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

www.emeraldinsight.com/1753-8378.htm

IJMPB
2,2

Project management in small

to medium-sized enterprises
A comparison between firms
by size and industry

282

J. Rodney Turner

Received 16 September 2008

Accepted 15 December 2008

Centre of Project Management, Kemmy Business School,

University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland and
Lille School of Management, Paris, France

Ann Ledwith
Enterprise Research Centre, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland, and

John Kelly
Centre of Project Management, Kemmy Business School,
University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
Abstract
Purpose Small to medium enterprises (SMEs) play an important role in the economy, in terms of
employment and their contribution to national wealth. A significant proportion of that contribution
comes from innovation. SMEs are also the engine for future growth in the economy. Project
management has a role to play in managing that innovation and growth. The purpose of this paper is
to find the extent to which SMEs use projects, project management and the tools of project
management, and to determine what differences there are by size of company and industry.
Design/methodology/approach A questionnaire was developed to examine the extent to which
small firms carry out projects, the resources they employ, the way they measure project success and
the tools and techniques that they use. The questionnaire was answered by 280 companies from a
range of industries and sizes.
Findings It is found that companies of all sizes spend roughly the same proportion of turnover on
projects, but the smaller the company, the smaller their projects, the less they use project management
and its tools. Surprisingly, hi-tech companies spend less on projects than lo-tech or service companies,
but have larger projects and use project management to a greater extent. They also use the gadgets of
project management to a greater extent.
Research limitations/implications It is concluded that SMEs do require less-bureaucratic
versions of project management, perhaps with different tool sets than the more traditional versions
designed for medium-sized or large projects, and with different versions for medium, small and micro
projects. For all firms, the important success factors are client consultation; planning, monitoring and
control; and resource allocation are also identified.
Originality/value The findings suggest the need for further research into the nature of those lite
versions of project management designed for SMEs.
Keywords Small to medium-sized enterprises, Innovation, Project management, Economic growth
International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business
Vol. 2 No. 2, 2009
pp. 282-296
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1753-8378
DOI 10.1108/17538370910949301

Paper type Research paper

Project management in SMEs

Small to medium enterprises (SMEs) play a significant role in the economy, both in
terms of employment and economic development and growth (Hallberg, 1999;

Floyd and McManus, 2005; Enterprise Ireland, 2007; European Commission, 2008).
SMEs account for 99.8 per cent of all companies in the EU; they generate 56 per cent of
GDP, and employ 67 per cent of all private sector workers (European Commission,
2008). Ledwith (2004) has shown that in Ireland 25 per cent of the turnover of SMEs is
accounted for by new and improved products. Thus, 14 per cent of the economy is
accounted for by innovation in SMEs. In order to achieve this development, SMEs
spend 3 per cent of their turnover on innovation. However, successful innovation is not
easy for SMEs (ORegan et al., 2006), small firms have several disadvantages in
innovating; restricted cash flow, a limited pool of knowledge and skills, and a low
volume of sales over which to spread innovation costs (Rogers, 2004). Therefore, it is
important that the money they spend on innovation should be spent in an efficient and
effective way, so that SMEs can achieve their development objectives.
There is some variation in the definition of what is meant by an SME (McAdam
and Reid, 2005). The EU defines a medium-sized company as one of fewer than
250 employees, and turnover and balance sheet less than e50 million, a small one as
fewer than 50 employees and turnover and balance sheet less than e10 million, and
a micro one as fewer than ten employees and turnover and balance sheet less than
e2 million (European Commission, 2005). Inevitably, for a given company, these ranges
do not exactly correspond, and the number of employees tends to be used as the primary
determinant of size (European Commission, 2008). We have adopted this definition.
Enterprise Ireland (2007), Irelands industrial development agency, in their strategy for
2008-2013 categorize three levels of SME:
(1) those with global sales of more than e20 million;
(2) those with global sales of more than e5 million; and
(3) high-potential start-ups, HPSUs.
The potential contribution of SMEs to the economy leads to the conclusion they need to
increase their competitiveness and quality to match or exceed the competition.
We would expect the use of project management to play a significant role in the
management of innovation and growth in SMEs, but in a way that is tailored to meet
their needs. Project management is a well-established discipline that defines in the
tools and techniques required to define, plan and implement projects. However, project
management was developed initially in the heavy engineering industries, particularly
construction, defence, aerospace and ship-building (Morris, 1994). It subsequently
evolved to address smaller projects, but medium-sized projects in large firms (Turner,
2008). For instance, it is recognized that the PRINCE2e process (Office of Government
Commerce, 2005) is appropriate for medium-sized projects but not very small projects,
and especially not small projects in SMEs, because it is highly bureaucratic (Payne and
Turner, 1999). Thus, while many researchers have addressed the issues surrounding
the management of projects within large firms (White and Fortune, 2002; Bryde, 2003;
Thomas and Mullaly, 2008), little has been published to date about the management of
projects in SMEs.
Ghobadian and Gallear (1997) described differences between SMEs and larger
organizations. In particular, they identified the following:
.
Processes. SMEs require simple planning and control systems, informal
evaluation and reporting.

Project
management
in SMEs
283

IJMPB
2,2

284

Procedures. SMEs have a low degree of standardization, with idealistic decision

making.
Structure. SMEs have a low degree of specialization, with multi-tasking, but a
high degree of innovativeness.
People. Because of the higher consequence of failure in SMEs, people prefer
tested techniques.

Ledwith (2004) and Murphy and Ledwith (2007) have conducted initial investigations
into project management practices in SMEs in high-tech and service industries in
Ireland. They identified, that SMEs should follow a structured process for selecting
their project management practices, by identifying: their strategic objectives;
appropriate success criteria and key performance indicators for their projects; and
thus appropriate success factors; and thus appropriate project management tools and
techniques, which meet the criteria outlined above.
SMEs need project management to manage their innovativeness in a focused manner,
and to achieve growth and satisfy their strategic objectives in a way that minimizes the
high-inherent risk. But SMEs have been found to have poor project management practices
(Owens, 2006; Ledwith, 2004). Typically, they do not have systems in place to monitor and
control projects and they have ill defined project management roles and structures
(Owens, 2006). We would expect the project management procedures in SMEs to conform
to the principles outlined by Ghobadian and Gallear (1997) as listed above. They must
provide simple planning and control, and informal evaluation and reporting. They must be
usable by everybody in the organization and support the idealistic decision making. Thus,
we would expect SMEs to require a lite version of project management, less bureaucratic
than the traditional versions designed for large engineering projects, and less bureaucratic
than some recent versions designed for medium-sized projects (Office of Government
Commerce, 2005). At the Centre for Project Management at the University of Limerick, we
are conducting research to determine the nature of this lite version of project management
appropriate for SMEs.
We conducted this initial investigation to confirm some of the assumptions above,
particularly that while SMEs use project management, their projects are smaller and
they make less use of the tools and techniques of project management than larger
organizations. Thus, we wish to answer the following questions:
.
To what extent do SMEs use projects, project management and the tools and
techniques of project management?
.
Are there differences by size of company and by industry?
.
Does this point to the need for a lite version of project management for SMEs?
In the next section, we describe our methodology. We then describe our results by size
of company and by industry. The results point to the need for a lite version of project
management for SMEs.
Methodology
We developed a questionnaire to examine the extent to which small firms carry out
projects, the resources they employ, the way they measure project success and the tools
and techniques that they use. The questions used are shown in the appendix.

SMEs are not a homogonous group, in recognition of this we decide to target three
separate groups of firms, those operating in areas of high technology, hi-tech SMEs,
those operating in low-technology industries, lo-tech SMEs and those operating in the
services sector, services SMEs.
The questionnaire was administered in three waves between 2007 and 2008. Initially,
hi-tech firms were targeted, a sample of over 200 firms operating across a range of
sectors that included medical devices, telecommunications, electronics and general
engineering were contacted and sent an online questionnaire. Valid responses were
received from 38 firms. The second wave of data collection targeted SMEs in the service
sector; again over 200 questionnaires were distributed this time to firms in the
hospitality, financial services, construction and automobile sectors. In total 51 valid
responses were collected. Finally, the questionnaire was administered to over 200 SMEs
operating in the lo-tech sector, primarily firms operating in the food, paper and plastics
industries. This resulted in a further 29 responses. The overall response rate for the
study was approximately 20 per cent.
Table I shows our 118 respondent companies, divided into micro, small and medium
companies, and hi-tech, lo-tech and service industries.
We hade sufficient responses from each type to be able to compare responses by size
of company and by industry.

Project
management
in SMEs
285

Comparisons of SMEs by size

First we compare SMEs by size.
Use of projects
Table II shows the percentage of turnover spent on projects in the three sizes of company.
We see there is very little difference by size. About half of all companies in each of
the three sizes spend less than 20 per cent of turnover on projects, whereas about
5-10 per cent spend over 80 per cent. On average, all three sizes of company spend around
a third of their turnover on projects.
This is consistent with the conclusion of Anbari et al. (2008) that about one-third of
the economy is project based. However, when we look at size of projects undertaken,
Table III, unsurprisingly there is a difference by size of firm.

n
Micro (,10)
Small (, 50)
Medium (,250)

Micro
Small
Medium

0
18
20
38

Hi-tech
(%)

32.2

12
13
4
29

Lo-tech
(%)

24.6

12
27
12
51

0-20

20-40

40-60

Percentage
60-80

45.8
50.0
44.4

16.7
17.2
19.4

16.7
20.7
16.7

12.5
1.7
13.9

Service
(%)

43.2

Total
n

(%)

24
58
36
118

20.3
49.2
30.5
100

80-100

Average

8.3
10.3
5.6

34
31
33

Table I.
Sample companies

Table II.
Amount of turnover
spent on projects by size
of company

IJMPB
2,2

286

In micro companies, over half the projects undertaken are less than three months
duration, whereas in small companies the largest number is in the 3-6 month bracket
and in medium-sized companies in the 6-12 month bracket. Project duration appears to
increase with company size.
Table IV shows the number of people working on projects. Unsurprisingly, very few
micro companies have more than ten people working on projects, but 12 per cent do,
suggesting they are using contractors. There is very little difference between smalland medium-sized companies in 10-30 bracket, but more than three times the number
of medium-sized companies have more than 30 people working on projects than the
other two size of company.
Thus, as firms grow in size, they do not do more projects as a percentage of
turnover, but projects grow in size. This is consistent with the findings of Ghobadian
and Gallear (1997) that in smaller companies people prefer trusted techniques because
of the higher risk of failure.
Use of project management
Table V shows the number of companies which can identify project management as a
process and employ one or more project managers.
There is a strong increase in the percentage from micro to small companies, and a
smaller increase from small to medium. The number of small companies with project
management as an identifiable process and employing one or more projects managers is
50 per cent which is roughly equal to the number spending more than 20 per cent of
turnover on projects. In medium-sized companies, it is roughly 70 per cent using project
management as an identifiable process but the number spending more than 20 per cent on
projects is only 55 per cent. Thus, we conclude that medium-sized companies take a greater

Table III.
Duration of projects by
size of company

Table IV.
Number of people
working on projects by
size of company

Table V.
Use of project
management by size
of company

Micro
Small
Medium

, 3 months (%)

3-6 months (%)

6-12 months (%)

.12 months (%)

54.2
20.7
22.2

8.3
43.1
16.7

29.2
19.0
47.2

8.3
17.2
13.9

1-10 (%)

10-30 (%)

30 (%)

87.5
65.5
55.6

8.3
29.3
25.0

4.2
5.2
19.4

Micro
Small
Medium

Micro
Small
Medium

Employ one or more full-time project

managers (%)

Recognize project management as an identifiable

process (%)

20.8
50
77.8

29.2
51.7
69.4

interest in projects at a lower level of activity. In micro companies, the number employing
one or more projects managers is roughly equal to the number spending more than 60 per
cent of turnover on projects, and the number with project management as an identifiable
process is roughly equal to the number spending more than 50 per cent of turnover. Thus,
projects have to become more invasive before micro companies start investing in project
management. Also, 50 per cent more micro companies use project management as employ
project managers, suggesting that in micro companies people have to multi-task. In small
companies, the two numbers are roughly the same, suggesting specialist project managers
use project management. In medium companies, the number of project managers is
slightly larger. This number may not be significant, but perhaps it suggests that
as companies grow people become more specialized, and so those not doing project
management are not aware what project managers do.

Project
management
in SMEs
287

Use of project management tools

Table VI shows how many companies use of various project management tools.
We see that micro companies use project planning and project control, without
using technical support. This supports the findings of Turner et al. (2008) that in micro
companies the main concern is with requirements definition and resource scheduling,
and that plans tend to be informal (they are held in peoples minds). It is also consistent
with the findings of Ghobadian and Gallear (1997). More small companies use project
teams and computer support. But, the low use of Gantt charts suggests planning still
remains informal. Medium-sized companies use increasingly sophisticated tools,
including change control and stage gates. The use of very sophisticated tools such as
critical path method, CPM, and earned value analysis, EVA, remains small for all sizes
of company, suggesting that the former provides no value and the latter too
bureaucratic as Turner (2008) suggests.
Comparisons of SME by industry
Next we compare firms by industry.
Use of projects
Table VII shows the percentage of turnover spent on projects by companies in the three
industries.
Surprisingly, the least amount is spent on projects in the hi-tech industries, where
63 per cent of companies spend less than 20 per cent of their turnover on projects, and
the largest amount by lo-tech companies, where 62 per cent of companies spend more
than 20 per cent. Companies from the service industries lie in between. On average,
companies from the hi-tech industries spend 24 per cent of their turnover on projects;

Micro
Small
Medium
Overall

MS
project
(%)

Gantt
charts
(%)

CPM
(%)

Project
plans
(%)

Project
teams
(%)

Project
control
(%)

Change
control
(%)

Earned
value
(%)

Stage
gate
(%)

4
21
39
23

4
7
53
18

0
5
6
4

21
34
67
42

8
31
67
37

21
16
53
25

0
2
22
8

0
0
6
2

0
0
11
3

Table VI.
Use of project
management tools by size
of company

IJMPB
2,2

288

Table VII.
Amount of turnover
spent on projects by
industry

Table VIII.
Duration of projects
by industry

Table IX.
Number of people
working on projects
by industry

companies from the service industries spend 34 per cent; and companies from the
lo-tech industries 42 per cent. When we look at projects by size, Table VIII, companies
in the service industries have the longest duration projects, with 35 per cent of projects
lasting 6-12 months.
Hi-tech companies have the next largest projects, with 34 per cent of projects lasting
3-6 months. Lo-tech companies have the smallest projects, with more than 40 per cent
lasting less than three months. Thus, lo-tech companies do a very large number of small
projects. The different sizes of projects may partially reflect the sizes of firms, rather
than inherent differences by industry. As shown in Table I, lo-tech companies are mainly
small and micro, and thus from what we said above we would expect them to be doing
smaller projects. That is not quite so true for hi-tech and service industries. Hi-tech
companies are all small or medium, whereas half of service companies are small and a
quarter each of micro and medium. Thus, from what we said above, we would expect
hi-tech companies to be doing bigger projects than service industries, whereas it is the
other way around. Thus, it would seem that the nature of hi-tech projects is that they are
smaller and of projects in the service industry that they are larger. Looking at the size of
project teams, Table IX, the findings of hi- and lo-tech companies are reversed.
In fact, with lo-tech companies, the number of companies with teams sized 1-10 and
10-30 is almost the average for small and micro companies, suggesting that the
numbers are mainly due to size of company. The exception is with teams of more than
30 people, where lo-tech companies have the largest number and more than for small
and micro companies. With hi-tech companies, the figures do not reflect at all the
figures for small and medium companies, which comprise companies from the hi-tech
sector. Hi-tech companies have smaller teams than the averages for those sizes of

Hi-tech
Lo-tech
Service

Hi-tech
Lo-tech
Service

Hi-tech
Lo-tech
Service

0-20

20-40

40-60

Percentage
60-80

63.2
37.9
41.2

18.4
13.8
19.6

10.5
20.7
23.5

2.6
6.9
11.8

80-100

Average

5.3
20.7
3.9

24
42
34

,3 months (%)

3-6 months (%)

6-12 months (%)

.12 months (%)

26.3
41.4
21.6

34.2
17.2
29.4

26.3
24.1
35.3

13.2
17.2
13.7

1-10 (%)

10-30 (%)

30 (%)

84.2
72.4
51.0

13.2
13.8
37.3

2.6
13.8
11.8

company suggesting hi-tech projects do tend to be small in nature. That is balanced by

projects from the service industries, which tend to be larger in nature.
Use of project management
Table X shows the number of companies that can identify project management as an
identifiable process and employ one or more project managers.
Lo-tech companies show the smallest numbers again, and in fact they are roughly
the average for small and micro companies, reflecting that they dominate lo-tech
companies in almost equal numbers. The figures for hi-tech companies are roughly the
average for small and medium companies reflecting that half the companies are each of
those sizes. Finally, the figures for service companies are almost the same as for small
companies, reflecting that more than half the service companies are small in size, and
half the rest each of micro and medium. Thus, the use of project management seems to
be related to size of company rather than the nature of the industry.

Project
management
in SMEs
289

Use of project management tools

Table XI shows the use of project management tools by industry.
These figures are very different from those by size of company, suggesting the
differences are due to industry:
.
Lo-tech companies have a high usage of project planning, project teams and
project control. The usage is higher than the average for small and micro
companies, suggesting a higher use of these tools in lo-tech companies. On the
other hand, the use of MS-Project and bar-charts is less than for small and micro
companies, suggesting these tools do not appeal to lo-tech companies. They want
to plan and control their projects using project teams, but the gadgets do not
appeal. They do not use CPM at all.
.
The hi-tech companies have a fairly high use of project planning project
teams, MS-Project and bar-charts. They have a lower use of project control.

Employ one or more full-time

project managers (%)

Recognize project management

as an identifiable process (%)

63.2
37.9
52.9

57.9
44.8
52.9

Hi-tech
Lo-tech
Service

Hi-tech
Lo-tech
Service
Overall

MS
project
(%)

Gantt
charts
(%)

40
10
18
23

34
3
14
18

Table X.
Use of project
management by industry

CPM

Project
plans
(%)

Project
teams
(%)

Project
control
(%)

Change
control
(%)

Earned
value
(%)

Stage
gate
(%)

8
0
4
4

50
38
37
42

50
31
31
37

18
31
28
25

24
0
0
8

3
0
2
2

11
0
0
3

Table XI.
Use of project
management tools
by industry

IJMPB
2,2

290
.

They use change control, which lo-tech companies did not. Thus, they seem to like
to use project teams to plan their projects in advance and use pretty pictures to
represent the plans, but feel less need to control their projects once they have
started. But for many, change control is important, whereas it was completely
unimportant for lo-tech companies. A small number of hi-tech companies use
CPM. Hi-tech companies are the only ones to use stage-gate reviews, supporting
Turners (2008) view that they are an essential part of information systems
projects, necessary in what he calls Type 3 projects (unclear goals and clear work
methods).
Service companies have a similar use of project planning, project teams and
project control to lo-tech companies. They have a higher use of MS-Projects and a
significantly higher use of bar-charts, but still less than hi-tech companies. Thus,
the advanced tools appeal to them more than the lo-tech companies, but still less
than for the hi-tech ones.

Discussion
The results are not very surprising and confirm our expectations, but they are
important for that reason. SMEs use projects and project management. There was no
difference in the amount of turnover spent on project management, being roughly
one-third for all sizes of company, medium, small and micro. Since SMEs account for
about 70 per cent of the private sector economy (see above), we can see that about
20 per cent of the private sector economy is projects in SMEs. Projects in SMEs is
something that receives very little attention in the project management community, but
they contribute the same to the economy, 20 per cent as large infrastructure projects
(Anbari et al., 2008) and so should receive the same attention.
The smaller the company, the smaller the size of project they undertake. Thus, we
can conclude: smaller companies undertake smaller projects.
Companies make greater use of project management as they increase in size, being
more likely to employ professional project managers, and being more likely to recognize
project management as an identifiable process. Further, larger companies are more likely
to use the tools and techniques of project management, especially the gadgets such as
MS-Project, Gantt charts, CPM and earned value. Only the largest companies from the
hi-tech industries feel the need to use stage-gate reviews. There is nothing to suggest that
smaller companies are frightened of project management, but we can conclude: smaller
companies require project management procedures tailored to the smaller projects they
undertake. They need less process (Turner et al., 2008).
Turner et al. (2008) have identified that the tools most important to smaller
companies are requirements management and resource scheduling, with work
breakdown, milestone planning and quality management the next most important.
Comparing by industry, lo-tech companies spend most of their turnover on projects,
followed by service companies. Lo-tech companies undertake the smallest projects, but
that may explained by the fact that they tended to be smaller companies in our sample.
Hi-tech companies were more likely to employ project managers, recognize project
management as an identifiable process and use the tools and techniques of project
management. Particularly, they made greater use of the gadgets. Whether that is
because their projects demand it, or the gadgets are more likely to appeal to the type of
person working for a hi-tech company there is no evidence. However, the use of

stage-gate reviews is consistent with the finding of Turner (2008) that hi-tech projects
require them.
Project success
We also gathered data on project success. First, we asked our respondents to report the
success of their projects against the triple constraint, budget, schedule and performance.
We asked them to rate success on a scale of 1-5, where 1 is unsuccessful and 5 very
successful. The results are shown in Table XII by size of company and industry.
Micro companies reported better outcomes on budget and schedule than the
other two sizes of company, and medium-sized companies reported better
outcomes on performance. However, these results were not statistically significant.
Lo-tech companies reported better outcomes against all three success criteria than
service companies, and service companies reported better outcomes than hi-tech
companies. The difference between hi-tech companies and lo-tech companies was
statistically significant, and so we conclude: lo-tech companies achieve better project
outcomes than hi-tech companies.
This is perhaps to be expected, since we expect projects in hi-tech companies to be
of higher risk and complexity.
We also asked our respondents to rate the importance of success criteria and identify
significant success factors for their projects. We asked them to rate the importance of the
following seven success criteria as suggested by Muller and Turner (2007):
(1) budget;
(2) schedule;
(3) quality standards;
(4) specification;
(5) appreciation by users;
(6) appreciation by stakeholders; and
(7) appreciation by project personnel.

Project
management
in SMEs
291

With differences by size of firm, the only significant difference was appreciation of
project personnel was rated significantly lower by micro firms than the other two.
This is consistent with micro firms not having dedicated project personnel. There were
more differences by industry. Budget and schedule were less important in hi-tech firms
than they were in service firms. This would be consistent with their inferior outcomes,
except there was no difference with lo-tech firms. Appreciation by users was more
important in service firms than those from the other two industries, and appreciation

Micro
Small
Medium
Hi-tech
Lo-tech
Service

Budget

Schedule

Performance

4.21
3.95
3.92
3.50
4.34
4.16

4.17
3.84
3.81
3.37
4.31
4.06

4.21
4.21
4.39
4.03
4.45
4.33

Table XII.
Reported success rates
against the triple
constraint by size of
company and industry

IJMPB
2,2

292

by stakeholders and project personnel was significantly less important in lo-tech

companies than the other two industries. The last of these is consistent with lo-tech
companies dominating the sample of micro-companies, and that criterion not being
important in micro-companies. But perhaps also it is the nature of the industry that
they give less emphasis to appreciation by stakeholders and project personnel.
We also asked firms to rate the importance of the following six success criteria:
(1) clear goals and objectives;
(2) senior management support;
(3) planning, monitoring and control;
(4) resource allocation;
(5) risk management; and
(6) client consultation.
The only difference in the rating of importance by either size of firm and industry was
resource allocation was thought to be more significant by medium-sized firms than
either micro or small firms. This is interesting because Turner et al. (2008) report that
resource allocation is thought to be the most important planning tool by most of the
firms they have interviewed. Thus, firms are identifying internally that resource
allocation is important to them and that is supported by these results.
Finally, we investigated whether project success as shown in Table XII is correlated
with the importance given to the success factors. The results are reported in Table XIII.
We see that for all firms, the factors contributing most to success are: client
consultation; planning, monitoring and control; and resource allocation. The first of
these was identified as being one of the most important by Pinto and Slevin (1988), and
is repeated for micro- and medium-sized firms. The importance of planning, monitoring
and control is consistent with the use of these tools as shown in Tables VI and XI. We
also identify the importance of resource allocation again. Client consultation was also
important in small firms. However, there are not clearly identifiable differences
between firms based on size. Where there are differences is between firms by industry.
There were no correlations with hi-tech firms, suggesting that other success factors are
Success factors correlated with project success
All
Micro
Small
Medium
Hi-tech
Lo-tech

Table XIII.
Importance given to
success factors correlated
with project success

Service

Clear goals and objectives

Planning, monitoring and control
Resource allocation
Clear goals and objectives
Resource allocation
Resource allocation
Client consultation
Clear goals and objectives
Nothing
Planning, monitoring and control
Resource allocation
Clear goals and objectives
Senior management support
Risk management

important, perhaps again reflecting the greater complexity of their projects. With
lo-tech firms planning, monitoring and control, and resource allocation again appear.
With service firms, the important factors are clear goals and objectives, senior
management support and risk management. Thus, we identify clear differences
between the success factors in lo-tech and service firms, perhaps pointing to the need to
a different focus for their project management procedures.

Project
management
in SMEs
293

Conclusions
Projects and project management in SMEs make a significant contribution to the economy.
SMEs represent 70 per cent of the private sector economy, and on average SMEs spend
one-third of their turnover on projects. Thus, projects in SMEs represent about one-fifth of
the private sector economy. It is important that this money should be well spent.
From the analysis of the use of projects, project management and project tools,
we conclude that SMEs do require lite versions of project management, with simplified
tool sets than the more traditional versions designed for medium-sized or large projects,
and with different versions for medium, small and micro projects. Further, SMEs need to
be guided as to what tools sets they should use, not given a longer list from which they
need to choose (Turner et al., 2008). We also identify that for all firms the important
success factors are client consultation; planning, monitoring and control; and resource
allocation. In firms, from the service industry, senior management support and risk
management are also important.
This is of interest to researchers, trainers and consultants to develop lite versions
of project management for SMEs. Different versions may also be required for different
industries. The conclusion will also be of interest to practitioners, since it may confirm
what they already know, that they should be selective of the amount of project
management process they implement dependent on the size of their projects and the
industry they come from.
The results will form the basis of our research at the Centre for Project Management
at the University of Limerick to develop the lite versions of project management.
References
Anbari, F., Bredillet, C.N. and Turner, J.R. (2008), Perspectives inn research in project
management, Best Paper Proceedings, American Academy of Management Annual
Conference, Anaheim, Academy of Management, New York, NY, August.
Bryde, J.D. (2003), Project management concepts, methods and application, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 775-93.
Enterprise Ireland (2007), Transforming Irish Industry: Enterprise Ireland Strategy 2008-2110,
Enterprise Ireland, Dublin.
European Commission (2005), The New SME Definition: User Guide and Model Declaration,
European Commission Publications Office, Luxembourg.
European Commission (2008), Putting Small Businesses First Europe is Good for SMEs, SMEs
are Good for Europe, European Commission Publications Office, Luxembourg.
Floyd, D. and McManus, J. (2005), The role of SMEs in improving the competitive position of the
European Union, European Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 144-50.
Ghobadian, A. and Gallear, D. (1997), TQM and organisation size, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 121-63.

IJMPB
2,2

294

Hallberg, K. (1999), Small and Medium Scale Enterprises: A Framework for Intervention,
Small Enterprise Unit, Private Sector Development Department, The World Bank,
Washington, DC.
Ledwith, A. (2004), Management of new product development in small Irish electronics firms,
PhD thesis, University of Brighton, Brighton.
McAdam, R. and Reid, R.S. (2005), Innovation and Organizational Size in Irish SMEs:
An Empirical Study, Department of Economics & Enterprise, Glasgow Caledonian
University, Glasgow.
Morris, P.W.G. (1994), The Management of Projects, Thomas Telford, London.
Muller, R. and Turner, J.R. (2007), Project success criteria and project success by type of project,
European Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 298-309.
Murphy, A. and Ledwith, A. (2007), Project management tools and techniques in
high-technology SMEs, Management Research News, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 153-66.
Office of Government Commerce (2005), Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2, 4th ed.,
The Stationery Office, London.
ORegan, N., Ghobadian, A. and Sims, M. (2006), Fast tracking innovation in manufacturing
SMEs, Technovation, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 251-61.
Owens, J.D. (2006), Why do some UK SMEs still find the implementation of a new product
development process problematic? An exploratory investigation, Management Decision,
Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 235-51.
Payne, J.H. and Turner, J.R. (1999), Company-wide project management: the planning and
control of programmes of projects of different types, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 55-9.
Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1988), Critical success factors in effective project implementation, in
Cleland, D.I. and King, W.R. (Eds), Project Management Handbook, 2nd ed., Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, NY.
Rogers, M. (2004), Networks, firm size and innovation, Small Business Economics, Vol. 22, pp. 141-53.
Thomas, J. and Mullaly, M. (2008), Researching the Value of Project Management, Project
Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
Turner, J.R. (2008), The Handbook of Project-based Management, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Turner, J.R., Ledwith, A. and Kelly, J.F. (2008), Project management in small to medium-sized
enterprises: simplified processes for innovation and growth, Proceedings of the 22nd
IPMA World Congress in Project Management, AFITEP, Rome, November.
White, D. and Fortune, J. (2002), Current practice in project management an empirical study,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Appendix. Questions in the questionnaire
(1) How many employees are there?
(2) What is the type of industry:
.
Hi-tech.
.
Lo-tech.
.
Service?
(3) Is there one or more full-time project manager?
(4) Is project management an identifiable process in the firm?

(5) What percentage of turnover is spent on projects:

.
0-20 per cent?
.
20-40 per cent?
.
40-60 per cent?
.
60-80 per cent?
.
80-100 per cent?
(6) What is the average duration of projects?
.
, 3 months?
.
3-6 months?
.
6-12 months?
.
. 12 months?
(7) What is the number of people working on projects?
.
1-10?
.
10-30?
.
. 30?
(8) Which of the following project management tools are used?
.
MS project.
.
Gantt (bar) charts.
.
Critical path method.
.
Project planning.
.
Project teams.
.
Project control.
.
Change control.
.
Earned value method.
.
Stage gates.
(9) On a scale of 1-5, what is the outcome of their projects against the following:
.
Budget.
.
Schedule.
.
Performance.
(10) On a scale of 1-5, what is the importance of the following success criteria:
.
Budget.
.
Schedule.
.
Quality standards.
.
Specification.
.
Appreciation by users.
.
Appreciation by stakeholders.
.
Appreciation by project personnel.
(11) On a sale of 1-5, what is the importance of the following success factors:
.
Clear goals and objectives.
.
Senior management support.

Project
management
in SMEs
295

IJMPB
2,2

.
.
.
.

296

Planning, monitoring and control.

Resource allocation.
Risk management.
Client consultation.

Corresponding author
J. Rodney Turner can be contacted at: rodneyturner@europrojex.co.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

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