management approaches, tools, and techniques currently used in organizations. Research methods included a literature review, questionnaire survey, focus group studies, and in-depth interviews with project managers. The research findings led to better understanding of current practice from project managers’ perspectives and informed the curriculum design of the program. Feedback was obtained from external examiners, project managers, alumni, and current students. Evaluation indicates that the RICD approach has produced a successful program and ensured it is relevant to industry and vocationally attractive to students.
Introduction
Educational institutions provide new programs and enhance existing ones in order to incorporate advances in the development of subject knowledge, to meet the needs of industry, to satisfy market demand, and to meet government and institutional requirements. Recent foci have been to improve graduate employability and to ensure that research informs teaching. Traditionally, teaching and research have been considered as quite separate disciplines. Balkin and Mello (2012) argue that the disconnect between teaching and research is a long-standing, culturally embedded perception in the academic world and particularly prevalent in most business schools. They also say that the realities in which today’s business schools operate encourage, if not mandate, that tighter links be made between the teaching and research activities of faculty.
Research-informed teaching (RIT) refers to the underpinning of teaching and learning in higher education with outcomes from research activities, using information and perspectives drawn from research to enhance program content and student motivation (see, e.g., Griffiths, 2004; Healey, 2005; Healey & Jenkins, 2009; Jenkins, 2004; Lingard & Renshaw, 2010). The university whose program is discussed here has made significant efforts to support RIT initiatives to meet the strategic aim of the Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE) that “teaching is informed and enriched by research” (HEFCE, 2006, p. 6). These RIT initiatives were supported by funding from HEFCE’s Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund, and implementation was overseen by the University’s Teaching and Learning Directorate.
With the growing demand for project management graduates and the limited provision of project management programs at U.K. universities, the Business Systems Department of this U.K. university decided to develop a new MSc in Project Management using departmental expertise and the results of the RIT project described here. The RIT project analyzed contemporary use of project management and incorporated the findings into the curriculum, so the term Research-Informed Curriculum Design (RICD) is introduced here to indicate this particular approach. RICD is analogous to evidence-based management (Rousseau, 2006). The RICD approach was supported by the aim of the RIT project which, according to Richardson (2008), was to design a curriculum for the MSc Project Management program that was vocationally relevant and informed by theory and empirical research, and that would satisfy national and international benchmarking standards and incorporate professional bodies of knowledge, as well as the requirements of the University’s curriculum development process as set out in its Curriculum Review for 2008 (CRe8; University of Bedfordshire, 2007b).
To achieve this aim, the following objectives were set:
To produce a database of current and relevant project management literature;
To investigate current practice in project management as used by business organizations;
To develop the program’s learning outcomes, structure, and content; its delivery and assessment activities; map the program to subject benchmarks; and reflect project management theory, research findings, and the University’s education strategy;
To monitor and evaluate the program, obtaining feedback from students, lecturers, alumni, and external stakeholders for the review and enhancement of the program.
Two key stages of the RIT project supported the RICD of the MSc Project Management. The first stage involved a literature review and empirical investigations in order to gain an in-depth view of current issues in project management research and practice. The second stage involved using these findings to inform the design of the MSc curriculum.
Figure 1 is a model designed by Prideaux (2003) that presents a typical curriculum from the perspective of the students. As illustrated, the students, at the center of the diagram look at the components of the curriculum that will affect their engagement and learning experience. These components include appropriate content, including relation to practice and sequence of content; student-oriented teaching and learning, including learning in real-life settings and opportunity for self-direction; and organization of units and blocks of study, along with program intents, situation, evaluation, and assessment clearly stated.
Diagram of a curriculum from the students’ perspective.
The design of the new MSc program observed Prideaux’s (2003) curriculum model and was informed by the principles of the university’s CRe8 (University of Bedfordshire, 2007b). This CRe8 process has three interrelated aims: to provide curricula which excite, motivate, and engage students; to develop students as independent self-regulatory learners; and to prepare the students for life beyond the university (University of Bedfordshire, 2007b, p. 4). According to CRe8 (University of Bedfordshire, 2007a), effective curriculum design and delivery involve the elements of Personalized Learning, Curriculum, Realistic Learning, Employability, and Assessment.
Table 1 shows Prideaux’s (2003) curriculum components, how the key elements of CRe8 and the RIT research findings are related, and how these elements contributed to the curriculum components.
Key Elements of the MSc Curriculum Design.
The project management program was designed to meet the needs of a broad range of business areas, rather than being specific to areas such as construction, engineering, or IT. The structure of the year-long program for full-time students is shown in Table 2. A part-time program was also designed for completion over a period of 2 years for students taking the program while in employment. Whereas full-time program units are delivered on a weekly basis, the part-time units are delivered in concentrated blocks on Fridays and Saturdays.
The Program Structure of the MSc in Project Management.
The RICD approach supported the program in meeting the U.K. Quality Assurance Agency’s Subject Benchmark for Master’s Degrees in Business and Management (The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2007), which states that a master’s level student should demonstrate, “A critical awareness of current issues in business and management which is informed by leading-edge research and practice in the field” (The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2007, p. 7).
Literature Review
During the RICD research period (2008-2009), an extensive literature review was conducted of books and journal articles in contemporary project management, which informed the research for the program design. The literature review in the topic area is still ongoing, and the current literature base provides a valuable resource for use by staff and students, including essential or recommended reading for units. A list of typical textbooks and journal papers can be found in the appendix. The authors would like to point out that essential reading for students on the current program includes the most recent editions of textbooks, which are not necessarily those referred to in the literature review for this project.
Typical project management textbooks, such as Lock (2007), Maylor (2010), Meredith and Mantel (2011), contain accounts of the virtues of project management processes, techniques, and tools. Examples of such tools include critical path method, work-breakdown structure (WBS), and earned-value analysis. However, it was judged that during the RICD research period, most of the textbooks at that time did not give a sufficiently rich picture of the contextual use and benefits of the project management tools and techniques (PMTT) in businesses today.
The literature review looked at a range of studies on project management practice. These studies included Besner and Hobbs (2006, 2008) who found that the top five tools used were software for task modelling, progress report, scope report, requirements analysis, and kick off meetings; Taylor (2004), where the top five tools were WBS, network analysis, Gantt chart, and earned value reporting; and White and Fortune (2002), where these were project management software, Gantt chart, WBS, critical path method, and cash flow analysis. The findings by White and Fortune (2002) show that 28% of the survey respondents did not use any project management method or methodology, and 38% had encountered limitations or drawbacks with the methods/tools or techniques they had used. The literature review suggested that choice of methodology and tools and their suitability was a continuing issue. It also identified that there was a problem of terminology, and that new program design would need to clearly differentiate between tools, bodies of knowledge, standards, and methodologies.
In a study of 63 people across 22 organizations covering a range of business sectors, Bryde (2003) found that only just about half of the organizations had a set of written project management procedures. This study also found that concepts and methods of project management were, at best, variable and patchy, being present in some organizations and not in others. Furthermore, in organizations where such practices were present, their application was not always consistent. Work completed by Patanakul et al. (2010) found that the use of PMTT is contingent on the phases of the project life cycle and that specific PMTT contribute to project success measures in each phase of the project life cycle.
Based on the above, we concluded that before designing a new program, more evidence of current project management practice was needed. The new program would also need to ensure that the limitations and drawbacks of certain tools should be incorporated within the program content with contextual application.
A further aspect of program design has since been recognized, for example, by Larson and Drexler (2010), who emphasized that project management is a sociotechnical discipline that combines sophisticated quantitative tools with quintessential people skills. However, during the period of literature review for this project, many textbooks only briefly covered this “soft side” of project management, including leadership and communication skills and change management. Work was therefore needed to identify the important “human” aspects of project management for inclusion in the MSc Project Management program.
The literature review also suggested that although older teaching cases were available, there was a lack of up-to-date relevant business case study material to inform the cross-disciplinary teaching.
In a wider context, the review of literature emphasized the need to understand the challenges of contemporary project management practice, as set out, for example, in Winter et al. (2006). These authors noted the growing critiques of project management theory and hence the need for new research in relation to the developing practice to extend the field beyond its current intellectual foundations and to connect it more closely to the challenges of contemporary project management practice.
Finally, the literature review highlighted the desirability for teaching and learning strategy to accommodate a problem-based and service-learning approach (Kloppenborg & Baucus, 2004; Larson & Drexler, 2010).
Given the above findings, the university considered it important to conduct research into these areas to inform the curriculum design for the proposed MSc program. RIT funding was obtained from the university’s Teaching and Learning Directorate, funded by HEFCE, to conduct the research described below, with this research being carried out over a period of 18 months.
Empirical Investigations
The empirical investigation carried out for this RICD research included focus groups, a questionnaire survey, and face-to-face interviews with four experienced project managers. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed, resulting in an understanding of current project management practice from project managers’ perspectives and an evaluation and analysis of tools and techniques as used in organizations. Table 3 summarizes the research methods employed and the type and number of participants involved.
Summary of the Research Methods and Participating Groups.
NOTE: CMI = Chartered Management Institute; PM = project management.
Focus Groups
Focus groups were used to provide an exploratory study into issues related to project management concepts, tools and techniques, and key project management success factors. The key questions for the focus groups were as follows:
What are the current methods and approaches used for project management within your organization?
What specific tools and techniques are currently used in your organization for project management? Why were they chosen? Are they effective?
In your opinion, what are the critical factors affecting the success of project management in practice?
Each focus group session lasted for an hour and discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by the program team. Focus group participants were part-time postgraduate students enrolled in the executive level of U.K. Charted Management Institute program. They were managers with project management experience from various organizations (e.g., public sector, large and small commercial companies). The qualitative data collected generated useful insights, including those related to the role of the project leadership in effective project management.
The Questionnaire Survey
Following the focus group study, a questionnaire survey was carried out to investigate PMTT currently used in a wider set of organizations. In total, 1,000 questionnaires were posted to randomly selected organizations using the FAME (Financial Analysis Made Easy) database, which contains comprehensive information on companies of all sizes in the United Kingdom and Ireland. The response rate was 7.3%, which was lower than others surveys at the organizational level (e.g., 10% in Daniel & Grimshaw, 2002). When analyzing survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research, Baruch and Holtom (2008) found that For research being conducted at the organisation level or top executive level, there is clear evidence that studies with lower response rates may still be published. This appears to be a tacit recognition of the increased difficulty in obtaining responses from this population. (p. 1154)
Therefore, our survey findings were considered acceptable for the purpose of informing our curriculum development because they represent a reasonable coverage of opinions in the surveyed business community.
Semistructured Interviews
The interviewees either worked for large United Kingdom companies or provided project management consultancy to such corporations. Each interview lasted about 1 hour and allowed further exploration of project management practice, tools and techniques, and project success factors.
Key Findings
Project Management Tools and Techniques
The “top 10” PMTT, in terms of their frequency of use and usefulness in the respondents’ organizations, as given by the questionnaire survey, and the percentage of respondents who selected each item, are presented in Table 4.
Survey Results on the Use of Project Management Tools and Techniques.
In Table 4, “frequency of use” combines how often a tool or technique was selected and how frequently it was then used. In terms of the “usefulness” of a tool or technique, many of the same items were also in the top 10 for “frequency of use.” One notable finding is that the “Project Initiation Document” (PID) was at the top of the list for both “usefulness” and “frequency of use.” The PID is a term used in the PRINCE2 project management methodology. PRINCE2 is a process-based approach for project management of all types of projects (APMG-UK, 2010). It has become the U.K. de facto standard, though we recognize that in other parts of the world, especially the United States and Canada, other project management approaches, such as those of the PMI, are more common. A PRINCE2 PID is similar to the PMI’s Project Plan. During one of the follow-up interviews, one project manager commented, The PID sets out the strategic objectives, the business drivers, . . . the roles and responsibilities of everybody involved, it establishes the Senior Responsible Officer, the project sponsor, the key suppliers, . . . and it establishes the governance structure, so it identifies all the main stakeholders. It includes a risk analysis, and it includes a quality assurance plan—that’s why it’s so important.
Despite reference to PRINCE2 terminology, it was noted that this project management methodology was not in the “top 10” list in either category. The main reason for its absence in the “top 10,” according to our Focus Group discussion on “What specific tools and techniques are currently used in your organization for project management and why were they chosen?,” was that PRINCE2 requires intensive training and was often considered too formal and too resource-intensive to implement. Another reason may have been that our questionnaire respondents were biased toward small- and medium-sized enterprises in the private sector, while PRINCE2 is more prevalent in the public sector, largely because of its public sector origins.
The Role of the Project Manager
The findings from the focus group discussions and interviews with experienced project managers revealed that while important to project management competence, PMTT were seen by many practitioners as secondary in achieving real-world project success. By contrast, the role of leadership in the process of project management was perceived as critical.
Based on the responses from all the groups researched, the skills a project manager needs to determine the success and effectiveness of a project can be summarized as being able to
Create an appropriate culture for effective project management. In terms of business culture, the research findings concurred with those of Palmer (2002), where organizations use project management to temporarily bring people together to achieve specific goals yet often struggle to achieve effective project management because the culture does not support this. Most projects, by their nature, are temporary and hence, there is a need to create a project culture in which value orientations can be rapidly formed and shared among project team members.
Form a holistic governance structure for stakeholders. Managers have to provide a framework for successful project execution, ensuring the strategic objectives of the project are set, the means of achieving these objectives are identified, and the means of monitoring risk, quality, and performance are determined.
Manage the dynamics of change. As the business environment is complex and dynamic, projects are inevitably subject to changes and uncertainties. A role of the project manager is to flexibly manage the dynamics of change. In the course of a project, any change is possible, for example, changes in project schedule or cost depend on what customers see as priorities. In addition, resources allocated to an existing project may become unsustainable (Patanakul & Milosevic, 2009). For example, if the project company changes its direction or a more important project is coming out, the manager may be told to manage another project that has higher priority, which is a challenge to the project manager. However, he/she must look after both projects. So the project manager must know how to deal with conflicts when they arise (Payne, 1995). Given that the business environment is complex and dynamic, flexibility is seen as an essential skill in project management.
Encourage and enforce effective communication. Effective communication is a critical factor for effective project management (Hyväri, 2006; Wysocki, 2009). Respondents in this study noted that project managers are as much responsible for the communication process as for the technical process.
These key findings formed part of the empirical evidence that supported the program unit selection and program content design, as discussed next.
Research-Informed Curriculum Design
The program structure is shown in Table 2. This section details how the findings of the research guided the unit selection and content focus, as well as teaching, learning, and assessment strategies. It does this by focusing on four units of the program: PMTT, Risk and Quality Management, The Human Side of Management, and The Project, as our research has indicated that these are the key elements of the program in project management. Some additional features of the program will also be discussed.
Project Management Tools and Techniques Unit
PMTT are fundamental to an MSc in Project Management, and the unit was given a high priority on the program; it had double credits and was delivered through both semesters. The research findings identified the most important techniques from organizations’ and project managers’ perspectives. RICD enabled the program team to focus on the “top 10” methodologies, tools and techniques used today, in the unit content, ensuring Prideaux’s (2003) “Content” and CRe8’s “Curriculum, Employability and Realistic Learning” foci were achieved.
The case studies for this unit, in part developed from the semistructured interviews, are drawn from cases in both the public and private sectors, and cover a range of industries, again supporting Prideaux’s (2003) “Content” and “Teaching and Learning” and CRe8’s “Realistic Learning, Employability and Assessment” guidelines.
Risk and Quality Management Unit
Using RICD, the questionnaire survey indicated that the ability to assess project risk and quality was essential for practitioners, and risk and quality management tools both appeared in the “top 10” tools, supporting the need for a specific unit in this area. This unit is delivered in Semester 2, as by then the students have some knowledge of PMTT, have the experience of analyzing case studies, and therefore recognize the importance of project risk and quality management when running projects.
The Human Side of Management Unit
The empirical research findings emphasized that critical to project success are a project manager’s “soft skills,” including communication, leadership, negotiating, and building a project and team culture. This aspect was considered an essential element of the program, so RICD led us to develop the unit “The Human Side of Management.” This unit supported CRe8’s “Employability” and Prideaux’s (2003) “Intents” curriculum component. Soft skills would also be developed through group work in other units.
The Project Unit
The research indicated that the ability to apply theory learned from the program was of key importance and that students would benefit significantly from gaining project management experience. RICD therefore led to a unit devoted to managing a real project. The Project unit is completed in Semester 2, after students have gained basic project management knowledge and skills. A review of other MSc Project Management programs in the United Kingdom indicates that 20% have a dedicated module where students manage a real or simulated project.
In The Project unit, students are expected to demonstrate their project leadership and management through a deliberate assumption of role and to reflect on their own performance as project manager or leader. The students are expected to apply their learning from earlier and concurrent units in a real context.
In the past 2 years, the project delivered by students has been a “Charity Fayre.” Students work in teams to organize and run a charity fayre on the university campus. They are expected to plan and resource this event and to raise money for a charity of their choice. Within the project, the students must undertake risk assessment, budget management, and monitor progress at given milestones.
This unit satisfies many of the curriculum design components of Prideaux (2003): “Intents,” “Contents,” “Teaching and Learning,” and “Assessment,” as well as CRe8’s: “Curriculum,” “Realistic Learning,” “Employability,”’ and “Assessment” components.
The program has a number of additional features, including the incorporation of PRINCE2, part-time block structure and delivery, and employer input. These features are discussed below.
PRINCE2
Although PRINCE2 did not appear in the “top 10” PMTT used, it is recognized as a key methodology used by larger organizations as well as, at least in parts, by a number of smaller organizations. This RICD approach led the program team to include an introduction to PRINCE2 within the PMTT unit, where the schedule for this unit was designed so that students can opt to take a 1-week, on-campus PRINCE2 Foundation and Practitioner professional qualification course. The marrying of the PMTT unit with the PRINCE2 professional course means that students can enhance their employability with this additional professional qualification. PRINCE2 is increasingly attractive to both the public and private sectors and is the de facto standard used extensively by the U.K. government. Over the past 2 years, approximately 25% to 35% of students chose to undertake the PRINCE2 course. This opportunity addresses Prideaux’s (2003) “student oriented teaching and learning” and CRe8’s “Employability” focus.
Part-time program block structure and delivery
The research findings indicated the requirement for additional provision within the United Kingdom of training and programs in project management, which supported the program’s development. However, the research groups also identified that attendance on programs is difficult for those working full-time. This challenge led to the provision of a part-time MSc program, run in block mode over 2 years. Each unit on this part-time MSc has 3 full days class contact, including 2 Saturdays, allowing students to attend while working full-time, taking a maximum of 5 days leave per year to cover the Friday classes. This model reflects Prideaux’s (2003) “Curriculum Organization” component.
Employer input
The RIT Project generated contacts with organizations that have since supported the program through an Employer Advisory Panel. This panel provides input for program evaluation and enhancement. In addition, a number of the project managers interviewed during the research agreed to act as external speakers, ensuring students are better informed on current practice, supporting CRe8’s “Realistic Learning” and “Employability” and Prideaux’s (2003) “Content” and “Teaching and Learning” components.
Overall, it can be seen that the RICD approach strongly supported the curriculum design approach of Prideaux (2003) and the University’s CRe8. RICD enhances and verifies the curriculum design process and validates the final curriculum, providing assurance of quality, with the course underpinned by the latest subject research and meeting the business need to enhance employability.
Feedback on the Program
This section discusses the effectiveness of the MSc Project Management program after adopting the RICD approach. Program feedback was both formative and summative as described by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006). Evidence of the program success was derived from various sources, including feedback from the Program Validation Panel, statistics on students’ performance, feedback from the external examiner, current students and alumni, outcomes of the PRINCE2 course, and the results of the “real” project management experience.
Program Validation
The draft program structure was circulated to external stakeholders from the public, private, and not-for-profit sectors. Comments were positive and supportive regarding the content of the program. Some stakeholders agreed to join the “Employer Advisory Panel” for the ongoing development of the program, postvalidation.
The program successfully went through the internal and external validation approval committees of the university in early 2009. The external approval panel noted the strong program team ethos and commended the program team for “the well-developed proposal” and “the effectiveness of the RICD approach which had informed the program development.”
Following validation, the program was launched in the academic year 2009-2010, with a first intake of 39 full-time and 6 part-time students, exceeding the initial recruitment target of 30 students. About 80% of the full-time students on the program were international students, and most of them were from India, Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, West Africa, and Eastern Europe. Full-time student numbers have fallen in the past 2 years because of visa issues. However, part-time, local student numbers have grown over this period. Overall, student intake continues to be above the program target.
Feedback From the External Examiner
In 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, more than 90% of students graduated with an MSc degree and more than 10% of students were awarded an MSc with Commendation. The following comments, both positive and negative, are taken from the External Examiner Reports on the program for 2009/10 and 2010/11. They cover such aspects as program quality, teaching content, skills development, satisfaction level, general comments, and suggestions on the program.
“The program is of a high standard, comparable with other institutions I am familiar with . . .” (a list of high ranking U.K. universities was supplied)
“Teaching staff are committed to the program and deliver high quality learning and teaching material in both traditional and novel face-to-face and virtual environments.”
“The teaching and learning methodologies used are appropriate and effective for the subject of project management, and there is appropriate coverage of the recognised body of knowledge.”
“It was evident that the learning environment and group work had helped the students to develop a number of transferable skills that will be of use to them in their future careers.”
“Most students were awarded their MSc at a pass level; there were 4 commendations and no distinctions. For a cohort of slightly more than 40, mostly international, students, this is a satisfactory profile.”
“A number of students took the PRINCE2 course that is offered in addition to the MSc and this does seem to have improved their practical project management abilities.”
“The part-time students are progressing satisfactorily and seem to be performing to a high standard.”
“This is a challenging MSc program that requires high level critical review skills and good levels of English language.”
“Introduce concepts of research methodologies earlier in the program.”
“Improve student understanding of the concept of “critical review.”
Feedback From Students
The feedback from students was very positive. The following comments were taken from the annual students’ survey of the program:
“The program has been very positive so far and has helped me with my own personal as well as academic development. I feel I can take the skills I have learnt to fit into my future job roles.”
“I am already benefiting from the program and have started to apply my learning in my current post and I am looking forward to developing further skills.”
“I was already PRINCE2 Practitioner qualified and I saw this as a natural extension to my qualifications. The program offered a comprehensive range of units covering not only the project management field but also finance and the human side of management.”
“I currently work as a project officer at a government organisation and there are opportunities for career progression in project management with the right qualification. I would recommend this program for anyone who is considering improving upon their career prospects whilst employed fulltime.”
Feedback From Alumni
An e-mail questionnaire was sent to alumni to find out how they had progressed after taking the program. Graduates were asked to provide information on the location (country) of their organization if employed, the company’s main area of business and its size, their job role, and comment on how the program helped them with their job. Table 5 gives examples of their employment and the program units they rated as most useful.
Examples of Graduate Employment and Units Deemed Most Useful.
NOTE: PM = project management; AMP = applied management project.
As it shows in Table 5, graduates from this program are working for organizations in both the private and public sectors, and most of them hold middle and senior management positions.
PRINCE2 Qualification
As mentioned earlier, to enhance the employability of students, a feature of the program is that it provides an opportunity to take PRINCE2 concurrently, as an additional professional qualification. For the first cohort (2009-2010), 14 students were awarded the PRINCE2 Foundation-level qualification and 5 the Practitioner level. For the second cohort (2010-2011), 5 students achieved the Foundation-level qualification. Fewer students opted to take the PRINCE2 course in 2010-2011, stating cost and workload issues as constraints. Some part-time students did not take part as they already had the qualification.
Feedback on “Real” Project Management Experience
The Project unit enabled students to put theory into practice. The “Charity Fayre” fund-raising event had a fun theme yet offered the students the opportunity to use their knowledge and skills in project management by planning and implementing a real project. Student comments about the event included
“It has been valuable in developing skills such as time management, risk management, team working and leadership.”
“When employers ask ‘what practical experience do you have?’ we can say we organised a successful Charity Fayre. That practical experience is what organisations are looking for and it will set us apart from the crowd.”
“I have learned important skills such as timetable management and leading a team. I have learned the importance of communicating with others in the team, setting a good example and involving people in every decision.”
Additional Feedback From Stakeholders
Within the Project Entrepreneurship unit in Year 1, students had the opportunity to undertake a project for the National Health Service to produce a campaign to promote Chlamydia health screening to 18- to 24-year olds. In Year 2, they developed campaigns to reduce teenage pregnancy. Students were required to work closely with external stakeholders, work to a budget, and to plan a campaign that resulted in an exhibition. External National Health Service stakeholders were involved in assessment and feedback was positive on the unit and the quality of the work produced.
Reflections on the Use of the RICD Approach
The evidence identified in the previous section on the feedback on the program illustrates the success of the program design and content that resulted from the use of the RICD approach. In particular, the key area of soft and transferrable skills development was highly regarded by students, alumni, and the external examiner. In addition, the practical project management experience gained through the specific design of teaching, learning, and assessment methods on the program was also recognized as both beneficial and effective.
The program design success can also be measured by recruitment to target, student achievement, and employer engagement in program design and implementation. All these factors demonstrated good outcomes.
Through the RICD approach, the findings and insights from the research contributed to curriculum design, program organization, and structure (timetable, blocks, units, etc.), informed teaching content, and influenced the assessment strategy and approaches.
Moreover, information gained from the research has enabled the program team to better understand the needs of practitioners, and as a result, program team members are more able to select the most relevant and appropriate cases and assessment materials to enhance the program delivery.
As noted earlier, the program requires students to manage and deliver a real project within the duration of the program. This approach is consistent with the view of Kloppenborg and Baucus (2004) who state, Students often acquire a cognitive understanding of material in traditional classrooms, but they need to experience to apply the concepts to move beyond the cognitive understanding to “Knowledge in use” (i.e., the ability to translate their knowledge into practice in real organisations). (p. 611)
Wider reflection on the RICD approach identified the fact that it brought the academic program team members together to achieve a common goal. As noted by the external program validation panel, a program team ethos was developed whereby values were formed and shared among team members. And, as noted earlier, such a project culture is important for effective project management. This complements the work of Balkin and Mello (2012) who suggest that such change needs to be bottom-up. Also, in this case, institutional support (top-down) in the form of RIT funding was a catalyst and facilitated the program team to work together effectively. The program team also feels that the culture created has been shared with the students, to bring “ownership” of the program and a sense of belonging.
Conclusions and Limitations
This article reports on the adoption of an evidence-based management approach, RICD, to the development of an MSc Program in Project Management at a U.K. university. The effectiveness of the curriculum design and implementation, as evidenced by the program outcomes and by feedback from a wide range of stakeholders, has confirmed the necessity for programs and units to be research-informed and practice-based. This ensures that students have a realistic learning experience, and that the curriculum is designed to support their employability through well-researched subject knowledge, vocational applicability, and career orientation. Overall, the three-way combination of the program in project management, the opportunity to take a professional qualification, and the experience of managing a real project, provides an excellent learning opportunity. It is hoped that the guidelines set out here will assist other higher education institutions in developing and implementing new curricula using a similar RICD approach.
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of our empirical investigations, with the low response rate of the postal survey and the small number of interviews conducted. Although the findings provided appropriate evidence to inform and support our program development successfully, caution should be taken when generalizing the results in different contexts or applying the findings to support other research activities. It is recommended that future research on project management practice and trends uses our findings to inform research design and focus. Researchers can also update our findings by conducting further large-scale surveys aiming for a higher response rate or providing supplementary evidence with more semistructured interviews. Regarding low response rates, future studies would benefit from the findings on survey response rates by Baruch and Holtom (2008) and Cycyota and Harrison (2006) and should consider adopting the strategies and techniques recommended by Dillman (1999).
Footnotes
Appendix
Literature Used for the RICD Research and/or Teaching of the Program
| Author(s) and Year of Publication | Books/Journal Article | Publisher/Journal | Used for R, T, or R & T |
|---|---|---|---|
| Analytical studies | |||
| Balkin, D. B., & Mello, J. A., (2011) | Facilitating and creating synergies between teaching and research: The role of the academic administrator | Journal of Management Education, 1-24 | R |
| Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008) | Survey response rate levels and trends in organisational research | Human Relations, 61(8), 1139-1160 | R |
| Besner, C., & Hobbs, B. (2006) | The perceived value and potential contribution of project management practices to project success | Project Management Journal, 37(3), 37-48 | R & T |
| Besner, C., & Hobbs, B. (2008) | Project management practice, generic or contextual: A reality check | Project Management Journal, 39(1), 16-33 | R & T |
| Boud, D., Cressey, P., & Docherty, P. (2006) | Productive reflection at work: Learning for changing organizations | Routledge | R |
| Cicmil, S. (2000) | Quality in project environments: A non-conventional agenda | International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17(4), 554-570 | R & T |
| Crawford, L., Pollack, J., & England, D. (2007) | How standard are standards: An examination of language emphasis in project management standards | Project Management Journal, 38(3), 6-21 | R & T |
| Cycyota, C. C., & Harrison, H. A. (2006) | What (not) to expect when surveying executives: A meta-analysis of top manager response rates and techniques over time | Organisational Research Methods, 9(2), 133-160 | R |
| De Meyer, A., Loch, C. H., Pich, M. T. (2002) | Managing project uncertainty: From variation to chaos | MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(2), 60-68 | R & T |
| Dillman, D. A. (1999) | Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method | Wiley | R |
| Healey, M. (2005) | Linking research and teaching to benefit student learning | Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29(2), 183-201 | R |
| Hubbard, D. W. (2009) | The failure of risk management: Why it’s broken and how to fix it | Wiley | R & T |
| Hyväri, I. (2006) | Project management effectiveness in project-oriented business organizations | International Journal of Project Management, 24, 216-225 | R |
| Jenkins, A. (2004) | A guide to the research evidence on teaching-research relations | Higher Education Academy, UK | R |
| Kerzner, H. (2003) | Advanced project management: Best practices on implementation | Wiley | R & T |
| Kayis, B., Zhou, M., Savci, S., Khoo, Y. B., Ahmed, A., Kusumo, R., & Rispler, A. (2007) | IRMAS—Development of a risk management tool for collaborative multi-site, multi-partner new product development projects | Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 18(4), 387-414 | R |
| Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006) | Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.) | Berrett-Koehler | R |
| Kloppenborg, T. J., & Baucus, M. S. (2004) | Project management in local non-profit organizations: Engaging students in problem-based learning | Journal of Management Education, 28(5), 610-629 | R |
| Kutsch, E. (2004) | Consequence of risk conditions | Project-Risk, 2(summer-autumn), 5-6 | R & T |
| Lawrence, P., & Scanlan, J. (2007) | Planning in the dark: Why major engineering projects fail to achieve key goals | Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(4), 509-525 | R & T |
| Liberatore, M. J., Pollack-Johnson, B., & Smith, C. A. (2001) | Project management in construction: Software use and research directions | Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(2), 101-107 | R |
| Lingard, B., & Renshaw, P. (2010) | Teaching as a research-informed and research-informing profession | In A. Campbell & S. Groundwater-Smith (Eds.), Connecting inquiry and professional learning in education: International perspectives and practical solutions (pp. 26-39), Routledge | R |
| Olsson, R. (2007) | In search of opportunity management: Is the risk management process enough? | International Journal of Project Management, 25(8), 745-752 | R |
| Orwig, R. A., & Linda, L. B. (2000) | An integrated view of project and quality management for project-based organizations | International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17(4), 351-363 | R & T |
| Oakland, J. S. (2003) | TQM: Text with cases (3rd ed.) | Elsevier | R & T |
| Palmer, M. (2002) | How an effective project culture can help to achieve business success: Establishing a project culture in Kimberly-Clark Europe | Industrial and Commercial Training, 34(3), 101-105 | R |
| Palomo, J., Insua, D. R., & Ruggeri, F. (2007) | Modeling external risks in project management | Risk Analysis, 27, 961-978 | R |
| Pollack-Johnson, B. (2005) | Project planning under uncertainty using scenario analysis | Project Management Journal, 36(1), 15-26 | R & T |
| Reiss, G., (2007) | Project management demystified (3rd ed.) | Taylor & Francis | R & T |
| Wysocki, R. K. (2009) | Effective project management: Traditional, adaptive, extreme (5th ed.) | Wiley | R & T |
| Empirical studies | |||
| Bossink, B. A. G. (2002) | Innovative quality management practices in the Dutch construction industry | International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19(2), 170-186 | R |
| Daniel, E. M., & Grimshaw, D. J. (2002) | An exploratory comparison of e-commerce adoption in large and small enterprises | Journal of Information Technology, 17(3), 133-147 | R |
| Griffiths, R. (2004) | Knowledge production and the research-teaching nexus: The case of the built environment disciplines | Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 709-726 | R |
| Larson, E., & Drexler, J. A. (2010) | Project management in real time: A service-learning project | Journal of Management Education, 34(4), 551-573 | R & T |
| Patanakul, P., Lewwongcharoen, B., & Milosevic, D., (2010) | An empirical study on the use of project management tools and techniques across project life-cycle and their impact on project success | Journal of General Management, 35(3), 41-67 | R |
| Prideaux, D. (2003) | ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: Curriculum design | British Medical Journal, 326, 268-270 | R |
| White, D., & Fortune, J. (2002) | Current practice in project management: An empirical study | International Journal of Project Management, 20(1), 1-13 | R |
| Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P., & Cicmil, S. (2006) | Directions for future research in project management: The main findings of a UK government-funded research network | International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 638-649 | R |
| General review | |||
| Aloini, D., Dulmin, R., & Mininno, V. (2007) | Risk management in ERP project introduction: Review of the literature | Information & Management, 44(6), 547-567 | R & T |
| APMG-UK (2010) | PRINCE2—Projects in controlled environments | APMG-UK | R & T |
| Association for Project Management (2006) | APM body of knowledge (6th ed.) | Association for Project Management | R & T |
| Crouhy, M., Galai, D., & Mark, R., (2006) | The essentials of risk management | McGraw-Hill | R & T |
| David, L., & Lewis, R. (2006) | Project management: Strategic design and implementation (5th ed.) | McGraw-Hill | R & T |
| Gray, C., & Larson, E. (2007) | Project management: The managerial process (3rd ed.) | McGraw-Hill | R & T |
| Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009) | Developing undergraduate research and enquiry | The Higher Education Academy | R |
| Lock, D. (2007) | Project management (8th ed.) | Gower | R & T |
| Longman, A., & Mullins, J. (2005) | The rational project manager: A thinking team’s guide to getting work done | Wiley | R & T |
| Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., & Sutton, M. M., (2001) | Project management in practice | Wiley | R & T |
| Maylor, H. (2010) | Project management (4th ed.) | Prentice Hall | R & T |
| Meredith, J. R. & Mantel, S. J. (2011) | Project management: A managerial approach | Wiley International | R & T |
| Milosevic, D., & Patanakul, P. (2005) | Standardised project management may increase development projects success | International Journal of Project Management, 27, 216-233 | R |
| Oakland, J. S. (2004) | Oakland on quality management | Elsevier | R & T |
| Office of Government Commerce (2009) | Managing successful projects with PRINCE2, PRINCE2 manual | Office of Government Commerce | R & T |
| Patanakul, P., & Milosevic, D. (2009) | The effectiveness in managing a group of multiple projects: Factors of influence and measurement criteria | International Journal of Project Management, 23, 181-192 | R |
| Project Management Institute (2009) | A guide to the project management body of knowledge (4th ed.) | Project Management Institute | R & T |
| Regev, S., Shtub, A., & Ben-Haim, Y. (2006) | Managing project risks as knowledge gaps | Project Management Journal, 37(5), 17-25 | R |
| Rozenes, S., Vitner, G., & Spraggett, S. (2006) | Project control: Literature review | Project Management Journal, 37(4), 5-14 | R |
| Taylor, J. (2004) | Managing information technology projects | American Management Association | R |
| Turner, R. (2005) | The commercial project manager | McGraw-Hill | R & T |
| Wideman, M., & Levine, H. A. (2005) | Project portfolio management: A practical guide to selecting projects, managing portfolios and maximizing benefits | Jossey-Bass | R & T |
| Tools and techniques | |||
| Barad, M., & Tzvi, R. (2000) | Contribution of quality management tools and practices to project management performance | International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17(4), 571-583 | R |
| Bryde, D. J. (2003) | Modelling project management performance | International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20(2), 229-254 | R & T |
| Burke, R. (2006) | Project management: Planning and control techniques (4th ed.) | Wiley | R & T |
| Chapman, C., & Ward, S. (2008) | Project risk management: Processes, techniques and insights (2nd ed.) | Wiley | R & T |
| Kim, K., & de la Garza, J. M. (2005) | Critical path method with multiple calendars | Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(3), 330-342 | R & T |
| Kloppenborg, T. (2012) | Project management: Contemporary approach: Organize, plan, and perform (2nd ed.) | South Western | R & T |
| Laszlo, G. P. (1999) | Project management: A quality management approach | The TQM Magazine, 11(3), 157-160 | R & T |
| Vorley, G., & Tickle, F. (2007) | Quality management tools and techniques (2nd ed.) | Quality Management and Training | R & T |
NOTE: RICD = Research-Informed Curriculum Design; R = research; T = teaching; R & T = research and teaching.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.