Summary of case A

!

! = Interviewees have dissenting judgments

Strategic factors

Tactical factors

Figure 7.6 PIP-profile in case A

7.2.7 Summary of case A

In case A, the strength of the intention and the business ability were on a high level. As also Storey (2000) has discovered to be ordinary in SMEs, growth was a secondary target to the case company. It was targeting at business success and survival in the long run, being happy with controlled and moderate growth.

Morrison et al. (2003) found in their research that the distinguishing feature of pro-growth business is a balanced alignment of the owner-manager’s intention, the business abilities and the opportunity environment. In case A the strength of the intention and the business ability were perceived to be on a high level, but the opportunity arena was seen as not very promising. Its impact on the business success was perceived to be low. Hyvärinen (1993) and Shane (2000) have emphasised the importance of prior knowledge for successful development efforts.

Contradictory to this, case A seems to have met success without having prior knowledge on the project area. Instead of this, case A had established an efficient knowledge creation system to produce the required knowledge and skills. It utilised the job-rotation system, leading to the situation introduced by Beer et al. (1990) where putting the employees into a new context which imposes new roles, responsibilities and relationships on them force new attitudes and behaviours on the employees.

As many researchers have noticed before (cf. Lanning 2001, Salminen 2000), case A highlighted the training, participation and motivation of the employees as important factors for successful project implementation. In case A the leadership style was conversational, giving power and responsibility to the employees. As Winch and McDonald (1999) have recognised to be characteristics for SMEs, also in case A the communication practices were less formalised, based on daily meetings and co-operation.

In case A, the interviewees did not consider the project management dimension as very important for the project success, with the exception of training. In the case company, there did not exist evidence about sophisticated planning, consistent to the research results of Martin and Steines (1994). The planning was more like business planning than project planning. In spite of the thin project management, the project success was perceived as high by the interviewees. This is contradictory with the research results introduced in the area of project and change management highlighting the importance of project management practices (cf. Pinto & Prescott 1990, Salminen 2000, Turner 1999). The project management and project implementation were conducted as integrated to the employees’ daily responsibilities, leading to difficulties of drawing a distinction between project success and business success (cf. Shenhar et al. 2001; Salminen 2000).

The interviewees of the case company were very satisfied with the project efficiency. Afterwards the project efficiency was not an important success category, being a feature also Shenhar et al. (2001) have discovered. The impact on the customer was recognised in terms of increased appreciation as a notable supplier and in terms of improvements in customer satisfaction. The improvements in business success and future potentiality were widespread. The project success during the implementation phase fed the motivation and commitment of the project participants. Case A started the project by targeting at improvements in productivity and quality as the results of increased employee motivation. The business development project was perceived to have a wide effect on the company’s performance, also for areas not mentioned as project goals. This is in accordance with Bobby and Buchanan (1992) and Forsman (2001), who have discovered that development projects tend to spread out and cause changes also to functions not initially targeted.

According to the interviewees, in case A the most important factors for successful project implementation were the highly-motivated employees, the high level of the participation, the provided training, the business ability and the owner-manager’s strong intention and commitment to the development work (Table 7.6).

Improvement in the working atmosphere was seen as the most important result for the company, perceived as a performance driver.

Table 7.6 Important factors for project implementation in case A

Success dimension Perceived important success factor

Entrepreneurial dimension Strength of intention Business ability Project preparation dimension

Change management dimension Participation Motivation Project management dimension Training

The interviewees classified the project as successful. The objective and subjective performance indicators give support to this view. Also the PIP-profile indicates project success. Case A has high performance rates both with strategic and tactical success factors, giving a basis for high potential in project implementation success (Schultz et al. 1987, Slevin 1989).

As a conclusion, Figure 7.7 illustrates a general view of the status of the success dimensions and the project performance in case A. The values of the general view have been counted by summarising the quality ratings of the factors in each dimension (see Appendix 6). The entrepreneurial, change management and project management dimensions have quite high quality ratings. On the other hand, the project preparation dimension is on a satisfactory level.

Excellent Neutral Very poor Project

performance

Entrepreneurial dimension

Project preparation dimension

Project management dimension

Change management dimension

Figure 7.7 A general view of success dimensions in case A

The general view shows quite a balanced status, indicating quality ratings above the neutral with all the dimensions.