Project Strategy, Leadership and Governance Report for Scottish Parliament

Project Strategy, Leadership and Governance report for
Scottish Parliament BSM077

Contents
1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................1
2.0 Organisational Strategy.............................................................................2
2.1 Bridging the gap and strategic alignment ................................................3
2.2 Alignment Model....................................................................................4
2.2.1 Environment....................................................................................5
2.2.2 Leadership.......................................................................................6
2.2.3 Management....................................................................................6
3.0 Leadership and Governance.......................................................................7
3.1 Value Creation.......................................................................................8
3.2 Governance Structure ............................................................................9
3.3. Governance Framework ........................................................................9
4.0 Programme and Portfolio Management.....................................................10
4.1 PPM.....................................................................................................11
4.2 PPM Model...........................................................................................12
5.0 Value Creation PMO ................................................................................14
5.1 PMO Evolution .....................................................................................14
5.2 Trouble with PMO.................................................................................17
5.3 Various Theoretical Forms of PMO.........................................................17
5.3.1 EPMO ............................................................................................19
5.3.2 PMoCE...........................................................................................19
5.3.3 PSO...............................................................................................19
5.3.4 PO.................................................................................................19
6.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................20
6.1 Organisational Strategy........................................................................20
6.2 Leadership and Governance..................................................................21
6.3 Programme and Portfolio Management..................................................21
6.4 PMO....................................................................................................21
7.0 Recommendations ..................................................................................22
7.1 Organisational Strategy........................................................................22
7.2 Leadership and Governance..................................................................22
7.3 Programme and Portfolio Management..................................................22
7.4 PMO....................................................................................................22
8.0 References .............................................................................................23
9.0 Bibliography ...........................................................................................30

List of Tables
Table 1 Governance Framework.................................................................................................. 10
Table 2 Key Attributes of PPM..................................................................................................... 12
Table 3 PMO Evolution................................................................................................................ 15
Table 4 Deficiencies of PMO research .......................................................................................... 17
List of Figures
Figure 1 attractor and attractor basin ............................................................................................ 2
Figure 2 Minztberg and Waters "Strategy" 1985............................................................................. 2
Figure 3 Box and Platts Alignment Model....................................................................................... 4
Figure 4 PPMInformation Model................................................................................................. 12
Figure 5 PMO Typologies............................................................................................................. 18
List of Abbreviations
BAU Business As Usual
EPMO Enterprise Project Management Office
IT Information Technology
PM Project Management
PMBoK Project Management Book of Knowledge
PMO Project Management Office
PMoCE Project Management Centre of Excellence
PSO Project Support Office
PO Project Office
PPM Project Portfolio Management
ROV Remote Operated Vehicle

1
1.0 Introduction
The Scottish Parliament has recently elected new Members of the Scottish
Parliament (MSP’s). It has been tasked upon the consulting project management
professional working on behalf of the Scottish Parliament to produce this report
that will educate the MSP’s in the areas of Strategy, Leadership and Governance.
This report begins by exploring the need for organisational strategy and the
integral part it plays in project management utilising theoretical frameworks, then
it investigates the role of leadership and governance in facilitating project success
by clarifying what is project success and how governance frameworks support and
promote project success. Subsequently, it reviews program and portfolio
management by offering a structured approach to Project Portfolio Management
(PPM) highlighting its key attributes and intricacies. Thereafter, it provides insight
into the history and evolution of PMO, its inherent issues of design and the various
theoretical forms available. Conclusions are then drawn along with final
recommendations.

2
2.0 Organisational Strategy
The concept of an attractor and attractor basin (McGee 2011) coupled with
Mintzberg and Waters (1985) strategy model below, aided by metaphors will be
used as the guiding theoretical framework to elaborate the importance of strategic
alignment between projects and organisational strategy.
Figure 1 attractor and attractor basin
Figure 2 Minztberg and Waters "Strategy" 1985
Figure 1a and Figure 2 illustrate the concept of top-down/deliberate strategy
(Mintzberg and Waters 1985), wherein a basin (target market) is selected
otherwise known as the desired organisational strategy.

3
Figure 1b and 2 show in detail, the complex terrain with different peaks and
troughs with varying possible trajectories that may or may not result in the desired
organisational outcome (Kent & Stump, 2016). It may also give rise to bottom-
up/emergent strategy having a much more defined picture of the external
environment influencing a change in the original trajectory.
An assumption is made that the basin selected will ultimately generate value for
the company and that this basin excludes BAU activities.
2.1 Bridging the gap and strategic alignment
In order to embark on this voyage, the organisation must select a vehicle to bridge
the gap from concept to completion (Turner 1990). This is where projects come
into play. The concept of alignment between projects and organizational strategy
in an ever changing turbulent business environment is critical in ensuring their
successful implementation and could mean the difference between destruction or
survival of a business (Hasse and Bekker 2016). Problems such as, cost overrun,
scope creep, diminished productivity, de-motivation of individuals and teams,
internal conflicts, power struggles and ultimately project failure can be caused by
misalignment.
In PM literature, strategy of a single project is treated as an image of its parent
organisation’s strategy (Cleland 1990). The project is perceived as an
implementation vehicle of higher level strategies, rather than an independent
temporary organization in its environment. Research on the strategic
management of multiple projects yields similar results. Literature on programme
management (Lycett et al., 2004), portfolio management (Archer and
Ghasemzadeh, 1999) and project offices (Kerzner 2003) emphasize a top-down
approach deriving projects’ strategies from parent’s business strategy by careful
evaluation, selection and implementation through portfolio management and
governance procedures. Again, the projects become vehicles of implementing
their parent organization’s strategy.

4
PM literature takes a biased approach towards top-down/deliberate strategy with
an explicitly scarce amount of literature available on project strategy (Wheelwright
and Clark 1992; Patanakul et al., 2006), implying that projects are tactical, non-
strategic and guided vehicles. However, another school of thought suggests that
projects can be autonomous organization with strategies of their own (Bryson and
Delbecq, 1979; McGrath, 1996). Loch’s (2000) study of product development
projects of a European technology manufacturer provides an example of
traditional product development projects alongside company approved highly
autonomous “pet” and “under-the-table” projects. These may contradict or
purposely attempt to alter strategy and can be classed as “counter-cultural” to the
parent organization (Gwynne 1997), nonetheless there is some merit in following
this approach with a chance of achieving a break-through discovery/development
usually outside the scope of the current business offering.
2.2 Alignment Model
In an attempt to rationalise the contentious and complex subject of strategic
alignment, Box and Platts (2005) devised the alignment model shown
subsequently that will be analysed by using a metaphor of a vehicle (project)
travelling in the desert.
Figure 3 Box and Platts Alignment Model

5
The model is divisible into 3 key segments. Environment, Leadership and
Management.
2.2.1 Environment
Akin to a vehicle (project) making its way through the desert, one must be
cognisant of both internal (vehicle systems) and external environment (heat,
temperature, wind and dust). These must be continuously monitored throughout
the journey (project lifecycle), ensuring that the project remains on track, in
budget, achieving its objectives aligned with organisational strategy and
generating value.
2.2.1.1 CompanyStrategy
Carnall (1999)explains that corporate strategy must be made explicit and diffused
throughout an organisation to allow people to plan and create change. The
strategy should be simple and comprehensible, based on an identifiable core
concept, with clear priorities and resource allocation.
2.2.1.2 Company-widealignment
Company-wide alignment relates to the fundamental processes, practices and
behaviours governing projects that can either aid or hinder its cause. An example
could be of a vehicle (project) progressing through the desert (project landscape)
with its project team members suffering from low morale due to the external
environment (heat) amplified by the poor internal governing processes and
practices (ventilation). On this occasion, there is misalignment between the
project and parent organisation and the fundamental processes and practices in
place.
2.2.1.3.Cultureofchange
Having the right culture of change (mind-set) will smoothen out the alignment
process, with less focus being given on the actual process and more on delivery.

6
2.2.2 Leadership
It is widely recognised that strong leadership is key to effective change. Effective
leadership requires an alignment of action with attitudes and purpose if the desired
results are to be obtained (Molden and Symes 1999).
2.2.2.1 Createshared vision and purpose
Every team member during the journey, e.g. the driver, the navigator and the
engineer have different roles and functions but must link together and work as
one to achieve the desired outcome.
2.2.2.2 Demonstratecommitment
Harrison (1999) suggests that many change efforts fail because sponsors express,
but do not reinforce, their commitment. It is vital that the project team feel they
have the necessary support and backing from their sponsor.
2.2.3 Management
This section of the model has been split into two sub-sections: establish alignment
and maintain alignment.
2.2.3.1 Establish alignment
Align project goals with strategy to ensure that the right projects are initiated and
that decisions are aligned to the strategy (Buttrick 2000).
2.2.3.2 Understand stakeholderexpectations
Before a project is launched all stakeholders must have a common understanding
of what needs to be done, what an acceptable outcome will look like, the project’s
deliverables, and the approach that will be taken (Pitagorsky 1998).

7
2.2.3.3 Createa businessmodelofthechanges
Labovitz and Rosansky’s (1997) horizontal alignment principle says that the
customer’s voice should be a beacon and a driver for the way an organisation
thinks, works, and is managed. This ensures that activities that the organisation
undertakes are value adding.
2.2.3.4 Usegood project managementtechniques
The team have been trained and know what to do both tacitly through their skills
and explicitly through instruction manuals.
2.2.3.5 Clearly definescope
It is widely accepted that an effective team requires a clear charter (Govindarajan
and Gupta, 2001; Hayes, 2000). The team know exactly what they are doing
(scope) and when (plan) and clear expectations are set for everyone.
2.2.3.6 Adopta stage-gateapproach
A stage-gate methodology creates formal hold points during which a review will
take place to assess the current situation prior to progressing to the next phase.
This will allow the project to assess and measure its performance to date, checking
alignment with its objectives and to see if there have been any deviations or
corrections needed to its course. This ensures a clear connection between how
efficiently and effectively a project is performing providing overall business value.
3.0 Leadership and Governance
Governance is often defined as the means by which organizations are directed and
their managers are held accountable for conduct and performance (OECD, 2001).
It differs from management in that management runs the business, while
governance ensures that it runs efficiently and in the right direction (Tricker
2012). Governance provides the approaches, authorities, accountabilities and
processes to define the objectives of organizations/ projects, providing the means
to achieve those objectives, and control progress. (Turner 2009).

8
Major projects (infrastructure, IT and military to name a few) are increasingly
used for delivering a wide range of goods and services, and their scale tends to
increase as well (Flyvbjerg, 2014). Yet, to this day the performance of these
projects is unsatisfactory. The wrong projects are selected, the costs are
underestimated and the benefits are overestimated (Flyvbjerg 2014). Many
studies on project failures have concluded that one of the root causes is attributed
to deficient governance of projects (Turner 2009). Effective governance of projects
should lead to improved accountability and transparency in their decision-making
process, increasing the likelihood of project success and minimizing risk of failure.
As projects and programmes are the vehicles for implementing corporate
strategies, effective governance of projects within the corporate governance
framework should be a top priority for organisations providing clear visibility and
control of non-routine operations and successful value adding delivery (Cooke-
Davis 2002). One can almost argue that it is a moral obligation and responsibility
of organisations to have robust governance frameworks in place that transcend
from strategic, tactical and operational level, in line with stakeholder theory
(Freeman 1984) ensuring value generation is top priority.
3.1 Value Creation
The moniker phrase “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder” epitomises the
perception towards value. The Sydney Opera House failed to meet its targets
based on the “iron triangle” of time, budget and quality however from a
cultural/historical perspective it is a renowned worldwide success. What this
demonstrates is that value is defined differently by different stakeholders and
various belief systems project different perceptions of project success and value.
In effect, a project can be constructed meeting the requirements of the Iron
Triangle but still fail to meet the strategic objectives due to strategic
misalignment. Conversely, a project can be strategically aligned with
organisational strategy and tick all the boxes in terms of customer value
proposition, but fail to meet the requirements of the Iron Triangle resulting in one
or more of the following: cost overrun, delay in schedule and poor quality. The
traditional measurement of project success based on the iron triangle of cost, time
and quality is defunct and does not capture the true meaning of project success
from all stakeholders’ perspective.

9
Hjelmbrekke et al (2014) recommends that a formal project governance body,
with an active project sponsor will improve the necessary two-way communication
between strategic and operational levels creating strategic alignment, in other
words utilising a governance framework to facilitate project success.
3.2 Governance Structure
Governance can be broken into two distinct categories as Morris (1997) aptly
distinguishes the difference between project governance as the specific
methodologies used to manage a project and governance of projects pertaining to
the programme/portfolio of projects and how this is managed. Project governance
is therefore defined as the system by which a project is directed and controlled
and organisational governance as “the system by which an organisation is
directed, controlled and held to account” (Cadbury 1992; National Audit Office
2003). Discretion on governance structure is to be determined by the parent
organisation in line with its size, activities and complexity.
3.3. Governance Framework
Confronted with poor project performance including large cost overruns, delays
and limited economic benefits, Norway and the United Kingdom have implemented
governance frameworks in order to improve project performance (Klakegg et al
2008). A governance framework for public projects is “an organized structure
established as authoritative within the institution, comprising processes and rules
established to ensure projects meet their purpose” (Klakegg et al 2008 p.30). In
Norway, a 1999 in-depth review of eleven public investment projects revealed
combined cost overruns of 84% (Berg et al 1999, cited in Samset and Volden
2013), whereas their latest report indicates that on average, 80% of projects now
remain within approved budgets (Samset and Volden 2013). Similarly, in 2011
the UK National Audit Office reported that two-thirds of public sector projects were
completed late, over budget or did not deliver the expected outcomes. After
implementing governance frameworks, the Major Projects Authority recently
stated that the record of project delivery has improved so that approximately two
thirds of projects are now expected to deliver on time and on budget. (Major
Projects Authority, 2013; NAO, 2011).

10
The main characteristics of a governance framework are summarized by Klakegg
et al (2008) and Samset et al (2006) as noted in the table below. It is not a fully
comprehensive list and will vary depending upon governance complexity.
Table 1 Governance Framework
A distinct set of milestones and decision gates applicable to specific phases in
the project lifecycle.
Fundamental go/no-go decisions points.
Robust and analytical decision making process with auditable trail.
Detailed governance elements (cost estimation, planning, scope management,
stakeholder engagement).
Various governance frameworks exist (Klakegg and Haavaldsen 2011) such as the
lean framework (characterized as simple, flexible, control based), the integrated
framework/quality system (characterized as strong on operational tools, limited in
scope) and the complex framework (characterized as open, including options to
fit different settings). This provides a platform for how governance frameworks
may be designed to suit the organisations’ needs. No conclusion at present is
reached on which design approach is the best, however this provides a basic
structure for future implementation of governance frameworks.
4.0 Programme and Portfolio Management
Literature in the field of project management has progressively evolved from
single PM to project portfolio management (Archer and Ghasemzadeh 1999;
Kester et al 2011; Olsson 2008; Martinsuo et al 2014) Recently, there has been
an increase in the use of a top down approach as a means of ensuring the
alignment of project portfolios to the firm’s strategic objectives and collective
quantification of total risk across the board (Meskendahl 2010; Rajegopal et al
2007; Sanwal 2007).

11
As discussed previously, projects are the preferred vehicles for implementing
organisational strategy. Depending on the size and complexity of the organisation
a project may not be sufficient to fulfil all of its objectives and may form only a
small piece of the puzzle whilst the other pieces are held under a programme or
portfolio. Lester (2014) defines programme management as “the co-ordinated
management of a group of related projects to ensure the best use of resources in
delivering the projects to the specified time, cost, and quality/performance
criteria”. Hyvari (2014) on the other hand defines portfolio management as “the
coordinated management of one or more portfolios to achieve organizational
strategies and objectives. It includes interrelated organizational processes by
which an organization evaluates, selects, prioritizes, and allocates its limited
resources to best accomplish organizational strategies consistent with its vision,
mission and values”. Hypothetically speaking there could be another one or more
similar projects executed concurrently. These would form part of a programme.
On the other hand, say there were a few other different projects in progress such
as an underwater vehicle project and a ROV plane project all of which are non-
related projects but fall under the organisations remit and strategy, these would
be categorised as part of the portfolio.
4.1 PPM
Available project alternatives usually far exceed the number of projects that can
be executed with an organization's limited resources at any given time, and
choosing the right projects in a particular context is seldom easy (Engwall and
Jerbrant 2003). Therefore, academics and practitioners alike have sought to
develop methods to address the project selection problem. One prominent
approach is project portfolio management (PPM), which is used to keep the ratio
between existing and new projects as close to an optimal state as possible (Archer
and Ghasemzadeh 1999). While financial criteria play a significant role in defining
the optimal state, strategic intentions are also important (Englund and Graham
1999). The ultimate goal is to link programme and portfolio management with
organisational strategy, maintaining portfolio alignment and effective and efficient
allocation of all of the organisation’s resources generating value to its
stakeholders.

12
4.2 PPM Model
Kaiser et al (2015) has devised the information model below offering a structured
approach to PPM.
Figure 4 PPM Information Model
The subsequent table summarizes the key attributes of PPM illustrated in the
modelabove which in its entirety looks pretty straightforward, however in practice
PPM models are highly complex and resource intensive.
Table 2 Key Attributes of PPM
Alignment Process (Project valuation, ranking, selection)
Portfolio Balancing and Portfolio Risk Analysis
Project Identification (Strategic Fit and review of resource capability and
constraints)
Portfolio monitoring and management

13
Difficulties arise in each key area such as establishing precedence relationship
between projects (Speranza and Vercelis 1993) and understanding the
interdependencies and relationships between projects and programmes. This is of
significance since the whole system (portfolio) is greater than the sum of all of its
parts (Churchman 1968, Schoderbek et al 1990), balancing holistic demand for
resources across various projects with different resource level demands and
timeframes, dynamic scheduling problems (Anavi-Isakov and Golany 2003),
properly addressing correlation between individual project risk and collective
portfolio risk management (Pajares and Lopez 2014). In addition, deficiency of
traditional capital budgeting investment techniques such as Payback, NPV, IRR to
cope with the interactions and complexity of capital cost for the overall portfolio
(Pajares and Lopez 2014), substantial management upkeep demanding a high-
volume, high-quality, and up-to-date internal and external information putting
considerable strain on both finances and resources which is put forward as the
main reason for its unattractiveness for many organizations (Kendall and Rollins,
2003). Finally, it is interesting to note that the topic of strategic management is
rarely considered in literature about project portfolio management. Ironic when
you consider that a functioning strategic management process is a precondition
for the alignment of a project portfolio with strategy (Meskendahl 2010). Similarly
project portfolio management is essential for the implementation of formulated
strategies in these firms (Srivannaboon 2006) and both of these in theory cannot
exist mutually independent of one another.

14
5.0 Value Creation PMO
5.1 PMO Evolution
The PMO has evolved over time, from its primitive form originally used for
collective running of government strategy in the agricultural sector (Bell 1805) to
its contemporary form described by Gaddis (1959) as a group of project
management staff assigned to bring about the development of an asset on behalf
of the project sponsor, being utilised as a vehicle of executing governance on
projects programmes and portfolios (Aubry et al., 2012). Today the PMO is an
organisational business unit. It is claimed that it is established from the necessity
to enhance the ability of the organisation in the delivery of projects (Aubry et al.,
2007; Project Management Institute, 2013). The PMBoK Guide (Project
Management Institute, 2013) p11 describes the PMO as a management structure
that; “standardizes the project-related governance processes and facilitates the
sharing of resources, methodologies, tools, and techniques”. The subsequent table
illustrates the value that PMO has provided over time from being utilised as a
government scheme to increase productivity, to promoting transparency, acting
as a vehicle of accountability, a pragmatic approach to managing projects and
finally a metric for benchmarking best practice. This demonstrates the diversity
and capability of PMO, being adaptable to change that can be utilised with
discretion at any given point in time, from small private organisations to large
multi-nationals and public governing bodies benefitting fully from what a PMO can
offer.

15
Table 3 PMO Evolution
1800s (Bell 1805) Running government schemes- national tax scheme aimed at increasing
productivity.
1900-1910
(Slichter 1905)
Controlling cost and demonstrating transparency- The progressive era in
the United States called for transparency on costs which led to various
reforms and proliferation of PMO. This transparency continues to current
times (Fleischman and Marquette, 1986).
1910-1930 (McCarl
1926)
Quango- used by the American government to operate policies in action
such as public housing and employee accommodation.
1930-1950 (US
Housing Authority
1939)
PMO naming convention- reference is made to PMO, PMO was suggested to
perform maintenance tasks for its public housing projects. Furthermore, it
expands into other government sponsored initiatives such as Hoover Dam
project and atomic energy.
1950 (Darling and
Whitty 2016)
Accountability- in the 1950s the United States government continued to
publish PMO accountability articles relating to agricultural research,
defence, government housing, geology, highway design, water
management, large engineering endeavours, various federal projects and
programmes.
1960 (Barker and
Gump 1964; US
Congress 1965; US
Congress
Committee on
Appropriations
1969; US Division
of the Federal
Register 1965)
Pragmatic approach- In the 1960s numerous organisations appear to have
a PMO. From agriculture and taxation to housing, civil infrastructure,
military acquisition, scientific exploration (in space, deep sea and polar)
education, numerous government entities and for-profit organisations
mention they have a PMO. It is possible these PMOs evolved naturally from
pragmatic beginnings and with the interference of other management
concepts were selectively chosen which features to keep.

16
1970 (Arnette,
1973;Green,1975;
Hodder, 1974;
Massem, 1973;
Smith, 1973)
Humanistic- heightened increased scholarly interest on the entity of PMO
focussing on human interaction, behavioural science and reputation
management in pursuit of improving project outcomes.
1980 (Hodgson and
Cicmil 2006;
Ekanayake et al.,
1990; Indonesia
Direktorat Jenderal
Perikanan Project
Management
Office, 1988;
University of the
Philippines, 1985;
Walker, 1990)
Project manager tool shed- With the accessibility of personal computing
during the 1980s and 1990s computer based technology drove a revival in
organisational based project management research, creating expert
systems for project planning, control and risk analysis. PMO takes off
globally with other countries following suit such as Indonesia, Philippines
and Sri Lanka to name a few.
1990 (Wells 1999;
Block and Frame
1998; Aubry and
Hobbs 2007;
Hodgson and Cicmil
2006; Maylor et al.
2006; and
Packendorff 1995.
Benchmark best practice- The transformation of PMO literature increases
pace during the 1990s. The US Government continues to publish audits of
all traditional PMOs whilst PMO itself expands into other sectors particularly
technology and IT. Asian countries increase publishing their own audits of
their PMOs. PMI authored PMO articles become more prevalent. The 1990s
see a pronounced level of business books referring to the PMO entity
increase. The practitioner community continues to publish “how to” guides,
with main reasons why PMOs work or do not work. The rise in
projectification of work led to the proliferation of project failures
subsequently increasing scrutiny of projects increasing the number of
academic literature, catalytic papers, business books mentioning PMO and
the market for university courses.
2000 (Project
Management
Institute 2013).
PMO phenomenon-The naming ofPMOs or centres ofexcellence,is a recent
phenomenon although one of the first earnest centres of excellence was by
IBM in 1996. The contemporary development and refinement of PM text,
and the academic descriptions, have rendered PMOs as a distinct discipline.
The result is in the acceptance, development and description of the PMO in
contemporary literature.

17
5.2 Trouble with PMO
Revisiting the steps of PMO evolution, it is clear that its function and form has
changed dramatically over the last century. Thus perhaps causing confusion on
what actually is a PMO and what does it do? Previously it has tried to do
everything, in an attempt to cope with the changes in the environment and justify
its existence to stakeholders. Whilst this has led to widespread recognition and
endorsement of PMO, this in itself has diluted its true meaning and has increased
the negative perception that PMO receives. It is inherently accepted that PMOs
continually evolve in order to fulfil their changing function as required by the
organisation’s strategy. Individual PMOs have been observed changing
distinctively, often as a result of inter-organisation political tensions (Aubry et al.,
2008; Hobbs et al., 2008). This strength in itself is a double edged sword because
the PMO is so varied both in form and function, as a result, making the task of
quantifying its performance extremely difficult, consequently impacting how it
manages to justify and promote its value (Darling and Whitty 2016).
5.3 Various Theoretical Forms of PMO
The PMO is perceived as somewhat varied and complex which does not help with
senior management satisfaction or confidence levels. Global literature shows three
fundamental deficiencies ingrained in the research of PMO (Hodgson and Cicmil
2006; Packendorff 1995) as shown below.
Table 4 Deficiencies of PMO research
1. the assumed universality of project management theory
2. the lack of empirical studies of projects
3. the lack of alternative representations of “projects”
Packendorff (1995) highlights a valid point, that throughout history the PMO
papers are not grounded in management science (Kerzner 2003). Nevertheless, it
is acknowledged that PMOs have been studied by the community but not much
detail is known about them other than their various types or forms. With that
being said, focus will be placed upon the research of Monteiro Et al (2016), who
illustrate the various typologies and their key attributes as illustrated below.

18
Figure 5 PMO Typologies
Review of the above literature suggest that the majority of the authors believe
that the PMO acts as an EPMO, PMoCE, PSO, and PO (highest number amongst
the group). Each author although in agreement on categorisation has differing
definitions and opinions on what each typology does. For the purposes of this
report, the majority will take precedence.

19
5.3.1 EPMO
The Enterprise PMO is responsible for aligning project and program work to
corporate strategy, establishing and ensuring appropriate enterprise governance,
and performing portfolio management functions to ensure strategy alignment and
benefits realization.
5.3.2 PMoCE
The PMoCE establishes and implements project business management standards,
methodologies, practices, education, training and project management
competency on an enterprise-wide basis with the intent of increasing efficiency.
This model also increases efficiency by investing in people through mentoring,
coaching and sharing of tacit knowledge.
5.3.3 PSO
The PSO is a formal organisation established primarily supporting the
administration needs of the project covering various areas such as resourcing,
scheduling, scoping, risk, project controls and so forth.
5.3.4 PO
The PO is a centralized control office seeking to establish a consistent baseline of
processes, adding formalised project tracking and reporting feeding back data to
senior management

20
Ultimately PMOs perform a variety of functions depending upon the parent
organisation and how the PMO has been tailored to suit its needs. It can cater to
all three levels of management: strategic, tactical and operational (DeSouza and
Evaristo 2006). At strategic level, PMOs main objective is to ensure alignment of
projects with organisation strategy. Santos and Varajao (2015) note that at
operational level the PMO is responsible for integration and coordination of project
initiatives. At operational level, the main role of the PMO is to guide projects
ensuring correct levels of governance are in place and are being adhered to. In
the long run, an organization will reach a series of benefits deriving from the
implementation of PMO (Aubry et al 2007, Dai and Wells 2014, Atkinson et al
2006, Pinto et al 2010).
6.0 Conclusions
It has been tasked upon the consulting project management professional working
on behalf of the Scottish Parliament to produce this report that will educate the
MSPs in the areas of Project Strategy, Leadership and Governance and covering
key areas within organisational strategy, leadership and governance, program and
portfolio management and finally PMO.
It has been identified that a gap exists between senior management devising its
strategy and its implementation (e.g. identifying “where we are now” and “where
we want to be”). It has been acknowledged that recently, projects have been the
most commonly preferred method of bridging this gap. This traditional top-down
approach promotes a deliberate strategy, however organisations must be
cognisant that a bottom-up/emergent strategy exists that may influence and alter
its strategic direction. In an attempt to rationalise the complex strategic landscape
and ensure alignment with an organisations’ strategic objectives, a proposed
alignment model has been analysed which highlights 3 key areas (Environment,
Leadership and Management) that may influence strategic decision making and
outcome.

21
It has been recognized that the number of projects being executed over the years
has increased drastically. This can be attributed to the fact that more and more
organisations are preferring to utilise projects as their strategic weapon of choice,
yet the number of projects failing to meet their desired purpose continues to
prevail. Certain countries such as Norway and the UK have taken pro-active steps
to combat this issue by enforcing governance frameworks on publicly funded
projects with remarkable success.
Depending on the size and complexity of an organisation, a project may not be
sufficient to realize all of its strategic objectives. Therefore an organisation may
draw upon a programme and/or portfolio to fulfil its requirements. The alignment
issues mentioned on projects not only continue to exist but are now even more
amplified as they collectively form part of a programme or portfolio. As
organisations continue to grow and mature so do their opportunities. The number
of available projects usually outweighs the number of projects that can be
executed restricted by its budget, schedule, and resources. This poses a dilemma
for organisations on evaluating, selecting and prioritising projects/programmes
and portfolios and their order of precedence aligned with the organisations
strategy. The PPM model offers a structured approach in the alignment process,
portfolio balancing, project identification and portfolio monitoring and
management.
6.4 PMO
It has been highlighted that the PMO has evolved considerably since its origin. To
date it has over at least 25 various models and typologies all offering different key
benefits and drawbacks. There is no one size fits all model for a PMO. It is
evidenced that the constant evolution of PMO is in itself both an inherent strength
and weakness. The former allowing it to be highly adaptable to suit an
organisation’s needs, the latter portraying a perceived complexity making it
difficult to categorize and understand. Ultimately, it is without question that the
PMO creates and adds value to an organisation.

22
7.0 Recommendations
This report has reviewed the following topics listed below and put forth the
following recommendations.
The various ways of developing strategy (Top-Down/Deliberate, Bottom-
Up/Emergent) and how projects can be utilised as the strategic tool to bridge the
gap and implement an organisations strategic plans has been highlighted. Also
underlined are the complexity in devising strategy and ensuring alignment with
projects. A theoretical model has been reviewed which can be used as a guide to
check alignment for current and future projects.
In addition the various frameworks available (Lean, Integrated and Complex) as
a foundation for developing a governance system bespoke to the organisations’
needs based on its requirements and organisational structure have been stressed.
This report has also identified the dilemma that organisations may face in terms
of their finite resources being outweighed by the number of projects they can
execute at any given time. It also underlines that complexity of programmes and
portfolios and the significant resources required to monitor and manage them. A
PPM model has been reviewed which offers a rationalised structured approach to
devising and managing a programme or portfolio. This can be used as a foundation
for future programmes and portfolios.
7.4 PMO
This report proposes that a careful review and study is undertaken prior to
selecting and utilising a PMO that strategically fits the organisation’s current
needs.

23
8.0 References
Anavi-Isakov S and Golany B (2003). Managing multi-project environments
through constant work-in-process. International Journal of Project Management
21:9-18.
Archer, N.P., Ghasemzadeh, F., 1999. An integrated framework for project
portfolio selection. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 17 (4), 207–216
Arnette, B. Jr., 1973. “Application of behavioural science theories within the army
project management office”, Defence Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Atkinson R, Crawford L, Ward S, 2006. Fundamental uncertainties in projects and
the scope of project management. International Journal of Project Management
2006; 24: 687–698.
Aubry, M. and Hobbs, B., 2007. “A multi-phase research program investigating
project management offices (PMOS): the results of phase 1”, Project Management
Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 74-86.
Aubry M, Hobbs B, Thuillier D., 2007. A new framework for understanding
organizational project management through the PMO. International Journal of
Project Management, 25: 328-336.
Aubry, M., Hobbs, B. and Thuillier, D., 2008. “Organisational project management:
an historical approach to the study of PMOs”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 38-43.
Aubry, M., Müller, R., Glückler, J., 2012. Governance and Communities of PMOs.
Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA, USA.
Australian National Audit Office, 2003. Public Sector Governance, Volume 1 Better
Practice Guide: Framework, Processes and Practices, Australian National Audit
Office, Canberra.
Barker, R.G. and Gump, P.V., 1964. Big School, Small School: High School Size
and Student Behaviour, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Bell, B., 1805. “B. Bell’s essays on agriculture”, The British Critic, Vols 25-26 No.
1, pp. 422-427.

24
Berg, P., et al., 1999. Styring av statlige investeringer. Sluttrapport fra
styringsgruppen, Finansdepartementet, 10 February 1999.
Block, T. and Frame, J.D., 1998. The Project Office: A Key to Managing Projects
Effectively, Crisp Publications, Menlo Park, CA.
Box, S., Platts, K., 2005. Business process management: establishing and
maintaining project alignment, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 11
Iss 4 pp. 370 – 387
Bryson, J.M. and Delbecq, A.L., 1979. “A contingent approach to strategy and
tactics in project planning”, American Planning Association Journal, Vol. 45, pp.
167-79.
Buttrick, R., 2000, Project Workout: Reap Rewards from All Your Business
Projects, Pearson Education Ltd, London.
Cadbury, A., 1992. Report of the Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate
Governance, Burgess Science Press, London
Carnall, C.A., 1999. Managing Change in Organisations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Churchman C., 1968. The Systems Approach. New York: Delacorte Press.
Cleland, D.I., 1990. Project Management: Strategic Design and Implementation,
TAB Books, Blue Ridge Summit, PA.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002), “The ‘real’ success factors on projects”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 185-190.
Dai C.X., Wells, W.G., 2014. An exploration of project management office features
and their relationship to project performance. International Journal of Project
Management 2014; 22: 523–532.
Darling, E.J., Whitty, S.J., 2016. The Project Management Office: it’s just not
what it used to be, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 9
Iss 2 pp. 282 – 308
Desouza, K. C. &, Evaristo J. R., 2006. The Project management offices: A case
of knowledge-based archetypes. International Journal of Information
Management. 26, 414–423.
Ekanayake, R., Navaratne, W.M.U. and Groenfeldt, D., 1990. “A rapid-assessment
survey of the irrigation component of the Anuradhapura Dry-Zone Agriculture
Project (ADZAP)”, IWMI, No. 16, available at:
http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/iwtworppr/h006328.htm

25
Englund, R.L., Graham, R.J., 1999. From experience: linking projects to strategy.
J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 16 (1), 52–64.
Engwall, M., Jerbrant, A., 2003. The resource allocation syndrome: the prime
challenge of multi-project management? Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21 (6), 403–409.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0263-7863 (02)00113-8.
Fleischman, R. and Marquette, P., 1986. “The origins of public budgeting:
municipal reformers during the progressive era”, Public Budgeting & Finance, Vol.
6 No. 1.
Flyvbjerg, B., 2014. What you should know about megaprojects and why: an
overview. Proj. Manag. J. 45 (2), 6–19.
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman,
Boston, MA
Gaddis, P., 1959. “The project manager”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 37 No.
13, pp. 89-97.
Green, F. Jr., 1975. “The project management office interface with the news
media”, Defence Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Govindarajan, V. and Gupta, A.K., 2001. “Building an effective global business
team”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer pp. 63-71.
Gwynne, P., 1997. “Skunk works, 1990s-style”, Research Technology
Harrison, D., 1999. “Are you ready to be a change sponsor?” Industrial
Management, Vol. 41 No. 4, p. 6.
Hasse, G.W. and Bekker, M.C., 2016. Chaos Attractors as an Alignment
Mechanism between Projects and Organizational Strategy. Procedia - Social and
Behavioural Sciences, 226, pp. 91-99
Hayes, D.S., 2000. “Evaluation and application of a project charter template to
improve the project planning process”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 31 No.
1, p. 14.
Hjelmbrekke, H., Lædre O., Lohne, J., 2014. “The need for a project governance
body ", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 7 Iss 4 pp.
661 - 677
Hobbs, B., Aubry, M. and Thuillier, D., 2008. “The project management office as
an organisational innovation”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol.
26 No. 5, pp. 547-555.

26
Hodder, C.A., 1974. “The project management team: a case study of internal
human relations”, Defence Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S., 2006. Making Projects Critical, Palgrave Macmillan,
Basingstoke.
Hyvari, I., 2014. Project Portfolio Management in a Company Strategy
Implementation, a Case Study. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 119,
pp. 229-236
Indonesia Direktorat Jenderal Perikanan Project Management Office, 1988.
“Fisheries Infrastructure Sector Project”, Feasibility Study Province East Java: Sub
Project, PPIMuncar, RMCG, Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta.
Kaiser, M.G., El arbi, F. and Ahlemann, F., 2015. Successful project portfolio
management beyond project selection techniques: Understanding the role of
structural alignment. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), pp.
126-139
Kendall, G., Rollins, S., 2003. Advanced Project Portfolio Management and the
PMO: Multiplying ROI at Warp Speed. J. Ross, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA.
Kent, R. G & Stump, T., 2016. Lexicon of Terms. Available from:
http://www.psych.utah.edu/~jb4731/systems/Lexicon.html. [Accessed on 14
December 2016].
Kerzner, H., 2003. “Strategic planning for a project office”, Project Management
Kester, L., Griffin, A., Hultink, E.J., Lauche, K., 2011. Exploring portfolio decision
making processes. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 28.
Klakegg, O.J., Haavaldsen, T., 2011. "Governance of major public investment
projects: in pursuit of relevance and sustainability", International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 4 Iss 1 pp. 157 – 167
Klakegg, O.J., Williams, T., Magnussen, O.M., Glasspool, H., 2008. Governance
frameworks for public project development and estimation. Proj. Manag. J. 39,
S27–S42.
Labovitz, G. and Rosansky, V., 1997. The Power of Alignment, Wiley, New York,
NY.
Lester, E.I.A., 2014. Chapter 3 - Programme and Portfolio Management. In:
E.I.A. Lester, ed. Project Management, Planning and Control (Sixth Edition).
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. pp. 11-14

27
Loch, C., 2000. “Tailoring product development to strategy: case of a European
technology manufacturer”, European Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp.
246-58.
Lycett, M., Rassau, A. and Danson, J., 2004. “Programme management: a
critical review”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp.
289-99.
Major Projects Authority, 2013. Annual Report. Cabinet Office, London, UK.
Martinsuo, M., Korhonen, T., Laine, T., 2014. Identifying, framing and managing
uncertainties in project portfolios. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (5), 732–746.
Massem, M.C., 1973. “Approaches for coping with the problem of staffing a project
management office”, Defence Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Maylor, H., Brady, T., Cooke-Davies, T. and Hodgson, D., 2006. “From
projectification to programmification”, International Journal of Project
McCarl, J., 1926. Decisions of the Comptroller General of the United States, GA
Office, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
McGee, T., 2011. Adaptable systems – When do you need to design for change?
Eco Interface. Available from: http://www.ecointerface.com/?p=157. [Accessed
on 14 December 2016].
McGrath, M.E., 1996. Setting the PACE in Product Development: A Guide to
Product And Cycle-Time Excellence, revised ed., Butterworth-Heinemann,
Boston, MA.
Meskendahl, S., 2010. The influence of business strategy on project portfolio
management and its success a conceptual framework. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28
(8), 807–817.
Mintzberg, H., Waters, J.A., 1985. Of strategies, deliberate and emergent.
Strategic Manage. J. 6 (3), 257–272. Doi: http://doi.org/bs2pm3.
Molden, D. and Symes, J., 1999. Realigning for Change, Financial Times
Professional Ltd, London.
Monteiro, A., Santos, V. and Varajao, J., 2016. Project Management Office
Models – A Review. Procedia Computer Science, 100, pp. 1085-1094
Morris, P., 1997. The Management of Projects. Thomas Telford, London, UK.
NAO, 2011. Guide: Initiating Successful Projects. National Audit Office, London,
UK.
OECD, 2001. Governance in the 21st Century. (Paris, France. Retrieved 15
September 2015 from http://www.oecd.org/futures/17394484.pdf).

28
Olsson, R., 2008. Risk management in a multi-project environment: an approach
to manage project risks. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 25 (1),
Packendorff, J., 1995. “Inquiring into the temporary organisation: new directions
for project management research”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 11
No. 4, pp. 319-333.
Pajares, J. and Lopez, A., 2014. New Methodological Approaches to Project
Portfolio Management: The Role of Interactions within Projects and Portfolios.
Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 119, pp. 645-652
Patanakul, P., Shenhar, A.J. and Milosevic, D., 2006. “Why different projects need
different strategies”, Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference, 16-19 July,
2006, Montreal, Canada, Project Management Institute, Philadelphia, PA.
Pinto A, Cota M, Levin G., 2010. The PMO Maturity Cube, a Project Management
Office Maturity Model. PMI Research and Education Congress; 2010.
Pitagorsky, G., 1998. “The project manager/functional manager partnership”,
Project Management Journal, December, pp. 7-16.
Project Management Institute, 2013. A Guide to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge, 5th
ed., Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
Rajegopal, S., McGuin, P., Waller, J., 2007. Project Portfolio Management:
Leading the Corporate Vision. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Samset, K., Berg, P., Klakegg, O.J., 2006. Front end governance of major public
projects. Paper Presented at the EURAM 2006 Conference, Oslo.
Samset, K., Volden, G.H., 2013. Investing for Impact: Lessons with the Norwegian
State Project Model and the First Investment Projects. vol. 36. Concept Research
Program, Oslo, Norway, pp. 1–53.
Santos, V. and Varajao, J., 2015. PMO as a Key Ingredient of Public Sector
Projects’ Success – Position Paper. Procedia Computer Science, 64, pp. 1190-
1199
Sanwal, A., 2007. Optimizing Corporate Portfolio Management: Aligning
Investment Proposals with Organizational Strategy. Wiley
Schoderbek, P.P., Schoderbek C.G., Kefalas A.G., 1990. Management Systems:
Conceptual Considerations. Richard D.Irwin; 1990.
Slichter, C., 1905. Observations on the Ground Waters of Rio Grande Valley, US
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

29
Smith, J.S., 1973. “The effect of credibility gaps within the project management
office”, Defence Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Speranza, M.G. & Vercelis, C., 1993. Hierarchical Models for multi-project planning
and scheduling. European Journal of Operational Research, 64(2), pp: 312-25.
Srivannaboon, S., 2006. Linking project management with business strategy.
Proj. Manag. J. 37 (5), 88–96.
Tricker, B., 2012. Corporate Governance: Principles, Policies, and Practices.
Second ed. Oxford University Press, UK, Oxford, UK.
Turner, JR., 1990. What are projects and project management [Henley Working
Paper 9002]. Henley-on-Thames: Henley Management College.
Turner JR., 2009. The Handbook of Project-Based Management: Leading Strategic
Change in Organizations. Third Edition. Berkshire: Mc-GrawHill.
University of the Philippines, 1985. “Philippine Journal of Public Administration”,
Philippine Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 29 No. 3, p. 172
US Congress, 1965. “Antarctica Report – 1965: hearing, 89-1”, US Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC, 12 April-15 June.
US Congress Committee on Appropriations, 1969. “Department of transportation”,
US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
US Division of the Federal Register, 1965. The Code of Federal Regulations of the
United States of America, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
US Housing Authority, 1939. Bulletin on Policy and Procedure, US Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Walker, T., 1990. Innovative Agricultural Extension for Women: A Case Study in
Cameroon, World Bank Publications, Washington, DC
Wells, W., 1999. “From the editor”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 4-5.
Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B., 1992. Revolutionizing Product Development:
Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality, The Free Press, New York, NY.

30
9.0 Bibliography
Ahola, T., Ruuska, I., Artto, K., Kujala, J., 2014. What is project governance and
what are its origins? Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (8), 1321–1332.
Asbjørn R.I., Tommelein P.M., Schiefloe G.B., 2014. "Understanding project
success through analysis of project management approach ", International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 7 Iss 4 pp. 638 – 660
Artto, K., Kujala, J., Dietrich, P. and Martinsuo, M., 2008. “What is project
strategy?” International Journal of Project Management (in press).
Aubry, M., Hobbs, B. and Thuillier, D., 2009. “The contribution of the project
management office to organisational performance”, International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 141-148.
Aubry, M., Müller, R. and Glückler, J., 2011. “Exploring PMOs through community
of practice theory”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 42-56.
Aubry, M., Hobbs, B., Müller, R. and Blomquist, T., 2010a. “Identifying forces
driving PMO changes”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 30-45.
Baccarini, D., 1999. “The logical framework for defining project success”, Project
Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 25-32.
Bardhan I, Sougstad R. Prioritizing a Portfolio of Information Technology
Investment Projects. Journal of Management Information Systems. 2004;
21(2):33-60.
Beer S., 1966. Diagnosing the System for Organisations. John Willey; 1966.
Belassi, W. and Tukel, O.I., 1996. “A new framework for determining critical
success/failure factors in project”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 141-151.
Bernardo, M.D.R., 2014. Project Indicators for Enhancing Governance of
Projects. Procedia Technology, 16, pp. 1065-1071.
Brunet, M. and AUBRY, M., 2016. The three dimensions of a governance
framework for major public projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 34(8), pp. 1596-1607.
Cleland, D.I., 2004. “Strategic management: the project linkages”, in Morris,
P.W.G. and Pinto, J.K. (Eds), The Wiley Guide to Managing Projects, Wiley,
London, pp. 206-22.

31
Collins, J.C. and Porras, J.I., 2000. Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary
Companies, Random House Business Books, London.
Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J. and Kleinschmidt, E.J., 1997a. “Portfolio management
in new product development: lessons from the leaders I”, Research Technology
Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J. and Kleinschmidt, E.J., 2004. “Benchmarking best
NPD practices – II”, Research Technology Management, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 50-9.
Crawford, J. K., 2010. The Strategic Project Office: A Guide to Improving
Organizational Performance, Second Edition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Danilovic M, Sandkull B. The use of dependence structure matrix and domain
mapping matrix in managing uncertainty in multiple project situations.
International Journal of Project Management. 2005; 23(3):193-203.
De Wit, A., 1988. “Measurement of project success”, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 164-170.
Dickinson MW, Thornton AC, Graves S. Technology portfolio management:
Optimizing interdependent projects over multiple time periods. IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management. 2001; 48(4):518-527.
Economist Intelligence Unit. 2013. Why good strategies fail – lessons for the C-
suite. London: Economist Intelligence Unit.
Englund, R. L, Graham R. J. & Dinsmore P.C., 2003. Creating the project office.
A manager’s guide to leading organizational change. San Francisco: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris Holm, M.K. and Buhl, S.L., 2003. How common and how
large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects? Transport reviews,
23(1), pp.71-88.
Frame, J.D., 1987. Managing Projects in Organizations: How to Make the Best Use
of Time, Techniques and People, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Freeman, R.E., Wicks, A.C. and Parmar, B., 2004. Stakeholder theory and “the
corporate objective revisited”. Organization science, 15(3), pp.364-369.
Garfein, S. J., 2005. Strategic Portfolio Management: A smart, realistic and
relatively fast way to gain sustainable competitive advantage, Proceedings of the
PMI Global Congress (North America), Toronto, Canada
Gartner Research Group, 2008. PMOs: One Size Does Not Fit All, Gartner, Inc.

32
Ghapanchi AH, Tavana M, Khakbaz MH, Low G. A methodology for selecting
portfolios of projects with interactions and under uncertainty. International Journal
of Project Management. 2012; 30(7):791-803.
Grundy, T., 2000. Strategic project management and strategic behaviour. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 18 (2), 93–103.
Hans EW, Herroelen W, Leus R and Wullink G (2007). A hierarchical approach to
multi-project planning under uncertainty. Omega 35:563- 577.
Herroelen. W., 2005. Project Scheduling-Theory and practice. Production and
Operations Management, 14(4), pp: 416-432.
Hill, G., 2008. The Complete Project Management Office Handbook, 2nd ed.
Auerbach Publications, Boca Raton.
Hubbard, D. G. & Bolles, D. L., 2015. PMO Framework and PMO Models for
Project Business Management. Project Management World Journal. IV (I)
Jamieson, A. and Morris, P.W.G., 2004. “Moving from corporate strategy to
project strategy”, in Morris, P.W.G. and Pinto, J.K. (Eds), The Wiley Guide to
Managing Projects (177-205), Wiley, New Jersey.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1993), “Putting the balanced scorecard to work”,
Harvard Business Review, September-October pp. 134-9.
Kerzner, H., 2009. Project Management – A Systems Approach to Planning,
Scheduling and Controlling, 10th ed. John Wiley Sons Inc.
Killen CP, Kjaer C. Understanding project interdependencies: The role of visual
representation, culture and process. International Journal of Project Management.
2012; 30(5):554-566.
Kreiner, K., 1995. “In search of relevance: project management in drifting
environments”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 335-46.
Lepmets, M., McBride, T., Ras, E., 2012. Goalalignment in process improvement.
J. Syst. Softw. 85, 1440–1452. ElsevierInc.doi:http://doi.org/bfgj.
Letavec, C. J., 2006. The Program Management Office: Establishing, Managing
and Growing the Value of a PMO. J. Ross Publishing, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Marsh D., 2001. The project and programme support office handbook. UK:
Project Manager Today Publications; 2001.
McElroy, W., 1996. Implementing strategic change through projects. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 14 (6), 325–329.

33
Midler, C., 1995. “Projectification” of the firm: the Renault case. Scand. J. Manag.
11 (4), 363–375.
Miller, R. and Hobbs, B., 2005. “Governance regimes for large complex projects”,
Project Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3, ABI/INFORM Global page 42.
Milosevic, D.Z. and Srivannaboon, S., 2006. “A theoretical framework for
aligning project management with business strategy”, Project Management
Muller, R., 2009. Project Governance. Fundamentals of Project Management
Series, Gower Publishing Ltd, Farnham.
Muller, R. et al., 2016. A framework for governance of projects:
Governmentality, governance structure and projectification. International Journal
of Project Management, 34(6), pp. 957-969.
Muller, R., Jugdev, K., 2012. “Critical success factors in projects: Pinto, Slevin,
and Prescott – the elucidation of project success”, International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 757-775.
Pansini F, Terzieva M., 2013. Challenges and benefits on the path towards
discovering PMO: cases from Italian banking sector. Procedia Technology 2013;
9: 627-637.
Pellegrinelli, S., Bowman, C., 1994. Implementing strategy through projects. Long
Range Plan. 27 (4), 125–132.
Pellegrinelli S, Garagna L., 2009. Towards a conceptualisation of PMOs as agents
and subjects of change and renewal. International Journal of Project
Management 2009; 27: 649–656.
Pettigrew, A.M., 2003. “Innovative forms of organizing: progress, performance
and process”, in Pettigrew, A.M., Whittington, R., Melin, L., Sanchez-Runde, C.,
Van den Bosch, F.A.J.,
PMI. 2014. Pulse of the Profession. The High Cost of Low Performance.
Philadelphia: PMI.
Porter, M.E., 1996. “What is strategy?” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 6,
p. 61.
Ringstad, M.A., Dingsøyr, T., Moe, N.B., 2011. Agile process improvement:
diagnosis and planning to improve teamwork. In: Systems, Software and Service
Process Improvement: 18th European Conference, EuroSPI 2011, Roskilde,
Denmark. Proceedings, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 167–178. Doi:
http://doi.org/czp8g8

34
Saaty, T.L., 1980. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority, setting
resource allocation, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Shannon, D., 2007. “Governance of project management”, Proceedings of the 21st
IPMA World Congress, Management Essential Reality for Business and
Government. Cracow, Poland.
Shapiro, A.C., 2005. Capital Budgeting and Investment Analysis. First ed.
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Shenhar, A., Dvir, D., Levy, O. and Maltz, A.C., 2001. “Project success: a
multidimensional strategic concept”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 699-
725.
Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Guth, W., Lechler, T., Patanakul, P., Poli, M. and
Stefanovic, J., 2005. “Project strategy: the missing link”, paper presented at the
Annual Academy of Management Meeting, Honolulu, HI, 5-10 August.
Smith, M.E. and Mourier, P., 1999. “Implementation: key to organisational
change”, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 27 No. 6, p. 37.
Teller, J., 2013. Portfolio risk management and its contribution to project
portfolio success: an investigation of organization process and culture. Proj.
Manag. J. 44, 36–51 April.
Teller, J., Kock, A., 2013. An empirical investigation on how portfolio risk
management influences project portfolio success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (6),
817–829.
Teller, J., Kock, A., Gemünden, H.G., 2014. Risk management in project
portfolios is more than managing project risks: a contingency perspective on risk
management. Proj. Manag. J. 67–80 August/September. 60–71.
Thomas, J. & Harden, A., 2008. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative
research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 8, 45.
Tricker, R.I., 1984. Corporate Governance: Practices, Procedures and Powers in
British Companies and Their Boards of Directors, Gower, Aldershot.
Turner R., Hueemann M., Anbari F., Bredillet C., 2010. Perspectives on projects.
Routlege, NY; 2010.
Unger, B. N., Gemünden, H. G. & Aubry, M., 2012. The three roles of a project
portfolio management office: their impact on portfolio management execution
and success. International Journal of Project Management. 30, 608–620.

Project Strategy, Leadership and Governance Report for Scottish Parliament

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Project Strategy, Leadership and Governance Report for Scottish Parliament

Similar to Project Strategy, Leadership and Governance Report for Scottish Parliament (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Project Strategy, Leadership and Governance Report for Scottish Parliament