This content requires Adobe Flash Player version
or later.
Either you do not have Adobe Flash Player installed,
or your version is too old,
or there is a problem with your Flash installation and we were unable to detect it.
Having said the above, there were some of the respondents who believed that these competencies were extremely important as illustrated in figure 7.
FIGURE 7: BOTTOM FIVE TECHNICAL COMPETENCY ELEMENTS
Figure 7 clearly indicates that these competencies were rated by the majority of the respondents as either extremely important or very important. This is also reflected in figure 5 where the means range from 3.89 to 3.63. However, some of the respondents classified these competencies as not needed or as somewhat important.
The next section focuses on the contextual competencies and also looks at the top and bottom five competencies.
Contextual Competencies
The interesting fact about the contextual competencies is that they were rated very close to one another by the respondents. There is a difference of 1 between the means of the highest ranking competency (4.44) and that of the lowest ranking competency (3.41). The results of table 4, however, tell a different story.
TABLE 4: STATISTICAL FREQUENCIES OF CONTEXTUAL COMPETENCIES Mean
Median
Std. deviation Skewness
Std. error of skewness
3.8718 3.9333
0.49874 -1.660 0.448
The standard deviation of 0.499 is higher than that of the technical competencies and the skewness (-1.660) indicates that there is greater skewness to the left. This is clearly visible from figure 8.
THE DISPARITY BETWEEN PROJECT SUCCESS AND PROJECT MANAGERS' COMPETENCIES 1116