Defining organizational project management 2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Defining organizational project management 2012






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



2 Embeds 9 8 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • 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 Defining organizational project management 2012 Presentation Transcript

  • Defining Organizational Project ManagementDr. Nigel L. Williams, PMP, Prince2( Twitter) @org_pmOPM COP/ University of Bedfordshire
  • Organizational Project Management (OPM) COP• PMI Online community that examines the strategic role of PM (• Discussions• Content – Webinars – Podcasts – White Papers
  • 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)
  • • 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?
  • 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)
  • Projects, Strategy and Uncertainty Pre 1960’s 1960-1990 1990 to PresentEnvironmental Uncertainty Pidd, M. (1996)
  • 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
  • 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
  • Messes• High ambiguity• No agreement about issues• PM as an organizing framework – Type 4 Projects :Undefined Method AND Unknown Outcomes, e.g. Organizational Development
  • 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
  • Current View (Outside- In): Projects are an instrument Portfolio Adjustment Portfolio: Projects &Strategy Strategic Programs: Operations Objectives Defined Outcomes Business Impact
  • Existing Perspective may be inadequate• Greater role for PM in Organizations – Shorter horizon for strategy – Increasing numbers of Projects – Greater complexity of Projects
  • What is Known about OPM?• Evidence Based Approach• Dimension current knowledge• Understand major paradigms• Build research informed definition of OPM
  • Research Method• Systematic Review – Tool employed in Medicine: Cochrane Collaboration (US) – Policy EPPI Centre (UK) – Management (
  • Systematic Review Process• Identify keywords• Identify databases• Scan databases• Review abstracts• Create final list of studies for review
  • 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
  • Paradigms of OPM• OPM as Structure• OPM as Practice
  • 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
  • OPM as Structure• Key company challenges: Integrating and Differentiating Differentiating Creating new Integrating projects to Combining respond toProject Outputs threats/ opportunities
  • OPM as Structure: Change• Organizational Change Management• Projects: 1st order change• Programs: 2nd order change Programs Widgetco Project
  • OPM as Practice• Maturity Models – Operations – Software• Evaluate current activities against best practice• Identify areas for improvement• Implement improvement actions
  • 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
  • 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
  • OPM DefinitionOrganizational Project Management is thesystematic management and integration oftemporary activities (projects, programs andportfolios) to enable the realization ofstrategic initiatives in enterprises
  • 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
  • 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
  • Formulating Project Strategy: Decision Areas Positioning Governance Architecture OPM Performance Interfaces Measures Practices
  • 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
  • Project Positioning Primarily Inside- outStrategyFormulationPerspectivePrimarilyOutside- in Supporter Enabler Driver
  • Architecture• Configuration of Projects, Programs, Portfolio within a given company setting
  • Project Architecture• Number• Scale• Complexity• Project Type 1-4
  • Governance• Systems for managing responsibility for Projects/Progra m/Portfolio• Systems for demonstrating accountability
  • Governance Structures• Project Manager• Project Office• PMO• EPMO
  • Interfaces• Linkages between Projects/Programs/Portfolio• Linkages between PPP and Operations
  • Interfaces• Functional Interfaces (Iqbal 2009) – Integration between PPP• Domain Interfaces – Integration with enterprise
  • Practices• Project/Program/Portfolio level activities• Methodologies, Tools and Techniques
  • Practices• Current Practices• Rate of Improvement• Path of development
  • Performance Measures• Approaches used to evaluate Project /Program/Portfolio outcomes and processes
  • Comparison of Project Based Organizations• Project Based Organizations• Company 1: Engineering firm in energy sector• Company 2: Construction firm
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Future Research• Empirical validation of OPM Elements• Process view of Project Management and strategy; beyond life cycles• OPM Competencies
  • 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
  • Contact InformationNigel, (Twitter), OPM COP, OPM group on Linkedin
  • 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.
  • 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.