CHAPTER 8
Summary of the Cross-Analysis of the Survey and Case Study Findings
A cross-analysis of the findings of the survey shown in Chapter 7 (boxes 1–5) and the four case studies (Chapters 2–6) was undertaken to identify the similarities and differences between the two sets of findings and to reflect on what this information indicates to the project management profession at large. Caution on interpreting and generalizing the findings has been exercised in light of the small sample population of the case studies and survey and the interpretation of questions and practices by those surveyed. What follows is a summary of the findings of the cross-analysis.
Business Management and Strategy
The survey showed that a substantial proportion of organizations use business models. Two case study companies used a business model, although one had nine major processes and the other three processes. But both incorporated project management processes as major management processes within their models. All the business units within both companies used their respective business models. This evidence indicates that major organizations now recognize that project management processes are key business management processes.
Most of the organizations in the survey indicated that they were process-oriented; the case study organizations were more process-oriented than those in the survey. In the survey, those extensively process-oriented were proportionally the same as those considering themselves to be adequately process–oriented, but the ratio in the case studies was 3:1.
Moreover, in two of the case study companies, the same project management processes were used for managing programs and projects. The main emphasis of the other companies was on project management processes. These findings suggest that major organizations currently use a single fully integrated process for managing programs and projects.
Most of the process-oriented organizations in the survey with extensive or adequate processes have processes for moving corporate goals and objectives into project strategy. However, in two of the case study companies, the strategy for projects was maintained primarily through a business case management process and not the project management process. This implies that some organizations still view and manage strategy within the domain and context of business management rather than broaden it to also include the project domain. This may be the result of a misperception of what is meant by strategy or that strategy is the preserve of a few. Nevertheless, how these projects are to be managed (strategy) was decided and executed primarily by the project leadership team within the two companies.
Half of the organizations in the survey with extensive processes consider the level of interconnection between the corporate, business, and project management processes to be extensive and almost half to be adequate. This indicates a high level of interconnectivity in which strategy is cascaded down to projects within organizations. The findings of the case studies supported this. Two of the companies had developed very comprehensive sets of integrated processes, one of which was fully online. The level of interconnection of the processes of the other two companies was considered adequate; they were documented in less detail and at a higher level.
A substantial number of organizations in the survey having extensive processes for moving corporate goals and objectives to project strategy felt that they achieve continuity of strategy fully or well. All the case study companies had processes and structures in place to ensure that continuity of strategy was fully achieved.
Just over half the organizations in the surveyand all the case study companieshad a hierarchy of objectives and strategies spanning operating levels from the corporate level to projects. In almost three quarters of the organizations, a hierarchy from SBU level to projects was used. The findings indicate widespread use of a hierarchical means of deploying strategy, but the starting point for most of the population surveyed was at SBU and not corporate level. Though all the case study companies used a hierarchical structure, the implementation of the hierarchical structure of OGSM (Objectives, Goals, Strategies and Measures) in one company was particularly strong in that it effectively defined the environment in which the company operated.
Business models are used widely by organizations and the business units within many of these organizations apply them collectively. The models may differ in size and complexity, but most incorporate project management processes as key business management processes. Processes having a high interconnectivity between corporate, business, and project levels are an important means of cascading corporate goals, objectives, and strategy into projects and of ensuring that continuity of strategy is achieved in a systematic and structured way. The use of hierarchies of objectives and strategies further underscores the systematic way organizations cascade strategy.
Project strategy is developed and maintained by project leadership teams and governance through business case processes and not exclusively through the project management processes; accordingly, project strategy is managed within the context of business strategy.
Portfolio Management and Program Management
Half of the organizations in the survey—and all of the case study companies—implemented some form of portfolio management. One of the case study companies organized around portfolios in addition to program and project management and had a dedicated portfolio management process and practice. Portfolio management activities in the other companies were part of the business case process or the strategic planning processes. A key activity is ensuring that the portfolio strategy is always aligned with corporate and business strategies.
Three of the case study companies selected and prioritized projects quantitatively within business case/business management processes; these were well integrated with the program/project management processes. The pharmaceutical company used quantitative methods incorporated in a dedicated portfolio management process to select and prioritize projects. All of the companies looked to maintain a balanced portfolio consistent with their business and operational objectives. Though there was a diversity of programs and projects in each of the companies, many had a common theme and were treated as portfolios.
The survey findings indicated that portfolio management is perceived by two-thirds of the organizations to be more about managing projects around a common theme than maintaining a balanced portfolio (60 percent) or selecting the right project (50 percent). This indicates a perception by those surveyed that portfolio management is more about managing groups of projects than selecting and prioritizing them. This is at odds with the literature—for example, Archer and Ghasemzadeh (1999)—and the case studies.
Almost all the organizations, including the case study companies, defined program management as the management of a portfolio of projects that shares a business objective of strategic importance and (probably) uses shared resources. One in five of the companies surveyed considered that programs comprised groups of projects or alternatively, a number of separate projects, but almost three-quarters considered programs to comprise a combination of both. This is similar to the views of the case study companies. Again, this is slightly different from the prevailing theoretical view where program management is seen as the management of a group of related projects, typically for business (organizational) benefit. (See PMI's PMBOK® Guide (2000) and OPM3® (2003); APM's APM BOK (2000); Thiry (2004); and Pellegrinelli, Partington, and Young (2003).) Almost all the companies surveyed—and all of the case study companies—used programs to implement change.
Though almost all of the organizations surveyed implemented program management, in just over half of them this included:
1. Managing an integrated set of projects to achieve a common theme, aim, or working off a common platform;
2. Integrating project teams;
3. Managing resources in an integrated manner.
All of the case study companies implemented all three practices. These findings indicate that program management is widely implemented to manage sets of projects, and integrated project teams are used to manage the project's resources.
A high proportion of organizations surveyed indicated that program management implied the management of business benefits. Many said it was normal practice to formally identify a benefits process within the overall program management process and to use non-financial measures to track benefits. Only one of the case study companies used a specific benefits management process, although business benefits from programs and projects was strongly emphasized in the other companies.
A significant proportion of organizations surveyed indicated that program management implied the aggregation risk; most said it was normal practice to formally identify risk aggregation as part of the overall risk management activity. All of the case study companies aggregated risk as part of the overall risk management activity. One company showed interest in improving this process.
Some form of portfolio management is implemented by many organizations, but most survey respondents perceive it to be about managing projects around a common theme rather than maintaining a balanced portfolio or selecting the right project (contrary to the literature). In contrast, three of the case study companies implemented portfolio management mainly as a process for selecting and prioritizing the right projects.
Most organizations implement program management and use programs to implement change. There is broad agreement that program management includes the management of a portfolio or groups of projects using integrated project teams, managing resources in an integrated manner, and the management of benefits and of aggregated risk. Many organizations use a single, fully integrated project management process for managing both programs and projects. These processes are very flexible and can be tailored to suit the needs of both programs and projects. They also enable projects and programs to be managed as a single integrated activity or managed separately or in groups or programs.
Project Management and Project Strategy
Almost of all the organizations in the survey said they had extensive or partially integrated project management processes to help manage project strategy. Most contained processes for project strategy management, requirements management, project definition, and project scope management. All of the case study companies had processes for managing the strategy for a project (project strategy). Such processes were highly structured and spanned the project lifecycle. However, two of them used a combination of business case processes and project control processes and did not explicitly use the term project strategy. These findings tend to indicate that many organizations manage project strategy, but some of them consider strategy to be determined and managed at a strategic level within an organization, and that the term (or practice) should not be, and is not used, at the project level.
Most of the organizations in the survey indicated that specific strategy inputs were fed into their integrated project management processes: three-quarters included corporate strategy; two-thirds included corporate strategy and business strategies; almost half included corporate, business, and portfolio strategies; and three-quarters included corporate, business, and program strategy. All of the case study companies provided inputs at corporate, business, portfolio, and program levels. These findings indicate that many organizations feed strategy inputs directly into their project management processes from four levels to create and dynamically maintain project strategy.
Almost all the organizations in the survey indicated that their project management processes delivered a program or project plan. Half of them said they produced both a program or project plan and strategy plan. But three-quarters said they delivered other project management plans. Slightly less than half indicated they delivered all three types of plans. All the case study companies produced project plans, but only one also developed a set of strategy plans. These findings suggest that project strategy is generally not a formal, separate document.
Two-thirds of the organizations in the survey said that the project management processes enabled project strategy to be managed dynamically. This finding does not imply that project strategy is not managed dynamically in the remaining organizations (see below). The processes in all of the case study companies enabled project strategy to be managed dynamically (including two companies through the business case management process). The overall findings imply that organizations manage project strategy dynamically and have processes in place to ensure it is carried out.
Over half the organizations in the survey indicated that the roles and responsibilities for developing, implementing, and updating project strategy were specified in their project management procedures; slightly less than half of the organizations specified these in their project plans. The procedures of all the case study companies included the roles and responsibilities for project strategy: one company used activity tables with specific tasks for project strategy for each stage of the project lifecycle; another used a RASI table for its project strategy management processes; a third used a comprehensive combination of activity tables and task lists linked to all the phases of Project Management process; and the fourth used a comprehensive set of RASI matrices coupled with roles and responsibility lists. The finding of the survey and the case studies implies that the management of project strategy has become recognized and established as an important task in many organizations. Many, however, do not formally articulate the strategy in a separate document, but instead have it covered in several documents.
Most of the organizations in the survey—and all of the case study companies—indicated that project plans were formally reviewed at project gates in the project lifecycle. Three-quarters of the organizations in the survey said that peer groups formally reviewed project plans and that it was clear who approved and signed off project strategy within their organization. All the case study companies said that peer groups formally reviewed project plans and that it was clear who signed off project strategy within their organization. The findings suggest that formal project reviews at stage-gates is now widely recognized as best practice.
Two-thirds of the organizations in the survey expected strategy to be upgraded and reviewed during the development of the project. Slightly less than two-thirds of the companies surveyed expected this to be carried out systematically as projects develop from concept to execution, although most of them expected it to be undertaken at the project review gates. All the case studies expected strategy to be upgraded systematically at project review gates.
Integrated project management and business case processes, using specific strategy inputs from corporate and business levels, are widely deployed to dynamically manage project strategy. Project strategy is developed, implemented, and maintained for the life cycle of the project using a highly structured approach. Though the term “project strategy” is not universally recognized, the strategy to manage a project is usually developed and maintained to cover the life cycle of a project.
A combination of program or project plans and other management plans are most commonly used to manage programs and projects, parts of which describe how the project is to be undertaken—in other words, its strategy. These parts are often not summarized in a single project strategy document. Reviewing project plans, including project strategy, mostly by peers at project gates, is widely practiced.
The roles and responsibilities for developing, implementing, and updating project strategy are specified in project management procedures in many organizations and frequently, in project plans.
Value Management
Approximately half of the organizations in the survey indicated that they used a process for optimizing the value of proposed project/program strategy. (Most of these organizations expressed value as a benefit over resources used.) But only a few more than half of these companies held value management workshops at strategic stages in the life of the project. All of the case study companies optimized the value of proposed project/program strategy (including business cases) as part of their processes for managing projects, but only the pharmaceutical company held value management workshops.
A quarter of the organizations in the survey indicated that they practiced value engineering on programs and projects, most of which distinguished it from value management. All of the case study companies performed value engineering on programs and projects.
Most of the organizations in the survey indicated that the value optimization process was integrated with the risk management process.
The value of project/program strategy is optimized in a substantial number of organizations using a value management process integrated with the risk management process. There were fewer organizations using formal Value Management workshops, though the number is significant.
Project Management Competencies
Almost two-thirds of the organizations in the survey—and all of the case study companies—indicated that they formally defined the project management competencies required to manage programs or projects and to develop program and project strategy. Many of those in the survey linked the competencies to personal appraisal and development systems. But a little over half of the organizations surveyed linked the project objectives to personal objectives. In contrast, all of the case study companies linked them.
A significant number of the organizations in the survey, and three of the case study companies, used organization-wide competency frameworks. The financial services company used a family of job descriptions.
Many organizations in the survey indicated that they provided competency support programs for program and project managers. All of the case study companies provided support through development training programs.
In three of the case study companies, the more senior project leader (director) typically took on a strategy-shaping role. In such cases, the project manager was more focused on managing the execution of the project (timelines, resources, control information, actions, etc.)
Formally defined project management skills and knowledge competencies required to manage programs or projects and develop program and project strategy are used widely.