University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Employee standardization for interchangeability across states: an improvement study

(USC Thesis Other)

Employee standardization for interchangeability across states: an improvement study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Employee Standardization for Interchangeability Across States:
An Improvement Study
by
Buu Van Nygren

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2021

© Copyright by Buu Van Nygren 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Buu Van Nygren certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Kenneth A. Yates
Eric A. Canny
Adrian J. Donato, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
Using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework, the purpose of the study was to
identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences that contribute to the
performance gaps of executing Building America’s (a pseudonym) goal of having all
construction project management employees standardized for interchangeability across states by
January 2023. The three research questions were: First, what are the knowledge and motivation
influences that interfere with project management decision-makers (PMDM) developing a multi-
site training program for employee standardization across states? Second, what is the interaction
between organizational culture and context and project management decision-makers’
knowledge and motivation? Third, what are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and
organizational solutions? Participants for this study were PMDM who had the authority and
influence on the organizational efforts to standardize employees. The research used mixed-
method research to analyze collected data from surveys, interviews, and documents to determine
the KMO influence of five needs and three assets. Findings from the study showed Building
America PMDM appeared to have a good understanding of employee standardization, but the
organizational goal of 100% standardization revealed the need for performance improvement.
The solutions identified through this research were integrated into the new world Kirkpatrick
model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) framework to develop a program for implementation
and evaluation to ensure resource use returns the most benefits. Overall, the study provides
insight into construction employee development efforts to improve organizational performance.
Keywords: construction industry, project management, employee standardization,
interchangeability, employee development, training program, performance improvement

v
Dedication
To my mom, Charlotte Slim Toney, I dedicate this dissertation to my late mother, whom we lost a
few months ago and left a little too early at 49 years old. My mom made her mark on me through her
teachings and belief that I can make a difference for the Navajo people through my education and to
have a kind heart for the unfortunate. My mother grew up on the Navajo Nation without running
water or electricity, with a 9th grade education, a single mother who blessed me with this beautiful
life at 15 years of age. Because of her, I am forever grateful to live this life knowing I had a
wonderful, loving Navajo mother. For as long as I could remember, my mother taught me the
importance of education. Through education, she would tell me, you can get yourself out of poverty
and make something of yourself but never forget the people and upbringing that made you. It was
very emotionally challenging for me to walk in the University of Southern California graduation
ceremony in May because it was my first graduation without having my mom in attendance. I know
she is looking over my family and me with a sense of pride that her little boy is now Dr. Buu Van
Nygren. Mom, you will finally get a grandchild from me, a little girl, this coming October during
your birth month. I will be a dad you will be proud of, and I will teach my little girl all the intangible
things you instilled in me. I love you so much, mom!

To my wife, Jasmine Grace Blackwater-Nygren, it is tough to explain everything you do for me
because you are my engine, heart, and everything. Many things would not have been possible
without being your husband, especially your support, encouragement, and keeping me
accountable to make sure I get through this program. Over the past 3 years, you gave me time
and space to work countless hours during the week and weekends on readings, assignments, and
completing my dissertation. Over the past 3 years, a lot has happened that I could not have
possibly completed my doctorate without your love and support. Toward the end of the program,

vi
we found out that we will be having a baby girl, which fueled me to get the dissertation out of
the way and start preparing to be an awesome dad. To our baby girl coming October 2021, I want
you to know that you and your mom kept me grounded, humbled, and focused. I am forever
thankful to be your husband, and I love both of you so much!

To my grandmother, Marilyn Slim, and sister, Bijou Ricci Etcitty, grandma, I continue to feel
blessed to know you are still here with me, and you witnessed me graduate this past May. Even
as Dr. Buu Van Nygren, I still feel like that little boy who did not enjoy going to school because
I could not speak English and begged you in Navajo to stay home so I could help you around the
house trailer. You have always been there for me since day one, and I will continue to do what I
can to make you proud. I love you so much, grandma. To my little sister, I am so thankful mom
gave me a little sister who is very practical and wise. My heart is grateful and happy that mom
met both of her little grandbaby girls and witnessed her little girl make a life by having an
unofficial wonderful husband and a beautiful home. You have a powerful mind and heart, which
continues to help you make things happen that provide for your lovely little girls. I love you so
much, and I am very honored to be your brother.

To my relatives, thank you for all the continued love and support. I am truly blessed to have such
a beautiful Navajo family. My doctorate is for all my grandmas, grandpas, uncles, aunties,
nephews, nieces, cousins, and clan relatives. I know reaching this milestone took the collective
effort of your teachings and prayers to make this come to fruition.

vii
Acknowledgments
Thank you to my dissertation committee, I want to express my thankfulness, gratitude,
and appreciation to my committee members, Dr. Adrian Donato, Dr. Kenneth Yates, and Dr. Eric
Canny. Thank you for the countless hours you have all spent reading my dissertation, providing
me with valuable feedback, and guiding me through to the dissertation finish line. Dr. Donato,
thank you for keeping me focused during this whole process. Dr. Yates, I appreciate your
commitment and generous guidance in helping me cross the finish line. Dr. Canny, I appreciate
your enthusiasm and constructive feedback. Thank you for being patient, understanding and
guiding me to achieve a significant milestone in my life.
Thank you to the University of Southern California for the opportunity to flourish
through this remarkable Doctor of Education in Organizational Change and Leadership program.
Thank you to faculty, staff, and all my fellow Cohort 13 Trojans for your dedication, and support
to get me through the various classes we took together and encouraging one another to get the
dissertation completed. I am looking forward to seeing all that we will accomplish and all the
organizations we will successfully impact.
Thank you to all my friends and supporters for your understanding of my dedication and
time commitment I had to endure over the past 3 years as I pursued my dream of attaining a
doctorate. The entire journey was an experience of a lifetime. Fight on!

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiii
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Importance of Addressing the Problem .............................................................................. 3
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................. 4
Organizational Performance Status ..................................................................................... 5
Organizational Performance Goal ....................................................................................... 5
Description of Stakeholder Groups ..................................................................................... 6
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals ....................................................................................... 8
Stakeholder Group for the Study ........................................................................................ 8
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 9
Conceptual and Methodological Framework ...................................................................... 9
Definitions......................................................................................................................... 11
Organization of the Project ............................................................................................... 12
Chapter Two: Review of Literature .............................................................................................. 13
Project Management ......................................................................................................... 13
Training ............................................................................................................................. 15
Standardization ................................................................................................................. 21
Role of Stakeholder Group of Focus ................................................................................ 23

ix
Clark and Estes (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Framework ........................................................................................................................ 23
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences .............................. 24
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge, Motivation,
and the Organizational Context ........................................................................................ 41
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 43
Chapter Three: Methods ............................................................................................................... 44
Methodological Approach and Rationale ......................................................................... 45
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 45
Data Collection and Instrumentation ................................................................................ 49
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 51
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 52
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 52
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 53
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 54
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 55
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 55
Determination of Assets and Needs .................................................................................. 57
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes.................................................................... 58
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes .................................................................... 68
Results and Findings for Organization Causes ................................................................. 78
Summary and Discussion of Influences ............................................................................ 87
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 90
Chapter Five: Implementation and Evaluation Plan ..................................................................... 91
Organizational Context and Mission ................................................................................ 91
Organizational Performance Goal ..................................................................................... 92

x
Description of Stakeholder Groups ................................................................................... 93
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ................................................................ 94
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ........................................... 94
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................................. 109
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ................................................................... 124
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 124
Future Research .............................................................................................................. 125
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 126
References ................................................................................................................................... 128
Appendix A: Survey Protocol ..................................................................................................... 141
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 147
Appendix C: Document Analysis Protocol ................................................................................. 151
Appendix D: Sample Email to Participate in the Study .............................................................. 152
Appendix E: Immediate Evaluation Tool (Levels 1 and 2) ........................................................ 156
Appendix F: Delayed Evaluation Tool (Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4) ................................................... 157
Appendix G: Evaluation Data Dashboard................................................................................... 158

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals ................... 8
Table 2: Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis ........... 29
Table 3: Assumed Motivation Influences and Motivational Influence Assessments ................... 35
Table 4: Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Assessments .......................... 40
Table 5: Survey Results for Role .................................................................................................. 56
Table 6: Survey Results for Years of Project Management Experience ....................................... 57
Table 7: Survey Results for Declarative Knowledge for Benefits of Employee
Standardization ................................................................................................................. 59
Table 8: Survey Results for Procedural Knowledge for Steps to Improve Employee
Standardization ................................................................................................................. 62
Table 9: Survey Results for Procedural Knowledge for Tracking Progress to Improve
Employee Standardization ................................................................................................ 63
Table 10: Survey Results for Metacognitive Knowledge for Methods to Monitor
Employee Standardization ................................................................................................ 66
Table 11: Survey Results for Self-Efficacy Motivation for Confidence They Can
Standardize Employees ..................................................................................................... 69
Table 12: Survey Results for Utility Value Motivation for Usefulness of Standardized
Employees ......................................................................................................................... 72
Table 13: Survey Results for Goal Orientation Motivation for Standardize Goal
Alignment with Employees............................................................................................... 75
Table 14: Survey Results for Cultural Model for Acknowledging and Promoting
Employee Standardization ................................................................................................ 79
Table 15: Survey Results for Cultural Model for Acknowledging and Promoting
Employee Standardization ................................................................................................ 80
Table 16: Survey Results for Cultural Setting for having Employee Standardization
Guided by Policies and Procedures................................................................................... 83
Table 17: Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by Data ................................................... 88
Table 18: Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by Data .................................................... 89

xii
Table 19: Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by Data ................................................. 90
Table 20: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ........................................ 96
Table 21: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ...................................... 101
Table 22: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ................................... 106
Table 23: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ..................... 112
Table 24: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ............................ 114
Table 25: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ......................................................... 116
Table 26: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program ..................................... 120
Table 27: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program .................................................... 121

xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Process .............................................................. 10
Figure 2: KMO Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................... 42
Figure 3: Evaluation Data Dashboard ......................................................................................... 158

1

Chapter One: Introduction
Bolman and Deal (2017) emphasized creating a structure that has a purpose and works
for the employees. According to Bolman and Deal, the organization needs to know their industry
or market success indicators and to remain updated with the latest regulations to help implement
strategies that best fit their teams’ abilities. Teams become dysfunctional when they stop trusting
each other, avoid tough discussions, lose interest, lack accountability, and are not focused on
delivering results (Lencioni, 2002). Overcoming tough obstacles requires leaders to have allies,
implement defined and realistic goals, and hold themselves accountable to their goals (Childress
et al., 2006). Accountability is showing efforts are being made to achieve organizational goals,
and reporting on quality, performance, and efficiency of the organization (Burke, 2005).
Organizational leaders can empower individuals and teams through standardized training
development programs that allow teams to learn new knowledge and skills to address problems
hindering organizational performance.
Training and development programs need well-defined measurement processes and
systems to provide insight into real successes or shortcomings (Barrett & Mattox, 2010). Jones
(2001) suggested daily priorities overwhelm managers and often overshadow the importance of
long-term development of organizational learning efforts. According to Pintrick (2003), students
who are willing to learn and develop new skills need to focus on mastery goals. According to
Jones (2001), organizational learning encourages employees to (a) voice their concerns, (b)
refine their skills through reflection, (c) share experiences, (d) embrace a culture of continuous
learning, (e) start on next action steps, and (f) reflect on actions taken. Achieving results involves
communicating a plan that defines what is considered wrong and right (Childress et al., 2006).
Ambrose et al. (2010) suggested students who believe in themselves are more than likely to
2

achieve a goal they think is achievable. Organizations are complex, technologically dependent,
geographically positioned in many states, and expect results immediately. To meet these
demands, large construction organizations no longer operate like “mom and pop” businesses.
Construction organizations are trying to meet global demands by developing their project
management employees with new knowledge and skills. Organizations need their employees to
master existing procedures through standardization that increases their capacity to work on any
geographically located project.
Background of the Problem
Organizations spend billions of dollars each year trying to increase employee
performance through learning programs designed to refine their employees’ abilities and skills
(Elmore, 2002; Gray, 2015; Meyer & Marsick, 2003; Ruhose et al., 2019; Thompson, 2016). In
2013, organizations spent more than $140 billion on employee training and spent $50 billion on
formal training to help organizations increase job performance (Thompson, 2016). A challenge
for corporate adult educators is providing learning experiences driven by organizational
principals requiring educators to deliver results that instill fiscal accountability in their students
(Meyer & Marsick, 2003). An organizational challenge to providing employee training is
refining skills that increase employee value over time to help them increase performance, wages,
and self-confidence (Ruhose et al., 2019). Organizations spend sizable sums of money on
employee training and refining their training programs to meet organizational standardization
needs and justify costs.
According to Elmore (2002), the right capacity is like teachers having mastered material
before teaching students. Ambrose and Ogilvie (2010) expressed an uniformed training program,
hoping everyone learns the same way, is no longer used because many organizations have
3

various types of people and generational differences. Individuals with capacity and skills to
identify learning needs should lead or assist with the development of organizational training
programs. Gray (2015) considered corporate trainers as con artists when they disregarded
educational learning aspects of an effective training program and used sources of non-credible
training research to increase workplace learning. Employee standardization needs to be effective
because of the high costs of the training department. The funds invested in training may be better
spent if a training program uses standardized methods to achieve results. The best use of funds
for large construction companies maybe a standardized multisite project management training
program.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of not having a multisite project management training program for
employee standardization is important to solve for a variety of reasons such as consistency in the
quality of products or services provided to the customer. According to Barrett and Mattox
(2010), training programs should help the business have human capital performance advantages
over its competition through instructional design that increases productivity. Organizations
outpace change by learning from failure to improve performance during uncertain times (Jones,
2001). Training departments are either critical to the success of the business or one of the first
departments to be closed during tough times (Barrett & Mattox, 2010). Employee standardized
learning is critical to keep pace with the world and is driven by the technology used to increase
organizational performance and communication. Organizations need their employees in sync
with administrative processes and procedures to remain competitive and profitable. The design
of standardized programs needs to reflect the organizational bottom-line expectations and engage
and empower employees to enjoy continuous learning and increase their capacity in the
4

organization. An effective employee standardized program provides a learning environment that
teaches employees how to do their jobs with consistent quality regardless of geographical
location.
Organizational Context and Mission
Building America Construction, Incorporated (Building America) is a construction
company specializing in constructing water and wastewater, power, transportation, oil and gas,
mining, and industrial facilities (Building America, 2020). The mission of Building America is to
obtain the confidence of its workers, construction trade associates, and consumers. Achieving
this mission happens by establishing teams with constituents who have steadfast and extensive
credence in each other. The company started in 1902 as a railroad company on a handshake
investment because the friend believed in the owner. The organization has thrived on its rich
history of competence and continues to build quality projects. The culture at Building America
embodies characteristics of integrity among all employees involved in constructing a project.
Building America builds confidence through its values of equity, honesty, triumph, and
efficiency. Building America has ranked as one of the top 25 largest contractors in the United
States since the year 2000. Building America is the industry leader in constructing mining and
power generating projects with it’s over 2,000 employees across nine states, with yearly
revenues more than $2 billion. Building America has 45 offices in the following states (a)
California, (b) Washington, (c) North Dakota, (d) Colorado, (e) Minnesota, (f) New York, (g)
Massachusetts, (h) New Jersey, and (i) North Carolina. The organization has 13 departments in
the national organization structure: (a) executive, (b) project management, (c) field operations,
(d) preconstruction, (e) contracts, (f) construction technology, (g) information technology, (h)
insurance, (i) human resource, (j) marketing, (k) business development, (l) fleet services, and (m)
5

warranty. All nine states operate independently but may mirror the national organizational
structure. There are four departments shared among all nine states: (a) executive, (b) construction
technology, (c) information technology, and (d) insurance. The primary role of all employees is
to build projects on time with quality, on budget, and impress the client, so they hire Building
America for their next project (Building America, 2020).
Organizational Performance Status
The organizational performance problem of this study was not having employees
standardized for interchangeability across states. Sixty-five percent of Building America’s
project management employees do not have capacity for interchangeability across states. The
gap needs to be closed to have project management employees 100% standardized for
interchangeability across states. This critical problem needs to be solved because the
organization has received reports of ill-prepared employees, who continually need the same
training to build their capacity to work in multiple states. Without a standardized program that
builds 100% interchangeability capacity, the organization cannot fulfill its mission of building
trust through its values because of insufficient competencies in project management employee
abilities. It is imperative Building America solves this performance problem to help the
organization build capacity that directly affects profits and revenues. Failure to solve this
problem may cause the organization to continue spending thousands of dollars on standardized
training efforts that fail to meet employee needs and risk compromising the trust clients have in
Building America.
Organizational Performance Goal
An effective training program has the right content to meet demands of the employee
seeking training (Ambrose & Ogilvie, 2010). Building America has an organizational
6

performance goal to have 100% of project management employees meet requirements for
multisite interchangeability across various states (Building America, 2020). By January 2023,
Building America will have 100% employee standardization in the project management
department for performance improvement through a multisite standardization program for
interchangeability capacity across states.
The project management decision-makers (PMDM) established this goal after reviewing
past efforts on providing various types of training. The goal involves improving organizational
aspects of (a) adult learning, (b) professional development, (c) skill development, (d) leadership
development, (e) organizational development, and (f) self-efficacy. The leaders at Building
America believe the right standardization program will help reduce overall labor costs and
increase company capacity to increase revenues and profits. The organizational performance goal
aligns with its values of equity, honesty, triumph, and efficiency. Achieving this goal will also
strengthen the organization’s financial bottom line and foundation of competence. The project
management decision makers will measure the achievement of Building America’s goal of
having standardized project management employees by January 2023.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
A stakeholder group is a group of individuals who directly contribute to and benefit from
achieving the organization’s performance goal. Building America has many important critical
stakeholders, but for the organizational standardization goal, there are three primary
stakeholders: (a) PMDM, (b) project management implementers, and (c) project management
trainees. The PMDM are leaders who provide direction for all project management employees,
construction technology applications, and employee training. The PMDM have the ultimate
7

authority to develop and implement training initiatives to improve project management
performance.
The project management implementers manage all project management employees and
provide direction for Building America’s project management processes and procedures. The
project management implementers consist of project directors and senior project managers who
implement initiatives or plans from project management decision-makers. The project
management implementers are the first to receive new training and develop action plans to
implement initiatives to project management trainees.
The project management trainees are individuals who manage construction projects daily,
complete required pieces of training, mentor new project management trainees, and represent the
largest number of employees in Building America. The project management trainees consist of
project managers, assistant project managers, project coordinators, and project management
interns. Building America has many critical stakeholders who manage and operate the business,
but there are only three essential stakeholders needed to develop a training program for this
study. The organization’s mission and goals are shown on Table 1.

8

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational mission
The mission of Building America is to earn the trust of their employees, building partners, and
clients. Achieving this mission begins by building teams with members who have
unwavering, comprehensive trust in one another.
Organizational performance goal
By January 2023, Building America will have 100% employee standardization in its Project
Management department
Stakeholder performance goals
Project Management
Decision Makers
(Construction
Technology Dept and
Project Management
Operations Directors)
Project Management
Implementer (Project
Directors, Senior Project
Managers)
Project Management Trainees
(Project Managers, Assistant
Project Managers, and Project
Coordinators)
By December 2022,
100% of Building
America project
management decision
makers will certify all
employees as being
interchangeable across
states.
By May 2022, project
management
implementers will
develop an action plan to
implement the plan for
employee standardization
across states.
By November 2022, 100% of the
project management trainees
will receive standardized
training for multisite
interchangeability capacity
across states.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
The development and implementation of the training program includes many
stakeholders, but the stakeholder of focus for this study at Building America will be the project
management decision-makers. The PMDM have the most authority over the development of
standardizing project management employees. The PMDM develop new programs and receive
feedback among each other on existing construction technology initiatives. The PMDM manages
9

business technology applications to keep pace with industry-leading companies. Business
technology applications host training programs for employees to be successful at Building
America. The project management decision-makers include employees from the construction
technology department consisting of (a) director, (b) manager, (c) trainers, and (d) project
management operations directors who are seasoned executives who have complete oversight of
the project management department.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis to examine PMDM knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that interfere with developing a multisite training
program for 100% employee standardization across states. The study began by generating a list
of possible or assumed influences from the literature that will be examined systematically. As
such, the questions that guided this study were:
1. What are the knowledge and motivation influences that interfere with project
management decision-makers developing a multisite training program for employee
standardization across states?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and project
management decision-makers’ knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The conceptual framework implemented in this study used Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis, a systematic, and analytical method. Clark and Estes’ framework helps to clarify
organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the preferred
performance level in an organization. The methodological framework was a mixed methods
10

study using surveys, interviews, and document analysis that expanded on the researcher’s unique
worldview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that interfere with organizational goal achievement were generated based on personal
knowledge and related literature. These influences were assessed by using surveys, interviews,
literature review, and content analysis. Recommendations for bridging and closing the
performance gap requires research-based solutions and the knowledge, motivation,
organizational influences were evaluated comprehensively. The Clark and Estes’ gap analysis
process is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1
Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Process

11

Definitions
Capacity: Capacity refers to an individual’s mental or physical ability.
Construction: The process, art, or manner of constructing something is known as
construction.
Decision-Maker: A decision-maker is a person who has the authority to decide on behalf
of the organization.
Gross Domestic Product: Gross Domestic Product is the total value of goods produced
and services provided in a country for 1 year.
Interchangeability: Interchangeability refers to the removal and replacement of project
management positions without significant disruption to the operations of a construction project.
Learning: Learning is gaining new knowledge and behaviors through practice, study, or
experience that leads to changes in cognitive behavior.
Organization: The organization is an administrative and functional structure, such as a
business or a political party.
Performance: Performance is the evaluation of a goal accomplished.
Program: A program is a plan or system under which action may be taken toward a goal.
Schedule: The schedule refers to a procedural plan that indicates the time and sequence of
each activity or task, or operation.
Standardize: Standardize is to bring into conformity with a standard to assure consistency
and regularity.
Success: Success refers to a favorable or desired outcome.
Training: Training is the skill, knowledge, or experience acquired by one that trains.
Transfer: The transfer is conveying from one person, place, or situation to another.
12

Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with key
concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about standardized organizational
programs. This chapter also provided the organization’s mission, goals, stakeholders, and
introduced initial concepts of gap analysis. Chapter 2 provides a review of literature surrounding
the scope of the study. Topics of organizational standardization, adult learning, designing
training programs, and delivery are addressed. Chapter 3 details the assumed interfering elements
and methodology for the choice of participants, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter 4, the
data and results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter 5 provides solutions, based on data and
literature, for closing the perceived gaps, and recommendations for an implementation and
evaluation plan for the solutions.
13

Chapter Two: Review of Literature
This literature review explores theories, research that outlines characteristics, and skills
involved in developing a standardized skill set for employees in the project management
department. The review begins with a general overview of project management, exploring the
characteristics of a training program and concepts of standardization. The literature review
concludes with Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework, which investigates the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences affecting the project management
decision-makers ability to develop a program for standardizing employees.
Project Management
Project management is working closely together to achieve common business goals
through the management of all business operations to ensure that projects are delivered to meet
business goals (Kerzner, 2014; Sears et al., 2015). Construction accounts for about 5.44% of
gross domestic product, translating into $5 of every $100 spent in the United States on
construction (Sears et al., 2015). Organizational leaders task construction project managers with
developing schedules and managing tasks to construct the project on time and on budget (Sears
et al., 2015). Project management leaders are responsible for construction project success
through its staff and cost control.
Project Staff
A key component to project success is project management staff who manage complex
projects while coordinating with team members, various departments, and other companies
(Lappe & Spang, 2014; Mir & Pinnington, 2014). Decision-makers who make quality a top
priority and develop teams focused on improving quality will lower risks associated with
unknown project costs (Jin et al., 2018). Increases in productivity happen in organizations
14

through project management practices that are not one size fits all methods, along with project-
specific simple concepts (Mir & Pinnington, 2014; Tereso et al., 2019). Global financial
uncertainty has challenged organizations to improve project management practices (Tereso et al.,
2019). According to Zhang and Fan (2013), construction project performance improvement is
linked with improving project managers’ competency in emotional intelligence needed for
complex relationships in their organization to manage demanding situations. Construction
management staff development attracts project management professionals who seek
development opportunities to improve their knowledge and skills associated with project success
(Mir & Pinnington, 2014; Zhang & Fan, 2013).
Project Cost
Project management success stems from project teams with the right processes and
procedures in place. The most accepted project management practices, related to project
efficiency and cost performance, include (a) holding kick-off meetings, (b) development of
schedules and budgets, (c) tracking issues and lessons learned, (c) monitoring cost status and
schedules, and closing out the project (Jin et al., 2018; Tereso et al., 2019). Human resource
management issues contribute to the many issues of fluctuation in project cost performance (Jin
et al., 2018). Contractors who lack implementation methods for project planning, scheduling, and
performance cost control procedures run the risk of additional costs (Doloi, 2013; Tereso et al.,
2019). Controlling project cost is an essential factor in project success along with other factors
related to cost including (a) leaders who cannot make timely decisions, (b) lack of planning, (c)
mistakes during construction, and (d) competency of the project team (Jin et al., 2018; Tereso et
al., 2019).
15

Project Success
The success of completed projects depends on the project management staff working
together. Carvalho et al. (2015) expressed project managers are critical to project success
because they guide the project through the finish line to meet their proposed schedule, and cost
estimates, and meet or exceed specified construction quality. Doloi (2013) found barriers to
project success were a lack of communication, transparency, and rapport in the project team to
perform job roles and responsibilities. According to Carvalho et al. (2015), project management
success requires hard skills used to control the project and soft skills used to communicate with
project team members. The influence of project management leadership on project management
processes, procedures, and quality management efforts are factors in construction project success
and cost efficiency (Mir & Pinnington, 2014; Jin et al., 2018).
Training
The training industry is a global industry spanning various types of organizations
interested in developing their employees. Stolovitch et al. (2011) expressed training teaches
learners to perform new tasks with minimal errors and higher speed. Organizations across the
United States spend billions of dollars on employee training and professional development
courses to meet the demands of the 21st century to bring current employees up to speed (Aguinis
& Kraiger, 2009; Awais Bhatti et al., 2014; Beinicke & Bipp, 2018; Grohmann & Kauffeld,
2013; Noe, 2020). In 2012, organizations spent about 1.3% of their revenues totaling $164.2
billion on employee training and spent about $1,208 per employee in 2013 (Beinicke & Bipp,
2018; Ones et al., 2018). As organizations become more globalized, complex, and
technologically dependent, they are improving their workplace learning through standardization
to stay competitive (Bell & Kozlowski, 2008; Gavril et al., 2017). According to Velada et al.
16

(2007), organizations worldwide are investing in programs to develop training programs, they
are looking for solutions that improve job performance. The importance of human capital is as
necessary as financial capital and having well trained employees is considered a competitive
advantage (Noe et al., 2014). Martin (2010) expressed organizations strive for improving
productivity through technology, and the demand to keep employees satisfied through training
will continue to increase.
Training in Capacity Building
Team member capacity is linked to project success, and organizations should build staff
capacity to meet demands of a complex project. Teams with capacity to achieve project goals
deliver on project requirements (Jin et al., 2018). Project management capacity development
occurs through the amount of workload assigned (Bryde, 2003; Tereso et al., 2019).
Organizations with an educated workforce may implement more complex procedures and tools
to improve capacity (Bryde, 2003; Tereso et al., 2019). Byrde (2003) expressed organizations
with quality management systems have defined processes and procedures that increase the
organization’s capacity through continuous learning. According to Zhang and Fan (2013),
project managers with emotional intelligence skills related to self-awareness, communication,
and emotional control improved project performance on large complex construction projects.
Project management staff is tasked with steering a project through allocating resources and
personnel to reduce the uncertainties to complete project goals (Lappe & Spang, 2014).
Organizational training and development investments promote continuous learning and enhance
employee competency (Sartori et al., 2018).
17

Training in Organizations
Organizations are developing internal training programs to meet demands of upgrading
employee skills and organizational performance. Scarso (2017) expressed that corporate
universities are typical among large multinational organizations, and these efforts have
developed from simple training departments to full-fledged learning centers. Corporate
universities manage organizational workplace learning, design training efforts to improve
performance issues, and promote employee competences (Abaci & Pershing, 2017; Scarso,
2017). According to Scarso, corporate universities have been around since 1927 when General
Motors started GM Institute.
The focus of corporate universities is developing employee knowledge and skills to help
achieve organizational goals (Scarso, 2017). Investing in a human resource development training
program helps organizations adjust and optimize resources to deliver results through transferring
knowledge from experts to novices (Noe et al., 2014; Schulte & Kauffeld, 2017). Companies are
interested in developing standardized learning solutions that can be accessed anytime by
employees seeking new skills, and results are being achieved by companies that have
implemented standardized learning (Gavril et al., 2017). Globalized companies using
standardization to improve modern communication efficiency tools have seen effectiveness
increase, and employees can learn from their mistakes to improve their adaptive expertise (Bell
& Kozlowski, 2008; Gavril et al., 2017). Lappe and Spang (2014) stated investment in process
standardization enhances project management methods and affects cost. According to Bartel
(2000) and Velada et al. (2007), training program return on investment (ROI) can be determined
by having access to company information. Organizations seeking a ROI need to focus on training
design, work environment, and individual traits (Bartel, 2000; Velada et al., 2007). An indirect
18

training program benefit is empowering employees and improving their confidence through
knowledge and skill development that affects organizational levels of staff burnout (Jacobson &
Davis, 2017; Karatepe et al., 2004). Organizations will have employees who are more motivated
because they relate the training to improving job performance and high job satisfaction leads to
better services provided to the customer (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Karatepe et al., 2004).
Training Issues
Organizations without an effective training program experience various issues, from
organizational procedures to the effectiveness of the trainer. Ambrose and Ogilvie (2010)
expressed that one size fits all is no longer used because many organizations have employees
with varied learning styles. U.S. businesses spend valuable dollars on training programs, but
most do not test the results, so organizations need to follow up with trainees to ensure they keep
the content updated (Beinicke & Bipp, 2018; Velada et al., 2007). Martin (2010) expressed
organizations with a training program trust results are being delivered through the program and
not testing if their assumptions are correct. Employees challenged with the transfer of training
into work environments may receive little or no support from supervisors and colleagues (Bartel,
2000; Beinicke & Bipp, 2018). According to Grossman and Salas (2011), estimates suggest only
10% of the training will be transferred to actual job duties. Martin estimated the percentage of
actual training transfer is between 10–40%. Organizations need to identify what is hindering
training program performance and focus on resolving those issues (Awais Bhatti et al., 2014).
Training can be pointless when the trainee is provided with an environment that does not
promote training transfer along with outdated standards hindering organizational employee
development (Klochkov et al., 2017; Noe, 2020). O’Toole and Essex (2012) stated workplace
learning happens over 1-day courses and sessions led by trainers who are trained and prepared
19

through PowerPoint presentations. Adult trainers without a formal teaching certification may not
have a foundation in course delivery, curriculum writing, or teaching people to learn (O’Toole &
Essex, 2012).
Training Design
The design of the training program should be developed around the practical needs of the
employee. An effective training program has the right content to meet demands of the employee
seeking training (Ambrose & Ogilvie, 2010). Training programs are moving away from
traditional teaching styles toward case studies and trainee-focused activities to promote active
engagement during the training (Jacobson & Davis, 2017). According to Young (2012), adult
learning theory suggests adults prefer learning aligned with their practical personal experiences
and self-paced learning. The training characteristics include (a) cognitive ability, (b) self-
efficacy, (c) motivation, and (d) utility of training efforts (Grossman & Salas, 2011).
Organizations need to have a training program with practical examples of the trainee’s job
responsibilities, which matches their ability to learn the material and use the knowledge gained
(Velada et al., 2007). Stolovitch et al. (2011) expressed training efforts need to be geared toward
the trainee’s needs to help them store and keep new concepts so they can be accessible. Errors
are minimized during the development of new organizational standards when existing processes
and conflicts are tested (Klochkov et al., 2017). Transfer of training occurs when trainees can
transfer their learning from a well-designed realistic course that helps them develop practical
skills used in their job responsibilities (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Noe, 2020; Velada et al., 2007).
Training Delivery
In today’s ever-changing technology-based global economy, it is not unusual for
organizations to have a traditional in-person type of training or distance learning. In 2017,
20

according to Noe (2020) and Ones et al. (2018), distance learning represented 42% compared to
traditional instructor lead training, which was 54%. About one-third of all trainings is conducted
using distant learning compared to traditional in-person teaching methods (Noe, 2020; Ones et
al., 2018). By 2022, the global distant learning market will be about $241 billion, which
represents a trend for e-learning, and self-managed learning efforts are shifting the responsibility
to employees to reduce their knowledge gaps attributed to organizations adapting to the
technology (Bell & Kozlowski, 2008; Gavril et al., 2017; Kimiloglu et al., 2017). According to
Beinicke and Bipp (2018), Jacobson and Davis (2017), and Gavril et al. (2017), the 900% growth
of distant learning over the past 15 years is because of the cost benefits and effectiveness of
online training. Companies are shifting their traditional types of training to online bases, but it
requires a lot of upfront investment to develop the program (Beinicke & Bipp, 2018; Gavril et
al., 2017; Jacobson & Davis, 2017). Most companies are adopting distance learning along with a
blended approach to maintain traditional training approaches and companies that have
implemented distant learning still want traditional training (Kimiloglu et al., 2017). Traditional
adult learning occurs in workplace settings through training, mentoring, shadowing, and in a
classroom setting (O’Toole & Essex, 2012). Best practices for training effectiveness need to be
implemented before, during, and after the training to increase learning transfer (Salas et al.,
2012). Pretraining, goal setting, and learning activities formatted into modules may help trainees
improve training transfer (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Young, 2012). Transfer of training to actual
trainee job duties performance improvement efforts should start during the pre-training stage,
allowing the instructor to improve trainee attitudes to increase transfer results (Schulte &
Kauffeld, 2017). Critical to every corporation is the ROI for training delivery, they expect
21

returns that have employees gain standardized skills that can be implemented in their jobs
(Gunawardena et al., 2010).
Standardization
Through standardization, an organization can better serve its clients’ needs with minimal
variations in quality. Noe (2020) expressed trainees are more than capable of applying on-the-job
learning because the work environment promotes guided training. Establishing standardized
policies and procedures is part of the expansion for employees to acquire new skills resulting in a
competitive workforce imperative to an organization (Choi & Vries, 2011; Salas et al., 2012).
Organizational standards are essential to the ever-growing globally connected world used to
manage quality and performance standards (Anderson, 2017).
Organizational Standardization
Standards are guidelines or rules established by a body to achieve repeated results by
normalizing processes that require documentation of procedural steps (Münstermann et al.,
2010). Business process standardization uses resources to accomplish a task using standard
operating procedures (SOPs) to mitigate process errors and ambiguity for cost savings, improved
quality, and transparency (Münstermann & Weitzel, 2008; Schäfermeyer et al., 2012).
Standardization of business processes helps improve performance through employee SOPs that
reduce cost while improving quality (Koval et al., 2019; Luoh et al., 2014). Upfront costs can be
high because of new processes development, complexities of the business processes, and
providing employee training; however, these costs go away with economies of scale (Koval et
al., 2019; Schäfermeyer et al., 2012). Minimizing business variability among multinational
corporations is a common goal among global leaders, and through business process
22

standardization to increase performance it reaches the goal (Rahimi et al., 2016; Schäfermeyer et
al., 2012).
Benefits of Standardization
Standardization is the foundation of coordinating activities, tasks, and goals to minimize
failures and help employees know their responsibilities to avoid any confusion about job
expectations (Hsieh & Hsieh, 2003; Karatepe et al., 2004). According to Klochkov et al. (2017),
developing SOPs specific to departments or tasks should foster staff input on increasing
performance (Klochkov et al., 2017). Job standardization helps minimize the gap between
customer expectations and actual services delivered (Karatepe et al., 2004). Standardization
improves overall company communication and resource interchangeability that promote
flexibility and benchmarking to improve economies of scale by reducing errors, waste, and
redundancy (Münstermann et al., 2010; Pellicer et al., 2014). Job standardization outlines
employee job responsibilities through SOPs that improve services delivered to the customer
through reduced variations in services and improves employee confidence by knowing the
standards of the job (Chen et al., 2009; Luoh et al., 2014). Routinization is often confused with
job standardization, but the difference is job standardization applies to specific methods to
deliver a service that is still personal (Chen et al., 2009). Standardization improves processing
time by identifying areas of delay and eliminating wasteful procedures, and it has become very
apparent in many products, markets, and processes despite its lack of appeal (Harding &
McPherson, 2010; Münstermann et al., 2010).
Improvements Through Standardization
Interchangeability and process improvements stem from standardization to improve
quality through standard step-by-step procedures to improve company competitiveness, increase
23

technical knowledge through problem-solving, promoting employee learning, and transferring
solutions to the next project (Münstermann & Weitzel, 2008; Pellicer et al., 2012). Construction
standardization innovation stems from pressure to address client requirements, solve technical
problems, and satisfy upper management to increase capabilities (Pellicer et al., 2012; Pellicer et
al., 2014). Klochkov et al. (2017) expressed the need for a balanced standardized system
approach that reviews conflicting processes with other standards that may lead to increased
production and employees having difficulty comprehending.
Role of Stakeholder Group of Focus
Building America’s construction PMDM are the focus of this study, specifically leaders
who have a direct influence on employee standardization. While other stakeholders in the
organization play a role in project management training, PMDM are tasked with improving
delivery of employees with standardized skills. The most interesting outcomes of this
improvement practice research will involve noticeable changes in project management decision-
makers’ knowledge and beliefs. Also, standardized training development relies upon design,
delivery, and follow up of the training courses (Ambrose & Ogilvie, 2010; Noe, 2020; Salas et
al., 2012). Clark and Estes (2008) studied the knowledge-based, motivational, organizational,
and cultural barriers that hinder performance. The lessons from Clark and Estes will guide this
study in developing a standardized training program for construction management decision-
makers for multisite applications.
Clark and Estes (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) developed a systematic gap analysis framework for investigating
the disparities that may exist, causing organizational performance problems between
performance goals and actual results. According to Clark and Estes’s model, stakeholder
24

knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences are examined to determine KMO
impact on the performance gap. Krathwohl (2002) identified the three dimensions of knowledge
types as (a) declarative, (b) procedural, and (c) metacognitive. Motivational influences on
stakeholders to improve performance are utility value, self-efficacy, and goal orientation (Clark
& Estes, 2008; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Pajares, 2003; Pintrick 2003). Clark and Estes’ final
stakeholder influence is organizational barriers hindering performance may include work
processes, resources, and workplace culture.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
The following sections will explore each of Clark and Estes’ (2008) knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors. The literature review focuses on the possible influences
hindering Building America’s stakeholder performance goal of project management decision-
makers developing a multisite program for employee standardization across states by January
2022. The first section will discuss assumed knowledge and skill influences on the stakeholder
performance goal. The next section will address the assumed motivational influences on
achieving the stakeholder goal. Finally, organizational influences on the attainment of the
stakeholder goal will be discussed. Each of the assumed stakeholders’ KMO influences on
performance will be invested using the methodology discussed in Chapter 3.
Knowledge and Skills Influences
Declarative knowledge is knowing the specifications, scope, and concepts behind the task
at hand and knowing how that topic or situation is supposed to function (Ambrose & Ambrose,
2010; Banks & Millward, 2007). Procedural knowledge is knowing the steps or activities needed
to get the task at hand accomplished and knowing how to perform certain activities using various
methods, theories, or procedures (Ambrose & Ambrose, 2010; Banks & Millward, 2007).
25

Metacognition is reflective understanding of one’s cognitive knowledge and learning new
procedures and methods as a self-directed learner (Ambrose & Ambrose, 2010; Matsuo, 2011).
Project Management Decision-Makers Should Know the Benefits of an Effective
Standardization Program
PMDM need to know the benefits of improving employee standardization. Multinational
corporations use global enterprise resource planning to standardize business processes through
knowledge management to improve communication to subsidiaries and transfer solutions from
one project to another. (Pellicer et al., 2014; Rahimi et al., 2016). Grossman and Salas (2011)
expressed that organizations providing training set themselves up to be more competitive by
having employees acquire knowledge and skills to improve organizational performance.
Learning organizations develop internal capacity through employee learning and managers
should manage the training program based on the trainee (Awais Bhatti et al., 2014; Martin,
2010). According to Grohmann and Kauffeld (2013), investing in employee development leads
to retaining qualified employees who acquire skills to keep the organization competitive.
Successful learning starts with instructors knowing more about their student’s motivations and
skill level (Dirksen, 2015).
Training program leaders should develop training derived from a prioritized category of
competency expectations and provide an environment that supports the trainee (Gunawardena et
al., 2010; Salas et al., 2012). According to Gunawardena et al., (2010) and Salas et al., (2012),
leadership needs to be on the same strategic page so course designers can develop appropriate
training. Training design is critical to the success of a training program, and it needs to reflect
content geared toward the trainees’ actual job duties, which leads to performance improvement
(Awais Bhatti et al., 2014). Course designs should make the students feel sufficient, feel smart,
26

and feel competent (Dirksen, 2015). O’Toole and Essex (2012) expressed improving adult
learning acknowledges adults’ different needs, limitations, and habits they may have to unlearn.
Training programs need to build upon an employee's existing skills intending to have the learner
use their acquired knowledge (Awais Bhatti et al., 2014; Dirksen, 2015). Training programs
improve transfer of training with the help and influence of the supervisor’s support leading to a
good ROI by having the trainee learn alternative methods to improve job performance and
competency (Awais Bhatti et al., 2014; Jacobson & Davis, 2017).
Before 1990, standardization was used in postformal education settings to provide
businesses and governments to develop capacities or skills (Choi & Vries, 2011). Hsieh and
Hsieh (2003) described how standardization helps employees learn their job expectations. Job
standardization was used to provide new hires with their job duties and organizational goals,
which led to the employee transition into the new role enabling them to perform refined
processes to deliver consistent quality and service (Hsiung, & Hsieh, 2003; Koval et al., 2019).
Project Management Decision-Makers Should Know How to Incorporate an Effective
Standardization Program
PMDM need to know how to incorporate employee standardization. Business process
management is implementing controls to provide a set of standard procedures to ensure process
performance to improve the bottom line (Münstermann et al., 2010; Schäfermeyer et al., 2012).
Manager and supervisor support of trainee expectations to attend training without work
performance consequences and balanced to not overload the trainee while doing regular duties
(Biech, 2017; Gunawardena et al., 2010). Pretraining orientation before training leads to less
frustration and confusion for the trainee, which leads to improved completion rates
27

(Gunawardena et al., 2010). Dirksen (2015) expressed knowing the trainee’s skill level helps the
instructor provide more guidance to novices and more expert advice to advanced trainees.
According to Salas et al. (2012), training programs are useful if the organization fosters a
learning environment that provides objectives and meaningful content relative to the job,
provides learning aids, provides opportunities to practice feedback, encourages peer interaction,
and organizes the program effectively. Clearly defined standards help new hires and transfer
employees learn a set of agreed-upon process methods that are repeatable, designed with rules,
and guidelines to achieve a set of results (Anderson, 2017; Hsiung & Hsieh, 2003). Online
training should not be preferred because of its cost benefits, and if the goal is to check a box and
reduce cost, then the online training program will not be beneficial (Salas et al., 2012).
Gunawardena et al. (2010) suggested training programs need an enforcement mechanism to use
training content and provide the appropriate prerequisite before specific training.
Project Management Decision-Makers Need to Monitor Their Progress to Create an Effective
Standardization Program
PMDM need to monitor their progress toward standardization. Standardization is the
business effort to align resources to produce a specific task to achieve a goal to solve a problem
through sets of activities guided by rules and policies (Münstermann & Weitzel, 2008; Rahimi et
al., 2016; Schäfermeyer et al., 2012). Koval et al. (2019) expressed the need for leadership in
providing a commitment to standardization by providing the resources, guidance for process
improvement, and showing the standardization efforts. Standardization efforts need to provide
the right training for all employees related to the employee’s job (Koval et al., 2019). According
to Luoh et al. (2014), a high level of job standardization creates highly routine-focused
employees and causes employees to become inflexible, mindless, and lose enjoyment in work.
28

A trainer’s purpose is not to transmit information but to transform the student to learn and
develop cognitive skills necessary to apply what it has taught them to address critical issues at
work (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Stolovitch et al., 2011). Active learning happens during formal
training that has been designed with material that engages the student, and learning happens
formally by performing (Sparr et al., 2017; Stolovitch et al., 2011).
Organizations need team leaders to coach trainees with the right tools and support to
promote what they learned and assign job tasks related to what they learned (Salas et al., 2012).
Sparr et al. (2017) expressed trainee’s seeking feedback improves confidence and promotes
reflection to help the trainee seek further improvement. Transfer of learning is positively related
to feedback-seeking and reflection; when the relationship is strong, transfer of learning is high
(Sparr et al., 2017). One myth of learning is experts are better at training; however, research
proves experts sometimes cannot explain how they get things accomplished (Stolovitch et al.,
2011). The transfer of learning happens when participants implement learning from formal
training into their job duties (Sparr et al., 2017). Organizations should ensure training transfer is
happening because of the costly investment in training and be prepared to improve the training
transfer percentages (Grohmann & Kauffeld, 2013; Grossman & Salas, 2011). Table 2 provides
information on the organizational mission, organizational and stakeholder goals, and the
knowledge influences discussed in this paper. The table showcases samples of assessments used
to study stakeholder’s knowledge.

29

Table 2
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis

Organizational mission
The mission of Building America is to earn the trust of their employees, building partners, and
clients. Achieving this mission begins by building teams with members who have
unwavering, comprehensive trust in one another.
Organizational goal
By January 2023, Building America will have 100% employee standardization in its Project
Management department
Stakeholder goal
By December 2022, 100% of Building America project management decision makers will
certify all employees as being interchangeable across states.
Knowledge influence Knowledge type Knowledge influence assessment
Project management decision-
makers need to know the
benefits of improving
employee standardization.
Declarative

Interview:
● To the best of your knowledge,
explain the benefits of standardized
employees for interchangeability.
○ Probe -explain why it is
important for this
organization.
Survey:
● The benefits of standardized
employees for interchangeability
across states are: (Check all that
apply).
○ Minimizes variations in
quality.*
○ Decreases competitive
advantage.
○ Increases organizational
costs.
○ Improves employee job
expectations.*
○ Improves organizational
performance.*
Document Analysis:
● Review organizational strategic
plans and presentations on
standardization.
30

Note. Each correct response is marked with an asterisk.

Motivation Influences
According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation is an internal psychological mental
process that helps individuals persist toward a goal until they achieve it. Utility value is how
individuals view immediate tasks that could help them achieve an end goal or a long-term goal
(Elliot & Yeager, 2017). Utility value is related to the trainee’s short- and long-term goals and its
Knowledge influence Knowledge type Knowledge influence assessment
Project management decision-
makers need to monitor their
progress toward
standardization

Metacognitive

Interview:
● As a decision-maker, in your
role, explain how you know you
are making progress toward
standardizing employees for
interchangeability across states.
○ Probe - What have you
learned from this
situation?
Survey:
● What is the best method of
monitoring progress toward
standardization (Check all that
apply)
○ Hire an expert to
monitor the
standardization efforts.
○ Review current efforts
and self-reflect on the
progress. *
○ Develop a plan that
addresses monitoring
progress toward
standardization.
○ Measure the existing
status and compare it to
the standardization goal.
*
○ All of the above
31

value depending on how well the current task aligns with those goals (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
Self-efficacy is a trainee's ability to assess their capabilities compared to their goal and develop a
plan to achieve that goal (Elliot & Yeager, 2017). Self-efficacy is a student’s belief in their
abilities to learn, and teachers play a critical role in developing their student efficacy (Pajares,
2003). According to Pintrick (2003), goal orientation involves students having purposeful
reasons to accomplish activities. Goal orientation is used to better understand a student’s
achievement goals and understand how they approach their goals (Lin & Wang, 2018).
Project Management Decision-Makers Need to See the Usefulness of Standardized Employees
Utility value is the importance of a task to achieve a future goal (Rueda, 2011). PMDM
need to see the usefulness of standardized employees. Process standardization enhances world
trade efforts to continuously improve communication, cost savings, transparency, and
interchangeability of products and services (Harding & McPherson, 2010; Münstermann et al.,
2010). Job standardization has a positive correlation with service quality because of the
standardization efforts to eliminate employees having fewer job tasks uncertainty and ambiguity
(Chen et al., 2009; Hsieh & Hsieh, 2003). Work standardization may help employees execute
their goals by being more efficient and less confused (Hsieh & Hsieh, 2003). According to
O’Toole and Essex (2012), adult learning occurs when specific knowledge or relevant skill is
needed. Service firms are challenged with developing solutions to increase customer satisfaction
and strategies developed around the customer in this ever-changing global economy (Karatepe et
al., 2004).
Learning organizations provide training that aligns with company goals and promotes
employee development opportunities to gain new skills that provide valued results (Noe, 2020;
van der Locht et al., 2013). Adults are self-directed and have life experiences to analyze the
32

usefulness of a training program’s effectiveness as to the practicality of applying after the
training (O’Toole & Essex, 2012; Young, 2012). Organization investments in learning efforts
can make the organization more competitive by providing trainees with opportunities to apply
new skills in their daily activities and job duties (Bruno, 2012; Noe, 2020). Training and
development opportunities help the employee open doors for advancement and professional
growth (Grohmann & Kauffeld, 2013). Grossman and Salas (2011) expressed trainees need to
believe in their abilities to learn and apply the knowledge acquired from training, which
improves training transfer. Learner motivation is increased when a trainee feels like the course’s
expectations, and guidelines empower the trainee to have control over tasks, leading to reducing
job-related stresses (Gunawardena et al., 2010; Hsieh & Hsieh, 2003). A work environment that
promotes supervisor and or peer support and opportunities to apply training through
organizational case study examples helps with improving learning and training transfer
(Grossman & Salas, 2011; Gunawardena et al., 2010). According to Biech (2017), having the
support and input from managers and supervisors before training is essential in participants
learning new material.
Project Management Decision-Makers Need Confidence They Can Standardize Employees
Self-efficacy is the belief of one's capabilities to complete a task to achieve a particular
desired performance (Rueda, 2011). PMDM have the confidence they can standardize
employees. Business organizations are spending large amounts of money on standardization to
increase their business performance by reducing costs, quality improvements, improved
customer confidence, and reduced process-driven errors (Münstermann & Weitzel, 2008). Noe
(2020) expressed individuals with high self-efficacy are more than willing to learn, even if the
training does not suit them. However, if trainees have low self-efficacy, they may daydream
33

because they feel incapable of learning the material (Noe, 2020). According to Awais Bhatti et
al. (2014) and Tannenbaum et al. (1991), training programs designed to help trainees use
information toward their jobs improves trainee self-efficacy. Training completion has shown
improvements of a trainee’s commitment to the organization and self-efficacy (Awais Bhatti et
al., 2014; Tannenbaum et al., 1991). Pretraining self-efficacy is related to improving task
performance, and pre-training assessments can help with improving self-efficacy during training
(Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Tannenbaum et al., 1991). During training, the program needs to
provide opportunities for trainees to improve their self-efficacy, learning orientation, provide
opportunities to boost motivation, and motivation to do well during the training yields a higher
trainee ROI (Salas et al., 2012; Tannenbaum et al., 1991).
Luoh et al. (2014) suggested employees who believe they are not using their full potential
may lack confidence and self-efficacy. Employees empowered and provided with resources to
excel are more willing to help generate innovative ideas to improve processes (Luoh et al.,
2014). Trainees with a learning mastery mindset experience improved motivation and self-
efficacy, leading to better learning and transfer performance into their work, if they believe they
mentally retained the training material (Bell & Kozlowski, 2008; Velada et al., 2007).
Employees who are empowered by mastering their job standardization practices can help with
generating new ideas for improving job performance (Luoh et al., 2014).
Project Management Decision-Makers’ Standardization Goal Is Aligned With the Employees’
Goal
According to Rueda (2011) and Pintrich (2003), goal orientation is a method used to help
a person achieve a goal defined by reasons and purposes. The PMDM need to align employee
standardization goals with employee goals. Multinational corporations seeking global integration
34

need to consider standardizing their activities across their business units aligned with its strategic
objectives through corporate knowledge management to improve their competitive advantage
over the competition (Kim, 2014; Rahimi et al., 2016). Klochkov et al. (2019) expressed the
development of a standardized system is not the sole task of senior leadership, but the
combination of both senior leaders and staff members to develop standardized procedures to
achieve higher customer satisfaction and improve business performance. Standardization should
empower staff to complete their duties effortlessly and help newcomers learn their roles without
asking for help from their peers because they may provide bias or opinionated answers (Hsiung
& Hsieh, 2003; Klochkov et al., 2019). Standardization is a continuous process to improve
because it involves developing methods to improve communication among individuals and teams
through best practices to improve performance (Koval et al., 2019). According to Chen et al.
(2009), job standardization provides customers with a clear corporate image by receiving
services from employees who deliver expected performance without role conflicts and
ambiguity.
A workplace learning and performance manager needs to develop relationships with
managers and supervisors to develop goals for the training program and help implement it to
meet business goals such as retaining employees and understanding customer and business
expectations (Rothwell et al., 2003). The trainer should research the trainee before to determine
needs and expectations of the trainee, so the program is designed to provide necessary
information (Salas et al., 2012). Instructional system designs for training sessions need to be
focused on topics relevant to the trainee’s job duties, and expectations to transfer the learning
into practice (Noe et al., 2014; O’Toole & Essex, 2012). Adult learners have the right mindset to
learn and apply knowledge, but most often, the learning process is not scaffolded to meet their
35

skill level, so the learning process needs to be scaffolded (Dirksen, 2015; O’Toole & Essex,
2012). Table 3 provides information on the organizational mission, organizational and
stakeholder goals, and the motivational influences discussed in this paper. The table showcases
samples of assessments used to study stakeholder’s motivation.

Table 3
Assumed Motivation Influences and Motivational Influence Assessments
Organizational mission
The mission of Building America is to earn the trust of their employees, building partners, and
clients. Achieving this mission begins by building teams with members who have unwavering,
comprehensive trust in one another.
Organizational goal
By January 2023, Building America will have 100% employee standardization in its Project
Management department
Stakeholder goal
By December 2022, 100% of Building America project management decision makers will
certify all employees as being interchangeable across states.
Assumed motivation influences Motivational influence assessment
Utility value
Project management decision-makers
need to see the usefulness of
standardized employees.
Survey:
● It is useful for me to have standardized
employees.
○ Strongly Disagree
○ Disagree
○ Neutral
○ Agree
○ Strongly Agree
● How important is it to have employee
standardization for interchangeability across
states?
○ Very important
○ Important
○ Moderately important
○ Of little importance
○ Unimportant
36

● In a typical year, I meet monthly or quarterly
with other PM-Decision makers to address
employee standardization?
○ Strongly Disagree
○ Disagree
○ Neutral
○ Agree
○ Strongly Agree
Interview:
● As a decision-maker, explain the importance
of having standardized employees.
○ Probe - Tell me how employee
standardization will help with your
long-term goals?
Self-efficacy
Project management decision-makers
have the confidence that they can
standardize employees.
Survey:
● I am confident that I can develop a plan for
employee standardization right now.
○ Strongly Disagree
○ Disagree
○ Neutral
○ Agree
○ Strongly Agree
Interview:
● Tell me in detail about how confident you are
to develop a plan for employee
standardization?
○ Probe - Can you describe how
standardization will improve the
confidence of the employees?
Goal orientation
Project management decision-makers’
need to align employee standardization
goals with employee goals
Survey:
● Even when faced with challenges, I actively
align employee standardization goals with
employee goals.
○ Strongly Disagree
○ Disagree
○ Neutral
○ Agree
○ Strongly Agree
Interview:
● Describe how you actively align employee
standardization goals with employee goals.
○ Probe - Explain how seeking employee
goals supports the standardization
goal?

37

Organizational Influences
An organization’s culture can be analyzed based on the cultural settings and cultural
models that exist in the organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural models are
perceptions of how the world should work, what is appropriate, and how people take part in the
rules (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural models refer to cultural practices and shared
mental schema in an organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The culture of a group of
people is defined through its efforts to learn problem-solving techniques passed to other
members and educate members on beliefs and values of the group (Schein & Schein, 2017;
Schneider et al., 1996). Cultural settings are concrete and include: (a) employees, (b) their tasks,
(c) process for completing tasks, and (d) the social context in which their work is performed. The
cultural setting occurs when two or more people take part over a certain amount of time to
complete a project (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Organizational climate is how members
interpret how business is conducted daily through its goals, policies, procedures, and reward
structure (Schneider et al., 1996).
Organizations Need to Acknowledge and Promote Employee Standardization Across States
The Building America PMDM need to perceive the organization fosters employee
standardization across states. Organizational cultures in the construction industry set the tone for
innovation by rewarding creativity through training, incentives, and acknowledging failure is
part of the process to minimize becoming focused on control and daily activities leaving little
time to generate creative ideas (Pellicer et al., 2012; Pellicer et al., 2016). Multinational
corporations use enterprise resource planning to minimize costs by reducing interfaces and
support streamlined business processes and communication flow to help employees learn their
job duties and organizational culture (Hsiung, & Hsieh, 2003; Rahimi et al., 2016). Noe (2020)
38

expressed a company’s intangible assets, such as human capital, are valuable or sometimes more
valuable than financial and physical assets. Project management provides tangible benefits such
as financial returns and intangible benefits, such as providing a guiding culture for employees
and clients (Tereso et al., 2019). Transfer of training effectiveness depends on the trainee
motivation, organizational transfer culture, and the relevant context of the training for actual job
duties (van der Locht et al., 2013).
Project management training and development are linked to the organizational culture of
service and quality, reflected in the company vision and mission (Bryde, 2003; Karatepe et al.,
2004). According to Velada et al. (2007), the organizational culture needs to promote and
support continuous learning. Leaders and supervisors play a critical role in how they
communicate to the trainees, so it is critical to have leaders provide trainees with guidance,
expectations, and reinforce learning objectives (Salas et al., 2012). Supportive learning cultures
promote collaboration and informal learning stemming from formal learning (Noe et al., 2014).
Collegial support helps with transferring training, when the organizational culture promotes
working and learning from each other (Gunawardena et al., 2010). Martin (2010) suggested
trainees need the support of supervisors who encourage them to attend training and develop an
action plan to use new skills results in increasing training transfer by helping the trainee apply
knowledge to work applications.
Organization Needs to Have Employee Standardization Guided by Policies and Procedures
The Building America organization needs to have employee standardization guided by
processes, procedures, and policies. Multinational corporations develop process standardization
that defines management rules and processes used to ensure they follow standards to minimize
variability in business services (Rahimi et al., 2016). According to Anderson (2017), initial
39

development of standards was used to provide quality assurance in manufacturing and process
efficiency between the supply chain components. Enterprise resource planning uses
standardization to redefine existing business processes to improve performance through best
practices to minimize process deviations through SOPs to remove barriers that lead to mistakes
(Rahimi et al., 2016; Schäfermeyer et al., 2012).
Organizations with standardization expectations have defined policies and procedures
that guide employees to reduce costs and improve performance because they are more efficient,
transparent, less ambiguous, and quality oriented (Schäfermeyer et al., 2012; Tsaur et al., 2014).
Organizations communicate with new hires through job standardization, which helps them learn
their job duties and adapt to the new culture sooner (Hsiung, & Hsieh, 2003; Tsaur et al., 2014).
Organizations maintain and develop productive workforces through training that indirectly
maintains the company’s well-being and allows the employee to perform beyond their duties
(Salas et al., 2012; Tsaur, et al., 2014).
Dirksen (2015) suggested learning failures can cause the trainee to learn habits that
hinder their development that needs to be unlearned (Dirksen, 2015). The method used by
teachers who continuously monitor and change the learning environments to keep children
engaged is only used by great adult trainers (O’Toole, & Essex, 2012). Young (2012) expressed
the need for smaller learning modules that are easier to fit into the workday rather than leaving
for a few days. Organizations invest a lot of time and money into their programs, so it is essential
to test the program and determine areas of improvement for prior, during, and after the training
(Grohmann & Kauffeld, 2013; Martin, 2010; Schulte & Kauffeld, 2017). Table 4 provides
information on the organizational mission, organizational and stakeholder goals, and the
40

organizational influences discussed in this paper. The table showcases samples of assessments
used to study stakeholder’s organization.

Table 4
Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Assessments
Organizational mission
The mission of Building America is to earn the trust of their employees, building partners, and
clients. Achieving this mission begins by building teams with members who have unwavering,
comprehensive trust in one another.
Organizational goal
By January 2023, Building America will have 100% employee standardization in its Project
Management department
Stakeholder goal
By December 2022, 100% of Building America project management decision makers will certify
all employees as being interchangeable across states.
Assumed organizational influences Organization influence assessment
Cultural model influence
The Building America Project
management decision-makers’ need to
perceive that the organization fosters
employee standardization across
states.

Survey:
● It is valuable to me to participate in the
development of standardized employees.
○ Strongly Disagree
○ Disagree
○ Neutral
○ Agree
○ Strongly Agree
● To what extent do you agree with the following
statement: “The organization values the
importance of having standardized r employees
for interchangeability.”
○ Strongly Disagree
○ Disagree
○ Neutral
○ Agree
○ Strongly Agree
Interview:
● Based on your experience, explain how you
value your participation in developing the
standardized employees for interchangeability.
○ Probe - What specific tasks are you
engaged in to develop the program?
41

Assumed organizational influences

Organization influence assessment
Document Analysis:
● Review the Website, Facebook, LinkedIn, and
marketing material.
Cultural setting influence
The Building America organization
needs to have employee
standardization guided by processes,
procedures, and policies.

Survey:
● The organization’s processes, procedures, and
policies to guide standardizing employees.
○ Strongly Disagree
○ Disagree
○ Neutral
○ Agree
○ Strongly Agree
Interview:
● As an organizational leader, describe how
processes, procedures, and policies will guide
standardizing employees.
○ Probe - Do you think the policies and
procedures promote employee
standardization?
Document Analysis:
● Review employee policies and human resource
manuals.

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge, Motivation, and the
Organizational Context
The conceptual framework represents a study that explains the interaction between
understandings of the research studies guided by theories and influence connections (Maxwell,
2013). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) refer to the conceptual framework as the theoretical
framework used to build upon previous research, and it provides a structure to advance the
research. In Figure 2, the illustration provides a graphic presentation of each component of
knowledge, motivation, and knowledge model related to the stakeholder goal.
The rectangle at the bottom of Figure 2 represents the stakeholder performance goal, and
the outside circles represent the impact of knowledge and motivation to attain the stakeholder
42

goal. The Middle circle represents the impact of organizational models and settings to
accomplish the stakeholder goal. When all circles are aligned and working together, they can
accomplish the stakeholder goal.

Figure 2
KMO Conceptual Framework

43

Conclusion
Chapter 1 focused on the impact of standardized multisite training programs on an
organization. Chapter 2 focused on factors that affect the development of a multisite employee
standardization program. The research in this literature review supports the concept that course
design, delivery, and transfer methods affect the development of an effective standardized
training program. Despite the many literature articles reviewed there has been very little research
conducted regarding the development of a project management employee standardization for
multisite interchangeability. Chapter 3 describes the methodological framework used to explore
barriers for decision makers at Building America and their knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on developing a program for employee standardization.
44

Chapter Three: Methods
This improvement study focused on Building America’s knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs to have project management employee standardization. The research
included a mixed-method study using qualitative and quantitative data collection methods. A
standardized training program in a construction project management department is critical to
consistent service quality regardless of the project’s geographical location. The project
management decision-makers (PMDM) have a performance goal to certify all employees as
being 100% interchangeable across states by December 2022. The literature suggests
standardized training programs need to be designed and delivered to maximize training transfer
to job duties. This research aimed to examine the critical knowledge, motivation, and
organizational barriers (Clark & Estes, 2008) to the development of standardized employees to
have the capacity for multisite interchangeability. This chapter addresses details regarding (a)
data collection procedures, (b) instrumentation, (c) data analysis, (d) credibility, (e)
trustworthiness, (f) validity, (g) reliability, (h) ethics, (i) limitations, and (j) delimitations. This
study focused on the following research questions:
1. What are the knowledge and motivation influences that interfere with project
management decision makers developing a multisite training program for employee
standardization across states?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and project
management decision makers’ knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?
45

Methodological Approach and Rationale
A mixed-method approach using quantitative and qualitative research with an emphasis
on qualitative research was used for this study. According to Creswell and Creswell (2018),
mixed-method research provides more insight and helps the researcher gain a more reliable
understanding of the problem. The researcher used the mixed-method approach to collect data
through surveys, document analysis, and interviews (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Using multiple
methods and data sources, the researcher used triangulation to increase the credibility and
internal validity of the research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher collected data
through a descriptive survey using Likert-type assessments, online interviews, and document
analysis to assess perceptions of standardizing employees. The researcher conducted interviews
to help understand knowledge, motivation, organization (KMO) barriers, along with identifying
KMO factors preventing Building America from developing a program to standardize
employees. The researcher analyzed organizational documents to understand what policies and
procedures were in place that hindered or supported Building America from employee
standardization.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholders in this study were affiliated with the development and management of
Building America’s project management department. The PMDM are stakeholders who
represent the project management department and the construction technology department. There
are 10 stakeholders affiliated with Building America. The researcher invited all stakeholders to
take the survey and invited 10 for the interviews. For a qualitative case study, four to five
interviews are sufficient, but the number can be higher since the goal of qualitative inquiry is to
continue until information becomes redundant (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell,
46

2016). Qualitative researchers seek stakeholders who will provide the most insight into the
research problem (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher developed specific criteria to
reduce the number of stakeholders for the interviews because all PMDM do not have equal
insight and influence.
Survey Sampling Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
The researcher selected participants to provide relevant data to develop a standardized
project management training program through a quantitative survey method. The goal was to
collect data from all potential participants who met the PMDM criteria. According to Merriam
and Tisdell (2016), researchers use a purposeful sample focused on collecting data that will help
answer the research question or problem of practice. Quantitative research, through its survey
design, will help with developing trends, attitudes, opinions, or relationships among variables
among the population (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Questionnaires are used to have participants’
self-report information, so the researcher collected data to reflect various characteristics such as
each participant’s feelings, beliefs, and perceptions (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). The
researcher sent survey notifications to the purposeful sample of 10 individuals, and the response
rate was 90%. The researcher coordinated recruitment of participants with a construction
technology department manager. The researcher emailed self-administered surveys to the
potential participants, and the survey was expected to take 10-15 minutes to complete. To
encourage participation, the introduction to the survey provided information on the purpose of
the survey, voluntary participation, and confidentially precautions.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale 1
Survey participants must be full-time employees who are a construction executive,
senior, department, or technology leaders of Building America. These participants must have
47

firsthand knowledge of the current standardization and training efforts in the project management
department.
Interview and Sampling Criteria and Rationale 2
Survey participants must have oversight or management roles to implement project
management standardization training initiatives. These participants should have great insight into
the current standardization training program barriers related to knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences.
Interview Sampling Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
The qualitative interview for this research included participants who influence the project
management standardization training program. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016),
interviews comprise open-ended questions and encourage less structure in the conversation
because the participant has their view of the world. According to Creswell and Creswell (2018),
researchers who work for the organization or have rank over the participants can cause
inaccurate data or compromise the research results (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In this study,
the researcher did not work for Building America and had no direct influence over participants or
their work. Purposeful sampling seeks to gain maximum insight from a select sample who
understand the studied problem (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Participants were recruited through an email explaining the purpose of the study, and the
interview was voluntary. Upon acceptance, the researcher scheduled the interview with the
participants. The researcher used an interview guide to maintain a semi-structured interview and
inquired about presumed KMO influences. The sample included eight individuals who
completed the quantitative survey before the interview. Participants were encouraged by the
researcher to complete the survey portion of the study before the interview, which allowed
48

participants to expand on their thoughts compared to the self-administered survey. The eight
PMDM who participated in the research each participated in an online interview. The interviews
averaged 29 minutes
Document Analysis Sampling Access Strategy and Rationale 1
The documents need to provide information on existing project management
standardization training programs, standardization efforts and organizational policies affecting
Building America.
Document Analysis Sampling Access Strategy and Rationale 2
The documents should reflect current practices and policies less than 10 years old unless
the organization considers it relevant.
Document Analysis Sampling Access Strategy and Rationale
The researcher conducted a document analysis to develop a comprehensive historical
view of the assumed KMO influences on the PMDM as they tried to develop a standardized
employee for multisite capacity. The collection of documents helped the researcher gather
readily accessible data that reflects the participant’s language and words while saving the
researcher time from transcribing (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
According to Creswell and Creswell (2018), they recommend the researcher provide a written
proposal addressing any ethical issues to gain approval from the gatekeepers and access to
critical information. The researcher asked for (a) copies of published or unpublished strategic
plans, (b) presentations, (c) employee policy manuals, (d) training performance reports, and (e)
human resource data. These documents provided data that helped define the KMO influences
hindering project management decision-makers’ performance goals.
49

Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study used surveys, interviews, and document analysis to answer the research
questions. Using multiple methods provided data triangulation to review and compare the
collected data to minimize the biases of a specific method (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Surveys are quick and require fewer resources to collect data (Fink, 2017). Qualitative
research using a semi-structured interview has a consistent format and gives the researcher
opportunities to ask in-depth questions on topics (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Collecting data
from documents and artifacts is another form of qualitative research that requires less
disturbance in the setting because the researcher reviews existing document data (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Mixed-method triangulation is most potent when questions are similar for
quantitative and qualitative data collection (Patton, 2015).
Surveys
The survey assessed the participants’ influences through multiple-choice and closed-
ended questions to assess the project management decision-makers. The questions included a
mix of questions and used the 5-point Likert scale response and multiple-choice options for
closed questions. The research survey questions included components related to KMO
influences. According to Patton (2015), quantitative data are the bones, and qualitative data are
the bones’ flesh. Closed questions are efficient and reliable for the researcher trying to make
broad comparisons of the respondents (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The 5-point Likert scale was
used to measure the respondents’ attitude toward the research topic and questions (Robinson &
Leonard, 2019). The researcher emailed the surveys, which was the most common form of
communication during the COVID-19 global pandemic, which caused many businesses to close
offices and move many aspects of business, including meetings, online. The researcher analyzed
50

data collected through the survey to determine performance gaps in standardizing employees for
multisite interchangeability.
Interviews
Semi-structured interviews, comprising open-ended questions with flexibility helped
guide the respondent to provide detailed, unique responses were used. According to Robinson
and Leonard (2019), open-ended questions capture the respondents’ natural feelings and opinions
that cannot be captured in rigid closed-ended questions. The researcher conducted a one-time
interview with eight people from the focused stakeholder group. Interviews comprised standard
open-ended questions and unstructured conversations to help the researcher collect data that
reflected the respondents’ view of the world (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). According to Patton
(2015), interview guides increase the interview’s quality and consistency with predetermined
questions that guide the researcher to cover all relevant topics. The researcher needed
participants to consent; they voluntarily took part in an interview, and the data collected was
confidential and secured (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Online interviews can be conducted
synchronously through various online audiovisual web tools that help minimize geographical
challenges and assists the researcher with video recording options (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The researcher conducted online interviews using Zoom video conferencing and used Zoom’s
features to record and transcribe the interview.
Documents and Artifacts
The researcher collected documents relevant to the development of standardized
employees. This third collection of data allowed the researcher to triangulate the data for
validity. The researcher contacted Building America after surveys and interviews for permission
to collect documents that may have been referenced in the data collection or documents on
51

project management standardization efforts. Qualitative data collection of documents such as
official reports, newspapers, videos, websites, and social media (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
For this study, the researcher reviewed the following documents: (a) strategic plans, (b) mission
statements, (c) operational training budgets, (d) presentations, (e) strategic plans, (f) websites,
and (g) training documents.
Data Analysis
This improvement model research study used quantitative and qualitative methods to
collect data. The quantitative survey data was analyzed through descriptive statistical analysis to
calculate frequencies. Descriptive analysis organizes data to provide means, a range of scores,
and incomplete, missing data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In contrast, the interview data was
transcribed and organized into themes by keywords—the researcher collected nine surveys and
conducted eight interviews. Content analysis simplifies the data to identify, code, categorize,
classify, and label what is significant (Patton, 2015). Triangulation of the survey and interview
data were achieved through a third data collection method using document analyses to review
documents for knowledge and organizational factors.
The document analysis was completed after survey and interview responses. The survey
data were collected by the Qualtrics, an online tool to collect survey data, and analyzed after
conducting interviews. The interviews were developed to further probe the stakeholder’s beliefs
and perceptions and clarify their survey responses. The interviews were transcribed using the
Zoom transcribe feature and analyzed for KMO influences. Data analysis can include reviewing
reading notes or transcripts and listening to the interview audio to write notes or memos about
tentative ideas or category similarities (Maxwell, 2013). The survey, interview, and document
52

analysis were coded into significant themes aligned with Clark and Estes (2008) KMO gap
analysis framework.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
This study used qualitative methods to collect credible and trustworthy data. According
to Patton (2015), qualitative research credibility and trustworthiness depends on the researcher’s
perceived competence based on their utilization of rigorous methods to collect and analyze data.
Recording and transcribing the interview—with the interviewee’s permission—the researcher
ensured the precise transcribing of the responses to increase validity (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). According to Maxwell (2013), researcher bias is a threat to the validity of the qualitative
study. Researchers can increase the trustworthiness and credibility of their research by
implementing a triangulation strategy to confirm emerging findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The collected interview data were used for the triangulation of the survey responses and
document analysis.
Validity and Reliability
This research study used a quantitative method to collect valid and reliable survey data.
The readers of the proposed study will have to consider validity based on how the researcher was
influenced by interpreting the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher does not work
with or have any rank or authority over the interviewed stakeholders to minimize any influence
on the participants’ responses. Creswell and Creswell (2018) expressed reliability is
documenting the procedures and processes of the case study to follow the procedures. The
surveys were conducted online through Qualtrics during a convenient time frame for the
participant. All participants received the same questions and the survey data collected
automatically after completion to minimize human errors. Surveys provide consistent
53

information grounded in theory or experience that contributes to reliability and validity (Fink,
2017). The survey response rates were dependent on the researchers’ communication with the
participants to complete surveys without any incentives. According to Robinson and Leonard
(2019), increasing survey response rates is accomplished by having a short, engaging survey and
providing reminders to complete the survey.
Ethics
The researcher provided participants with the purpose of the research. Glense (2011) and
Maxwell (2013) described the researcher as the filter of all information and bears all
responsibility to safeguard human subjects during the research study. Participants were provided
with an email outlining participants rights and expectations of participating in the data collection
prior to the survey and interview data collection. The researcher maintained anonymity of the
survey responses and confidentiality during the interview. According to Glesne, the researcher
should explain voluntary consent and give the participant the opportunity to withdraw at any
point without penalty, if necessary, along with letting the participant know the discussions and
information collected will be confidential (Glesne, 2011). The researcher submitted their study to
the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and showed the IRB
guidelines and rules were followed to protect the rights and do no harm to the participants.
Patton (2015) and Glesen recommend identifying possible ethical issues ahead of the data
collection. The researcher communicated participation was voluntary, participants could leave
anytime, and were not obligated to answer any uncomfortable questions. The researcher
informed participants the interviews were recorded and transcribed and stored on the researcher’s
password-protected laptop. The researcher has high interest in construction and standardizing
programs and worked to remain neutral and not advocate for specific topics. The researchers
54

need to remain neutral and not advocate for specific topics (Glesne, 2011). It was the duty of the
researcher to minimize opinions and let the participants answer the questions.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations and delimitations are influences that make it difficult for the researcher to
collect data for the research study. Limitations are out of the control of the researcher. A
limitation was stakeholders not providing accurate, honest information that may have made them
look bad. This led to a limitation to the study. The online Zoom interview meetings were suitable
substitutes for in person interviews but did include the limitation of not being able to fully see
participant physical manifestations during the interview. Limitations also arose from scheduling
and time constraints preventing a collection of a full array of data. These limitations made it
challenging to collect data, and it may influence data analysis.
The delimitations during the study were issues the researcher had control of during the
data collection process. Delimitations arose from not having enough participants for the study to
reach saturation because stakeholders were not available for the survey or the interview. Another
delimitation also arose from the interview protocol only sampling decision-makers that influence
employee standardization efforts. Other delimitations are the restricted focused group of
decision-makers and not collecting data from the hundreds of project management employees
who will go through the training program.

55

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
This chapter presents the results and findings from data collected related to assumed
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences causing a gap in Building America’s
current goal of standardizing employees for interchangeability. The researcher collected multiple
sources of data to assess the assumed knowledge, motivation, organization causes identified in
Chapters 2 and 3. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis approach was used to analyze the
knowledge, motivation, and organization challenges in achieving the organization’s stated
standardization goals. The findings identified in Chapter 4 will develop suggestions and
solutions in Chapter 5 that Building America can use to implement a plan for employee
standardization improvement. Data collection included qualitative interviews, document
analysis, and quantitative survey data. The organization of the results corresponds to the assumed
knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) factors.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholders of this study who were surveyed and interviewed included an executive,
directors, manager, and construction technology specialists at Building America. Nine of the 10
project management decision-makers (PMDM) asked to participate in this study elected to
complete the survey (90% response rate), and eight PMDM (80% response rate) agreed to
participate in the interviews to understand further the factors that influence PMDM in employee
standardization for interchangeability. Table 5 provides data on the role participation.

56

Table 5
Survey Results for Role
PMDM role demographics item % Count
What is your role?
1 Director 55.6 5
2 Senior Project Manager 0 0
3 Manager 11.1 1
4 Executive 11.1 1
5 Other - please provide role name 22.2 2

Note. (n = 9)

Table 6 provides data on the years of project management experience from the survey
results of the PMDM participants. The executive and directors represented 66.7% of the
respondents, and 55.5% had at least 10 years of project management experience.

57

Table 6
Survey Results for Years of Project Management Experience
PMDM years of project management experience item % Count
1 0-2 0 0
2 3-6 11.1 1
3 7-10 33.3 3
4 10-20 44.4 4
5 20 + 11.1 1

Note. (n = 9)

Determination of Assets and Needs
The study used a mixed methodology to investigate the research questions and explore
the validity of the presumed KMO influences. This gap analysis study collected data from three
different sources: (a) surveys, (b) interviews, and (c) document analysis. According to the
assumed influences, the three data sources were used to determine the assets and needs of
Building America. The Zoom application was used to transcribe all eight interviews upon
completion, and the researcher coded the interviews to reflect the influences addressed. Survey
data was analyzed and captured using the Qualtrics survey platform and the nine completed
results for each influence were evaluated for each question. The researcher analyzed documents
to verify statements made during the interviews or to validate assumed influences that were not
addressed during the interview or survey process.
The threshold criteria used for determining any gaps from the survey, interview, and
document analysis on assumed KMO influences had to be made. When making assertions in the
58

sections that follow, 80% agreement on survey items was the threshold for asserting a need;
however, over 90% was considered more compelling. Interview data used as evidence relied
upon 80% alignment among participants, but 90% alignment was considered more conclusive.
Document analysis used as evidence relied upon 80% alignment to the influence, but 90%
alignment was considered more compelling. Results with less than 80% agreement for a need in
the surveys, interviews, and document analysis showed a gap in KMO domains. The thresholds
were set at these levels because of the small population sample. Surveys, interviews, and
document analysis were used to triangulate to confirm or challenge results.
In case of difference of agreement between survey and interview findings, the researcher
weighted interview findings more than surveys because of the level of detail in responses.
However, Building America has a performance goal of 100% employee standardization for
interchangeability in the project management department; because of this importance, all data
sources for each assumed KMO influence must exceed the 80% threshold to be determined an
asset.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
PMDM’s knowledge about employee standardization for interchangeability at Building
America was assessed using surveys, interviews, and document analysis. The results determine
whether the assumed knowledge causes need for improvement. Results presented in the
following section reflect each influence in declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and
metacognitive knowledge. Based on the findings, each assumed influence is an asset or
determined to be a need.
59

Influence 1, Declarative Knowledge: Project Management Decision-Makers Need to Know
the Benefits of Improving Employee Standardization
Survey Results
The PMDM were asked to identify the benefits of improving employee standardization
out of a list of five strategies. As shown in Table 7, the responses in the organization in
identifying the strategies ranged from 0% for one item to 100% for another item. Building
America PMDM exceeded the 80% threshold for the three correct standardization benefits.
Therefore, this influence is determined in the survey as an asset.

Table 7
Survey Results for Declarative Knowledge for Benefits of Employee Standardization
Declarative knowledge item % Count
1 Minimizes variations in quality.* 89 8
2 Decreases competitive advantage. 0 0
3 Increases organizational costs. 0 0
4 Improves employee job expectations.* 89 8
5 Improves organizational performance.* 100 9

Note. Each correct response is marked with an asterisk. (n = 9)

60

Interview Findings
PMDM were asked to describe the benefits of employee standardization. It was evident
all eight participants knew and could speak to the benefits of employee standardization. As for
minimization in quality variations, Participant 6 asserted, “We want that standard of service
similar to a Starbucks. . . . You know the service you are going to get.” Participant 4 also
expressed the benefits of consistent quality by stating:
I look at the McDonald’s model . . . You can go to any McDonald’s and get the same
hamburger. . . . And we would like that with our project managers. . . . We are selling a
product at the end of the day; we are selling our project management.
Participant 3 spoke about employee job expectations and stated, “I know if there is a
standard, I have a checklist to get those things done.” Additionally, Participant 8 expressed
issues with employees not knowing job expectations and asserted, “When you have misaligned
folks that do not understand or grasp the process and culture . . . you have problems that develop
all across the board.”
Organizational performance improvements were mentioned by Participant 7, who stated,
“I think for us to be able to track each project and know the project is where it needs to be
financially, and schedule-wise, this is the biggest benefit.” Additionally, Participant 1 went on to
indicate performance improvements:
the benefit of having a standardized process . . . I can take this employee to move him to
a different office, and he understands what is required of him to produce documents or
deliverables that meet the standards of our company.
Thus, for the interviews, this influence was an asset.
61

Document Analysis
In the 2020 training strategy presentation, the presentation ended with Building America
sharing the benefits that lead to managing a project from pre-construction through construction.
The presentation also outlined points of contact for the training department relative to company
geographical locations and provided an overview of the services provided by the training
department. This appeared to reflect the benefits of standardization.
Summary
The surveys, interviews, and document analysis conducted showed this influence was
considered an asset. The survey tested the assumed influence that PMDM should know the
benefits of improving employee standardization strategies, and the results confirmed the
influence as an asset. The influence was also determined to be an asset in the interview responses
and document analysis. Ninety-two percent (92.6%) of the surveyed PMDM were able to
accurately identify the benefits of employee standardization, which was 12.6% above the
threshold. Conversely, 100% of the interview participants knew and gave examples of the
benefits of employee standardization. Therefore, the PMDM knew the benefits of improving
employee standardization and thus is determined to be an asset.
Influence 2, Procedural Knowledge: Project Management Decision-Makers Should Know
How to Incorporate an Effective Standardization Program
Survey Results
The PMDM were asked to identify steps to improve employee standardization from five
strategies. Table 8 shows the responses in the organization in identifying the strategy steps to
improve standardization ranged from 22.2% for one item to 66.7% for another item. Building
62

America PMDM did not exceed the 80% threshold for the correct standardization strategies
steps.

Table 8
Survey Results for Procedural Knowledge for Steps to Improve Employee Standardization
Procedural knowledge item % Count
1 Provide a SOP explaining available information, job aids,
trainings, and education.*
55.6 5
2 Hire subject matter experts to develop standardization steps and
teach at the training.
44.4 4
3 Direct employees to sign up for online courses to explore and
discover how to become standardized employees.
22.2 2
4 Develop a web-based learning application that shows
employees step by step procedures to complete tasks.
33.33 3
5 All of the above. 66.7 6

Note. Each correct response is marked with an asterisk. (n = 9)

63

Table 9 shows the responses in the organization in identifying the strategies to track
progress to improve standardization ranged from 11.1% for one item to 100% for another item.
For the Table 9 survey question, PMDM did exceed the 80% threshold for the correct
standardization strategies to track progress. Therefore, this influence was determined in the
survey as a need.

Table 9
Survey Results for Procedural Knowledge for Tracking Progress to Improve Employee
Standardization
Procedural knowledge item % Count
1 Monitor and adjust standardization efforts according to
results.*
66.7 6
2 Request feedback from employees on standardization results. 77.8 7
3 Conduct observations and measurements to track results
compared to desired results.*
100 9
4 Review employee emails and correspondences to track
standardization efforts through their job duty competence.
22.2 2
5 All of the above. 11.1 1

Note. Each correct response is marked with an asterisk. (n = 9)

64

Interview Findings
PMDM were asked to describe the steps to improve employee standardization. It was
evident all eight participants knew and could speak to steps of improving employee
standardization. Participant 1 shared some of the current standardization efforts, “We found the
books and manuals we created become stagnant and outdated. . . . We progressed into videos,
and those can become outdated, so you are always trying to keep up with what is the latest.”
Utilizing web-based resources to host support standardization material, Participant 2 shared:
We have a service portal. It is a website. . . . So if they type in a question, support articles
will pop up as recommended. . . . That might answer their question without actually
having to send in a ticket or request.
Participant 4 spoke on the steps of delivering standardizing employees:
Training the trainers and then training the end-users. . . . We need to take the time to
make sure we are presenting the information in the same way. . . . There needs to be a
follow-up piece after implementation of standardization.
Knowing where to find the information and detailed steps was helpful; Participant 3 shared,
“Knowing where to go, whom to see and where to go for that information. . . . Get as detailed as
possible so you don't miss any steps.”
Use of subject matter experts (SMEs) to develop standardized procedures was needed;
Participant 6 asserted:
We bring in SMEs to help us develop procedures. . . . Once we have a consensus in that
group, we usually do a test pilot project to refine it. . . . Then we test on a couple more
projects to make sure it is consistent and then roll it out to the mainstream.
65

Buy-in from the employees was a critical step in standardization; Participant 5 stated, “Approach
to standards is getting everyone bought into the steps and the processes. . . . We all collaborate
on it so that we can have more than one point of view.” Thus, for the interviews, the influence
was an asset.
Document Analysis
In the 2014 Viewpoint Training manual, the procedural training document provided step-
by-step instructions to complete various tasks relevant to the manual. The Operational
Excellence Training manual provides step-by-step procedures to update project management
reporting. The reviewed documents appear to reflect the steps to improve employee
standardization.
Summary
The survey results indicated the assumed influence that PMDM should know the steps to
improve employee standardization was determined to be a need. However, the interviews and
document analysis conducted showed the influence was considered an asset. Fifty-five percent
(55.6%) of the surveyed PMDM were able to accurately identify the steps of improving
employee standardization, 24.4% below the threshold. However, 83.4% of the surveyed PMDM
were able to accurately identify how to track improving employee standardization, 3.4% above
the threshold. Conversely, 100% of the interview participants knew and gave examples of
improving employee standardization. In case of difference of agreement between survey and
interview findings, the researcher weighted interview findings more than surveys because of the
level of detail in responses, which the survey results did not meet the threshold. However, the
organization strives for 100% improvement, so all three data components needed to exceed the
66

80% threshold to be determined an asset. Therefore, the PMDM knew the steps of improving
employee standardization was determined to be a need.
Influence 3, Metacognitive Knowledge: Project Management Decision-Makers Need to
Monitor Their Progress to Create an Effective Standardization Program
Survey Results
The PMDM were asked to identify strategies to monitor progress for employee
standardization from five strategies. Table 10 shows the responses in the organization ranged
from 11.1% for one item to 66.7% for another item. Building America PMDM did not exceed
the 80% threshold for the correct standardization progress methods. Therefore, this influence was
determined in the survey as a need.

Table 10
Survey Results for Metacognitive Knowledge for Methods to Monitor Employee Standardization
Metacognitive knowledge item % Count
1 Hire an expert to monitor the standardization efforts. 11.1 1
2 Review current efforts and self-reflect on the progress.* 44.4 4
3 Develop a plan that addresses monitoring progress toward
standardization.
44.4 4
4 Measure the existing status and compare it to the
standardization goal.*
66.7 6
5 All of the above 33.3 3

Note. Each correct response is marked with an asterisk. (n = 9)

67

Interview Findings
PMDM were asked to explain how they knew they were making progress toward
employee standardization. It was evident all eight participants knew and could speak to how to
monitor the progress of employee standardization. Participant 2 shared how they used a web-
based platform to monitor standardization, “Operational excellence is used to gather information.
. . . You can see in this OpEx website if something is not filled in properly.” The operational
excellence platform reveals who is struggling; Participant 6 asserted, “If they are following the
process, it is going to be reporting correctly, and we can usually find out who is struggling. . . .
Because the reporting will be off or it will be wrong.”
Another form of progress reporting was direct feedback. Participant 1 stated, “When we
send somebody to another office. . . . The feedback is the metric. . . . Thank you, this employee
stepped right in and knew what they needed to do.” Participant 3 shared the significance of fewer
issues, “When a project has fewer issues,” and Participant 4 shared some similar thoughts:
I feel like those requests drop down. . . . Some of these questions that may seem basic
start to go away. . . . I feel like that could be a gauge of a successful implementation of
standardization.
Employee happiness was a way to monitor progress; Participant 5 shared, “To me, if the
employee is happy. . . .The excitement and the happiness of the employee.” Monitoring
employee energy levels as a strategy; Participant 8 shared:
The intangible of positive energy, when you walk into a job trailer people are excited
about what is going on. . . . There are other folks that when you go into the job trailer you
meet with them . . . Their demeanor is depleted, discouraged, frustrated, angry . . .
Because they do not get what we are doing or why we are doing certain things.
68

Thus, for the interviews, the influence is an asset.
Document Analysis
Document analysis was not conducted for this influence.
Summary
The survey results indicated the assumed influence that PMDM should know how to
monitor the progress of employee standardization was determined to be a need. However, the
interviews conducted showed the influence was considered an asset. Fifty-five percent (55.6%)
of the surveyed PMDM were able to accurately identify how to monitor the progress of
employee standardization, 24.4% below the threshold. Conversely, 100% of the interview
participants knew and gave examples of monitoring progress for employee standardization.
However, the organization strives for 100% improvement, so both data components need to
exceed the 80% threshold to be determined an asset. Therefore, the PMDM knew how to monitor
the progress of employee standardization as it was determined to be a need.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
PMDM’s motivation about employee standardization for interchangeability at Building
America was assessed using surveys and interviews. The results to determine whether the
assumed motivational causes need improvement. Results presented in the following section
reflect each influence: (a) self-efficacy motivation, (b) utility value motivation, and (c) goal
orientation motivation. Based on the findings, each assumed influence is identified as an asset or
determined to be a need.
69

Influence 4, Self-Efficacy: Project Management Decision-Makers Need Confidence They
Can Standardize Employees
Survey Results
The PMDM were asked to respond to a Likert Scale question identifying their confidence
in developing an employee standardization plan. Table 11 shows the responses in the
organization ranged from neutral to strongly agree. The total of the last two values helped
determine if this influence is a need or asset. Building America PMDM did not exceed the 80%
threshold for the confidence in developing a plan for standardization. Therefore, this influence
was determined in the survey as a need.

Table 11
Survey Results for Self-Efficacy Motivation for Confidence They Can Standardize Employees
Motivation for... Participant
responses
%
1 Strongly disagree 0 0
2 Disagree 0 0
3 Neutral 3 33.3
4 Agree 3 33.3
5 Strongly agree 3 33.3

Note. (n = 9)

70

Interview Findings
PMDM were asked to describe their confidence in developing a plan for employee
standardization. It was evident all eight participants knew and could speak to developing a plan
for employee standardization. Building America’s current model is working. Participant 8
expressed, “I feel very confident because the process and kinks have been worked out on a
national basis. . . . I do not have to recreate the wheel.” Based on personal experience, Participant
3 asserted, “I am confident because I have been through it, and I feel I know what is lacking.”
Participant 2 shared his confidence in developing a standardized process, “If there was a
brand-new software handed to me, and someone said hey you need to develop a standardization,
for how to train this specific software, I could create a plan and push that out.” Manuals or
standard operating procedures should be created to increase consistency; Participant 1 asserted,
“People were doing things a little differently. . . . A manual with standard operating procedures
manual was created.”
Leadership support improved standardization confidence among the participants;
Participant 4 expressed, “The inner department team . . . the people in leadership positions
dictate from the top to constantly try and improve our procedures and practices; that goes a long
way for a successful implementation.” Participant 6 expressed how his confidence was boosted
when the team was involved in the development, “By getting feedback from many people, it
makes me a little more confident because I do not know everything.” The organizational
confidence at Building America to develop a plan was high; Participant 7 stated, “By myself, I
am not necessarily overly confident. . . . The thing I like about Building America is we have our
team.” Thus, for the interviews, this influence was an asset.
71

Document Analysis.
Document analysis was not conducted for this influence.
Summary
The survey results determined the assumed influence that PMDM should be confident in
the development of a plan for employee standardization was determined to be a need. However,
the interviews conducted showed the influence was considered an asset. Sixty-six percent
(66.7%) of the surveyed PMDM were able to accurately identify as agree or strongly agree to
how confidently they could develop a plan for employee standardization, 13.3% below the
threshold. Conversely, 100% of the interview participants knew and gave examples of their
confidence in developing a plan for employee standardization. In case of difference of agreement
between survey and interview findings, the researcher weighted interview findings more than
surveys because of the level of detail in responses, which the survey results did not meet the
threshold. However, the organization strives for 100% improvement, so both data components
need to exceed the 80% threshold to be determined an asset. Therefore, the PMDM had the
confidence to develop an employee standardization plan that is determined to be a need.
Influence 5, Utility Value: Project Management Decision-Makers Need to See the
Usefulness of Standardized Employees
Survey Results
The PMDM's were asked to respond to a Likert Scale question identifying their motivation in the
usefulness of having standardized employees. Table 12 shows the responses in the organization
ranged from agree to strongly agree. These two values helped determine if this influence is a
need or asset. Building America PMDM did exceed the 80% threshold for the motivation to have
standardized employees. Therefore, this influence was determined in the survey as an asset.
72

Table 12
Survey Results for Utility Value Motivation for Usefulness of Standardized Employees
Motivation for... Participant
responses
%
1 Strongly disagree 0 0
2 Disagree 0 0
3 Neutral 0 0
4 Agree 4 44.4
5 Strongly agree 5 55.6

Note. (n = 9)

73

Interview Findings
PMDM were asked to explain the importance of having standardized employees. It was
evident all eight participants knew and could speak to the importance of employee
standardization. Minimizing the reteaching process was essential; Participant 6 asserted, “The
ability to move people around from job to job and not reteach people different processes or have
them relearn things all the time.” Having employees capable of moving from office to office is
significant; Participant 1 shared, “Our offices are always in need of standardized people. . . . The
ability to have somebody that can move from one office to the next and not have to retrain.”
Standardization helped with project oversight at the leadership level; Participant 2
expressed, “If everyone is doing something different, as a leader, you are not able to look at
those projects in the same light.” Standardized employees helped the process of staffing projects;
Participant 4 asserted, “The importance of having standardized employees. . . . It takes a big
chunk out of the decision-making process on how to staff our projects properly.” Financial
performance was even more feasible with standardization; Participant 5 expressed, “It will
improve efficiency at our company at the national and local level. . . . Improve the bottom line
and shave costs on general conditions.” Efficiency was attainable through employee
standardization; Participant 7 asserted, “Streamlining things helps me and us as a company be
more efficient.”
Employee development was essential; Participant 8 shared, “I want to see our employees
develop. . . I love seeing other people succeed and reach their goals.” Improved confidence
comes along with standardization; Participant 3 expressed, “Improve confidence. . . . Just seeing
how well they are doing with standardization and knowing that level of resources is there for
them.” Thus, for the interviews, this influence was an asset.
74

Document Analysis
Document analysis was not conducted for this influence.
Summary
The survey results showed the assumed influence PMDM finds the usefulness of having
standardized employees was determined to be an asset. The interviews conducted showed the
influence was considered an asset. One hundred percent (100%) of the surveyed PMDM were
able to accurately identify as agree or strongly agree to how useful it was to have standardized
employees, 20% above the threshold. Conversely, all the interview participants knew and gave
examples of the usefulness of employee standardization. Therefore, the PMDM found it useful to
have standardized employees and thus was determined to be an asset.
Influence 6, Goal Orientation: Project Management Decision-Makers Standardization
Goal is Aligned with the Employee’s Goal
Survey Results
The PMDMs were asked to respond to a Likert Scale question identifying their
motivation to align employer and employee goals with standardization. Table 13 shows the
responses in the organization ranged from neutral to agree. The total of the last two values
helped determine if this influence was a need or asset. Building America PMDM did not exceed
the 80% threshold for the confidence in developing a plan for standardization. Therefore, this
influence was determined in the survey as a need.

75

Table 13
Survey Results for Goal Orientation Motivation for Standardize Goal Alignment with Employees
Motivation for... Participant responses %
1 Strongly disagree 0 0
2 Disagree 0 0
3 Neutral 4 44.4
4 Agree 5 55.6
5 Strongly agree 0 0

Note. (n = 9)

Interview Findings
PMDM were asked to describe how they actively aligned employee goals with
standardization goals. It was evident all eight participants knew and could speak to employee
goal alignment and standardization. Working with actual end-users helped with employee
alignment, Participant 2 expressed, “We pull in users who are going to be the end-users. . . . Who
are in the day-to-day, who are on ground level. . . . Helps make sure we are aligning with their
needs, rather than just pushing something out.” Having upfront alignment with the employee
fosters trust; Participant 5 expressed:
We have an agreement before they start. . . . We make sure that alignment is there upfront
before you get too far down the path. . . . We have to trust each other undoubtedly to
make sure alignment happens.
Employees and organizations want to improve; Participant 1 shared:
76

We can align people’s personal goals with the company goals; I want to make you a
better employee because you're going to be much happier if you're doing a good job. . . .
Most employees in their review want to get better. . . . Usually, we can align because we
want the same things because they benefit both of us.
Asking for feedback from employees on what employees need help with was crucial; Participant
6 shared:
Every employee wants to have a successful job. . . . It is important because we are always
asking what areas you guys need help with, what areas you are struggling in. . .
.Feedback helps guide and direct our focus because the people are our greatest assets.
Employees want to feel confident doing their job; Participant 3 asserted, “The employees
have goals, we have to align with one another. . . . They want to grow and feel confident in their
role...With standardization, you have a common purpose; you have a common goal, there is a
standard to go by.” Project success was a common goal for the organization and employee;
Participant 7 expressed:
The processes we put in place helps them manage, nobody wants a job that is losing a
bunch of money or way behind schedule. . . . Hopefully, we both have the same goals,
but at the end of the day, those processes we standardized helps them move in the right
direction.
Understanding employee goals in respect to organizational goals was suitable for both
parties; Participant 4 shared:
We have to be clear and concise on what those employee goals are and be understanding.
. . . Maybe not setting our standardization goals so high. . . . We cannot go too hard and
77

too heavy all at once and say everybody needs to be proficient by April 1, and if you are
not, there is going to be repercussions; it has to be gradual.
Knowing your employee personality and goals helps with organizational alignment; Participant 8
asserted:
Sitting down with every employee and saying, who are you, what do you want, where do
you want to be. . . . Know what your employee's goals are, what their personality traits
are. . . . Showing them how they can find success within Building America's process
standardization.
Thus, for the interviews, the influence is an asset.
Document Analysis
Document analysis was not conducted for this influence.
Summary
The survey results determined the assumed influence PMDMs actively aligned employee
goals with standardized goals was determined to be a need. The interviews conducted showed
the influence was considered an asset. Fifty-five percent (55.6%) of the surveyed PMDM were
able to accurately identify as agree or strongly agree to actively align employee goals with
standardization goals, 24.4% below the threshold. Conversely, 100% of the interview
participants knew and gave examples of aligning employee goals with standardization goals. In
case of difference of agreement between survey and interview findings, the researcher weighted
interview findings more than surveys because of the level of detail in responses, which the
survey results did not meet the threshold. However, the organization strives for 100%
improvement, so both data components need to exceed the 80% threshold to be determined an
78

asset. Therefore, the PMDMs found it helpful to have standardized employees was determined to
be a need.
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
The PMDM at Building America’s had their organization assessed for employee
standardization for interchangeability using surveys, interviews, and document analysis. The
results helped to determine whether the assumed organizational causes need improvement.
Results presented in the following section reflect each influence in cultural model and cultural
setting. Based on the findings, each assumed influence was identified as an asset or determined
to be a need.
Influence 7, Cultural Model: Project Management Decision-Makers Acknowledge and
Promote Employee Standardization
Survey Results
The PMDMs were asked to respond to a Likert Scale question identifying their
organizational model to acknowledge and promote employee standardization. The total of the
last two values helped determine if this influence was a need or asset. Table 14 shows the
responses in the organization ranged from strongly disagreeing to strongly agreeing. Building
America PMDM did exceed the 80% threshold for the value of participating in the development
of standardizing employees.

79

Table 14
Survey Results for Cultural Model for Acknowledging and Promoting Employee Standardization
Cultural model for... Participant
responses
%
1 Strongly disagree 1 11.1
2 Disagree 0 0
3 Neutral 0 0
4 Agree 4 44.4
5 Strongly agree 4 44.4

Note. (n = 9)

Table 15 shows the responses in the organization ranged from strongly disagreeing to
strongly agreeing. For the Table 15 survey question, PMDM did not exceed the 80% threshold
for the organization's value of the importance of having standardized employees. Therefore, this
influence was determined in the survey as an asset.

80

Table 15
Survey Results for Cultural Model for Acknowledging and Promoting Employee Standardization
Motivation for... Participant
responses
%
1 Strongly disagree 1 11.1
2 Disagree 0 0
3 Neutral 1 11.1
4 Agree 4 44.4
5 Strongly agree 3 33.33

Note. (n = 9)

Interview Findings
PMDM were asked to describe how they value their participation in the development of
employee standardization. It was evident all eight participants knew and could speak to the value
of employee standardization. Providing world-class training was a directive from the top;
Participant 6 expressed:
One of my strengths is being able to figure out and improve processes, and so I value it; I
am humbled to be able even to have the role that I have. . . . I get to improve processes
and see the issues or bottlenecks. . . . Our CEO wants to have world-class training, so we
are working on developing a strategic action plan.
Development of standardization requires leadership and resources; Participant 8 shared:
It is pulling from all the different resources, I am at the helm, trying to lead. . . . I am
behind the scenes orchestrating, making sure we have got the right parts and pieces to
further the development of our standardized process.
81

Providing employees with an environment that promotes and supports development was
shared by Participant 1:
I completely value my role in helping that person develop. . . . I am vital because I set the
tone when they walk in the door; we are going to train, equip, guide, and lead you and
provide the support and tools to make them the best employee.
The value of standardization is often forgotten when everything is going well; Participate 5
shared:
I probably take it for granted, to be honest with you, I need to value it more. . . . If we did
not have it, life would be back upside down so I value it more than I can put into words
properly.
Proving input is valued, Participant 7 asserted, “I value it, I like having my voice heard. . . .
Giving my input on what works and does not work...It is not just handed down and dictated
down to me.”
Having a person focused on standardization was crucial. Participant 2 expressed, “I value
it a lot; it is my job, the only thing I focus on is standardization and pushing out standardization.”
Having a purpose of helping people seeking to improve themselves helps with the development
of standardization; Participant 3 asserted, “It is part of the reason I get up every morning, this
team implements our best practices or standardized standards. . . . It comes down to being helpful
to those individuals that are seeking to do better.” Standardization is a heavy task, but it also
comes with a reward; Participant 4 asserted:
All of our standard operating procedures are put into one centralized location, so this is of
importance to me. . . . At times it is a heavy burden, and then at other times, it is very
rewarding to know that I am part of that.
82

Thus, for the interviews, the influence was an asset.
Document Analysis
In reviewing the information provided on Building America’s website, it was apparent
the organization was clear on the type of organizational culture it promoted. Their mission,
values, and client videos provided information on how Building America valued building
projects to meet or exceed client expectations. In the culture video, the CEO explained his
perspectives on Build America’s values and how the values related to the culture of Building
America. The website also provided clear information on how operational excellence plays into
the overall cultural model of the organization's operations. This appears, then, to reflect the
promotion and acknowledgment of standardization.
Summary
The survey, interviews, and document analysis results showed the assumed influence of
the PMDM cultural model to promote and acknowledge employee standardization was
determined to be an asset. Eighty-three percent (83.3%) of the surveyed PMDM were able to
accurately identify as agree or strongly agree to the cultural model to promote and acknowledge
employee standardization, 3.3% above the threshold. Additionally, 100% of the interview
participants knew and gave examples of aligning employee goals with standardization goals.
Therefore, the PMDM found it helpful to have standardized employees and thus was determined
to be an asset.
83

Influence 8, Cultural Setting: Project Management Decision-Makers Have Employee
Standardization Guided by Policies and Procedures
Survey Results
The PMDMs were asked to respond to a Likert Scale question identifying their organizational
setting on employee standardization guided by policies and procedures. Table 16 shows the
responses in the organization ranged from strongly disagreeing to strongly agreeing. The total of
the last two values helped determine if this influence is a need or asset. Building America
PMDM did exceed the 80% threshold for the value of participating in the development of
standardizing employees. Therefore, this influence was determined in the survey as a need.

Table 16
Survey Results for Cultural Setting for having Employee Standardization Guided by Policies and
Procedures
Cultural setting for... Participant
responses
%
1 Strongly disagree 1 11.1
2 Disagree 0 0
3 Neutral 2 22.2
4 Agree 4 44.4
5 Strongly agree 2 22.2

Note. (n = 9)

84

Interview Findings
PMDM were asked to describe how policies and procedures guide employee
standardization. It was evident all eight participants knew and could speak to how policies and
procedures would guide the standardization of employees. The organization was cautious of
policies and procedures that become a checklist; Participant 6 asserted:
We are not a big HR corporation that is not how we operate. . . . You have to be very
careful about having policies and procedures that become the environment and culture. . .
. To put a checklist of here is 10 courses, they are doing it to checkboxes is not what we
are trying to set up, and so there is a fine line on your policies driving your training.
Mandates are not needed when the culture promotes self-improvement; Participant 1 shared,
“Why we do not make a mandate. . . . We have not gone to mandated procedures and policies;
we have a culture that says you should want to improve.”
The organizational standards can overwhelm employees at the beginning; Participant 3
asserted:
Our standard, operational excellence is what I keep in mind. . . .You cannot show up for
work to punch a clock; you have to feel it to change anything. . . . Standards, a lot of
people are freaked out and overwhelming them right now, but they will all come around;
it will be better in the long run.
Reaching out to employees about how the organization can help is beneficial; Participant 2
expressed:
We want to be empowering our employees; what do you need, as someone who is on the
ground floor. . . . It is constantly reaching out to them, providing training, also asking
them what is missing, is there something that we can do to better support you.
85

Credible and respected individuals within the company should be the ones sharing
policies and procedures; Participant 4 shared:
If it’s coming from the right people, people are going to follow it. . . . Somebody people
look up to. . . . There are certain individuals in our company that if something comes
from that person, it is legitimate. . . . It has to be the right person sending out those
policies and procedures; otherwise, it is not going to go anywhere.
Trusting the system and the work behind the scenes keeps employees on track; Participant 8
asserted:
I’m behind the scenes orchestrating, making sure we have the right parts and pieces to
further the development of our standardized processes. . . . I want you to trust the system
we have in place; the system will provide guidelines so you do not go off the rails. . . . It
provides clear details to our folks and what we are doing.
Measuring is part of the checkpoint process for standardization; Participant 5 expressed:
Checkpoints for the individual to understand if they are aligning with standardization. . .
Within the confines of a certain process or a certain procedure, we have to live there to
keep standardization on the right path. . . . Anything that will be successful needs to be
measured, exactly why we have standardization in place and constantly developing.
Policies help with the implementation of the standardization; Participant 7 expressed:
Our safety and quality policy we put in place, we want guys to do their safety inspections
once a week, and we monitor every week. . . . The reporting we are seeing is all
standardized to help implement that policy.
Thus, for the interviews, the influence was an asset.
86

Document Analysis
In reviewing the information provided on Building America’s website, the career section
provided information on employee development through complex projects, building
communities, and the importance of sharing the organization's values. In reviewing the 2021
education program matrix, the document clearly defined the type of proposed training and how
they will be conducted, along with costs associated with each. The website was very visually
appealing, showing people and teams, and well-organized potential clients or employees. The
reviewed documents appear to reflect how processes and policies guide standardization.
Summary
The survey results indicated the assumed influence of the PMDM cultural setting to guide
employee standardization through policies and procedures was determined to be a need. The
document analysis and interviews conducted showed the influence was considered an asset.
Sixty-six percent (66.6%) of the surveyed PMDM were able to accurately identify as agree or
strongly agree to the cultural setting of having policies and procedures guide employee
standardization, 13.4% below the threshold. Conversely, 100% of the interview participants
knew and gave examples of policies and procedures guiding employee standardization. In case of
difference of agreement between survey and interview findings, the researcher weighted
interview findings more than surveys because of the level of detail in responses, which the
survey results did not meet the threshold. However, the organization strives for 100%
improvement, so all three data components need to exceed the 80% threshold to be determined
an asset. Therefore, the PMDM has found it helpful to have standardized employees as
determined to be a need.
87

Summary and Discussion of Influences
Table 17, 18, and 19 show the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences for
this study and their determination of asset or need.
Knowledge
According to Clark and Estes (2008), knowledge is the engine and transmission of our
performance efforts, but people’s knowledge and skills cause performance gaps. Multinational
corporations use standardized business processes to improve communication to subsidiaries and
knowledge transfer from one project to another to have employees gain knowledge and skills to
improve performance (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Pellicer et al., 2014; Rahimi et al., 2016).
Standardization helps new hires and existing employees learn job duties that help them perform
refined processes to deliver consistent quality and service (Hsiung, & Hsieh, 2003; Koval et al.,
2019). As shown in Table 17, one of three assumed knowledge influences were determined to be
an asset through a collective review of the survey results, interview responses, and document
analysis. Recommendations to improve the knowledge influences determined as a need are
discussed in Chapter 5.

88

Table 17
Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by Data
Assumed knowledge influence Asset or need
Declarative:
Project management decision-makers need to know the benefits of
improving employee standardization.
Asset
Procedural:
Project management decision-makers need to know how to incorporate
employee standardization.
Need
Metacognitive:
Project management decision-makers need to monitor their progress
toward standardization
Need

Motivation
According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation is the fuel and electricity that charges
the performance efforts, but the motivation to complete a goal causes performance gaps.
Organizations spend large amounts of money on standardization to increase business
performance by reducing costs, quality improvements and reducing process-driven errors that
promote a willingness to learn, even if the training does not suit them (Münstermann & Weitzel,
2008; Noe, 2020). Standardization provides the necessary information to meet the trainee's needs
and to empower trainees to complete their duties effortlessly (Hsiung & Hsieh, 2003; Klochkov
et al., 2019; Salas et al., 2012). As shown in Table 18, one out of three assumed motivation
influences were determined to be an asset through a collective review of the survey results and
interview responses. Recommendations to improve the motivation influences determined as a
need are discussed in Chapter 5.

89

Table 18
Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by Data
Assumed motivation influence Asset or
need
Self-efficacy:
Project management decision-makers have the confidence that they can
standardize employees.
Need
Utility value:
Project management decision-makers need to see the usefulness of
standardized employees.
Asset
Goal orientation:
Project management decision-makers’ need to align employee standardization
goals with employee goals
Need

Organization
According to Clark and Estes (2008), the current road conditions are the organizational
factors that make it easier or harder on performance efforts but, the lack of equipment, policies or
processes causes performance gaps. Organizational cultures need to set the tone by promoting
and supporting continuous learning, rewarding creativity, and acknowledging failure as part of
the process (Pellicer et al., 2012; Pellicer et al., 2016; Velda et al., 2007). Supportive learning
cultures promote collaboration and informal learning stemming from formal learning to leaders
and supervisors, playing a critical role in providing trainees with guidance, expectations and
reinforcing learning objectives (Noe et al., 2014; Salas et al., 2012). As shown in Table 19, one
out of two assumed organization influences were determined to be an asset through a collective
review of the survey results, interview responses, and document analysis. Recommendations to
improve the organization influences determined as a need are discussed in Chapter 5.
90

Table 19
Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by Data
Assumed organization influence Asset or need
Cultural model:
The Building America Project management decision-makers’ need to
perceive that the organization fosters employee standardization across
states.
Asset
Cultural setting:
The Building America organization needs to have employee
standardization guided by processes, procedures, and policies.
Need

Conclusion
Chapter 4 presented the results and findings from data collected on the assumed
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences causing a gap in Building America’s
current goal of standardizing employees for interchangeability. Chapter 5 examines proposed
solutions and includes recommendations for improving the assumed influences determined as a
need or asset in the findings of Chapter 4. In Chapter 5, the proposed solutions and
recommendations based on empirical evidence are shared with the PMDM at Building America.

91

Chapter Five: Implementation and Evaluation Plan
In Chapter 4, organizational and stakeholder goals for project management employee
standardization for interchangeability were examined against knowledge, motivational, and
organizational (KMO) assumed influences on the identified problem of practice. Needs and
assets identified in Chapter 4 are evaluated in Chapter 5 to maintain consistency, continuity, and
commitment to the employee standardization for interchangeability goals. Chapter 5 includes
results and findings from Chapter 4 to guide the selection of evidence-based solutions and
recommendations for determination of assets and needs in the categories of knowledge,
motivation, and organization. Building America project management decision-makers (PMDM)
must maintain consistency with their employee standardization efforts while onboarding to
sustain continuity. PMDM can learn from their commitment to improving themselves.
Additionally, this chapter will include the new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016) to generate an integrated implementation and evaluation plan based on the
recommended solutions. Building America PMDM commitment to developing a positive
business culture through the implementation and allegiance to the employee standardization
efforts is critical. The developed recommendations and evaluation will emphasize the
consistency, continuity, and commitment required for the continual effective implementation of
employee standardization for interchangeability. To frame Chapter 5, the organizational mission,
performance goals, stakeholders, and research questions guided this study will begin this chapter
by revisiting pertinent sections from Chapter 1.
Organizational Context and Mission
Building America Construction, Incorporated (Building America) is a construction
company specializing in constructing water and wastewater, power, transportation, oil and gas,
92

mining, and industrial facilities (Building America, 2020). The mission of Building America is to
obtain the confidence of its workers, construction trade associates, and consumers. Achieving
this mission happens by establishing teams with constituents who have steadfast and extensive
credence in each other. The organization has thrived on its rich history of competence and
continues to build quality projects. The culture at Building America embodies characteristics of
integrity among all employees involved in constructing a project. Building America builds
confidence through its values of (a) equity, (b) honesty, (c) triumph, and (d) efficiency. Building
America has ranked as one of the top 25 largest contractors in the United States since the year
2000 and constructed projects with its over 2,000 employees, along with yearly revenues of more
than $2 billion. Building America has 45 offices, 13 departments in the national organization
structure and all nine states operate independently but may mirror the national organizational
structure. The primary role of all employees is to build projects on time with quality, on budget,
and impress the client, so they hire Building America for their next project (Building America,
2020).
Organizational Performance Goal
An effective training program has the right content to meet demands of the employee
seeking training (Ambrose & Ogilvie, 2010). The leaders at Building America believe the right
training program will help reduce overall labor costs and increase company capacity to increase
revenues and profits. Building America has an organizational performance goal to have 100% of
project management employees meet requirements for multisite interchangeability across various
states (Building America, 2020). By January 2023, Building America will have 100% employee
standardization in the project management department for performance improvement through a
multisite standardization program for interchangeability capacity across states.
93

The PMDM established this goal after reviewing past efforts on providing various types
of training. The organizational performance goal aligns with its values of fairness, integrity,
results, and continuous improvement. The PMDM will measure the achievement of Building
America’s goal of having standardized project management employees by January 2023. The
organization’s mission, performance goal and stakeholder goal are shown on Table 1 (see
Chapter 1).
Description of Stakeholder Groups
A stakeholder group is a group of individuals who directly contribute to and benefit from
achieving the organization’s performance goal. Building America has many important critical
stakeholders, but for the organizational standardization goal, there are three primary
stakeholders: (a) PMDM, (b) project management implementers, and (c) project management
trainees. The PMDM are leaders who provide direction for all project management employees,
construction technology applications, and employee training. The project management
implementers manage all project management employees and provide direction for Building
America’s project management processes and procedures. The project management trainees are
individuals who manage daily construction projects, complete required pieces of training, mentor
new project management trainees, and represent the largest number of employees in Building
America. Building America has many critical stakeholders who manage and operate the
business, but there is only one essential stakeholder needed to develop a training program for this
study. The PMDM has the ultimate authority to develop and implement training initiatives to
improve project management performance.
94

Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis to examine PMDM knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that interfere with developing a multisite training
program for 100% employee standardization across states. The study began by generating a list
of possible or assumed interfering influences that were examined systematically to focus on
actual assets and needs. The study began by generating a list of possible or assumed influences
from the literature that were examined systematically. As such, the questions that guided this
study were:
1. What are the knowledge and motivation influences that interfere with project
management decision-makers developing a multisite training program for employee
standardization across states?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and project
management decision-makers’ knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?
The content of Chapter 4 provided insights into the first two research questions guiding
this study. Chapter 5 will now address the third question and last research question by
recommending solutions for the validated knowledge, motivation, and organization influences
and provide an integrated implementation and evaluation plan to enact the solutions.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
The assumed KMO influences related to employee standardization for interchangeability
at Building America were examined to determine the organization’s strengths and areas for
standardizing employees. Each of the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences was
highly important for achieving 100% employee standardization in the project management
95

department by January 2023. In this chapter the researcher provides details regarding
recommendations for each KMO influence seen as a need or an asset. The following KMO
Tables 20, 21, and 22 will describe the assumed influences, determination, principal, citation,
and context-specific recommended solutions based on theoretical or empirical evidence found in
the literature.
Knowledge Recommendations
As shown in Table 20, two of three assumed knowledge influences were determined to be
actual needs through data analysis. The assumed procedural knowledge influence and
metacognitive knowledge influence were both determined as a need. However, declarative
knowledge influence was determined as an asset in which improvement is not needed. To
maintain consistency for future onboarding of PMDM, the needs and assets must be addressed.
The result was all three influences were reviewed for continued or improved performance. For
knowledge influences classified as a need or asset, the researcher identified evidence-based
principles to guide and address context-based recommendations to improve performance. Table
20 lists the assumed influences, determination, principal, citation, and literature supporting the
provided recommendation.

96

Table 20
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
knowledge
influence
Asset
or
need
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
Declarative
PMDM need to
know the
benefits of
improving
employee
standardization
Asset How individuals organize knowledge
influences affects how they learn
and apply what they know (Schraw
& McCrudden, 2006).

Information learned deeply and
connected with prior knowledge is
stored more quickly and
remembered more exactly because
it is elaborated with prior learning
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).
Provide PMDM with
information sessions
for the opportunity
to collaborate with
other PMDM to
discuss experiences
about what they
already know about
the benefits of
improving employee
standardization.
Procedural
PMDM need to
know how to
incorporate
employee
standardization
Need The continued practice promotes
automaticity and takes less
capacity in working memory
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).

To develop mastery, individuals must
acquire component skills, practice
integrating them, and know when
to apply what they have learned
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).
Provide PMDM with
models that show
how to incorporate
employee
standardization and
provide an
opportunity to
practice and
demonstrate when
to apply.
Metacognitive
PMDM need to
monitor their
progress
toward
standardization
Need Learning and motivation are
enhanced when learners set goals,
receive feedback, monitor their
performance, and evaluate their
progress toward achieving their
goals (Ambrose et al., 2010; Meyer
& Marsick, 2003).

The use of metacognitive strategies
facilitates learning (Baker, 2006).
Provide PMDM with
strategies to reflect
on employee
standardization
efforts and receive
feedback to ensure
meaningful progress
toward the
performance goal.
97

Declarative Knowledge
The findings and results showed declarative knowledge was an asset on the need to know
the benefits of improving employee standardization. Recommendations to close the declarative
knowledge gap can be made using the information processing theory. Because Schraw and
McCrudden (2006), stressed that information learned is stored quicker and accurately when
connected with prior knowledge, it seems PMDM would benefit from information sessions with
other PMDM. Thus, it is recommended to provide PMDM with information sessions for the
opportunity to collaborate with other PMDM to discuss what they already know about the
benefits of improving employee standardization.
Gunawardena et al. (2010) and Noe et al. (2014) suggested collegial support helps
promote a learning culture that encourages working and learning to increase transfer of training.
Ambrose et al. (2010) explained the purpose behind knowing the participant’s current knowledge
is to help students build upon or fill those knowledge gaps and learn new material. Organizations
invest a lot of time and money into their programs, so it is essential to test the program and
determine areas of improvement for before, during, and after the training (Grohmann &
Kauffeld, 2013; Martin, 2010; Schulte & Kauffeld, 2017). Therefore, providing PMDM with
information sessions to collaborate with other PMDM to discuss knowledge about the benefits of
improving employee standardization is a well-aligned recommendation for improving declarative
knowledge skill development.
Procedural Knowledge
The findings and results showed procedural knowledge as a need when considering how
to incorporate employee standardization. Recommendations to close the procedural knowledge
gap can be made using the information process theory. Because Schraw and McCrudden (2006),
98

emphasize individuals must gain skills, practice integration, and apply their skills to build muscle
memory, it seems PMDM would benefit from practice and demonstration. Thus, it is
recommended to provide PMDM with opportunities to practice and show how to incorporate
employee standardization.
Bryde (2003) and Tereso et al. (2019) shared organizations with an educated workforce
may implement more complex procedures and tools to improve capacity. According to Elmore
(2002) and Stolovitch et al. (2011), teachers who mastered material before teaching students can
teach and transform students to learn and apply what they learn to perform tasks quicker with
minimal errors. Active learning happens during formal training that has been designed with
material that engages the student, and learning happens by performing (Sparr et al., 2017;
Stolovitch et al., 2011). Noe (2020) expressed trainees are more than capable of applying on-the-
job learning because the work environment promotes guided training. Therefore, providing
PMDM models that show how to incorporate employee standardization and providing
opportunities to practice and demonstrate when to apply is a well-aligned recommendation to
address the procedural knowledge gap.
Metacognitive Knowledge
The findings and results showed metacognitive knowledge as a need for monitoring
PMDM progress toward standardization. Recommendations to close the metacognitive
knowledge gap can be made using the information process theory. Because Ambrose et al.
(2010), Meyer and Marsick (2003), and Baker (2006) emphasized self-reflection to support
learners to receive feedback and evaluate their performance progress toward achieving their
goals, it seems PMDM would benefit from reflecting on their progress. PMDM should receive
99

opportunities to reflect and receive feedback on standardization strategies and monitor progress
toward employee standardization.
Ambrose and Ambrose (2010), Matsuo (2011), and Sparr et al. (2017) positively related
transfer of learning to feedback-seeking and reflective understanding of one’s cognitive
knowledge and learning new procedures and methods as a self-directed learner; when those
relationships are strong, transfer of learning is high. According to Sparr et al., feedback-seeking
improves trainee confidence, and reflection helps the trainee seek further improvement. Training
design is critical to the success of a training program, and it needs to reflect content geared
toward the trainees’ actual job duties, which leads to performance improvement (Awais Bhatti et
al., 2014). Achieving results involves communicating a plan through training and development
programs with well-defined measurement processes and systems to provide insight that defines
what is wrong and right (Barnett & Mattox, 2010; Childress et al., 2006). Therefore, providing
PMDM with strategies to reflect on employee standardization efforts and receive feedback to
improve performance is a well-aligned recommendation to address the metacognitive knowledge
gap.
Motivation Recommendations
As shown in Table 21, two of three assumed motivation influences were determined to be
actual needs through data analysis. The assumed self-efficacy motivation influence and the goal
orientation motivation influence were both determined as a need. However, the utility value
motivation influence was determined as an asset in which improvement is not needed. To
maintain consistency for future onboarding of PMDM, the needs and assets influences are being
addressed to maintain consistency. The result was all three influences were reviewed for
continued or improved performance. For the motivation influences classified as a need or asset,
100

evidence-based principles are identified to guide and address context-based recommendations to
improve performance. Table 21 lists the assumed influences, determination, principal, citation,
and literature supporting the provided recommendation.

101

Table 21
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
motivation
influence
Asset
or
need
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
Self-efficacy
PMDM have the
confidence
they can
standardize
employees.
Need High self-efficacy can positively
influence motivation (Pajares,
2006).

Learning and motivation are
enhanced when learners have
positive expectancies for success
(Pajares, 2006).
Allow PMDM to
correctly identify
or perform
strategies for
employee
standardization as a
plan to enhance
self-efficacy and
motivation.
Utility value
PMDM need to
see the
usefulness of
standardized
employees.
Asset Rationales that include discussing
the importance and utility value of
the work or learning can help
learners develop and maintain
positive values (Eccles, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003).

Learning and motivation are
enhanced if the learner values the
task (Eccles, 2006).
Provide PMDM with
relevant materials
and activities with
explanations and
connections to help
develop the value
of employee
standardization.
Goal orientation
PMDM need to
align employee
standardization
goals with
employee
goals
Need Goals motivate and direct students
(Pintrich, 2003).

Focusing on mastery, individual
improvement, learning, and
progress promotes positive
motivation (Yough & Anderman,
2006).
Provide PMDM with
strategies
structured around
mastery of
employee
standardization to
motivate and direct
PMDM to meeting
their goals.
102

Self-Efficacy
The findings showed self-efficacy motivation was needed to have the confidence to
standardize employees. Recommendations to close the self-efficacy motivation gap can be made
using self-efficacy theory. According to Pajares (2006), high self-efficacy can positively
influence motivation and learning when learners have positive expectancies for success, it seems
PMDM would benefit from high self-efficacy and excitement for success. PMDM should receive
opportunities to identify and perform employee standardization strategies correctly.
Noe (2020) expressed individuals with high self-efficacy are more than willing to learn,
even if the training does not suit the individuals. Training programs designed to help trainees use
information toward their jobs improves trainee self-efficacy, and pre-training assessments related
to improving task performance help with improving self-efficacy during training (Aguinis &
Kraiger, 2009; Awais Bhatti et al., 2014; Tannenbaum et al., 1991). Job standardization that
outlines employee responsibilities and improves services delivered to customers by reducing
variations in services and improving employee confidence is important to project success (Chen
et al., 2009; Luoh et al., 2014; Mir & Pinnington, 2014). Therefore, providing PMDM with skills
to correctly identify or perform strategies for employee standardization that enhances self-
efficacy is a well-aligned recommendation to address the self-efficacy motivation gap.
Utility Value
The findings and results showed utility value motivation as an asset for having the
confidence to standardize employees. Recommendations to close the utility value motivation gap
can be made using expectancy-value theory. According to Eccles (2006) and Pintrich (2003),
enhanced learning and motivation stems from the learner discussing the importance of the utility
values of the work, and learning helps learners develop and maintain positive values, it seems
103

PMDM would benefit by valuing the usefulness of the work. It is recommended to provide
PMDM with opportunities to have relevant materials and activities that explain and connect to
the value of employee standardization.
Learner motivation is increased when a trainee feels the course expectations and
guidelines empower the trainee to have control over tasks and uses life experiences that help the
trainee value practical methods that lead to reducing job-related stresses (Gunawardena et al.,
2010; Hsieh & Hsieh, 2003; Young, 2012). Learning organizations provide employees with
practical training that aligns and fosters opportunities to gain valuable skills to help employees
believe in their ability to learn and apply skills to achieve results (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Noe,
2020; van der Locht et al., 2013). Learning and transfer of training occurs when trainees can
transfer their learning of a relevant skill, or specific knowledge is needed, and the context is used
with actual job responsibilities, but transfer effectiveness depends on the trainee’s motivation
(O’Toole & Essex, 2012; van der Locht et al., 201; Velada et al., 2007). The investment in
project management process standardization has a positive effect on cost reduction and positively
correlated with service quality because standardization efforts eliminate employees’ uncertainty
and ambiguity and helps them execute their goals efficiently (Chen et al., 2009; Hsieh & Hsieh,
2003; Lappe & Spang, 2014). Therefore, providing PMDM with relevant material and activities
with explanations and connections to help further the value and improvement of employee
standardization is a well-aligned recommendation for improving utility value motivation
development.
Goal Orientation
The findings and results showed goal orientation motivation was needed for goal
alignment for employee standardization. Recommendations to close the goal orientation
104

motivation gap can be made using goal orientation theory. According to Pintrch (2003) and
Yough and Anderman (2006), individual improvement focused on mastery, learning, and
progress will directly promote student goal motivation, it seems PMDM would benefit from
mastery learning. Thus, it is recommended to provide PMDM with structured strategies for
mastery goals for employee standardization.
Trainees with a learning mastery mindset experience improved motivation and self-
efficacy, leading to better learning and transfer performance into their work if they believe they
can mentally retain the training material (Bell & Kozlowski, 2008; Velada et al., 2007).
Employees who are empowered and have mastered their job standardization foundation practices
to coordinate activities, tasks, and goals can help with generating new ideas for improving job
performance (Hsieh, & Hsieh, 2003; Luoh et al., 2014). Effective learning practices are based on
research that develops new behaviors through practice, study, or experience that leads to changes
in cognitive behavior that is implemented before, during, and after training (Salas, 2012).
Multinational corporations seeking global integration need to minimize business variability to
standardize their activities in alignment with strategic objectives that promote employee
development personally and professionally (Noe, 2020; Rahimi et al., 2016). Therefore,
providing PMDM with strategies structured around mastery of employee standardization to
motivate and direct their goals is a well-aligned recommendation to address the goal orientation
motivation gap.
Organization Recommendations
One of two assumed motivation influences were determined to be actual needs through
data analysis (see Table 22). The assumed cultural setting organization influence was determined
as a need. However, the cultural model organization influence was determined as an asset in
105

which improvement is not needed. To maintain consistency for future onboarding of PMDM, the
needs and assets influences are being addressed to maintain consistency. The result was both
influences were reviewed for continued or improved performance. For the organization
influences classified as a need or asset, evidence-based principles are identified to guide and
address context-based recommendations to improve performance. Table 22 lists the assumed
influences, determination, principal, citation, and literature supporting the provided
recommendation.

106

Table 22
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
organization
influence
Asset
or
need
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
Cultural model
The Building
America
PMDM need to
perceive the
organization
fosters
employee
standardization
across states.
Asset Effective change efforts ensure
everyone has the resources
(e.g., equipment, personnel,
time) needed to do their job
and if there are resource
shortages, then resources are
aligned with organizational
priorities (Clark & Estes, 2008)

Effective change efforts use
evidence-based solutions and
adapt them, where necessary,
to the organization’s culture
(Clark & Estes, 2008)
Provide PMDM with
evidence-based
solutions and
resources necessary
to promote
employee
standardization as
an organizational
priority.
Cultural setting
The Building
America
organization
needs to have
employee
standardization
guided by
processes,
procedures, and
policies.
Need Effective organizations ensure
organizational messages,
rewards, policies, and
procedures that govern the
organization’s work are
aligned with or are supportive
of organizational goals and
values (Clark and Estes, 2008).

Accountability is increased when
individual roles and
expectations are aligned with
organizational goals and
mission (Elmore, 2002).
Block out time in
leadership meetings
to develop strategies
to address the
employee
standardization goal
to ensure
accountability that
processes and
policies align with
organizational goals
and values.

107

Cultural Models
The findings showed the organizational cultural model was an asset in having the
confidence to standardize employees. Recommendations to close the cultural model organization
gap can be made using organizational change theory. According to Clark and Estes (2008),
effective change efforts use evidence-based solutions to ensure everyone has the right resources
(e.g., equipment, personnel, time) needed to do their jobs, and resources are aligned and adapted
with organizational priorities. This would suggest PMDM would benefit by having
organizational resources for employee standardization. It is recommended to provide PMDM
with evidence-based solutions and resources to promote the organizational priority of employee
standardization.
Project management training and development cultures with supportive organizational
learning to promote collaboration and collegial support fosters working and learning from each
other to improve the transfer of training along with improved service and quality (Bryde, 2003;
Gunawardena et al., 2010; Karatepe et al., 2004; Noe et al., 2014). Project management provides
tangible benefits such as financial returns and intangible benefits, such as providing a guiding
culture for human capital is considered a competitive advantage (Noe et al., 2014; Tereso et al.,
2019). Performance cultures need to promote and support continuous learning that thrives on
voicing their concerns, teamwork, big goals, and accountability to meet performance goals.
(Childress et al., 2006; Jones, 2001; Velada et al., 2007). Therefore, providing PMDM with
evidence-based solutions and resources necessary to promote employee standardization as an
organizational priority is a well-aligned recommendation for improving organizational cultural
model development.
108

Cultural Settings
The findings showed the organizational culture setting needed policies and procedures to
guide employee standardization. Recommendations to close the cultural setting organization gap
can be made using organizational change theory. According to Clark and Estes (2008) and
Elmore (2002), effective organizations ensure rewards, policies, and procedures governing the
organization are aligned, supportive, accountable to organizational goals and values, it seems
PMDM would benefit by having policies and procedures for employee standardization. Thus, it
is recommended to provide PMDM with time to develop policies and procedures held
accountable to the employee standardization goal.
The development and influence of a standardized system is not the sole task of project
management leadership, but the combination of both senior leaders and staff members to develop
standardized project management processes and procedures to achieve higher customer
satisfaction and improved construction project success (Jin et al., 2018; Klochkov et al., 2017;
Mir & Pinnington, 2014). Alignment of standardized resources guide employees with policies
and procedures to achieve repeated results, which helps reduce organization costs and improve
performance because employees are efficient, mitigate process errors, transparent, less
ambiguous, and quality oriented (Koval et al., 2019; Luoh et al., 2014; Münstermann & Weitzel,
2008; Rahimi et al., 2016; Schäfermeyer et al., 2012; Tsaur et al., 2014). Organizations with
defined processes and procedures increase capacity through continuous learning, but the upfront
costs for standardization can be high because of new processes development, business processes
complexities, and employee training; however, the costs decrease with economies of scale
(Byrde, 2003; Koval et al., 2019; Schäfermeyer et al., 2012).
109

According to Burke (2005) and Childress et al. (2006), high-performing results are
fostered through the development of strategy, implementation, and holding people accountable.
Accountability shows efforts are being made to achieve organizational goals by reporting on the
organization’s quality, performance, and efficiency (Burke, 2005; Childress et al., 2006).
According to Childress et al. (2006) and Elmore (2002), overcoming challenging obstacles
requires leaders to have well-defined, realistic goals held accountable to the team goals.
Accountability systems work on targeted problems, but it is only as good as their capacity to
meet performance goals (Childress et al., 2006; Elmore, 2002). Therefore, providing PMDM
with time during leadership meetings to develop strategies addressing the employee
standardization goal to ensure accountability processes and policies align with organizational
goals and values is a well-aligned recommendation to address the organizational cultural setting
gap.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Framework Plan
This section describes the Building America PMDM integrated implementation and
evaluation plan for employee standardization for interchangeability. To measure the
effectiveness and achievement, accurate evaluation was required.
The framework model that guided the design and integration of this implementation and
evaluation plan was the new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The
Kirkpatrick model helps monitor the effectiveness and impact of the developed plan and ensures
organizational resources are dedicated to areas that will generate the most benefits. During the
planning phase, the Kirkpatrick model starts with the end in mind by starting the plan
development with a clear vision. The program’s four levels have been reversed during the
110

planning phase to ensure that the desired results are aligned with performance behaviors,
learning goals, and measured outcomes.
 Level 4: Results: To what degree did targeted outcomes occur as a result of the learning
event(s) and subsequent reinforcement.
 Level 3: Behavior: To what degree do participants apply what they learned during the
training when they are back on the job.
 Level 2: Learning, to what degree participants acquire the intended knowledge, skills,
and attitudes based on their participation in the learning event.
 Level 1: Reaction: To what degree participants react favorably to the learning event.
During the implementation and evaluation phase, the four levels are implemented from level 1 to
level 4 as an iterative process to ensure proper success.
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
The mission of Building America is to obtain the confidence of its workers, construction
trade associates, and consumers. Achieving this mission happens by establishing teams with
constituents who have steadfast and extensive credence in each other. The organization has
thrived on its rich history of competence. It continues to build quality projects and a culture that
embodies characteristics of integrity among all employees involved in constructing a project.
The organizational performance problem of this study was not having employees
standardized for interchangeability across states. Sixty-five percent of Building America’s
project management employees do not have the capacity for interchangeability across states. The
gap needs to be closed to have project management employees 100% standardized for
interchangeability across states. Building America has a performance goal to have 100% of the
project management employees standardized by January 2023.
111

This critical problem needs to be solved because the organization has received reports of
ill-prepared employees who continually need the same training to build their capacity to work in
multiple states and travel to other states to perform their jobs. Without a standardized program
that builds 100% interchangeability capacity, the organization cannot fulfill its mission of
building trust through its values because of insufficient competencies in project management
employee abilities. Building America must solve this performance problem to help the
organization build capacity that affects profits and revenues. Failure to solve this problem may
cause the organization to continue spending thousands of dollars on standardized training efforts
that cannot meet employee needs and risk compromising the trust clients have in Building
America.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) described Level 4 results as the main reason
stakeholders want training performed. The training needs to show contributions have been made
to the business mission by delivering a service or a product and making a profit. Level 4 seeks to
measure the training results of targeted performance goals that will contribute to the
organization’s mission. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick suggested identifying leading indicators
targeted toward achieving the organization’s desired results. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick defined
leading indicators as short-term observations and measurements used as progress indicators that
eventually all contribute to accomplishing the desired organizational goal.
This section will focus on internal and external leading indicators, which will guide
Building America to achieve its desired results through measured metrics and methods that show
how to attain desired outcomes (see Table 23). The leading indicators will be the roadmap to
help guide Building America to improve employee standardization for interchangeability.
112

Table 23
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External outcomes
Increase in client satisfaction Number of client complaints Quarterly client
complaints report
Increase in revenue and
profits
Number of increases on profit
& loss/balance sheet
statements
Monthly financial
report
Increase in construction
quality
Number of warranty claims
for completed projects
Monthly warranty
reports
Increase in project managers
applying to Building
America
Number of job applications
for project manager
positions
Monthly human
resources report
Internal outcomes
Increase in standardized
employees
Number of requests for help Monthly help request
report
Increase in positive employee
perceptions
Number of employee
complaints
Monthly employee
complaint report
Increase in standardized
processes and procedures
Number of standardized
processes and procedures
Quarterly standardized
processes and
procedures report
Improved project tracking in
system
Number of projects tracking
correctly
Monthly project
tracking report

113

Level 3: Behavior
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) described Level 3 as challenging, essential, and
critical to moving from learning to results. Level 3 emphasizes training alone will not get the
desired results but applying learning from the training to the job will get the desired results. This
level is more than just evaluating because it is a comprehensive, continuous monitoring, and
improvement system. According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, Level 3 consists of critical
behaviors, required drivers, and organizational support.
Level 3 identifies critical behaviors that are specific actions that connect learning to
desired outcomes will have the most significant impact on achieving desired organizational
results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Critical behaviors are specific actions that have
effective desired outcomes, and they lead to attaining organizational goals. Table 24 lists the
recommended critical behaviors, specific metrics, methods, and time of the evaluation.

114

Table 24
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
PMDM define
observable and
measurable
standardization
goals and target
results for process
alignment and
improvement
Number of goals
developed to
measure the
effectiveness of
standardization
alignment
The executive
leadership team
reviews the
overall processes
to standardize
employees
Quarterly status
reports on
standardization
goals reported
by the PMDM
to the executive
leadership team
PMDM identifies
areas that need
immediate
standardization
attention and
develop a plan to
improve those areas
Number of actual
areas identified
that need
immediate
standardization
attention and
plans developed
The executive
leadership team
sit with PMDM
to review
summary of areas
of immediate
attention and
developed plans
Quarterly status
report of
identified areas
and plans by
PMDM to the
executive
leadership team
PMDM to partner
with the executive
leadership team to
ensure support and
recognition of
employee
standardization
Number of times
PMDM met with
the executive
leadership team
in the context of
standardization
support
The executive
leadership team
and CEO will
review the
progress of
PMDM made in
each period
Quarterly status
report in
alignment with
executive team
to the CEO

Required Drivers
Level 3 identifies processes and systems that reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward
on the job are required drivers (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). A package of drivers was key
to accomplishing desired on-the-job performance to support critical behaviors. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) categorized required drivers as support or accountability. The support
category is reinforcing, encouraging, and rewarding, and accountability is categorized as
115

monitoring. Reinforcing reminds and guides participants on what they are supposed to do.
Encouraging is acknowledging and praising supported critical behaviors. Rewarding is noticing
outstanding performance with tangible and intangible rewards. The importance of required
drivers is to support trainees and hold trainees accountable after completing the training. Table
25 lists the recommended methods, timing, and critical behaviors supported.

116

Table 25
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing Critical behaviors
supported 1, 2, and 3
Reinforcing
PMDM meetings at rotating office sites Quarterly 1, 2, and 3
Provide PMDM with training on employee
standardization and process alignment
Monthly 1 and 2
PMDM a review of PMDM roles and responsibilities Annually 1 and 2
Encouraging
Provide PMDM with opportunities to meet with other
project management influencers for collaborations
Quarterly 2
Informal feedback and peer review from PMDM to each
other
Monthly 3
Provide PMDM with mentors such as other industry
senior leaders to hold them accountable
Quarterly 3
Rewarding
Celebrate PMDM successes Annually 1, 2, and 3
Recognition of PMDM work to the leadership executive
team and CEO
Annually 3
Monitoring
PMDM report their progress to achieve standardization
goals to the executive leadership team
Quarterly 1, 2, and 3
PMDM report their progress to achieve employee
standardization to the executive leadership team and
CEO
Annually 1 and 3

117

Organizational Support
Organizational support fosters the implementation of required drivers for the
organization. PMDM needs the support of the executive leadership team at Building America to
provide support and resources when needed and hold PMDM accountable in completing their
critical behaviors on the goal to execute the goal of employee standardization. According to
Clark and Estes (2008), organizational and motivational influences substantially impact
organizational change. The organization and executive leadership team will have to take part
actively and engage with PMDM to monitor the progress. A setting will need to be provided by
the executive leadership team to coordinate continuous improvement efforts and review existing
organizational policies that will need to be aligned with organizational goals.
Level 2: Learning
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) described Level 2 emphasis on learning from training
to which the trainee gains knowledge, skills, attitudes, confidence, and commitment. Confidence
and commitment help avoid wasted training efforts and resources that are not applied to actual
job conditions. Knowledge is what the participants know of certain information and skill is how
to do something or perform a task. Attitude is what the participants believe they can implement
what they are learning in their jobs. Confidence is what participants think they can do on the job
with their training, and commitment is what learners intend to implement in their training on the
job.
Learning Goals
The following learning goals were identified based on the KMO analysis and
recommendations made in this chapter. Upon completion of the recommended solutions, PMDM
will be able to the following:
118

 Explain the benefits of employee standardization. (Declarative)
 Apply the steps to incorporate employee standardization. (Procedural)
 Reflect and receive feedback on their progress of employee standardization.
(Metacognitive)
 Have the confidence to identify and perform strategies to standardize employees. (Self-
Efficacy)
 Value the usefulness of employee standardization through relevant materials and
activities. (Utility Value)
 Motivation to align employee and organizational goals around mastery of
standardization. (Goal Orientation)
 Use resources to increase engagement and promotion of employee standardization as a
priority for the organization. (Cultural Model)
 Increase engagement to align organizational goals and values with employee
standardization processes and procedures. (Cultural Setting)
Program
The proposed training program (see Table 26) is recommended to achieve the eight
learning objectives to address the knowledge, motivation, and organizational improvements
identified in Chapter 4. The learning goals will be achieved through demonstrations, practice,
and feedback to increase knowledge and motivation to help PMDM standardize project
management employees. The training program will focus on PMDM improving knowledge and
motivation, and input regarding organizational support and resources. Bi-monthly training for
PMDM will help the group collaborate and practice their collective efforts on standardizing
employees.
119

The training will be an all-day event hosted at various Building America offices. To
develop PMDM knowledge and skills, Building America will provide training regarding benefits
and steps for employee standardization and reflecting upon current efforts. To foster PMDM
development in attitude and confidence, Building America will provide training that builds
confidence and value of employee standardization through a mastery mindset. The eight learning
goals will remain the focus of all training events, and adjustments to the program will be made
along the way.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) emphasize the importance of using formative and
summative evaluation methods such as discussions, action plans, and surveys. Table 26 helps
ensure a purposeful evaluation that outlines and highlights the methods and timing used for
evaluation throughout the program.

120

Table 26
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Pre- and post-knowledge evaluations in the form of verbal questions
and answers.
Before and at the
end of training
Collaborative matching games related to employee standardization. During training
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
During the training, feedback from peers and the executive leadership
team on employee standardization process.
During training
During the training, a standardized process or procedure is completed. During training
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Discussion about the value and relevance of having employee
standardization completed.
During training

Likert scale survey completed by PMDM at the end of the training. End of training
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Discussion about the barriers and obstacles with the creation and
implementation of employee standardization.
During training
Likert scale survey completed by PMDM. End of training
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
PMDM creates an action plan with input from peers to develop
measurements and benchmarks for employee standardization.
Near the end of the
training

Level 1: Reaction
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) described Level 1 as the reactions to which the
participants find the training positive, engaging, and relevant to their job. The purpose of Level 1
is to determine if the training is practical. Level 1 comprises three components to gauge the
effectiveness of the program. The first component, engagement, helps determine how actively
121

involved the participants are; Component 2, relevance, helps determine if participants will use
what they have learned from the training on the job. The last component, customer satisfaction,
helps determine the satisfaction level of participants. Table 27 lists methods or tools for
evaluating whether PMDM finds their training engaging, relevant, and satisfactory.

Table 27
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or tools(s) Timing
Engagement
Training facilitator observations During training
Active interaction and meaning participation During training
Relevance
Group discussion for a relevance check During training
Anonymous survey End of training
Customer satisfaction
Training facilitator observations During training
Group discussion for a relevance check

During training and near
the end of the training
Anonymous survey End of training

122

Evaluation Tools
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), training programs are evaluated to
improve the program, maximize transfer of learning, and demonstrate value. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick emphasized the importance of using a blended evaluation method using immediate
and delayed evaluation tools to gather data about the effectiveness of a training program. The
immediate evaluation tools are used to measure expected job application and outcomes for
Levels 1 and 2. Delayed evaluation tools are used to measure behaviors and results of the on-the-
job application of training graduates. The Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick evaluation tools are
designed to provide organizational leaders a framework to assess the effectiveness of the training
program.
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
The proposed training will be assessed using an immediate evaluation tool to collect data
on Level 1 (engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction) and Level 2 (declarative
knowledge, procedural skills, relevance, and customer satisfaction) based on PMDM experiences
from the training. The immediate evaluation tool is presented in Appendix E.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) emphasized the importance of delayed evaluations on
the effectiveness of the training received (Level 1), what they have applied to their job, what
support they are receiving (Level 3), and what are the accomplished results (Level 4). PMDM
will be contacted to take the evaluation about one month after they complete the training.
Assessing the program after one month will allow the organization to review successes and
adjust the program. The delayed evaluation tool is presented in Appendix F.
123

Data Analysis and Reporting
For this program, it is recommended PMDM collect data that emphasizes and analyzes
the findings and present it to the Building America CEO, leadership team, and PMDM. The
findings will allow the PMDM to understand and communicate the effectiveness of standardizing
employees, evaluate the training effectiveness, and adjust for future training workshops. The
analysis will be conducted twice a year and communicated through a data dashboard with graphs
and charts (see Appendix G). These evaluations will show Building America is serious about
fostering critical behaviors to improve employee standardization.
Summary
The developed training plan provides PMDM with the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational strategies necessary to create a plan for employee standardization. The framework
model used to design and integrate this implementation and evaluation plan was the new world
Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The Kirkpatrick model will help monitor
the effectiveness of the proposed plan and ensure Building America resources are dedicated to
areas that will generate the most benefits.
The four levels in reverse order were used to develop the training program. The program
ensured concentration on the desired results, which maximized PMDM performance behaviors,
learning goals, and measured outcomes to achieve its goal. Level 1 determines if PMDM found
the training favorable, engaging, and relevant. Level 2 determines if the PMDM developed the
knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment through the guidance of the eight
learning objectives. Level 3 determines if PMDM applies what they learned from the training to
their jobs to get the desired results. Level 4 determines if PMDM training provided results to
complete targeted performance goals that contribute to the organization’s mission.
124

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
In this study, two methods were used and merged in evaluating and recommending
solutions for the problem of practice. The literature review in Chapter 2, data collection
instruments used in Chapter 3, results and analysis in Chapter 4, and research aligned
recommended solutions in Chapter 5 used the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework.
The new world model from Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) was used in this chapter to
provide a methodological framework to use recommended solutions to develop a plan for
implementation and evaluation of a training program.
Both methods have their strengths and weaknesses. The Clark and Estes (2008) KMO
gap analysis strengths stem from having a standardized alignment framework with insights on
KMO influences to identify root causes. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) model strengths
stem from having a standardized method to develop a training plan and an evaluation plan to
solve the identified root causes. Both methods used in this study seemed to only show strengths
due to its standardized process to solve problems hindering organizational performance goals.
Limitations and Delimitations
Triangulation of the data collected through surveys, interviews, and document analysis
strengthened the study’s assertions. Upon completing the recommended solutions, a broader
discussion on the potential delimitations and limitations will occur.
One delimitation of the study was four of eight interviewed were part of the construction
technology department, which meant less representation from project management department
directors or executives. An additional delimitation was having a small sample size of PMDM
who took part in the study. Another delimitation was not including project management
implementers and project management trainees in the sample.
125

A limitation arose from only focusing on PMDM and not having other stakeholders
outside the project management department, such as the executive leadership team and CEO.
The stakeholders could have provided a more inclusive data set regarding knowledge,
motivation, and organizational needs and assets that drive employee standardization.
Future Research
This study focused on PMDM and explored their KMO influences on employee
standardization for interchangeability. The literature review revealed insufficient research in the
construction industry for project management employee standardization and interchangeability.
Recommendations for future research are the limitations and delimitations identified in this
study. Further research is recommended in the areas of standardization, project management, and
leadership. Future researchers should widen the stakeholder group to include input from project
management implementers, project management trainees, the executive leadership team, and the
CEO. Expanding the research topic to include other construction companies would bring a more
inclusive set of data that reflects the construction industry more broadly. A future study should
also examine and contrast construction organizations with a well-established employee
standardization program compared to not well-established programs. In the future, this study
could examine the effectiveness of the proposed plan to measure pre and post data of project
management employees receiving standardized training. Another future research study could
focus on either the project management implementers or project management trainees and use
that future study along with this PMDM study to have an even better understanding of employee
standardization.
126

Conclusion
Construction project managers are critical to project success because they guide the
project with communication and transparency to meet their proposed schedule, cost estimate and
meet or exceed specified construction quality (Carvalho et al. 2015; Doloi, 2013). In addition,
the influence of leadership on project management processes and procedures is a factor in
construction project success and cost efficiency (Jin et al., 2018; Mir & Pinnington, 2014).
Critical to corporate universities is managing the return on investment of workplace learning
efforts to improve performance issues and improve employee competencies by gaining
standardized skills for their jobs (Abaci & Pershing, 2017; Gunawardena et al., 2010; Scarso,
2017).
Not having a multisite project management standardization program for employees leads
to inconsistency in the quality of products or services provided to the customer. Standardization
programs are critical to the business’s success in having human capital productivity advantages
over its competition, or it becomes one of the first programs to close during tough times (Barrett
& Mattox, 2010). Employee standardization is critical to keep employees in sync with
administrative processes and procedures to remain competitive and profitable. A standardization
program needs to align with organizational goals, empower employees to enjoy continuous
learning, increase employee capacity, and provide a learning environment that teaches
employees how to do their jobs with consistent quality regardless of geographical location.
Standardization improves communication and resource interchangeability that promotes
benchmarking to improve economies of scale by identifying areas of delay, eliminating wasteful
procedures, and redundancy (Harding & McPherson, 2010; Münstermann et al., 2010; Pellicer et
al., 2014).
127

This study was conducted using the Clark and Estes (2008) framework to determine the
KMO barriers that affect PMDM from having all project management employees standardized
for interchangeability at Building America. The findings revealed KMO assets and needs by
analyzing the collected data from surveys, interviews, and document analysis. Evidence-based
recommended solutions were developed for each of the identified KMO assets and needs. Using
the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) model, the evidence-based recommendations were used
to create an employee standardization implementation program that addresses the KMO
performance improvements. Evaluations focused on achieving the recommended solution results
were also designed using the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick model to measure results immediately
and at a delayed date after the training. The recommendations revealed in this gap analysis study
will improve on Building America’s mission to provide quality construction services built with
competency. Building America can use this study to improve its employee standardization goals
as the construction industry continues to grow.
128

References
Abaci, S., & Pershing, J. A. (2017). Research and theory as necessary tools for organizational
training and performance improvement practitioners. TechTrends, 61(1), 19–25.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0123-7
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 451–474.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Ambrose, J., & Ogilvie, J. (2010). Multiple modes in corporate learning: Propelling business IQ
with formal, informal and social Learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
14(2), 9–18.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A434793986/AONE?u=usocal_main&sid=AONE&xid=d
4fe9105
Anderson, V. (2017). HRD standards and standardization: Where now for human resource
development? Human Resource Development International, 20(4), 327–345.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2017.1321872
Awais Bhatti, M., Ali, S., Mohd Isa, M. F., & Mohamed Battour, M. (2014). Training transfer
and transfer motivation: The influence of individual, environmental, situational, training
design, and affective reaction factors. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 27(1), 51–
82.
Baker, L. (2006). Developmental differences in metacognition: Implications for metacognitively
oriented reading instruction. In S. E. Israel, C. Collins Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K.
Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning (pp. 83–102). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410613301
129

Banks, A. P., & Millward, L. J. (2007). Differentiating knowledge in teams: The effect of shared
declarative and procedural knowledge on team performance. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 11(2), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.11.2.95
Barnett, K., & Mattox, J. R., II. (2010). Measuring success and ROI in corporate training.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(2), 28+.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A434793985/AONE?u=usocal_main&sid=AONE&xid=5
4986d60
Bartel, A. P. (2000). Measuring the employer’s return on investments in training: Evidence from
the literature. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 39(3), 502–524.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0019-8676.00178
Beinicke, A., & Bipp, T. (2018). Evaluating training outcomes in corporate E-learning and
classroom training. Vocations and Learning, 11(3), 501528.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-018-9201-7
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design
elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(2), 296–316. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.296
Biech, E. (2017). The art and science of training. ATD Press.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations artistry, choice and leadership.
Jossey-Bass.
Bryde, D. J. (2003). Modelling project management performance. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, 20(2), 229–254.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710310456635
130

Burke, J. C. (2005). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Chen, L., Niu, H., Wang, Y., Yang, C., & Tsaur, S. (2009). Does job standardization increase
organizational citizenship behavior? Public Personnel Management, 38(3), 39–49.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600903800303
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school districts.
Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 55. https://hbr.org/2006/11/how-to-manage-urban-
school-districts
Choi, D. G., & Vries, H. (2011). Standardization as emerging content in technology education at
all levels of education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(1),
111–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-009-9110-z
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
de Carvalho, M. M., Patah, L. A., & de Souza Bido, D. (2015). Project management and its
effects on project success: Cross-country and cross-industry comparisons. International
Journal of Project Management, 33(7), 1509–1522.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.04.004
Dirksen, J. (2015). Design for how people learn. New Riders.
Doloi, H. (2013). Cost overruns and failure in project management: Understanding the roles of
key stakeholders in construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 139(3), 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000621
131

Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved on October 29, 2018 from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2017). Handbook of competence and motivation:
Theory and application. The Guilford Press.
Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Albert Shanker
Institute. https://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/bridging-gap-between-standards-and-
achievement Fink, A. (2017). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. SAGE
Publications.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gavril, R. M., Kiehne, J., Hell, C. R., & Kirschner, C. (2017). Impact assessment on the
performance of e-learning in corporate training programs in the context of globalization.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, 11(1) 398–410.
https://doi.org/10.1515/picbe-2017-0043
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson
Gray, J. L. (2015). Con-men and corporate trainers: Show me the learning. Development and
Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 29(6), 3–6.
https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-12-2014-0092
132

Grohmann, A., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). Evaluating training programs: Development and
correlates of the questionnaire for professional training evaluation. International Journal
of Training and Development, 17(2), 135–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12005
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2419.2011.00373.x
Gunawardena, C. N., Linder-VanBerschot, J., LaPointe, D. K., & Rao, L. (2010). Predictors of
learner satisfaction and transfer of learning in a corporate online education program. The
American Journal of Distance Education, 24(4), 207–226.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2010.522919
Harding, B. & McPherson, P. (2010). What do employers want in terms of employee knowledge
of technical standards and the process of standardization? American Society for
Engineering Education-ASEE.
Hsieh, Y., & Hsieh, A. (2003). Does job standardization increase job burnout? International
Journal of Manpower, 24(5), 590–614. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437720310491107
Hsiung, T. L., & Hsieh, A. T. (2003). Newcomer socialization: The role of job standardization.
Public Personnel Management, 32(4), 579–589.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600303200408
Jacobson, L., & Davis, J. (2017). The relative returns to workforce investment act-supported
training in Florida by field, gender, and education and ways to improve trainees’ choices.
Journal of Labor Economics, 35, 337–375. https://doi.org/10.1086/692277
133

Jin, H., Shen, L., & Wang, Z. (2018). Mapping the influence of project management on project
cost. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 22(9), 3183–3195.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-018-0397-8
Johnson, R. B. & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (5th ed.) SAGE Publications.
Jones, M. L. (2001). Sustainable organizational capacity building: Is organizational learning a
key? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(1), 91–98.
https://doi.org/10.1080/713769590
Karatepe, O. M., Avci, T., & Arasli, H. (2004). Effects of job standardization and job satisfaction
on service quality: A study of frontline employees in northern Cyprus. Services
Marketing Quarterly, 25(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1300/J396v25n03_01
Kim, S. B. (2014). Assessment of CII best practices usage in the construction industry. KSCE
Journal of Civil Engineering, 18(5), 1228–1238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-014-
0221-z
Kerzner, H. (2014). Project management best practices: Achieving global excellence (3rd ed.).
John Wiley & Sons.
Kimiloglu, H., Ozturan, M., & Kutlu, B. (2017). Perceptions about and attitude toward the usage
of e-learning in corporate training. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 339–349.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.062
Kirkpatrick, J., & Kayser Kirkpatrick, W. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training
evaluation. atd press.
134

Klochkov, Y., Papic, L., & Butkevich, R. (2017). Development of the standardization system in
an organization. International Journal of Reliability, Quality and Safety Engineering,
24(6), 1740004. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218539317400046
Koval, O., Nabareseh, S., & Felicita Chromjaková. (2019). Standardization in services:
Assessing the impact on customer satisfaction. E+M Ekonomie a Management, 22(3),
186–203. https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2019-3-012
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lappe, M., & Spang, K. (2014). Investments in project management are profitable: A case study-
based analysis of the relationship between the costs and benefits of project management.
International Journal of Project Management, 32(4), 603–612.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.005
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Lin, X., & Wang, C. (2018). Achievement goal orientations and self-regulated learning strategies
of adult and traditional learners. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource
Development, 30(4), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20229
Luoh, H., Tsaur, S., & Tang, Y. (2014). Empowering employees: Job standardization and
innovative behavior. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
26(7), 1100–1117. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-03-2013-0153
Martin, H. J. (2010). Workplace climate and peer support as determinants of training transfer.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(1), 87–104.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20038
135

Massenberg, A., Schulte, E., & Kauffeld, S. (2017). Never too early: Learning transfer system
factors affecting motivation to transfer before and after training programs. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 28(1), 55–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21256
Matsuo, M. (2011). The role of sales beliefs in facilitating experiential learning: An empirical
study of Japanese salespeople. Psychology & Marketing, 28(4), 309–329.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20393
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, S. R., & Marsick, V. J. (2003). Professional development in corporate training. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, (98), 75–82.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.102
Mir, F. A., & Pinnington, A. H. (2014). Exploring the value of project management: Linking
project management performance and project success. International Journal of Project
Management, 32(2), 202–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.05.012
Münstermann, B., Eckhardt, A., & Weitzel, T. (2010). The performance impact of business
process standardization: An empirical evaluation of the recruitment process. Business
Process Management Journal, 16(1), 29–56.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14637151011017930
Münstermann, B., & Weitzel, T. (2008, May 18-20). What is process standardization? [Paper
presentation]. International Conference on Information Resources Management (Conf-
IRM), Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada.
136

Neal, B. (2012). Designing and implementing a learning strategy plan. T + D, 66(6), 76–77.
https://www.td.org/magazines/td-magazine/designing-and-implementing-a-learning-
strategy-plan
Noe, R. A., Clarke, A. D. M., & Klein, H. J. (2014). Learning in the twenty-first-century
workplace. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,
1(1), 245–275. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091321
Noe, R. A., & Kodwani, A. D. (2020). Employee training and development (8th ed.). McGraw-
Hill Education.
Ones, D., Anderson, N., Viswesvaran, C., & Sinangil, H. (2018). Learning, training and
development in organizations: Emerging trends, recent advances and future directions.
SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473914957.n11
O’Toole, S., & Essex, B. (2012). The adult learner may really be a neglected species. Australian
Journal of Adult Learning, 52(1), 183–191.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A314801134/AONE?u=usocal_main&sid=AONE&xid=9
8b03e07
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the
literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 139–158.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308222
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.com
/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and
practice SAGE Publications.
137

Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Selecting samples and administering surveys (REL 2016-160). Regional Educational
Laboratory Northeast & Islands. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED567751.pdf
Pellicer, E., Correa, C. L., Yepes, V., & Alarcón, L. F. (2012). Organizational improvement
through standardization of the innovation process in construction firms. Engineering
Management Journal, 24(2), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2012.11431935
Pellicer, E., Yepes, V., Correa, C. L., & Alarcón, L., F. (2014). Model for systematic innovation
in construction companies. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(4).
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000700
Pintrich, P. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Rahimi, F., Møller, C., & Hvam, L. (2016). Succeeding in process standardization: Explaining
the fit with international management strategy. Business Process Management Journal,
22(6), 1212–1246. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-12-2015-0180
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2018). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE
Publications.
Rothwell, W. J., Lindholm, J. E., & Wallick, W. G. (2003). What CEOs expect from corporate
training: Building workplace learning and performance initiatives that advance
organizational goals (1st ed.). American Management Association.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
138

Ruhose, J., Thomsen, S. L., & Weilage, I. (2019). The benefits of adult learning: Work-related
training, social capital, and earnings. Economics of Education Review, 72, 166–186.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2019.05.010
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training
and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological Science in the
Public Interest; Psychol Sci Public Interest, 13(2), 74–101.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436661
Sartori, R., Costantini, A., Ceschi, A., & Tommasi, F. (2018). How do you manage change in
organizations? training, development, innovation, and their relationships. Frontiers in
Psychology, 9, 313. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00313
Scarso, E. (2017). Corporate universities as knowledge management tools. VINE Journal of
Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 47(4), 538–554.
https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-12-2016-0074
Schäfermeyer, M., Rosenkranz, C., & Holten, R. (2012). The impact of business process
complexity on business process standardization: An empirical study. Business &
Information Systems Engineering, 4(5), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-012-
0224-6
Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-2616(96)90010-8
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
139

Sears, S., Clough, R., Sears, G., Segner, R., & Rounds, J. (2015). Construction project
management: A practical guide to field construction management. John Wiley & Sons.
Sparr, J. L., Knipfer, K., & Willems, F. (2017). How leaders can get the most out of formal
training: The significance of Feedback‐Seeking and reflection as informal learning
behaviors. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 28(1), 29–54.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21263
Stolovitch, H. D., Rosenberg, M. J., & Keeps, E. J. (2011). Telling ain’t training. ASTD Press.
Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. (1991). Meeting trainees’
expectations: The influence of training fulfillment on the development of commitment,
self-efficacy, and motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 759–769.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.759
Tereso, A., Ribeiro, P., Fernandes, G., Loureiro, I., & Ferreira, M. (2019). Project management
practices in private organizations. Project Management Journal, 50(1), 6–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818810966
Thompson, K. S. (2016). Organizational learning supports the preferences of millennials. New
Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 28(4), 15.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20158
Tsaur, S., Wang, C., Yen, C., & Liu, Y. (2014). Job standardization and service quality: The
mediating role of prosocial service behaviors. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 40, 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.04.004
Van der Locht, M., van Dam, K., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2013). Getting the most of management
training: The role of identical elements for training transfer. Personnel Review, 42(4),
422–439. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2011-0072
140

Velada, R., Caetano, A., Michel, J. W., Lyons, B. D., & Kavanagh, M. J. (2007). The effects of
training design, individual characteristics, and work environment on transfer of training.
International Journal of Training and Development, 11(4), 282–294.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2007.00286.x
Yepes, V., Pellicer, E., Alarcón, L., F., & Correa, C. L. (2016). Creative innovation in Spanish
construction firms. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and
Practice, 142(1), article 4015006. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000251
Young, N. K. (2012). Effective learning and teaching of RDA: Applying adult learning theory.
Journal of Library Metadata, 12(2-3), 188–198.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2012.699836
Zhang, L., & Fan, W. (2013). Improving performance of construction projects: A project
manager’s emotional intelligence approach. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural
Management, 20(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699981311303044
141

Appendix A: Survey Protocol
Thank you for taking this survey about your experience as a project management
decision-maker at Building America. I am interested in understanding decision-makers’
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to standardizing project
management employees’ interchangeability across states.
Your participation in this research is voluntary. You have the right to withdraw at any
point during the study, for any reason, and without any prejudice. This survey should take
approximately 15 minutes, and your answers will be completely anonymous.
Demographic
1. What is your role?
a. Director
b. Senior Project Manager
c. Manager
d. Executive
e. Other - please provide role name
2. How many years have you been an employee for this organization?
a. 0-2
b. 3-6
c. 7-10
d. 10-20
e. 20 +
3. How many years have you worked with the project management (PM) department?
a. 0-2
142

b. 3-6
c. 7-10
d. 10-20
e. 20 +
4. How many employees are in the PM department among all offices?
a. 0-50
b. 51-150
c. 151-300
d. 301-500
e. 500 +
5. Does your organization have a program to standardize employees in the PM department?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not sure
6. How many years has your organization had the program to standardize employees?
a. 0-2
b. 3-6
c. 7-10
d. 10-20
e. 20 +
Knowledge
7. Declarative - The benefits of standardized employees for interchangeability across states
are: (Check all that apply).
143

a. Minimizes variations in quality.*
b. Decreases competitive advantage.
c. Increases organizational costs.
d. Improves employee job expectations.*
e. Improves organizational performance.*
8. Procedural - Which of the following steps are required to improve employee
standardization: (Check all that apply).
a. Provide a SOP explaining available information, job aids, trainings, and
education.*
b. Hire subject matter experts to develop standardization steps and teach at the
training.
c. Direct employees to sign up for online courses to explore and discover how to
become standardized employees.
d. Develop a web-based learning application that shows employees step by step
procedures to complete tasks.
e. All of the above.
9. Procedural - I know how to track progress for employee standardization: (Check all that
apply).
a. Monitor and adjust standardization efforts according to results.*
b. Request feedback from employees on standardization results.
c. Conduct observations and measurements to track results compared to desired
results.*
144

d. Review employee emails and correspondences to track standardization efforts
through their job duty competence.
e. All of the above.
10. Metacognitive - What is the best method of monitoring progress toward standardization
(Check all that apply).
a. Hire an expert to monitor the standardization efforts.
b. Review current efforts and self-reflect on the progress.*
c. Develop a plan that addresses monitoring progress toward standardization.
d. Measure the existing status and compare it to the standardization goal.*
e. All of the above
Motivation
11. Self-Efficacy - I am confident that I can develop a plan for employee standardization
right now.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neutral
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
12. Utility Value - It is useful for me to have standardized employees.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neutral
d. Agree
145

e. Strongly Agree
13. Utility Value - How important is it to have employee standardization for
interchangeability across states?
a. Very important
b. Important
c. Moderately important
d. Of little importance
e. Unimportant
14. Utility Value - In a typical year, I meet monthly or quarterly with other PM-Decision
makers to address employee standardization?
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neutral
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
15. Goal Orientation - Even when faced with challenges, I actively align employee
standardization goals with employee goals.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neutral
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree

146

Organization
16. Cultural Model - It is valuable to me to participate in the development of standardized
employees.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neutral
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
17. Cultural Model - To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “The
organization values the importance of having standardized employees for
interchangeability.”
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neutral
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
18. Cultural Setting - The organization’s processes, procedures, and policies guide
standardizing employees.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neutral
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
147

Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Hi, my name is Buu Van Nygren and I am a Doctoral Candidate in the Organizational
Change and Leadership program at the University of Southern California. I would like to first
begin by expressing my gratitude for agreeing to participate in my study. Thank you for agreeing
to meet with me and provide information relevant to my dissertation study. As a decision-maker
at Building America, I feel fortunate to interview you as you play a critical role in this
organization’s success. I appreciate the time you have set aside today to answer some of my
questions. The interview should last approximately 45 minutes. Does that time commitment
work for you?
Before we get started, I wanted to summarize what we will discuss today and answer
questions you might have about participating. My study is looking at what factors that might
limit, or enhance, Building America’s efforts on standardizing project management employees.
My research will include interviewing individual decision-makers who serve in key operational
roles (project management, construction technology, operation, and executive), eight project
management decision-makers. Today, we will explore knowledge, thoughts, beliefs, perceptions,
and experiences regarding standardizing employees. I am the Principal Investigator (PI) for this
study, and I am working with a faculty advisor at USC. Do you have questions about the purpose
of the research itself?
Everything we discuss today is strictly confidential. I will report all the findings for my
study in the aggregate. When I report an actual quote in the study, it will be anonymous and
identified in the form of “BA Decision- Maker.” Participant names will never be associated with
the findings. No one will ever see the transcripts of this conversation. I will delete the video and
audio recordings when the study is completed. Do you have questions about the interview?
148

If you have questions about your rights while taking part in this study or have concerns or
suggestions and want to talk to someone other than me about the study, please call (XXX) XXX-
XXXX or email xxx@usc.edu. You can reference Study ID: UP-20-01253.
The last couple of things that I would like to cover include the logistics of the interview
process. We are meeting through video conferencing, and the application has a recording and
transcript option so I can accurately capture what you share. The video recording helps me focus
on our conversation and not on taking notes. Do I have your permission to record the interview?
If you wish to turn off the recorder, you can ask me to stop the recording, and you may make
your comments “off the record.” Your participation in all aspects of data collection is entirely
voluntary. You may skip questions or end the interview at any time. May I have your permission
to get started?
I want to begin the interview by discussing your professional background and experience,
including your history with the organization.
Demographic and Background Info
1. To start out, tell me about your current role with the organization?
a. Probe - How long have you held the position?
2. How many years of experience do you possess in project management?
a. Probe - How many years of experience do you possess in project management
standardization?
3. Tell me about the project management employee standardization program?
a. Probe - How have you contributed to the development of the program?
Now I’m going to ask you some questions about how you have approached standardizing
employees.
149

Knowledge
4. Declarative - To the best of your knowledge, explain the benefits of standardized
employees for interchangeability.
a. Probe -explain why it is important for this organization.
5. Procedural - Based on your professional experience, describe the steps to improve
employee standardization.
a. Probe - When it comes to employee standardization, please share challenges to
employee standardization?
6. Metacognitive - As a decision-maker, within your role, explain how you know you are
making progress toward standardizing employees for interchangeability across states.
a. Probe - What have you learned from this situation?
Now I would like to talk for a little while about how you are motivated to standardize
employees.
Motivation
7. Self-Efficacy - Tell me in detail about how confident you are to develop a plan for
employee standardization?
a. Probe - Can you describe how standardization will improve the confidence of the
employees?
8. Utility Value - As a decision-maker, explain the importance of having standardized
employees.
a. Probe - Tell me how employee standardization will help with your long term
goals?
150

9. Goal Orientation - Describe how you actively align employee standardization goals with
employee goals.
a. Probe - Explain how seeking employee goals supports the standardization goal?
Let’s switch gears a bit here and talk about how your organization is approaching standardizing
its employees.
Organization
10. Cultural Model - Based on your experience, explain how you value your participation in
developing the standardized employees for interchangeability.
a. Probe - What specific tasks are you engaged in to develop the program?
11. Cultural Setting - As an organizational leader, describe how processes, procedures, and
policies will guide standardizing employees.
a. Probe - Do you think the policies and procedures promote employee
standardization?
Final Question
12. As we finish up, is there anything else you’d like to add?
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. I appreciate your time and the
thought you put into your answers. I’ll leave you with my contact information if you have any
questions later. I will now turn off the recording.
151

Appendix C: Document Analysis Protocol
To conduct a document analysis, I will obtain a written request from the stakeholder
organization. Upon approval from the stakeholder organization, I will review a variety of
documents on how they reflect on Knowledge and Organizational influences.
Knowledge
1. Declarative - Review organizational strategic plans and presentations on standardization.
2. Procedural - Review existing standardization material (Word documents, PDFs, and
Videos).
Organization
3. Cultural Model - Review the Website, Facebook, LinkedIn, and marketing material.
4. Cultural Setting - Review employee policies and human resource manuals.

152

Appendix D: Sample Email to Participate in the Study
Below is a sample email sent to participants asking for their participation. The email
explained the purpose of the study, outlined participants' rights and expectations of participating
in the survey, and an interview.
Dear Participant,
My name is Buu Van Nygren, and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California (USC). I am conducting a research
study as part of my dissertation. This message is to invite you to take part in a significant
research effort that examines project management employee standardization for
interchangeability across states. This work is an integral part of my dissertation.
Participation in this study is entirely voluntary and will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. Your identity as a participant will always
remain confidential and anonymous during and after the study.
The survey and interview will provide a comprehensive look at construction project
management employee standardization using information gathered directly from
executives, directors, managers, and decision-makers who affect or decide on employee
standardization are being asked to participate. Additional information about the research
effort, which has been reviewed and approved by the USC Institutional Review Board,
appears at the end of this message.
I will conduct the study in two phases:

153

1. Take the Survey. Our testing suggests it will take you only 10-15 minutes to finish the
18-question survey. I host the survey on Qualtrics, which is one of the top survey
platforms available to researchers.
● Link to the Survey: https://usc.qualtrics.com/XYZ
2. Take Part in an Interview. Schedule a time that best fits your schedule for a 12-
question interview (Please complete the Survey prior to the Interview). The interview is
voluntary and expected to last approximately 30-45 minutes. It will be an online video
and audio-recorded Zoom interview if you choose to participate.
● Link to Schedule a day and time for the Interview:
https://www.picktime.com/XYZ
If you have questions, please contact me at bnygren@usc.edu or XYZ-XYZ-XYZ. Your
role is important, and this research study strives to further the body of knowledge in the
field. Thank you for your interest in and help with this effort.
Additional Information about the Program of Research
● Purpose of the Study: This improvement study will focus on Building America’s
knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs to have standardized project
management employees. This research aims to understand how to improve
employee standardization within Building America’s project management
department.
● Study Outcome: A standardized workforce within a construction project
management department is critical to consistent project quality regardless of its
geographical location. 65% of Building America’s project management
154

employees do not have the capacity for interchangeability across states. The gap
needs to be closed to have project management employees 100% standardized for
interchangeability across states.
● Study Population: The studied population represents adult decision-makers
affiliated with Building America's as full-time construction executives, project
management department directors, and technology leaders. The researcher
developed specific criteria to reduce the number of stakeholders to reflect only
project management decision-makers because they have insight and influence on
standardization efforts. The stakeholders' study population reflects a diverse
group from various departments, tenure, education, training, and career levels.
● Organizational Context and Mission: Building America Construction, Inc
(Building America) is a construction company specializing in constructing
water/wastewater, power, transportation, oil and gas, mining, and industrial
facilities. The mission of Building America is to obtain the confidence of its
workers, construction trade associates, and consumers. Achieving this mission
happens by establishing teams with constituents who have steadfast, extensive
credence in each other. The company started in 1902 as a railroad company on a
handshake investment because the friend believed in the owner. Since then, the
organization has thrived on its rich history of competence that continues to build
today’s projects. The culture at Building America embodies the characteristics of
integrity among all troops involved in constructing a project. Building America
builds confidence through its values of equity, honesty, triumph, and efficiency.
Building America has ranked as one of the top 25 largest contractors in America
155

for the past twenty years. Building America is the industry leader in constructing
mining and power generating projects. Building America has over 2,000
employees across nine states, with yearly revenues more than $2 billion. Building
America has 45 offices in the following states: California, Washington, North
Dakota, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and North
Carolina. The organization has 13 departments within the national organization
structure: executive, project management, field operations, preconstruction,
contracts, construction technology, information technology, insurance, human
resource, marketing, business development, fleet services, and warranty. All nine
states operate independently but may mirror the national organizational structure.
There are four departments shared among all nine states: executive, construction
technology, information technology, and insurance. The primary role of all
employees is to build projects with quality, on time, within budget, and impress
the client, so they hire Building America for their next project.

Kind regards,
Buu Van Nygren
University of Southern California | Rossier School of Education
Student, Doctor of Education - Organizational Change & Leadership
C: XXX-XXX-XXX | V: https://zoom.us/my/XYZ

156

Appendix E: Immediate Evaluation Tool (Levels 1 and 2)
Please use the following rating scale to circle the number that best corresponds with how
you are feeling about each of the following statements.
1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree
The training held my interest (L1-Engagement) 1 2 3 4 5
The information in the training is applicable to my employee
standardization goal (L1-Relevance)
1 2 3 4 5
I was satisfied with the seminar (L1-Customer Service) 1 2 3 4 5
What I learned in the seminar will guide me to develop a plan
for employee standardization (L2-Procedural)
1 2 3 4 5
What I learned in the seminar will help me improve employee
standardization (L2-Attitude)
1 2 3 4 5
I am confident I can apply what I learned from this seminar to
standardize employees (L2-Confidence)
1 2 3 4 5
I feel positive about starting to develop a plan for employee
standardization as a result of the training (L2-Commitment)
1 2 3 4 5

Please provide feedback for the following questions and your responses will remain anonymous:
1. What part of the training did you not find helpful for you to be more successful? (L1)
2. What is one thing you would recommend improving for the training? (L1)
3. What is one primary concept you learned from today that you would apply in your job?
(L2)

157

Appendix F: Delayed Evaluation Tool (Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4)
Please use the following rating scale to circle the number that best corresponds with how
you are feeling about each of the following statements.
1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree
In review of last month’s training, the training was a good use of
my time (L1)
1 2 3 4 5
I am still confident in applying the relevant concepts I learned
from last month’s training to my job. (L1, L2)
1 2 3 4 5
I am still committed and satisfied with implementing what I
learned from last month’s training on the job. (L1, L2)
1 2 3 4 5
I still feel positive and actively implementing what I learned
from last month’s training to my job. (L1, L2)
1 2 3 4 5
I have applied what I learned at last month’s training to my job
(L1, L2, L3)
1 2 3 4 5
This program has positively impacted our employee
standardization efforts (L1, L2, L4)
1 2 3 4 5
I am already seeing positive results from the training (L4) 1 2 3 4 5

Please provide feedback for the following questions and your responses will remain anonymous:
1. Since completing the last month’s training, describe any changes in your behavior (if
applicable). (L2, L3)
2. In your own words, please describe the steps you have taken toward improving employee
standardization for interchangeability since last month’s training. (L1, L2, L3)
3. Please describe a training lesson you shared with your peer PMDM and the impact it had
on them. (L1, L2, L3, L4)
158

Appendix G: Evaluation Data Dashboard
In Figure 3, the illustration provides examples of data collection of the PMDM training
program’s evaluation using a data dashboard that reports all the latest updates for employee
standardization efforts.

Figure 3
Evaluation Data Dashboard

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Optimizing leadership and strategy to develop an expenditure-reduction plan: an improvement study

PDF

Executive succession planning: a study of employee competency development

PDF

Millennial workforce retention program: an explanatory study

PDF

Employee satisfaction factors and influences: an evaluation study

PDF

Employee engagement and leadership collaboration: a gap analysis of performance improvement teams in healthcare

PDF

Lean construction through craftspeople engagement: an evaluation study

PDF

Development of employee well-being initiatives to improve engagement and performance: an innovative study

PDF

Gender diversity in optical communications and the role of professional societies: an evaluation study

PDF

Mitigating low employee engagement through improved performance management: an evaluation study

PDF

ReQLes technology's this is your life: an innovation study

PDF

Leave no leader behind (LNLB): leadership development for K-12 operations leaders

PDF

The path to satisfaction, connection, and persistence: implementing a strategic and structured employee onboarding program: an innovation study

PDF

Leadership in times of crisis management: an analyzation for success

PDF

Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

PDF

“A thread throughout”: the KMO influences on implementing DEI strategic plans in state and municipal governments

PDF

Nonprofit middle manager perceptions of organizational efficacy: a gap analysis

PDF

An evaluation of employee perceptions of onboarding experiences: an evaluation study

PDF

A school for implementing arts and technology: an innovation study

PDF

Critical behaviors required for successful enterprise resource planning system implementation: an innovation study

PDF

Transformation of business models in terrestrial TV broadcasters in South Korea

Asset Metadata

Creator Nygren, Buu Van (author)

Core Title Employee standardization for interchangeability across states: an improvement study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-08

Publication Date 07/26/2021

Defense Date 06/15/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Construction industry,employee development,employee standardization,interchangeability,OAI-PMH Harvest,performance improvement,Project Management,training program

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Donato, Adrian J. (committee chair), Canny, Eric A. (committee member), Yates, Kenneth A. (committee member)

Creator Email bnygren@usc.edu,buuvannygren@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15622684

Unique identifier UC15622684

Legacy Identifier etd-NygrenBuuV-9888

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Nygren, Buu Van

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu