Project risk management in educational organizations

Abstract

The past 20 years have been a period of reforms for school systems in Visegrad countries. However, the successful implementation of educational reforms requires effective leaders and managers and, to produce effective leaders, changes in the system of leadership and management programmes need to be adopted. From 2004, the Czech Republic saw a growth of school project activities, with educational projects becoming important tools for supporting innovations in teaching and learning processes. Despite the new system of leadership development, there was a gap between level of headteachers’ competencies and the competency required to manage educational projects successfully. This study focuses on the leadership competencies of project management, particularly risk management, in the context of educational organizations. The survey data were collected through interviews with headteachers, senior teachers and project managers in 118 educational subjects from nine regions of the Czech Republic. The research team acquired data from 300 educational projects. The key findings show that headteachers have difficulty in managing the risks of educational projects. Survey results also indicate that a very high level of risk occurred in 8% of the examined projects, and medium risk, in 27%. It is suggested that training and knowledge-transfer programmes about project management, including risk management, should become priorities when preparing headteachers for their role.

Keywords

leadership schools project management risk management

Introduction

The past 20 years have been a period of reform for school systems in Visegrad countries. The educational reforms have been influenced by not only democratization in these countries after the collapse of communism, but also a more open approach to the world, globalization and the need for competitiveness. Within this context, these reforms have utilized high-quality human resources. The act of joining the European Union (EU) in 2004 symbolized another immense challenge for the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary. The successful implementation of educational reforms requires effective leaders and managers, and to produce effective leaders, changes in the system of leadership and management programmes need to be adopted. Consequently, a new concept of educational leadership and management began to emerge in the Visegrad countries.

However, even before entering the EU (within the framework of the association agreement), school management had begun to change following the implementation of new theories and the use of practical experience in the education field drawn from several EU countries. The main task of the new school leadership became reforming schools and implementing national strategies for the development of educational systems. These reforms had already been based on EU strategies (for example, Teaching and learning: towards the learning society, 1995; Lisbon strategy, 2000).

The development of a new educational management and leadership programme is documented, for example, in studies by Obdržálek and Polák (2007) in Slovakia, Elsner (1999) and Dzierzgowska (2000) in Poland, and Slavíková (2003) and Eger (2006) in the Czech Republic. The development of school leadership in the Central European countries is also documented in some country reports (Schratz et al., 2009).

In the Czech Republic the qualification-related requirements of headteachers are stipulated by law (according to the Act of Educational Staff, 2004). In the Slovak Republic similar qualification requirements are stipulated by the Act on Educational and Professional Staff (2009). Currently there are not officially established standards or competency catalogues for headteachers. The topic is treated theoretically by Slavíková (2003), Brundrett et al. (2006), Eger (2006), Prášilová (2008) and Pol et al. (2013) in the Czech Republic or by Obdržálek and Polák (2007) or Pisoňová (2011) in the Slovak Republic.

Training Courses for Headteachers in the Czech Republic

After the fall of the communist regime, new training courses for headteachers in the Czech Republic were developed by using experience in the school management field mainly from the UK and the Netherlands. UK experience has mainly influenced the concept of school management and the content of training programmes for headteachers.

Since 1996, most of the information on educational management and leadership had been obtained from the experiences of these countries. The involvement of experts in educational projects such as PHARE and Arion provided more opportunities to gain skills and knowledge. Furthermore, the development of leadership, especially the National Professional Qualification for Headship, was closely observed and applied during the shaping of new educational management in the Czech Republic.

In the Czech Republic three types of training programmes for headteachers have been designed: Positional Training I (PT1), Positional Training II (PT2) and Other Managerial Staff Training (Brundrett, 2008). PT1 is compulsory management development training for newly appointed headteachers. This training is also designed for deputy headteachers and for candidates for managerial positions at schools. The training programme is organized by educational centres and is structured into 4 modules: the basics of law, labour law, school financing, and organization of school-related and educational processes. This course encompasses 60 hours of instruction; 60 hours of participants' self-study and a four-day study visit to another school (Schratz et al., 2009).

Positional Training II (PT2) is primarily designed for headteachers who aim to increase their professional competencies. The training course is usually scheduled for a two-year period and is composed for 350 hours of blended learning. The training is structured into five theoretical modules and one module on managerial practice. The 5 core modules are as follows:

Management theories and the practice of educational management.

Educational legislation (Law).

Economics and financial management.

The management of teaching and the learning process.

Human resource management (including Leadership issues).

These modules are compulsory in the Czech Republic pursuant to Ministry of Education legislation.

Further in-service training of managerial staff in various areas is possible. It serves to extend and deepen the headteachers knowledge and skills in various areas, usually respecting his or her current needs. The content of these training courses is not directly reviewed by the Ministry of Education.

Also, new topics such as economic issues, legislation regarding education, and human resource management, which were not part of the school management training courses and existed before the democratization of societies in the Visegrad countries, have now been included in addition to the innovative content of the management of teaching and learning processes in management courses. The implementation of the United Kingdom experience brought new topics such as: school development strategy, school culture, public relations, change management and the management of quality in education (Everard and Morris, 1996; Fidler, 2002; Bush, 2003). Furthermore, the new concept of ‘integrated management and leadership’ (Everard et al., 2004), where project management is one of the eight basic fields, became an inspiration for the development of school management in the Czech Republic.

At the same time, catalogues of competencies and career codes for teachers and headteachers were discussed. Despite a certain degree of convergence of the courses for educational management and leadership (and their contents) in the Czech Republic, Slovakia (Šimková, 2009), and Poland, a number of differences could be seen in the following years. For example, a new career system for teachers and a new system of educational programmes for headteachers were introduced in Poland. Recently, this system has also been applied to a limited extent for the further education of teachers in Slovakia. In the Czech Republic, a career system has not yet been introduced. The experience from both Poland and Slovak Republic might be inspiration for establishing career system in the Czech Republic.

Development of Project Management and Situation in the Czech Republic

The past decade has been a period of significant growth for project work in many organizations worldwide. The number of projects has grown exponentially and this trend is likely to continue in the coming years (IPMA, 2006). Project management has become one of the key organizational competencies and an important tool for organizational success (Carden and Egan, 2008). Organizations including educational institutions have to adapt to this reality. Moreover, it is noteworthy that educational organizations are increasingly moving towards a project-based approach and that much of the work of headteachers is done nowadays via projects (Hallinger and Lu, 2013). As a result, the role of the headteacher has been widened. At the same time, a need for the acquisition and development of project management competencies, and training for headteachers, has arisen.

A leading role in the success of the programme is played by project managers, who are expected to show maturity in project management (Wysocki, 2004). To achieve such maturity, a project manager needs to develop relevant skills and knowledge. A project manager must be a highly effective person who has technical knowledge concerning projects as well as the capacity to get things done by leading a project team successfully (Barber and Warn, 2005). According to Wysocki (2004), a project manager must be experienced, capable and competent to be able to complete a project on time, within budget and according to specification. The IPMA (2006) identifies the following project manager competencies: technical, behavioural and contextual. Leadership is also a vital competence for a project manager (IPMA, 2006). Similarly, Pinto (2013) argues that true leadership is one of the most important characteristics for successful project management. Müller and Turner (2007) identify the correlations between project success and project managers’ leadership competencies. Furthermore, Müller and Turner (2010) argue that project management training and development should focus on not only technical and management skills but also leadership competencies.

During the past several years, project management in the Czech Republic underwent substantial changes. In the years 1989–2004 (after the fall of the communist regime) the development of project management was marked by a lack of awareness and acceptance of project management. There were only few companies forged in implementing project management and the majority of projects was managed on an ad-hoc basis. According to the survey on project management practices conducted by Ernst & Young in 2006 and 2007 only 40% of companies paid attention to project management and more than 50% of projects were not completed on time and within the planned budget (Konrádová and Knap, 2007). Furthermore, this period was characterized by a relative scarcity of appropriate literature on the project management issues (Němec, 2002; Svozilová, 2006). Unfortunately, the literature typically dealt with what project management is and rarely about how to actually manage a project. Important role in the development of project management played at that time the Czech Project Management Association, established in 1990. After the separation of Slovakia the Association became a member of the International Project Management Association (IPMA). In October 2000 the IPMA’s own certification body was established and, in February 2001, certification of project managers in accordance with the IPMA standards was launched. Currently, the organization links project managers across all fields and serves as a basis for educating project managers.

As a natural result of the ongoing changes in Czech society in the following years, including entering the European Union, growth and acceptance of project management changed significantly. There was an increase in the number of organizations using projects. The expansion of the projects has undoubtedly contributed to the professionalization of project management. During those years the amount of literature on project management issues had significantly risen (Skalický et al., 2010; Svozilová, 2011; Doležal et al., 2012). As the field of project management was growing, some universities and companies began to offer courses related to various aspects of project management. Several universities also offer bachelor’s and master’s degrees in project management. The growth and acceptance of project management in the Czech Republic are expected to continue in the upcoming years (Ernst & Young, 2013). It is evident that project management will remain one of the most important challenges for organizations.

Headteachers and Project Management

In 2000, project management was not among the topics of school managers’ courses in the Czech Republic or Slovakia, despite the countries becoming fully fledged members of several educational projects, such as Comenius, Leonardo and Arion; which was part of the process for joining the EU. Initially, school projects emerged owing to regional support for education from municipalities and especially from the newly established administrative units after 2004.

Significant growth of school project activities took place in 2004 and 2005 because of the support of the European Social Fund (ESF) for education. Unfortunately, during this period headteachers and senior teachers learned to plan and manage school projects ‘on the hoof’, using only their experience, as no project management programmes or courses were provided.

Further growth of school project activities came about after 2007, which signalled the start of another period of ESF operational programmes for the Czech Republic from 2007 to 2013, and brought both positive and negative examples of educational project outcomes. Consequently, research focused on educational projects and their risks. The present research study is the first in the Czech Republic in the field of project management of educational projects. Thus, the survey tries to fill the gap between project management theory and practice in the education field.

While general management skills provide a foundation for project management, the aforementioned skills underscore the need to develop substantially different competencies for a project manager (Birkhead et al., 2000). Headteachers, in their role of project managers, need to receive training that adequately prepares them for their new responsibilities. In the broadest sense, the aim of project management training is to equip headteachers with the potential to be able to deal with projects successfully. Buganza et al. (2013) provide evidence of the positive impact of project management training on project manager competencies. Hallinger and Lu (2013) conclude that coursework focused on project management does not feature in the administrator preparation programmes offered in schools of education and recommend that project management skills be included in the preparation of principals (headteachers). The greater a project manager’s knowledge, abilities, skills and experience are the more positive their impact on project outcomes is.

Project Risk Management

Risk management identified as a critical factor influencing project success (Chapman and Ward, 2011; Cooper et al., 2005; Pinto, 2013). To manage risk is one of the major responsibilities of a project manager. Therefore organizations should place effective risk management at the top of their agendas and should address it proactively (Wysocki, 2004). Risk management needs to be included as an integral part of project management. Project risk management is mainly about project managers making decisions with the aim of optimizing outcomes. Project risk can be defined as any possible event that can negatively affect the success of a project. Project risk includes all risks that can affect the cost, schedule or quality of a project (Cooper et al., 2005). Risk may have one or more causes and may have one or more impacts. Managing risk improves the basis for making decisions to achieve project objectives.

Risk management is a process that takes place during all phases of a project’s life. A typical risk management process includes the following phases: risk identification, risk assessment, risk response planning and risk monitoring (Wysocki, 2004). The risk management process aims to identify and assess risks in order to understand them clearly and manage them effectively (Hillson, 2003). The purpose of project risk management is to minimize the risk of failing to achieve project objectives. Systematic identification analysis, the assessment of risk, and dealing with the results contribute to project success. Poorly managed project risks may have negative implications for the achievement of project objectives (Cooper et al., 2005).

The effectiveness of risk management depends on the skills, level of capability and expertise of a project manager. To manage risk effectively, a project manager must understand risk responsibilities, risk event conditions, risk preference and risk management capabilities (Chapman and Ward, 2011). Although project managers show high levels of technical skill, areas such as risk management, interpersonal skills and leadership should be emphasized in their training programmes.

Despite the growing project work in educational institutions, there is still a lack of generally accepted research surveys in the area of project management in the given context. No research in prior studies has focused on the perceptions of project risk among headteachers. In our research survey, we tried to establish the opinions of headteachers on the significance of project risks and risk management practices in educational projects.

Background

The purpose of the present research was to explore the management of educational projects and especially to identify the educational projects risks. The research was focused on educational projects, which were implemented mostly at secondary schools in the Czech Republic. Secondary schools belong to the ISCED 3 category and are managed by regional units (regions). This research aims to contribute to three areas: the optimization of project management focusing on educational projects, the effectiveness of projects already being implemented and the effectiveness of future projects.

The research was conducted by the Faculty of Economics at the University of West Bohemia in Pilsen. The faculty provides Bachelor and Master study programmes in the project management field and has extensive experience in dealing with training courses for headteachers. In the project management field, cooperation is mainly required with the National Society for Project Management.

Methodology

In our research we followed mixed method research design. ‘Mixed methods provides different sight lines; that is, it enables the researcher to look at something from a variety of perspectives, for a more comprehensive understanding’, (Wiersma, Jurs, 2009: 309). The quantitative approach gives a more general understanding of a project’s risks while the qualitative approach of research gives a detailed understanding of the research topic and further explanation. Hence, the combination of both approaches provides a more complete understanding of the given research problem than either approach by itself (Creswell and Clark, 2011).

The research methodology comprised a comprehensive literature review, structured and semi-structured interviews, an analysis of school documents (annual reports) and an analysis of survey data. The structured interviews, also referred to as quantitative research interviews, provided quantifiable data in contrast to the semi-structured interviews, which provided qualitative data (Saunders et al, 2009). Structured interviews were used to measure the significance and risks of the main processes and activities of project management. At the same time, by using structured and semi-structured interviews with headteachers, their deputies and senior teachers who work as project managers, the management of educational projects was analysed. The issues covered in the interviews focused on the main processes and activities of project management with particular emphasis put on the risks of the analysed educational projects. These topics were derived from the IPMA methodology of project management, IPMA Competence Baseline, Version 3.0 (2006); the PMBOK Guide (PMI, 2008); and the theoretical premises and practical experience of Doležal et al. (2009). Other approaches to project management, such as those of Rosenau (2003), Kerzner (2009), Bitterová (2009), Svozilová (2011), and Meredith and Mantel (2012), were also considered.

A questionnaire prepared by the authors was an essential research instrument for the structured interviews. The aim of the questionnaire was to seek answers concerning the risk management of educational projects. The questionnaire covered the following areas (each including 1–6 items).

Initiation of a project (relationship of a project to the vision and mission of the school) (1)

Project human resource management (powers and responsibilities) (1)

Project plan development (SMART, definition of activities, project preconditions, opening meeting, project budget, administrative control) (6)

Project scope planning (work breakdown structure, schedule development, budget and cost management) (3).

Planning project communication (1)

Project risk management (risk identification, determining significance of risk) (1)

Project communications management (project team, information processing, promoting partial outcomes, documentation) (4)

Development of change management procedures (1)

Project risk management (control and monitoring) (1)

Quality management (meeting deadlines monitoring, budget monitoring) (2)

Project procurement management (tender) (1)

Project closure (preparing a final report, the closing meeting, promoting the project’s outcomes, accepting the final report and cost reimbursement, ensuring sustainability) (5)

The areas and items were identified with regard to the phases of a project life cycle (PMBOK Guide, PMI, 2008) and key managerial activities in relation to the competences of a project manager in accordance with IPMA Competence Baseline 3.0 (Doležal et al., 2009; Skalický et al., 2010).

For each area, we first asked questions that would enable us to explore how the respondents perceived the importance of the given project management topic. To measure the responses, a five-point Likert scale, where 1 = unimportant and 5 = very important. Subsequently, we asked the respondents whether there is a real risk in a particular area and, if so, the level of its impact on the project. To measure the responses, a five-point Likert scale where 1 = no risk and 5 = very high risk. When an area (item) was perceived to be risky, the respondents were immediately asked to describe how they would deal with the risk (qualitative data for risk analysis). Additionally, the final stage of the interviews included three open-ended questions on the key problems faced by the respondents during the planning and implementation of projects; the support for schools and their management; and the reasons for refusal of some projects. Thus, different types of question were used within one interview. The combination of quantitative and qualitative data collection was the basic strategy of the research (Creswell, 2009: 217).

Prior to finalizing the interview structure, a pilot study was conducted in two regions, resulting in a change to the number of items. A modified, final version of the interview was consequently designed.

Interviewers were trained in procedures for conducting interviews. At the beginning of the interviews, the interviewers explained the purpose and reasons for data collection and the manner in which the data would be used. Interview protocols were followed while recording the answers of respondents. The data were immediately coded. The following criteria were used to code a project: region, type of school, type of project according to the project providers and type of project according to the financial criterion.

The research team conducted the survey from September to December 2012.

Sample of Projects

The study was conducted in 118 subjects from nine regions of the Czech Republic (the Prague region was excluded due to its specificity). Overall, the data were gathered from 300 projects. According to the financial criterion (that is, the amount of funding), 18% of the projects were small (up to €8,000); 19% were medium sized (€8,001 – €40,000); and 63% were large (above €40,000). Most of the large projects were supported by the ESF, and 10% of the projects were co-funded by the Czech Republic.

According to the project providers, 58% of the sample projects were ESF projects, 16% were EU educational projects, 12% were operated by regions and municipalities, 5% were cross-border projects and 9% belonged to the miscellaneous category.

The data were gained mainly in ISCED 3 secondary schools (39 grammar schools and 83 vocational schools). The sample of subjects further included six educational institutions, labelled as ‘others’.

Findings

The research team obtained qualitative data from 300 projects including the following:

175 projects supported by the ESF (only 87 could be used for the quantitative analysis, as the other items were incomplete). A few projects had incomplete data owing to administrative demands (delays in acknowledging final reports and payment of subsidies during data collection). This fact (administrative demands) is one of the important findings, which, at the same time, may be identified as one of the elemental risks of educational projects.

48 EU educational projects (mainly from the Comenius and Leonardo programmes). 26 of them contained complete data with the exception of the competitive tendering and sustainability items. These were not relevant for most of the stated projects.

35 projects were supported by regions and municipalities. In 19 of them, all items were filled in with the exception of the competitive tendering and sustainability items, which were not relevant in this context.

The cross-border and miscellaneous projects were not included in the descriptive quantitative analysis due to their small number.

For the descriptive quantitative analysis, data from only fully completed questionnaires were used. Thus, we analysed data from 132 projects. Of these, 87 were ESF projects, 26 were EU educational projects and 19 were supported by regions and municipalities.

The validity of the research was ensured primarily by obtaining data from relevant sources. These were 300 projects with 118 subjects from nine regions (all regions with the exception of the Prague region). Validity was enhanced by using research methodology derived from IPMA and PMI project management principles. In the presented semi-structured interviews, the questions focused on the research objectives (Gray, 2011: 375).

For the research to be reliable, it was important that the interviewers were trained for questioning and that the prepared research instrument of semi-structured interviews was standardized, such as the respondents being asked the same questions in the same order (Gray, 2011: 376). The interviewers followed the same protocols throughout the interviews and each interview was conducted by two interviewers from the research team.

The reliability of the research was further ensured by the variety of the respondents, who represented a wide range of specialisms (headteachers, their deputies and senior teachers in the role of project managers), with each of them having a different field of specialization, length of professional career or experience in project management.

Analysis of the Quantitative Data

Table 1 presents the monitored areas, placed in order according to the area’s level of importance in terms of the possible risks to the projects.

Table 1.

Importance of the project life cycle areas according to the statements of the respondents (n = 132).

Areas of the questionnaire	Mean	SD
Quality management (deadlines, budget)	4.80	0.48
Project procurement management (tender)	4.70 *	0.89 *
Initiation of the project (vision and mission)	4.63	0.83
Project human resource management (powers and responsibilities)	4.57	0.80
Project plan development (SMART, activities, and so on)	4.36	0.49
Project scope planning (WBS, schedule, cost management)	4.29	0.75
Project closure, A – final meeting, promotion of the project results	4.17	0.88
Project communications management (team, information processing, promoting outputs, documentation)	4.09	0.74
Project closure, B – ensuring sustainability	4.05*	1.34*
Planning the project communication	3.39	1.42
Project risk management (risk identification, determining significance of risk)	3.30	1.45
Project risk management (control and monitoring)	3.12	1.31
Development of change management procedures	1.73	1.03

Note: Competitive tendering and ensuring sustainability, only the ESF projects, n = 87 (*).

The statements on the importance of the areas from the perspective of the projects’ potential risks (Table 1) must be compared with the statements describing where the risks lie and their significance (Table 2).

Table 2.

Existing (actual) risks according to the project life cycle areas (n = 132).

Areas of the questionnaire	Mean	SD
Project procurement management (tender)	2.25*	1.33*
Project risk management (control and monitoring)	2.01	1.28
Project plan development (SMART, activities, and so on)	1.81	0.82
Project risk management (risk identification, determining significance of risk)	1.80	1.08
Quality management (deadlines, budget)	1.71	0.93
Project scope planning (WBS, schedule, cost management)	1.53	0.54
Project human resource management (powers and responsibilities)	1.45	0.86
Planning the project communication	1.35	0.87
Project closure, A – final meeting, promotion of the project results	1.35	0.52
Project communications management (team, information processing, promoting outcomes, documentation)	1.34	0.45
Development of revised management procedures	1.31	0.72
Project closure, B – ensuring sustainability	1.29*	0.61*
Initiation of the project (vision and mission)	1.15	0.48

Note: Selective tendering and ensuring sustainability, only ESF projects, n = 87 (*).

Partial conclusions are as follows:

Project managers, headteachers, their deputies and senior teachers stated that the area of quality management where the respondents were questioned about meeting deadlines and cost control (which is not exhaustive owing to the significance of the topic and relates to the limitations of the research) was the area with the highest significance.

High priority was given to the issue of project procurement management (selective tendering only relates to the ESF projects).

For distributed leadership, the following items were judged by the respondents to be highly important: the initiation of a project, ensuring a project’s compliance with the vision and mission of a school and determining the powers and responsibilities for a project.

From Table 1, it is apparent that the items related to project risks were not considered important by the respondents. However, Table 2 proved the opposite and the same can be said about project plan development. In practice, a number of projects showed an even higher risk level.

What can be considered positive is the fact that the monitored projects, according to the respondents’ statements, were not in fact risky in relation to the visions and missions of the schools.

There are differences in the individual areas. The situation in 8% of the monitored projects was even critical.

The following box plots (Figures 1 and 2) present a visualization of data distribution within the examined areas of the analysed sample and provide a pictorial descriptive statistic of the data. The areas relate to project life cycle and key managerial activities, as we stated in the subsection ‘research methodology’. Figures 1 and 2 show the relationship between the perceived importance of the given areas and the real risk in these areas.

Figure 1.

Significance of the project life cycle areas as stated by the respondents in the box plot (n = 132).

Figure 2.

Existing risks according to the project life cycle areas in the box plot (n = 132).

The box displays the median in the inter-quartile range and vertical lines outside the box (whiskers) indicate variability outside the upper and lower quartiles. The position of the median illustrates the character of the recorded statements’ distribution related to the individual examined items.

The following provides a commentary on the visualization of the outcomes in Figure 1.

It is obvious that in the area of decision making about project application and its relationship to the vision and mission of a school, the consensus of the respondents was significant. The same outcome can be seen for the quality and project procurement management items.

What could be perceived as a surprise is how weakly the need to prepare for changes in projects was perceived. Similarly, the significance of preparation for project risks was perceived relatively weakly.

In the items related to communication planning, risk identification and ensuring sustainability (examined only in the ESF projects), the distribution of significance as perceived by the respondents was greater.

The following provides a commentary on the visualization of the outcomes in Figure 2:

A positive result can be seen in the initiation area of the project (the relationship of a project to the vision and mission of a school).

The respondents stated that they did not perceive the issue of change as important, which is in direct contrast with the outcome in the items showing existing risk occurrence. This phenomenon is further proved in the contingency table below.

It is obvious that the area of project procurement management (tenders) posed more problems, but in our sample, this item is related only to ESF projects.

It is also obvious from Figure 2 that there were problems in the personnel area, which refers to responsibilities relating to project management. Problems were also evident in the areas of project scope planning and quality management. Under quality, there were only two items, which focused on cost control and keeping projects on schedule.

Tables 3 –9 indicate the relationship between the importance of the item and the level of the actual risk occurred in this item (cross tabulation provides a basic picture of the interrelation between two variables and can help us find interactions between them).

Table 3.

Evaluating the significance of project initiation (the relationship of a project to the vision and mission of a school) in terms of risks.

School vision
	Actual risk
Importance of item	No risk	No risk	Medium risk	Medium risk	Moderate risk	Moderate risk	High risk	Very high risk	Very high risk	Very high risk	Summary respondents	Summary respondents (%)
1- Unimportant	1	0.8%		0.0%		0.0%					1	0.8%
2-Off little important	3	2.3%		0.0%		0.0%					3	2.3%
3-Moderately important	15	11.4%		0.0%		0.0%					15	11.4%
4-Important	3	2.3%	3	2.3%		0.0%					6	4.5%
5-Very important	97	73.5%	3	2.3%	7	5.3%					107	81.1%
Summary	119	90.2%	6	4.5%	7	5.3%					132	100.0%

Table 3 demonstrates that the significance of a school’s vision was considered high. Only in seven projects were existing (actual) risks identified at medium level. These findings should be viewed as positive, because shared vision has a strong influence on project success. Furthermore, when the project goal is shared by the project team members, they are more likely to be committed, loyal and productive (Randolph and Posne, 2002).

Referring to the Table 4, we see that a medium risk level was found in only 12% of the projects, and a higher risk level was found in only 3%. Careful planning is one of the key preconditions for project success (Meredith and Mantel, 2009), therefore these findings are considered as positive. Planning of educational activities is crucial for educational projects.

Table 4.

Evaluating the significance of activity planning (in project plan development) and the reality of risks.

Activity
	Actual risk
Importance of item	No risk	No risk	Medium risk	Medium risk	Moderate risk	Moderate risk	High risk	Very high risk	Very high risk	Very high risk	Summary respondents	Summary respondents (%)
1- Unimportant	1	0.8%		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%	1	0.8%
2-Off little important		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%
3-Moderately important	16	12.1%		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%	16	12.1%
4-Important	5	3.8%	8	6.1%	1	0.8%		0.0%		0.0%	14	10.6%
5-Very important	67	50.8%	14	10.6%	16	12.1%	1	0.8%	3	2.3%	101	76.5%
Summary	89	67.4%	22	16.7%	17	12.9%	1	0.8%	3	2.3%	132	100.0%

Budgeting and budgets are very important in project management. More than a quarter of the projects showed medium or higher risk levels, Table 5. It is therefore necessary to pay attention to this area.

Table 5.

Evaluating the importance of a budget and the significance of the actual risks.

Budget
	Actual risk
Importance of item	No risk	No risk	Medium risk	Medium risk	Moderate risk	Moderate risk	High risk	Very high risk	Very high risk	Very high risk	Summary respondents	Summary respondents (%)
1- Unimportant	1	0.8%	1	0.8%		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%	2	1.5%
2-Off little important		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%
3-Moderately important	3	2.3%	1	0.8%	3	2.3%		0.0%		0.0%	7	5.3%
4-Important	3	2.3%		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%	3	2.3%
5-Very important	60	45.5%	24	18.2%	28	21.2%	2	1.5%	6	4.5%	120	90.9%
Summary	67	50.8%	26	19.7%	31	23.5%	2	1.5%	6	4.5%	132	100.0%

Schedule development and schedule control, together with budget monitoring play important roles in the success of a project. They relate to quality management in the present study. As Table 6 shows, medium and higher risk levels were found in approximately a quarter of the projects. The findings indicate a low level of attention paid to these critical issues.

Table 6.

Evaluating the importance of a project schedule and the significance of the actual risks.

Schedule
	Actual risk
Importance of item	No risk	No risk	Medium risk	Medium risk	Moderate risk	Moderate risk	High risk	Very high risk	Very high risk	Very high risk	Summary respondents	Summary respondents (%)
1- Unimportant		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%
2-Off little important	1	0.8%		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%	1	0.8%
3-Moderately important	10	7.6%	1	0.8%	4	3.0%		0.0%		0.0%	15	11.4%
4-Important	11	8.3%	2	1.5%	1	0.8%	1	0.8%		0.0%	15	11.4%
5-Very important	55	41.7%	16	12.1%	20	15.2%	6	4.5%	4	3.0%	101	76.5%
Summary	77	58.3%	19	14.4%	25	18.9%	7	5.3%	4	3.0%	132	100.0%

As Table 7 clearly shows, this area indicates no risk or a low risk level. With smaller projects in particular, the respondents reported that communication and cooperation within the teams of teachers at the schools were without problems and usually based on a positive environment.

Table 7.

Evaluating the significance of project team meetings and the actual risks.

Team
	Actual risk
Importance of item	No risk	No risk	Medium risk	Medium risk	Moderate risk	Moderate risk	High risk	Very high risk	Very high risk	Very high risk	Summary respondents	Summary respondents (%)
1- Unimportant	6	4.5%		0.0%		0.0%					6	4.5%
2-Off little important	4	3.0%		0.0%		0.0%					4	3.0%
3-Moderately important	18	13.6%	3	2.3%	3	2.3%					24	18.2%
4-Important	13	9.8%	6	4.5%	1	0.8%					20	15.2%
5-Very important	69	52.3%	5	3.8%	4	3.0%					78	59.1%
Summary	110	83.3%	14	10.6%	8	6.1%					132	100.0%

It is obvious from Table 8 that:

Table 8.

Evaluating the importance of risk identification and the real risk occurrence in projects.

Risks identification importance x real risks in projects
	Actual risk
Importance of item	No risk	No risk	Medium risk	Medium risk	Moderate risk	Moderate risk	High risk	Very high risk	Very high risk	Very high risk	Summary respondents	Summary respondents (%)
1- Unimportant	16	12.1%	2	1.5%	4	3.0%	2	1.5%	3	2.3%	27	20.5%
2-Off little important	1	0.8%		0.0%	1	0.8%		0.0%		0.0%	2	1.5%
3-Moderately important	26	19.7%	4	3.0%	17	12.9%		0.0%	2	1.5%	49	37.1%
4-Important	8	6.1%	2	1.5%	2	1.5%		0.0%	1	0.8%	13	9.8%
5-Very important	21	15.9%	3	2.3%	12	9.1%		0.0%	5	3.8%	41	31.1%
Summary	72	54.5%	11	8.3%	36	27.3%	2	1.5%	11	8.3%	132	100.0%

A very high level of risk occurred in 8.3% of the projects

Of these projects, a very high risk level occurred in three cases where, during the risk identification stage, no risk was expected; in two cases, it occurred where expectation was at medium level; and in five cases, it occurred where, in the identification stage, the significance was labelled as substantial

Medium risk occurrence was recorded in 27% of the examined projects.

As already stated, there was a delay between final report acknowledgement and reimbursement of costs with a number of projects supported by the ESF. Only those projects with complete records were included in the quantitative analysis. The respondents identified 16% of examined projects in the project closure area as projects with medium or higher levels of risk, Table 9.

Significance was perceived differently within ESF projects, particularly EU educational projects. The respondents did not perceive this area as significant and risky in EU educational projects as in ESF projects.

Table 9.

Project closure and the significance of the actual risks

Final report
	Actual risk
Importance of item	No risk	No risk	Medium risk	Medium risk	Moderate risk	Moderate risk	High risk	Very high risk	Very high risk	Very high risk	Summary respondents	Summary respondents (%)
1- Unimportant	6	4.5%		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%	2	1.5%	8	6.1%
2-Off little important	7	5.3%		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%		0.0%	7	5.3%
3-Moderately important	14	10.6%		0.0%	1	0.8%		0.0%		0.0%	15	11.4%
4-Important	4	3.0%		0.0%	1	0.8%		0.0%		0.0%	5	3.8%
5-Very important	67	50.8%	12	9.1%	11	8.3%	6	4.5%	1	0.8%	97	73.5%
Summary	98	74.2%	12	9.1%	13	9.8%	6	4.5%	3	2.3%	132	100.0%

Qualitative Answers and Their Analysis

Besides quantitative analysis, the content analysis of the qualitative answers provides an important contribution to the identification of educational project risks. The qualitative evaluation enables the prioritization of identified risks by estimating their probability and impacts. The list of risks is useful in the process of creating WBS in which the project is subdivided into smaller and more manageable areas (items). Identified risks underline areas that might require special attention (Hillson, 2003).

We can also examine and describe, for the first time, the sources of risks and risk categories, which are usually associated with certain types of educational projects. The presented content analysis of risks was taken from the answers of respondents from 118 educational subjects. These respondents were asked to state the three key problems or risks they encounter during the preparation, implementation and termination of projects. Two risk lists below present identified risks according to significance that might affect projects.

The following list of the main problems and risks (with significance at high level) is based on the answers of the respondents.

Complicated and demanding documentation and reporting of the projects.

Preparation, implementation, complexity and high costs of project procurement management (tenders).

Time lag between the approval of a monitoring report and payment of a project grant.

Changes of rules, conditions, and methodology during the project implementation process.

Managing people, team leading, motivating people, supporting communication.

Insufficient administrative capacity at regional level (the managing body for ESF projects), and problems in communication with the relevant management body.

Time pressure for some projects.

As is apparent from the list, most of the identified problem areas and risks cannot be influenced by the project managers.

With ESF projects in particular, documentation and reporting of projects were extremely demanding and bureaucratic tasks. Furthermore, many changes concerning requirements, handbooks, and other issues occurred during the project implementation process. Moreover, in some regions, management and inspection protocol changes among regional managing bodies caused further problems for project leaders because they had no significant influence in these areas.

The following list of problems and risks (with significance at medium level) is based on the answers of the respondents:

Budget changes during a project and the need for pre-finance (the need to seek funds for the initial part of a project).

Informing school management teams in time about changes in project rules and manuals.

Poor quality human resources for the implementation of specialist activities.

Insufficient funds for a specialist to manage school projects.

Lack of interest among target groups in project outcomes during project dissemination.

Threats in the form of pupil behaviour during out-of-school events and the safety of pupils during trips abroad.

Unclear explanations of some project requirements from the viewpoint of the assignment.

These items mainly relate to the project management triangle, also called the triple constraint, of scope, time and cost (Rosenau, 2003), which can all be influenced by the project managers.

The problems and risks identified with project financial management are primarily caused by the difficulties schools have with pre-financing projects and arranging suitable credit. These difficulties arise because of delays in grant payments after the completion of monitoring reports for ESF projects.

Although schools usually manage communication within projects and project teams well (this is one of the positive conclusions from the interviews), problems exist with the substitutability of key persons (experts) in specific areas and topics.

Due to the educational nature of the projects, risks arise from the point of view of target groups. The risks may include pupil behaviour during educational events or pupil safety during study trips. Moreover, with ESF projects in particular, other problems may arise with sustaining the interest of special target groups (for example, in the case of retraining courses and such like).

Notifications of project changes are usually handled in a flexible way. However, risks have been documented about delays in the notification to schools of changes required by managing authorities. This issue is related to problems stemming from unclear and changing requirements, and problems with documentation, especially, once again, with ESF projects.

Discussion

A mixed methods interpretation involves analysing quantitative and qualitative findings and assessing how the information addresses a study’s research question (Creswell and Clark, 2012).

The results presented in Tables 1 and 2 show the extent to which school management teams pay attention to individual activities and processes while managing educational projects. It is obvious from Table 2 that problems have occurred with projects, some of them with high risks.

The findings clearly indicate that procurement management and risk management are the most risky areas in educational projects. The findings also indicate the problems in the project planning (objectives, WBS, schedule, cost management). Reasons for this can be seen mainly in headteachers’ insufficient knowledge and expertise in the identified risky areas and also in the lack of support and guidance by local and regional authorities. Furthermore, the situation in the area of procurement management was strongly influenced by new procurement legislation, which placed additional requirements on the schools. Hence, it is important for headteachers (project managers) to keep in mind that external environment (legal, social, political) could be another source of risks for educational projects. What is clear is that training of headteachers remains the first area of needed action. Headteachers generally have experience in managing projects but need specific knowledge, mainly of procurement matters and risk management. Therefore, it is recommended to develop training and in-service courses targeted at school-teachers and senior teachers (future project managers) in order to equip them with needed skills and competencies. Furthermore, local and regional authorities should provide related tailored support and service for headteachers as well as give appropriate legal and financial advice for schools and promote open communication with the community.

In addition, the results of the research study should be considered with regard to the training of new school headteachers. Currently, the topic of project management is not included in their introductory training. This omission is highlighted in studies focusing on new school leaders (Elsner and Bednarek, 2010; Pisoňová, 2011; Tolinson and Holmes, 2001) and in those dealing with the content of school management training (Eger, 2006; Everard et al., 2004).

Buganza et al. (2013) showed a direct positive link between education in project management and the subsequent behaviour of graduates of such training courses. The recommendation that companies should pay attention to the design of project management training programmes should also apply to school management. The competence model (Buganza et al., 2013) is considered important to companies. We believe that the same should apply to educational organizations. We recommend using the competence model described by Everard et al. (2004), implementing the IPMA’s project manager competences (IPMA Competence Baseline, 2013) and looking for suitable applications in education. The new training programmes aim to convert school headteachers from firefighters to firelighters in project management. A firelighter (proactive leader) is able to explain the big picture (a common pathway and shared goals) and its consequences. He or she anticipates events and prevents problems from happening and communicates a school’s vision. A firelighter also motivates in order to support a project, mainly at the beginning when results are anticipated rather than realized (Barber and Warn, 2005).

The successful management of educational projects requires a school leader who uses influence rather than authority when managing people, focuses on values and leads a school according to its vision (Bush, 2008: 276–279). Other aspects of proactive leadership are required when problems occur and a prepared pathway (plan) needs to be revised or when major crises occur and a radical change is needed (Barber and Warn, 2005: 1036).

A leader delegates a project, provides coaching or mentoring, supports open communication within a project team and creates an appropriate social climate within a school.

The project management maturity model in educational organizations (Demir and Kocabas, 2010), and its individual levels (with regard to management practices of educational programmes in schools), could be discussed in relation with project management. Our study was not oriented in this way and the levels of the above model for individual schools could be evaluated only by assessing the outcomes of individual projects at specific schools. We consider this a possible direction for research into the application of project management in education.

Conclusion and Implications

The results of the study should be perceived as a specific contribution to the development of project management, especially to the issue of risk reduction in the projects of educational organizations. The results are significant for the development of management and leadership in education. It is necessary to address the competences of the top school leaders in the field of project management.

The survey presents relevant data from research conducted in the Czech Republic, but the findings may be applied to the other Visegrad countries where the school systems are similar and where schools deal with comparable projects (mainly projects supported by the ESF and EU educational projects). The survey outcomes may even be of value to new countries joining the EU where the situation from the viewpoint of school headteachers and their involvement in educational projects may be similar to that in the Czech Republic ten years ago. The survey may offer valuable experience in this respect.

The presented content analysis of risks identified risks that might affect educational projects. Knowledge of these risks helps us to understand which areas in managing educational projects require special attention.

The key findings indicate that headteachers/project managers do not pay enough attention to change management and risk management. These factors may be the key contributing factors to project failure, because change management and risk management are critical for a project to be completed on schedule and budget (Chapman and Ward, 2011). The low level of attention in these areas may reflect a low level of change and risk management awareness among headteachers/managers and a low overall change and risk management maturity. It is evident that project managers need to pay more attention to both project change management and project management risk in order to be successful in completing projects. To this end, training and knowledge-transfer programmes about project management, including risk management and change management should become priorities when preparing headteachers for their roles as project managers.

References

Barber

Warn

(2005) Leadership in project management: from firefighter to firelighter. Management Decision 43 (7/8): 1032–1039.

Birkhead

Sutherland

Maxwell

(2000) Core competencies required of project managers. South African Journal of Business Management 31 (3): 99–105.

Bitterová

(2009) Projektový manažment. Nitra: UKF v Nitre.

Brundrett

Crawford

(2008) Developing School Leaders: An International Perspective. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Brundrett

Slavíková

Karabec

. (2006) Educational leadership development in England and the Czech Republic: comparing perspectives. School Leadership and Management 26 (2): 93–106.

Buganza

Kalchschmidt

Bartezzagi

. (2013) Measuring the impact of a major project management educational program: the PMP case in Finmeccanica. Project Management 31 (2): 285–298.

Bush

(2003) Theories of Educational Leadership and Management. London: SAGE.

Bush

(2008) From management to leadership: semantic or meaningful change? Educational Management Administration & Leadership 36 (2): 271–288.

Bush

(2013) Distributed leadership: the model of choice in the 21st century. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 41 (5): 543–544.

10.

Carden

Egan

(2008) Human resource development and project management: key connections. Human Resource Development Review 7 (3): 309–338.

11.

Cooper

Grey

Raymond

. (2005) Project Risk Management Guidelines. Chichester: Wiley.

12.

Creissen

Ellison

(1998) Reinventing school leadership – back to the future in the UK? International Journal of Educational Management 12 (1): 28–38.

13.

Creswell

(2009) Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. London: SAGE.

14.

Creswell

Plano Clark

(2011) Designing and conducting Mixed Methods Research. London: SAGE.

15.

Demir

Kocabas

(2010) Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM) in educational organizations. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 9: 1641–1645.

16.

Doležal

Máchal

Lacko

. (2009) Projektový management podle IPMA. Praha: Grada Publishing.

17.

Dzierzgowska

(2000) Dyrektor W Zreformowanej Szkole. Warszawa: CODN.

18.

Eger

(2006) Řízení Školy Při Zavádění Školního Vzdělávacího Programu. Plzeň: Fraus.

19.

Elsner

(1999) Doskonalenie Kierowania Placówka Oświatowa. Chorzów: Mentor.

20.

Elsner

Bednarek

(2010) Problémy začínajících ředitelů škol v Polsku a srovnání s některými zeměmi EU. Technológia vzdelávania 18 (1): 3–5.

21.

Everard

Morris

(1996) Effective School Management. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

22.

Everard

Morris

Wilsom

(2004) Effective School Management. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

23.

Ernst and Young (2013) EY survey: most projects of Slovak and Czech business deal with upgrading it systems. Available at: http://www.ey.com/SK/en/Newsroom/News-releases.

24.

Fidler

(2002) Strategic Management for School Development. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

25.

Gray

(2012) Doing Research in the Real Word. London: SAGE.

26.

Hallinger

(2013) Preparing principals: what can we learn from MBA and MPA programmes? Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41 (4): 435–452.

27.

Hillson

(2003) Using a risk breakdown structure in project management. Journal of Facilities Management 2 (1): 85–97.

28.

Chapman

Ward

(2011). How To Manage Project Opportunity And Risk. Chichester: Wiley.

29.

(IPMA) International Project Management Association (2006) IPMA Competence Baseline Version 3.0. ????: International Project Management Association.

30.

Kerzner

(2009) Project Management. A System Approach to Planning, Scheduling, And Controlling. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

31.

Konrádová

Knap

(2007) Úroveň projektového řízení v ČR. eFOCUS. Available at: http://www.efocus.sk/images/uploads/28_29.pdf (accessed ?? Month Year).

32.

Meredith

Mantel

(2009) Project Management: A Managerial Approach. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

33.

Meredith

Mantel

(2012) Project Management. A Managerial Approach. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

34.

Müller

Turner

(2007) Matching the project manager’s leadership style to project type. International Journal of Project Management 25 (1): 21–32.

35.

Müller

Turner

(2010) Leadership competency profiles of successful project manager. International Journal of Project Management 28 (5): 437–448.

36.

Němec

(2002) Projektový Management. Praha: Grada Publishing.

37.

Obdržálek

Polák

(2007) Aktuálne Otázky Školského Managementu. Nitra: UKF v Nitre.

38.

Pinto

(2013) Project Management: Achieving Competitive Advantage, 3rd edn. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

39.

Pisoňová

(2011) Kompetečný profil manažera. Bratislava: Iura Edition.

40.

Pol

Sedláček

Hloušková

. (2013) Headteachers’ professional careers: a Czech perspective. International Journal of Management in Education 7 (4): 360–375.

41.

Prášilová

(2008) Řízení základní školy v letech 1990–2007. Olomouc: UP v Olomouci.

42.

Project Management Institute (PMI) (2008) A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 4th edn. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute, Inc.

43.

Randolph

Posne

(2002) Checkered project flags Checkered Flag Projects: 10 Rules for Creating and Managing Projects that Win! Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

44.

Rosenau

(2003) Řízení Projektů. Brno: Compter Press.

45.

Schratz

Slavíková

Křížková

. (2009) The Role Of School Leadership In The Improvement Of Learning. Budapest: Tempus Public Fundation.

46.

Slavíková

(2003) Vývojové aspekty managementu a řízení školy. Praha: PF UK v Praze.

47.

Skalický

Jermář

Svoboda

(2010) Projektový management a potřebné kompetence. Plzeň: ZČU v Plzni.

48.

Svozilová

(2006) Projektový management. Praha: Grada Publishing.

49.

Svozilová

(2011) Projektový management. Praha: Grada Publishing.

50.

Šimková

(2009) Súčasné reformy vo vzdelávaní v Slovenskej a Českej republike. Technológia vzdelávania 17 (5): 14–16.

51.

Tolinson

Holmes

(2001) Assessing leadership potential: fast track to school leadership. Journal of Educational Administration 39 (2): 104–117.

52.

Wysocki

(2007) Effective project management: traditional, adaptive, extreme. 4th edn. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.