A review of project management research and practice in Kazakhstan

Purpose – The main purpose of this paper is to explore latest developments in Project Management (PM) research and practice in Kazakhstan and cover a research gap that exists in studies of PM.

Methodology – A literature review methodology is used to reveal how PM evolved and have been developing as a managing tool for programs and projects in Kazakhstan. Then, based on a content analysis approach, the study conducts a critical review of the extant literature in both research and practice of PM in the country.

Originality/value – The state-of-the-art and trends of Kazakhstani PM research and practice are presented, as well as suggestions for sustaining their diffusion are provided. The findings of the study add value to the existing PM body of knowledge in Kazakhstan and serve as a background that can be used to promote the local PM research agenda and the projectification of organizations in Kazakhstan.

Findings – Firstly, with regard to the practice of PM in Kazakhstan, the PM frameworks and methodologies serve as a diagnostic tool to measure overall health of an organization in utilization of best practices of PM. Secondly, the study shows that organizations in Kazakhstan ensure that each project is run by individual processes and procedures according to a minimum specified management standards, as a result there is limited consistency or coordination between different projects. Third, with regard to the research in PM, the study found that it is in infancy stage but rapidly growing and evolving into a distinct field of research. The authors conclude that it is opportunity for the local research community to become more active in their research to integrate into the global PM research community.

Introduction

Compared with other types of an organizational management system, Project Management (PM) is a practice based and interdisciplinary in its nature, which makes it the most sophisticated management system. It is reflected in the risks and uncertainties associated with the implementation process, where conditions are subject of tight deadlines and limited funding of the projects [1]. Currently, more than a quarter [2] of global economic activity is carried out through the implementation of projects, and this figure is growing, given that more and more organizations and governments are moving from the traditional form of management system to the project-oriented one.

Such movement to the project-based form of management, on one side, and, the competition in their business environment, on the other, require from organizations achieving a high standard of project performance [3]. This urges the need for project managers to learn best practices through successful application of strategic planning. Implementation of strategic planning for PM means the development of a customized organizationwide PM standard that is suitable for each organizational environment [4]. In other words, it is a mapping of the PM methods and tools into an organization’s management system to achieve planned strategic goals.

With the purpose of investigating the latest development of PM in Kazakhstan and filling a local research gap, this work provides a review of research and practices of PM in the country. To achieve this purpose, the paper presents the current trends, issues and prospects of integration of PM in Kazakhstan through an analysis of the published literature on PM in developed and developing countries, including Kazakhstan. It discusses the development of PM in education, industry and government regulation in Kazakhstan, as well as addresses the need to strengthen the professional field of PM. Further, the research indicates the strategic importance and the role of research and practice of PM in the development of project-oriented society and its accelerated integration into the world economy. 

Overview of Project Management in select developed and developing countries

Over the past 25 years, PM has become a diverse area of research that has shifted its focus from practice to academia significantly [4]. PM has become one of the main approaches for managing programs and projects and is used in government, business and non-profit organizations. To achieve such a success, research, knowledge and application of PM evolved from a variety of disciplines (e.g., management science, civil engineering): from those solely focusing on PM to adjacent ones whose research agenda is somehow concerned with how projects are managed in general [5, 6]. Methods and techniques of PM have been successfully used to control complex processes in various sectors of economy turning it into an interdisciplinary field of science and application [7, 8].

PM has been recognized worldwide as a methodology of project-oriented activities in public, commercial and non-profit sectors. PM has its own extensive specialized literature and a variety of periodicals, national societies and international associations with regional and national symposiums, local, regional, and international congresses and conferences. PM involves numerous experts and consulting organizations, large markets of software products and services. PM is also used in the development of education and training. Project Management Institute (PMI) expects that about 15.7 million PM jobs will be created between 2010 and 2020, which, by 2020, will generate economic activities valued at 6.61 trillion United States (US) dollars [9]. The experience of organizations with a high level of project-oriented approach shows that the use of PM methods and tools allows for rapid and effective results with required quality, saved money, time and resources, thereby reducing risk and improving reliability. Studies also show that there is a clear positive relationship between the level of population welfare and the level of project-orientated thinking of society in a given country [10].

The roots of PM research and application stems from countries such as the USA, Canada, UK, Germany, France, Japan and Australia. In these countries there are well-established and widely used PM certifications, accreditations and standards. Many universities and international organizations offer well-established certification, undergraduate, graduate, and PhD programs in PM. As a separate branch of science and professional field PM is in the process of development in developing countries and countries with a transition economy.

To identify the dynamics as well as the main trends of PM development it is worthwhile to retrospectively look at the formation of a modern PM System (PMS). First of all, it should be noted that the basis of PM methods lies in network planning techniques, developed in the late 1950s in the US. The techniques were widely spread not only in countries with market economies, but also in those with a planed economy. Often these approaches were used in the construction industry. PM approaches began their development with the emergence and spread such network planning techniques.

As far as the sources of PM approaches are concerned, some examples have become paradigmatic. So, in 1956, an organization DuPont, exploring the possibilities of more efficient use of its Univac computer, teamed up with a group of capital construction planning of a company Remington Rand. They tried to use the electronic computer for drawing up schedules of large scales of construction works aimed at a modernization of a plant belonging to DuPont. At the end, the initiative created a simple project description method by usage of an electronic computer. The approach was originally named a method of Walker-Kelly but later was renamed as Critical Path Method (CPM).

In parallel with and independently from DuPont, the US Navy created another method which later become one of the primary approaches in PM, Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT). The method was developed by the Lockheed corporation and the Booz, Allen & Hamilton consulting company for the project of the missile development system Polaris which brought together around 3800 subcontractors and was consisting of 60 thousand operations. The use of PERT allowed the program management to see exactly what needs to be performed at any given time and who is responsible for the work as well as the likelihood of timely completion of certain operations. Managing of the program was so successful that the initiative was completed two years ahead of its schedule. With such a successful application of this control method, it was soon stared being used for managing of projects in all of the US military forces.

This technique has proven itself very well in the coordination of work performed by various contractors in major projects for a development of new weapons.

Thus, it should be emphasized that at this historical stage of PM methodology the technique was only used by large companies and their projects represented grand-scale works, large contractors and public or private investment programs. It should be noted that while large companies initially developed software applications and programs to support their own programs and projects, soon PMS has appeared in the software market. The systems, which supported an effective utilization of network planning techniques, were developed for highend mainframe computers and software networks. The main indicators of this class of systems were their high power and, at the same time, the ability to describe a project in sufficient details, using sophisticated network planning methods. These systems were used by highly professional managers, controlling the development of major projects and who were familiar with algorithms of network planning and a specific technical terminology. As a rule, project and program development and PM consulting were performed by special consulting firms.

Its rapid development PMS received with the advent of personal computers when computers had become a working tool for a wide range of workers. A significant increase in the number of users of management systems gave a rise to the need for the creation of a system to manage projects of a new type, one of the most important indicators of such systems was the ease of use. The new generation management systems were developed as a PM tool clear any manager that does not require special training and providing an easy and a fast start of work.

In world practice, various professional communities use different PM methodologies depending on the base of a conceptual model of the PM approach selected. It should be noted that PM as a management approach was standardized in 1987. The year released the first and the most demanded standard in PM, Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). This standard was developed and proposed by the US organization, PMI. The standard is also the US national standard. PMBOK is constantly updated taking into account new trends, emerging and enshrined into PM practice. In January 2013, PMI released its fifth edition. PMI approaches PM from process-based standpoint that reflected this point in PMBOK and the standard ISO 10006:1997. PMBOK is recognized as an international de facto standard and ISO 10006:1997 gave it the most important provisions making it also the standard de jure. The second edition of PMBOK replaced its first edition in 1996 is recognized as a national US standard, ANSI/PMI 99-001-2000 standard [9]. A great number of countries uses PMBOK.

In addition to the US, 12 countries in the world adopted their national standards for PM. International Project Management Association (IPMA) developed and proposed its PM standard which is competence-based thus aiming at evaluation of PM competences of project managers. IPMA is an international organization that unites 34 national PM associations and about 20,000 individual members from almost all European countries, as well as Turkey, Egypt, China, India, the South Africa and the Latin America. The association was registered in Switzerland in 1965 year as a non-profit, professional organization whose primary purpose is to promote the development and a wide application of practical methods and tools of PM in different countries of the world. IPMA was originally created as a forum for the exchange of ideas and experiences between professionals in the field of PM. The IPMA’s main areas of activity are: research and development, education and training, developing standards and certifications in PM. The IPMA members are primarily national PM associations. The activities of these associations are aimed at ensuring the professional needs of specialists working in the field of PM in their respective countries in their native language. In turn, IPMA provides the professional needs of national associations at the international level. The main activity of IPMA, playing a huge role in the development, recognition and wide dissemination of PM throughout the world, is its world congresses. Since its first congress in Vienna in 1967, IPMA is steadily growing as an organization and contributes to the development of PM, both from information dissemination and a methodological points of views. Since 1967 its world congresses are held on the territory of Western European countries and they were firmly established into the framework of tradition, history and culture of Western Europe in PM.

At the present time there is rapidly growing interest in the use of “competence-based” approach to PM which was adopted as an official base in more than 30 countries around the world. This approach is expressed in internationally recognized standard, the International Competence Baseline (ICB) by the IPMA. The ICB is the common framework document which all IPMA member associations and certification bodies abide by to ensure that consistent and harmonised standards are applied [11]. Given this, the most of the ICB content aims at description of the competence elements necessary for project managers.

An important feature of PM as an established professional discipline is its certification systems for PM specialists and project managers that are used at both international and national levels. Their main goal is to create and ensure a community of highly qualified professionals with common management culture, a unified professional language recognized, and a uniform approach to an implementation of projects. Such approaches to make PM unified and common do not depend on the specific country in which a project is being carried out but takes into account a practice of socio-economic characteristics, traditions and national culture, specifies of religion as well as the way of life and mentality.

Despite the fact that more than 20 countries have their national PM certification system, the two most widely used certification in international practice are the 4-level system of international certification by IPMA and one-tier international system by the PMI. 

Overview of Project Management in Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan has gone through drastic changes since its independence. The transition to a market economy demanded new, objective, result-oriented forms of governance, which, in turn, led to new approaches and development of PM in the country [12]. During the years of its independence, concepts, approaches and tools of PM have been used at different levels of management in many sectors, including government and non-profit organizations. Examples of more traditional sectors of the economy, adapting PM include capital construction, communications, oil and gas and energy sectors. PM gradually finds its place in the field of education, training and research in universities, colleges, research institutes, and as a professional field in various sectors of economy, as in many developing countries [13].

Given such an established background of research in global PM knowledge and applications, it is appealing to explore its current status and dynamics in emerging economies. From this perspective the paper focuses on Kazakhstan where the need for application of the best PM practices has increased since its independence in 1990s and the local research in the field gained an interest in the early 2000s. The country’s emerging market economy demanded new and objective forms of management, which in turn gave an order to new avenues in development of local PM research and knowledge. Another appealing research issue is that these 25 years of the independence of Kazakhstan coincide with the increase in global research in PM knowledge and applications as pointed at the beginning of this section. 

Despite the gradual development of PM in the country, with respect to its application in practice, open questions in an agenda are how and to what extent organizations and government agencies successfully use the methods and tools of PM. These trends can be analyzed using applications of various PM models and their levels of maturity organizations. The advantage of adapting PM for businesses is that it provides a common language and methodology that facilitate the management of projects of all sizes, especially projects implemented in different regions or countries. PM also provides a systematic documentation of “lessons learned” that can accelerate the transfer of knowledge and an organizational development for more effective management of future projects.

Review of professional associations (non-profit, non-governmental organizations) advocating the field of PM in the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States shows the existence of four national associations registered by IPMA: the Azerbaijan Association of Project Management, the Kazakhstan Project Management Association, the Russian Project Management Association, and the Ukrainian Project Management Association.

Over the past 10 years, advances in research of PM in Kazakhstan and its application are obvious and indisputable. Today, according to the Concept of industrial and innovative development of Kazakhstan, the country seeks to join the 50 most competitive and dynamically developing countries of the world. The government through its budget and other funds promoting and supporting the economy allocates huge investments for implementation of projects in various sectors of its economy. For example, according to [14] in 2011, the government commissioned 288 projects worth more than 970 billion tenge, approximately US$ 6.5 billion. The execution of the program goes extensively: it covers most the most of the regions of Kazakhstan as well as the majority of industries. The implementation of the Concept of industrial and innovative development and its programs and projects is based on the understanding and active use of new methods and management tools. One of these highly efficient tools is PM approaches.

As noted by [14] the traditional management system, which is inherent in most organizations today Kazakhstan does not meet the goals and objectives of modern business, a negative impact on their competitiveness. The introduction of UE in the Kazakhstan market is spontaneous and chaotic. There are organizations that use the methods and tools of UE. Work organizations that provide consulting and training services in project management. The presence of international organizations and their branches in Kazakhstan. But among them are not built clear communication, organizational and economic mechanisms of interaction.

As a rule, the PM approaches have been successfully implemented and used to manage programs and projects in large organizations such as KazMunaiGas, Kazatomprom, Kazakhstan Temir Zholy, Kazgiproneftetrans, financial institutions, including such banks Halyk Bank, ATF Bank, foreign organizations or organizations with foreign participation. However, even these organizations do not use the full capabilities and resources of PM and are not completely project-oriented today.

As far as the macro level factors impeding the use of PM in Kazakhstan are concerned, the following is listed [14]:

• The lack of a legal and regulatory framework, including the Law “On the project management”;
• The lack of a state policy in promoting of PM;
• The lack of national standards for project management;
• The lack of a profession “Project Manager” in the profession qualification system of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of Population of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
• The lack of a national system of the certification of organizations and project

The above mentioned factors regulate force using other management methods than PM or the PM methods partially.

With regard to the factors that allow the development of PM in the country, the main two are noted: the increase in the number of organizations involved in international economic activities and the growth of the foreign investors participating in various programs and projects in Kazakhstan. It is worthwhile to mention that both of these trends require the establishment of a common business language and culture. PM with its recognized certification and accreditation can be a cultural bridge and means of business communications between such organizations and foreign investors. 

In November 2014 the Union of Project Managers of Kazakhstan developed a national standard of the Republic of Kazakhstan ST RK ISO 21500-2014 Guidance on Project Management. This is very important and crucial step towards diffusion of PM as a separate field of application in the country, because until the moment the normative regulation of PM in Kazakhstan was absent, with the exception of the UNE standards that was applicable to research and innovation projects only [15]. According to the field experts, the standard reflects best word practices such as provided in the international standard ISO 21500:2012 and those of by PMI. Using the standard, created on the basis of the best practices of PM, project managers can significantly save on duration and budget on their projects. The development of the standard involved experts from 31 countries and 5 more countries acted as observers in the process. The purpose of the national standard is an adaptation to the international standards and compliance with standards of Kazakhstani business. In this case, the Kazakh organizations have the opportunity to get an estimate for the use of PM tools by international organizations.

This review paper reflected the history, current state and prospects of the development of PM in Kazakhstan which were presented in the works [3, 12, 13, 16]. As far as the review of PM in the global level is concerned, it is well presented in the papers [1, 5, 6, 7, 17, 18, 19].

The diffusion of the PM frameworks and methodologies in Kazakhstan is in its infancy. In his recent research, Narbaev [20] found that, with regard to the diffusion of PM, the majority of PM applications came from oil and gas, processing, construction and heavy industries. Also, he established three distinct clusters corresponding to the following three domains of the local PM: PM in education and technology, PM in country and regional affairs, and PM in energy sector (Figure 1). Secondly, there was a clear relationship between stateof-the-art of the development of the economy and the level of project orientation of the country. During the years of its independence, tremendous efforts of the business and government of Kazakhstan had been focused on the development of the economy and increasing the well-being of society. In most, such initiatives were realized through programs and projects. He concluded that the practice of PM and the development of its body of knowledge in Kazakhstan are in its infancy.

Figure 1 – Co-words cluster map of the abstract terms [20] 

The another research agenda is the issue of the maturity in PM. Narbaev [3] provided an empirical study on assessing PM Maturity (PMM) in the country. He conducted a questionnaire survey involving 22 local project managers from different industries which represented a sample for his study. After the statistical analysis of the data, the research was split into three streams: revealing respondents’ profile, discussing demand for project managers, and determining a PMM level in the country. The model applied by [3] was the Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3), the model developed in accordance with the PRINCE2 (PRojects In Controlled Environments) methodology. P3M3 has become a key standard amongst maturity models, providing a framework with which organizations can assess their current performance and put in place improvement plans with measurable outcomes based on industry best practice. Being regarded as an overarching model P3M3 contains three individual sub-models. Its Project Management Maturity Model (PjM3) assesses the PMM in organizations with respect to seven process perspectives, defining the key characteristics of a mature organization. The model also reveals the overall organizational (Org.) description and overall organizational capability in PM. These seven process perspectives are: management (Mng.) control, benefits management, financial management, stakeholder engagement, risk management, organizational governance, and resource management. 

Table 1 – Summary of PMM Assessment Results [3] 

Overall, with the mean maturity level of 2.42 out of 5, the results showed that PM tools and methods had not yet been used effectively in Kazakhstan [3]. The results of this study also suggested that PMM in Kazakhstani organizations was gradually moving from Level 2 to Level 3. This showed that the organizations ensured that each project was run with its own processes and procedures to a minimum specified management standard set in the organizations. However, it also implied that there was limited consistency or coordination between different projects. Finally, the study found that, as PMM moves to Level 3, the organizations strived for having their own centrally controlled PM processes where all their individual projects would flex.

The analysis of the experience of implementation of projects, as well as the skills and knowledge of PM, indicate that there are critical issues in the conception, initiation, planning, implementation and completion of projects. In Kazakhstan, organizations tend to underestimate the importance of the project conceptual phase: to be precise, these organizations devote relatively less time for this phase, than their Western counterparts. The duration of the deployment of projects and their individual phases in Kazakhstan is more than in developed countries. In Kazakhstan there is limited information on the current state, problems and prospects of development in PM. It can be concluded that, in Kazakhstan, there are limited internationally renown papers or studies devoted to the research on the projectification of organizations and the society and its influence on the country’s economic development.

Conclusion

In past 20 years PM research and practice have shown an increase in various developed and developing countries and its applications were well-documented and disseminated. Given such a worldwide diffusion of PM, there was little evidence or research aimed at studying its state-of-the-art in Kazakhstan. With the purpose of exploring the current status of PM research and practice and filling its research gap, this work provided a review of PM in the country by applying a content analysis approach.

First, in Kazakhstan, as organizations strive to identify competitive advantages in their markets and leverage them through their management system, PM methodologies become increasingly important. These methodologies assist project managers in assessing project performance and identify opportunities for improvement. However, it should be noted, that reaching a higher level of maturity in PM is an effort that requires from senior management significant investment and commitment. It is wise for every organization target the level of PM maturity that would be optimal and in synchrony with both its external business and internal management environments. PM frameworks and methodologies serve as a diagnostic tool to measure overall health of an organization in utilizing PM best practices.

Second, the research findings, on the one side, show that organizations in Kazakhstan ensure that each project is run with its own processes and procedures to a minimum specified management standard. On the other side, the research revealed that there is limited consistency or coordination between different projects.

Third, with regard to research in PM, the study found that it is in its infancy stage but rapidly growing evolving into a distinct field of research. The authors conclude that it is opportune for the local research community to be more active in the integration into the global PM research community. This would allow the community sharing more robust and well proven methodologies with the Kazakhstani counterparts in exploring the local content and envisaging future research prospects.

All in all, the findings of the study add value to the existing PM body of knowledge in Kazakhstan and serve as a background asset that can be used in facilitating the projectification of organizations in Kazakhstan. 

Acknowledgements 

This research was supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan with the research grant “Project Management for Kazakhstan: Enhancing the education and industry perspectives” under the contract number 85 of February 12th, 2015. 

References 

1. Bredillet, (2007), "Exploring research in project management: Nine schools of project management research (Part 1)", Project Management Journal, Vol. 38, No 2, pp. 3-4.
2. The World (2015), "World development indicators: Gross capital formation", The World Bank, 10 May 2016, available at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.GDI.TOTL.ZS (Accessed April, 12, 2016)
3. Narbaev, S. (2015), "An assessment of project management maturity in Kazakhstan", PM World Journal, Vol. 4, No. 11, pp. 1-20.
4. Cleland, D.I, Ireland, L.R. (2006), "Project management: Strategic design and implementation", 5th ed., McGraw-Hill.
5. Pollack, J., Adler, D. (2015), "Emerging trends and passing fads in project management research: A scientometric analysis of changes in the field", International Journal of Project Management, 33, No. 1, pp. 236-248.
6. Bredillet, (2008), "Exploring research in project management: Nine schools of project management research (Part 6)", Project Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 2-5.
7. Narbaev, , De Marco, A. (2014), "An earned schedule-based regression model to improve cost estimate at completion", International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 1007-1018. 
8. Narbaev, , De Marco, A. (2011), "Cost estimate at completion methods in construction projects", Proceedings of the 2nd International Construction and Project Management Conference, IACSIT Press, pp. 32-36.
9. (2013), "Project management between 2010+2020: Project management talent gap report", Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA, pp. 1-5.
10. Gareis, R., Huemann, M. (2001), "Assessing and benchmarking project-oriented societies", International Project Management Journal, Project Management Association Finland and Norwegian Project Management Forum, 1, No. 7, pp. 14-25.
11. International Project Management Association. (2015), "ICB: IPMA Competence Baseline", International Project Management Association, 10 May 2016, available at: http://www.ipma.world/resources/ ipma-publications/ipma-competence-baseline (Accessed March, 03, 2016)
12. Tsekhovoy, A.F., Nekrassova, N.A., Karmazina, L.I. (2014), "The project management culture: International lessons and Kazakhstan’s experience", PM World Journal, 3, No. 3, pp. 1-14.
13. Karmazina, L.I., Nekrassova, N.A., Bolatzhanuly, (2014), "Project management technology development in the republic of Kazakhstan: Current situation and problems", Actual Problems of Economics, Vol. 162, No. 12, pp. 180-189.
14. Husainova H., (2012), "Upravlіnnja proektami u rozvitku suspіl'stva", Materialah IX Mіzhnarodna konferencіja. Kiїv, 11-12 travnja, pp. 235-237. (In Ukranian)
15. Klochkova N. (2014), "Pomozhet li novyj standart kazahstanskim menedzheram “govorit' na odnom jazyke" s mirovym proektnym soobshhestvom?", Sojuz proektnyh menedzherov RK, May 10 2016, available at URL: http://spmrk.kz/biblioteka/vsjo-po-up-i-ssp/249-pomozhet-li-novyj-standart-kazakhstanskimmenedzheram-govorit-na-odnom-yazyke-s-mirovym-proektnym-soobshchestvom.html (In Russian) (Accessed May 12, 2016)
16. Tsekhovoy, A.F., Statsenko, L.G. (2014), "Transition to the Standards of management of subsoil use projects is an urgent task", Gornyi Zhurnal (Mining Journal), No. 5, pp. 79-80.
17. Morris, W.G., Crawford, L., Hodgson, D., Shepherd, M.M., Thomas, J. (2006), "Exploring the role of formal bodies of knowledge in defining a profession: The case of project management", International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24, No. 8, pp. 710-721.
18. (2015), "Pulse of the profession: Capturing the Value of project management through knowledge transfer", Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA, USA.
19. Turner, R. (2010), "Evolution of project management research as evidenced by papers published in the International Journal of Project Management (Editorial)", International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 1-6.
20. Narbaev, S. (2015), "Project management knowledge discovery in Kazakhstan: A co-word analysis of the field", The 12th International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning, Bangkok, November 5-6, Academic Conferences and Publishing International Press.