Defining organizational project management 2012


Published on

Published in: Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Number and Scale of Temporary ActivitiesComplexity of individual Projects/ Programs or PortfoliosComplexity influences: Uncertainty of goals, uncertainty of methods/processes
  • Connections between Temporary ActivitiesConnections between Temporary Activities and Operations
  • Project/Program/Portfolio activitiesMethodologies employed by organization: Agile, etc
  • Approaches used to evaluate outcomes and processesOverall Organizational Measures (Maturity)Financial Balanced scorecardIndividual Project/Program/PortfolioBenchmarks/Standards
  • Defining organizational project management 2012

    1. 1. Defining Organizational Project ManagementDr. Nigel L. Williams, PMP, Prince2( Twitter) @org_pmOPM COP/ University of Bedfordshire
    2. 2. Organizational Project Management (OPM) COP• PMI Online community that examines the strategic role of PM (• Discussions• Content – Webinars – Podcasts – White Papers
    3. 3. Background• Increasing importance of PM• Trillions of dollars spent in Projects Worldwide• Increasing investments in PM• PM emerging as a important profession ( >20 million PMs worldwide)
    4. 4. • How do organizations create value?• What is the relationship between PM and Strategy?• Why should organizations have a project strategy• How can organizations craft a project strategy?
    5. 5. How do Organizations createvalue?• Outside-In • Inside Out ― Environmental and – Resource Based Competitive Forces (Penrose 1959, Approaches (Porter Barney 1991) 1980, Miller and – Dynamic Friesen 1983) Capabilities (Teece ― Entry Deterrence et al., 1994) (Shipario 1989)
    6. 6. Projects, Strategy and Uncertainty Pre 1960’s 1960-1990 1990 to PresentEnvironmental Uncertainty Pidd, M. (1996)
    7. 7. Puzzles• No ambiguity about the problem• The issues and options are clear• PM for adjustment – Type 1 projects(Turner & Cochrane, 1993 ): :Defined Method & Defined Outcome e.g Construction projects
    8. 8. Problems• Formulation of problem may be agreed• Variety of approaches to solving it.• PM for Adaptation – Type 2: Defined Outcome NOT Method, eg Product development – Type 3:Defined Method NOT Outcome, eg Software development
    9. 9. Messes• High ambiguity• No agreement about issues• PM as an organizing framework – Type 4 Projects :Undefined Method AND Unknown Outcomes, e.g. Organizational Development
    10. 10. Example: Widget Co• Widget manufacturer• Identifies possible need for additional capacity – Puzzle: Build facility – Problem: Build facility or outsource? – Mess: Do we need additional capacity? Where? Dr Nigel L. Williams, PMP 10
    11. 11. Current View (Outside- In): Projects are an instrument Portfolio Adjustment Portfolio: Projects &Strategy Strategic Programs: Operations Objectives Defined Outcomes Business Impact
    12. 12. Existing Perspective may be inadequate• Greater role for PM in Organizations – Shorter horizon for strategy – Increasing numbers of Projects – Greater complexity of Projects
    13. 13. What is Known about OPM?• Evidence Based Approach• Dimension current knowledge• Understand major paradigms• Build research informed definition of OPM
    14. 14. Research Method• Systematic Review – Tool employed in Medicine: Cochrane Collaboration (US) – Policy EPPI Centre (UK) – Management (
    15. 15. Systematic Review Process• Identify keywords• Identify databases• Scan databases• Review abstracts• Create final list of studies for review
    16. 16. Systematic Review of OPM• Keywords – “OPM”, “OPM3”, “P3M3”,”P2M”, “Organizational Project Management”, “Project Management AND Organizations”• 79 Studies published from 1989 to 2011• Final group of 31 articles
    17. 17. Paradigms of OPM• OPM as Structure• OPM as Practice
    18. 18. OPM as Structure • Companies as collections of projects (Garies 1989,1990) Based Project Project A Organization Project C Traditional Project B Project WidgetCo DMkt Eng IT Shared Technology Shared Client Related Objectives
    19. 19. OPM as Structure• Key company challenges: Integrating and Differentiating Differentiating Creating new Integrating projects to Combining respond toProject Outputs threats/ opportunities
    20. 20. OPM as Structure: Change• Organizational Change Management• Projects: 1st order change• Programs: 2nd order change Programs Widgetco Project
    21. 21. OPM as Practice• Maturity Models – Operations – Software• Evaluate current activities against best practice• Identify areas for improvement• Implement improvement actions
    22. 22. Maturity Models Compared AreasMaturity Model Goals Assessed Classification Projects, Align PM to Programs, 1 (standardize) to 4OPM3 (PMI) Strategy Portfolios (Continuously improve) Align PM to Projects, 1 (haphazard) to 5P2M- Japan Strategy Programs, (optimization) Projects, Improve project Programs, 1 (awareness) to 5P3M3- UK practice Portfolios (optimized)Project Excellence Improve project Continuous scale fromModel practices Projects 1 to 1000
    23. 23. Linkages• Structure- Practice• Organizations may create projects to respond to opportunities – Projects may create new practices – If they are found to be superior, may become best practice
    24. 24. OPM DefinitionOrganizational Project Management is thesystematic management and integration oftemporary activities (projects, programs andportfolios) to enable the realization ofstrategic initiatives in enterprises
    25. 25. Combination of Inside Out AND Outside In Approaches• (Outside- In) PM supports the creation and modification of firm competencies – Facilitates adaptation to changing environment – Organizations may also influence the environment for their own benefit (Oliver & Holzinger, 2008)• (Inside- Out) PM can also be used to redefine organizations – Change programs – New technology – New business processes
    26. 26. OPM( Combination of Outside in and Inside Out): PM Integrated with strategy• Two way relationship between projects and strategy• OPM’s role is greater than simply alignment Portfolio Adjustment Portfolio: Projects & Strategy Strategic Programs: Operations Objectives Defined Outcomes Business Impact
    27. 27. Formulating Project Strategy: Decision Areas Positioning Governance Architecture OPM Performance Interfaces Measures Practices
    28. 28. Positioning• Role of Project Management in the Organization• Driving Strategy – Project Driven Organizations/Project Based Organizations: Construction, Consulting, Lean Startups – Enabling Strategy: Companies undergoing large scale transformation – Supporting Strategy : Projects to execute defined objectives
    29. 29. Project Positioning Primarily Inside- outStrategyFormulationPerspectivePrimarilyOutside- in Supporter Enabler Driver
    30. 30. Architecture• Configuration of Projects, Programs, Portfolio within a given company setting
    31. 31. Project Architecture• Number• Scale• Complexity• Project Type 1-4
    32. 32. Governance• Systems for managing responsibility for Projects/Progra m/Portfolio• Systems for demonstrating accountability
    33. 33. Governance Structures• Project Manager• Project Office• PMO• EPMO
    34. 34. Interfaces• Linkages between Projects/Programs/Portfolio• Linkages between PPP and Operations
    35. 35. Interfaces• Functional Interfaces (Iqbal 2009) – Integration between PPP• Domain Interfaces – Integration with enterprise
    36. 36. Practices• Project/Program/Portfolio level activities• Methodologies, Tools and Techniques
    37. 37. Practices• Current Practices• Rate of Improvement• Path of development
    38. 38. Performance Measures• Approaches used to evaluate Project /Program/Portfolio outcomes and processes
    39. 39. Comparison of Project Based Organizations• Project Based Organizations• Company 1: Engineering firm in energy sector• Company 2: Construction firm
    40. 40. Company 1(Engineering Firm) PM is Strategic Architecture GovernanceType 1 Projects (Custom Manufacturing) Project TeamType 2 Projects (Product Development) Practices Performance Measures Interfaces Derived from PMBOK From PMBOK Functional (Shared Trajectory oftechnology/resources) Output: development: Toward Cost/Time/Quality higher maturity
    41. 41. Company 1Domain Gaps RecommendationsGovernance Lack of framework for Project Team supported monitoring multiple projects by Integrating Information SystemPractices/ Output oriented IncorporatePerformance No measures for input/process metricsMeasures improvement/innovation Incorporate metrics for identifying new/improved practiceArchitecture/ Multiple unconnected Group projects by sharedInterfaces projects technology/Functions Functional Interfaces
    42. 42. Company 2 PM is Strategic Architecture Governance Type 1 projects (Construction) PMO Interfaces Performance Measures Functional (Shared Practices OPM3 resources) PMI Trajectory: Toward HigherDomain (Finance/Marketing) level of maturity
    43. 43. Company 2Domain Gaps RecommendationsGovernance Low investment in Implement internal training/developing PMs mentoring/PM competency development programPractices/ Output oriented IncorporatePerformance No measures for input/process metricsMeasures improvement/innovation Incorporate metrics for identifying new/improved practiceArchitecture/ Functional/Domain interfaces Project dashboardInterfaces providing views from both domains
    44. 44. Future Research• Empirical validation of OPM Elements• Process view of Project Management and strategy; beyond life cycles• OPM Competencies
    45. 45. Summary• Organizations are engaging in increasing number of projects• Project Managers need to go beyond deliverables• OPM can link Projects with context• Provides view of organizations rooted in Project Management
    46. 46. Contact InformationNigel, (Twitter), OPM COP, OPM group on Linkedin
    47. 47. References• Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120• Gareis, R. Management by project: the management approach for the future, International Journal of Project Management, (1989), Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 243 - 249.• Miller, D. and Friesen, P. (1983). Strategy-making and the environment: the third link. Strategic Management Journal, 4(3), 221–235.• Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. London: Basil Blackwell.• M. Pidd (1996) Tools for Thinking: Modelling in Management science. Wiley, Chichester.
    48. 48. References• Porter, M. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press• Shapiro, C. (1989). The theory of business strategy. RAND Journal of Economics, 20(1), 125–137.• Teece, D. and Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537–556.