The purpose of this study is to investigate whether the average of executive managers who pursue advanced leadership training program can help their organizations attain competitive edge.

A sample survey was conducted among 283 managers (with training) and 202 (without training) from various countries. Twelve core leadership skill sets were identified and studied. They were customer focus, integrity/honesty, stakeholder engagement, diversity awareness, technical know-how, interpersonal skills, communication, team leadership, strategic thinking, openness, problem solving,  and long-term focus

Theories about project management abound—the theory of constraints, complexity theory, stakeholder management theory, triple constraints, and adaptive theory are few examples. Over decades, however, despite the application of these theories in providing guidance and intellectual sustenance to project management practitioners across industries, the completion of projects continues to face increasing odds at achieving their goals. Most PM theories explain only a part and not the whole reality of the project management phenomena. In the world of megaprojects or complexity projects, for instance, theorists who profess determinism, i.e., the notion that cause always gives rise to effect, is a partial judgment.
Moreover, the project management concept of temporality is no longer tenable in most project management milieus. Likewise, project management initiation, planning, implementation or execution, and closing, and its triple constraints -the idea that a project’s scope, time or schedule, and cost- determine its success and failure have imperceptibly waned and lost universal acclaim. Today, projects are managed within or in association with permanent or semi-permanent organizations executing PM proven concepts and concomitantly performing the mundane business or organizational functions. To complete tasks and strategies of a globalized project-based organization also requires a web of networking and interconnected stakeholders located across many frontiers, thus making understanding the philosophical and theoretical basis of PM’s current situation difficult but imperative.
Equally, the claim that constructivism- the notion that humans construct knowledge and meaning from their experiences-is the panacea to masterfully understand project management phenomena is also inadequate. To better understand the world of megaprojects, complex projects, and project management in its entirety requires an eclectic approach along with a methodology or a group of methods that is compatible with the selected theory or theories. Complexity theory, the theory of constraints, chaos theory, and adaptive theory working in concert can provide deeper meanings and explanations of the world of project management, including managing megaprojects.

The choice of a theory counts in scientific research. It provides the underpinning of the phenomenon under investigation. Unfortunately, most PM practitioners choose a method or methodology that doesn’t address the whole spectrum of project management, vitiating the strength and expectation of the research and creating contradictions, inconsistencies, ambiguities, and sometimes abandonment of the study entirely.
Moreover, choosing the wrong research theory or method, such as a quantitative method to try to solve qualitative issues, can lead to inconsequential findings. The fuzzy sets of the theory is an example. Defined as a set of symbols representing a set of objects whose boundaries are not well defined, the theory can be applied in a variety of fields, including project management, risk management, and decision making in a limited way. PM practitioners can also It can also use it to ease teams working together in a multi-functional environment. This theory stems from mathematical reality, and its application is most quantitative studies. In as much as it is considered one of the favorites in the project management world, I think it is impractical if not impossible to endeavor using fuzzy sets of theory in megaproject environment where tasks, activities, and behaviors are uncertain and hard to control.

The theory of constraints appeared in 1988 by Eliyahu M. Goldratt as an antidote to constraints or bottlenecks coterminous to business operations. The theory asserts that what stands between business success and failure were constraints, and business managers must invest resources in ensuring the elimination of any obstacle intended to curtail or impede businesses or projects from achieving their stated objectives. In other words, the theory espouses the idea that every system or organization has risks or constraints. These constraints are always preventing management from achieving its goal. These constraints come from within and outside of the organization. Unskilled labor force, inferior quality control policies and practices, lack of internal coordination, and interdepartmental collaboration are examples of internal constraints. Examples of extrinsic constraints include product boycotts, market saturation, vagaries in the price of primary commodities, and regulatory factors. Identifying the bottlenecks, setting up smart policies, and investing in efforts to dispose of the constraints are some ways to minimize or eliminate the constraints and maximize profitability. The fight, therefore, against the system’s constraints and the drive to enhance outputs or results is a lifelong mission of managers if their organizations will have the chance to thrive. Since its provenance and integration into the project management field, the theory of constraints has contributed immensely to managing project schedule and control, resource management, and risk planning. The Critical Chain theory, a byproduct of the theory of constraints, introduced a scheduling buffer management that has succored and empowered project management practitioners in minimizing or eliminating project overruns, planning, and controlling projects. The theory of constraints is useful guidance to project management practitioners. It provides a better understanding of the risks or limitations that come in many shapes and sizes, including but not limited to financial, human resource, legal, economic, political, and environmental issues that usually cause the failure of a project to achieve their business objective successfully.

The Stakeholder theory places importance on the role of stakeholders and how to manage them. The theory is universally acclaimed. The number of articles that peer review journals have published about stakeholder theory proves the popularity of this theory among project management practitioners. Salient among these journals include the International Journal of Project Management (IJPM), the Project Management Journal (PMJ), the International Journal of Project Managing Projects (IJMP), and the International Journal of Project Organization and Management (IJPOM). Within 25 years, there were 1,284 articles on the theory. Its predominance is also due, in part, to the importance of stakeholders to projects across industries in managing, investing, strategizing, and protecting the interest of the project in the social and environmental context. Moreover, studies indicate that stakeholders impact project success and outcomes significantly, and their role in managing projects is related to performance. They add that knowledge of stakeholder management enables project practitioners to find, classify, analyze stakeholders in an effective way.

Public and private organizations perceive PM and IT (software development) methodologies as an antidote to obsolescent, sluggish, and unsystematized information systems (Yakovleva, 2014). To access data faster, provide unparalleled customer service, develop and market a product or service more quickly than their competitors, organizational leaders have invested trillions of dollars annually in the software development industry worldwide (Serrador & Pinto, 2015; Valle & O’Mara, 2015). The outcomes of these investments, however, have been a disappointment to many. To maximize shareholders’ capital, a plethora of software development methodologies have emerged over the decades. The salient includes the Systems Development Lifecycle (SDLC) also known as the Waterfall, Agile, and Prince2. Agile belongs to a family of software developing methodologies. It consists of SCRUM, Extreme Programming (XP), Spiral, Crystal and Dynamic System Development Method, to name a few (Conforto et al., 2014). Matos and Lopes (2013) and Valle and O’Mara (2015) indicated that a project’s methodology is essential in task measurement and control. They explained that the PMBOK was created to guide PM practitioners to achieve PM tasks successfully. Creswell (2003) considered methodology as a strategic plan that is linked to results.
Generally, these methodologies differ on how to manage a project’s scope, how to deliver the results, and how to engage stakeholders in the process. While the Waterfall methodology focuses on preplanning the scope and delivering the work packages sequentially, the Agile family of methodologies employs an adaptive and iterative approach to software developing. They neither preplan the scope nor deliver or release work package or sprint sequentially. The project’s scope is progressively elaborated and delivered or released incrementally. They also require a proactive and high-level stakeholders’ engagement in the process. A coterie of team members works in a closely proximate milieu where each communicates directly facing the others.
Projects in Control Environments (Prince2), is practiced mainly in Great Britain and most European states (Matos & Lopes, 2013). Prince2 provides a prescriptive and normative approach to project management. Its raison d’etre is coterminous to business enterprises’ undertakings. It guides practitioners to identify a business objective and mobilize resources to achieve that objective. The prince2 method requires high-level project team visibility. The project manager serves as the responsible person for the project. Like PM methodology, Prince2 initiates, plans, executes, controls, and closes projects (Matos & Lopes, 2013).
Despite their disparate approaches to managing project scope and delivering a product or service, these software development methodologies are commonly constrained by time, cost, scope, and quality. Serrador and Pinto (2015) indicated that, as compared to Waterfall method, Agile is a better methodology in the software development industry; it is adaptive and flexible, and its practitioners respond to risks more promptly and expeditiously. Puri (2009), however, noted that while Agile focuses on knowledge-self-managed workers-its process does not work well in a large crowd and complex environment.
Moreover, while the focus of these methodologies has been the software delivery cycle, how well stakeholders are engaged in the process, and how the project teams are supposed to meet, they have disregarded the ontological perspective of what the PM and IT software development project market has become due to PPGE. Yadav (2016) acknowledged that globalization had shifted the development of software from a co-located model (onsite) to an offshore model that involves the collaboration of a network of distributed teams and developers from across national frontiers.
To succeed in an offshore milieu, practitioners and stakeholders must do their part of understanding the ontological, epistemological, and axiological perspectives of the phenomena before choosing the methodology that is most appropriate for their projects. The ontological perspective of PPGE ask the questions: what is PPGE? What does it constitute? It is linear, nonlinear, complex, uncertain, and undefinable? The epistemological perspective will ask: What set of knowledge acquisitions do we need to unravel PPGE’s weakness and benefit? In other words, what skill set is required to fully understand and meet PPGE-based organizational and, often, incompatible stakeholders’ expectations? How do we understand the behavior, volatility, interaction, success, and failure of projectification, programification, and globalization? The axiological perspective poses the question: Do literature review, our internal analysis, and personal view help us ascertain untainted and unbiased understanding about PM phenomena? (Creswell, 2003, 2014; Sullivan, 2009; Tallon, 2014; Venkatesh et al., 2013).
Moreover, questions concerning the choice of methodology that practitioners may ask to include the following: How practical it is for an offshore or virtual team to meet face to face? How successful will be the outcome of co-located team members if they are unaware of the complexity, chaos, interconnectedness, and interrelatedness of the PM phenomena? Indeed, knowledge of PMBOK and the application of a software development methodology alone is not sufficient to riposte the multi-faced risks-the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns- that globalization continually presents.
PMT 2.0 intends to bridge the ontological gap that exists between the application of these methodologies and PM phenomena. PMT 2.0 espouses the notion that knowledge is the game changer between project mortality (chaos) and immortality (sustainability) and that continuous acquisition of knowledge about phenomena is propitious to a project’s success (sustainability). In other words, if advanced knowledge of PM complexity, nonlinearity, and uncertainty is essential to PM, then the relationship between phenomena and the achievement of business or project objectives can be positive, negative or none.

We explore the notion that sustainable success in managing a complex project is not always the cause of the application of PM standards, stakeholder engagement, time management, cost management, scope management, and the like. There were other moderating and mediating powerful constructs, including leadership, green project management, and advanced knowledge of the universe, the known unknown such as the outbreak of plaque that can contribute to or exert influence on business success and profitability in the PM industries. The study will apply quantitative methodologies to assess PM standards, stakeholder engagement, time management, cost management, scope management, leadership, green project management, and advanced knowledge of the universe, the known unknown such as the outbreak of plaque, advanced PM knowledge, green project, and the unknown
To understand the research results fully requires a comprehensive understanding of the meanings and applications of an independent variable (IV), a mediating variable (MeV), a moderating variable (MD), and a dependent variable (DV). An experimenter manipulates the IV to achieve an outcome. An MD exists when two separate variables viz. an IV and a DV are contingent on the external-third- variable. MD strengthens or changes the relationships between the IV and DV. MeD explains and influences the relation between a predictor and an outcome. Acting together, MD and MeD can alter the relationship between IV and DV as well as explain the cause and effect relationships between them.