Multiple Project Management

8/12/2019 Multiple Project Management

1/17

Multiple project management:a modern competitive necessity

L. DooleyCentre for Enterprise Management, School of Engineering,

University of Dundee, Dundee, UK

G. LuptonDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Information Systems,

National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland, and

D. OSullivanComputer Integrated Manufacturing Research Unit (CIMRU),

National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

Abstract

Purpose The paper aims to examine the theory of project and multiple project management anddevelop a framework tool to facilitate the management of a portfolio of multiple projects across anorganisation and enhance the overall effectiveness of the process.

Design/methodology/approach The methodology adopted in this paper was first, to undertake aliterature survey of the area and to distil the key elements affecting the management of multipleprojects within organisations. A number of interrelated tools to support effective management are thendeveloped and applied to a mall to medium-sized enterprise (SME) to validate their applicability.

Findings The paper highlights that greater organisational efficiency and less conflict can beachieved through greater structure and understanding of the intricacies of managing multiple projects.

Practical implications Organisations can reduce the pressure imposed on staff as a result of thematrix structure by clearer deployment of strategies to projects and increased awareness of risk ofconflict between function and project co-ordinators.

Originality/value The value of the paper is that it presents organisations with a tool thatinterrelates projects to strategy fulfilment and also identifies the level, focus and loading of projects toindividuals across the organisation. In this way organisations can better understand theirorganisations and manage their portfolio process more effectively.

KeywordsOrganizational change, Project management, Portfolio investment

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionDaily organisations around the world make decisions altering strategic direction,

d ev elopin g ne w produ ct s, en hanci ng capacit y or in trodu cin g n ewinfrastructure/technology that will improve the efficiency and competitive positionof the organisation. Such changes do not occur in a vacuum but instead managementmust attempt to balance between the ongoing requirements of the market place(namely operations) and the requirement for the organisation to better position itselffor the future (namely develop). A common vehicle for planning and implementingorganisational change is that of projects whose teams are resourced by personnel withoperational commitments (Turner and Muller, 2003). As manufacturing engineers exist

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm

JMTM16,5

466

Received March 2003Revised February 2004Accepted March 2004

Journal of Manufacturing Technology

Management

Vol. 16 No. 5, 2005

pp. 466-482

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1741-038X

DOI 10.1108/17410380510600464


2/17

at the interface between these two pressures, they are under ever increasing stress tomaximise efficiency within both the operations and projects in which they engage(OSullivan, 1994). The modern manufacturing engineer is daily faced with multiplecustomer-focused projects, often exhibiting apparently conflicting demands. The

challenge therefore is to manage these development projects in an effective andefficient manner, while at the same time continuing to run their operationssuccessfully. The management of multiple projects is problematic (Turner and Speiser,1992; Platje et al., 1994) and as such requires new tools to facilitate its effectivemanagement.

While significant expertise has been developed within the area of projectmanagement, the need to manage ever more varied and disruptive projects, at differentstages of their project life cycle poses new and challenging issues for organisations.Organisations and its employees are faced with a new set of problems, which differfrom those of managing individual projects (Turner and Speiser, 1992; Platje et al.,1994; Pellegrinelli, 1997). These challenges include issues such as the mix of projects(Elonen and Artto, 2003), balancing of resources across the portfolio (Engwall and

Jerbrant, 2003), aligning the portfolio to achieve optimisation (Dooley, 2000) andreacting to emergent shifts during the life of the project (Cooperet al., 2000). Thus, inorder for organisations to respond adequately to ever increasing demands,management require a new framework of tools to address the needs of multipleproject management.

Project versus multiple project managementProjects and their managementLeintz and Rea (1995) stress that the current trends towards global competition, rapidtechnological change and reengineering are increasing the importance of projectmanagement processes since the project manager and their team are agents of

change. Projects are suited for undertaking organisational change as they are atemporary undertaking, with a specific objective that must be accomplished byorganized application of appropriate resources (Rosenau 1998). Tidd et al. (2001)support the importance of organisational project management competencies and viewthem as highly correlated with an organisations ability to innovate their systemssuccessfully. Duncan (1996) defines project management as the application ofknowledge skills, tools and techniques to project activities in order to meet or exceedstakeholder needs and expectations from the project. It is a cyclical process ofplanning, monitoring and review, where strong inference is placed on communicationduring the planning stage (Reiss, 1992). Duncan (1996) further expands on the projectmanagement process, viewing it as encompassing the stages of project initiation,planning, execution, control and the closing process.

Differing authors have concentrated on critiquing factors to be defined andcontrolled as part of the project management process. Meredith and Mantell (1995)discuss these factors under the broad headings of budgeting and cost estimation,scheduling and resource allocation. Rosenau (1998) states that project objectives mustfocus on accomplishing the triple constraints of performance specification, timeschedules and cost budget simultaneously. He views the project lifecycle as consistingof a number of key activities, namely the definition of project objectives, formulation ofthe project plan, leading and monitoring plans for implementation and finally project

Multiple projectmanagement

467


3/17

completion. As part of their analysis of project management, Leintz and Rea (1995)identify a number of characteristics that affect project success. These are:

. The clarity of project objectives.

.

The fit between a projects scope and the objectives it tries to achieve.. The strong relationship of all projects with the standard structure of the

company.. The identification and proper management of potential difficulties early in a

project.

. Maintaining a small, effective project implementation team that possesses thenecessary skills to achieve the project objectives.

As a portfolio of projects is a collection of individual projects, the above issues remainhighly relevant when managing multiple projects.

Managing multiple projectsWhile the management of individual projects is difficult, the situation becomes muchmore complicated where there are multiple projects ongoing within an organisation.Projects need to be viewed as an integrated portfolio rather than a disjointed collection.In managing multiple projects, one is required to maintain control over a varied rangeof specialist projects, balance often conflicting requirements with limited resources andco-ordinate the project portfolio to ensure the optimum organisational outcome isachieved. The issue of managing multiple projects, brings with it a new set of problemsthat the organisation must address. These issues have been addressed by researchersunder various guises, including: programme management (Pellegrinelli, 1997);multi-project management (Van Der Merwe, 1997); portfolio planning (Turner andSpeiser, 1992; Platje et al., 1994); and global, one of a kind projects (Hameri, 1997).

While there are subtle differences between the perspectives of the researchers, the coreproblems faced by organisations are the same. The cause of some of the difficultiesrelated to managing multiple projects is highlighted by Turner and Speiser (1992), whoemphasise that:

. Projects have interfaces with other projects and day-to-day operations, sharingcommon deliverables, resources, information or technology across thoseinterfaces.

. Projects must negotiate priority for resources on an almost daily basis with otherprojects and day-to-day operations.

. Projects deliver related objectives, which contribute to the overall developmentobjectives of the parent organisation.

Dooley and OSullivan (2003), when discussing the main causes of failure of innovationportfolios within organisations, also highlight difficulties associated with portfoliomanagement:

. poor leadership and direction;

. poor alignment between goals and projects;

. poor monitoring of holistic process results; and

. poor planning and control of action implementation.

JMTM16,5

468


4/17

Accordingly, the effective management of multiple projects can be defined as:

[. . .] a portfolio of projects which are managed in a coordinated way to deliver benefits whichwould not be possible were the projects managed independently (Turner and Speiser, 1992).

Platje et al. (1994) stress that the larger the portfolio of projects being executed thenthe more communication and tradeoffs between projects (and departments) will haveto take place. Thus management of a programme has three essential features,namely the need to coordinate the management of all projects (Elonen and Artto, 2003),the need to set priority and resources between the various projects (Engwall and

Jerbrant, 2003) and finally the need for focus on maximising the global optimum(organisational objectives) rather than the local optimum (project objectives) (Dooley,2000).

Project alignmentOne of the core problems facing multiple project management lies in co-ordination of

the portfolio or configuration management (Hameri, 1997). Platje et al. (1994) promotethe concept of a portfolio planning cycle that exists above the control cycle of specificprojects. According to Platje et al. (1994), this holistic planning cycle creates a clearprocess of priority setting and resource allocation, while balancing the interests of allparties involved and realising the overall objectives. This cycle strives to address theproblem where a divergence may develop between the maximisation of the objectivesof the individual projects and the maximisation of the organisational objectives fromthe portfolio of projects. Put another way, the issue of co-ordination managementrecognises that the sum of maximising the objectives of individual projects is not equalto maximising the objectives of the organisation and can often be substantially less.The presence of an over-arching structure for portfolio management facilitatesdecisions relative to priority of projects over time (Elonen and Artto, 2003) and the

suitability of these projects to current organisational objectives (Cooper et al., 2000)Pellegrinelli (1997) when discussing programme management increases the

management scope from focusing on implementing projects to include those still ata concept or development stage. The purpose is to ensure that whatever projects areundertaken are better coordinated to achieve a common goal or to extract a benefitwhich otherwise may not be realized if the projects were allowed to developindependently (Pellegrinelli, 1997). The decision of which specific concepts to pursuefurther, will directly influence the ability of the organisation to achieve its emergingobjectives and meet emerging market needs (Graham and Englund, 1997). In thiscontext, decisions concerning which draft projects join the development portfoliomay be influenced by issues such as the success of existing projects within theportfolio or shifts to the state of the external environment (Reiss 1992). Thus any

system to manage multiple projects effectively must not only provide a mechanism forevaluating prospective projects but also for continuously reviewing ongoing projectsrelative to their suitability to the current environment and also relative to the otherprojects in the portfolio. In this way, an organisation can ensure that their portfoliocontinuously represents the correct mix and type of projects to achieve its currentobjectives.

It is evident from the above that when managing multiple projects, there exists aneed for an overarching structure in order to provide adequate coordination to the


469


5/17

portfolio of existing and emerging projects in order to achieve the organisationalobjectives. Such a structure will facilitate managements efforts to balance the needs ofindividual projects, relative to organisational pressures and will provide a mechanismfor deciding which projects will be pursued by the organisation and the priority level of

these projects to achieving organisational objectives.Control and communication. A common problem encountered by organisations

pursuing either an individual or a portfolio of projects is the difficulty of maintainingcontrol and communication. This occurs due to many organisations being unable toalign the management of their cross-functional projects with their functional structurein an effective matrix. When discussing this issue, Graham and Englund (1997)emphasise that within matrix structures, many people. . .complain of being caught inthe web of conflicting orders, conflicting priorities and reward systems that do notmatch the stated organizational goals. The functional/department structure hasbenefits such as defining clear lines of authority, allowing specific competencies to bedeveloped and structuring the transfer of information across departmental boundaries.However, the functional structure can also be accused of creating inefficiencies due todivision, creating departmental myopia among employees and encouragingduplication (Davenport, 1993). The major weaknesses of the functional structure,relative to project management are summarised as follows (Leintz and Rea, 1995):

. lack of focus and attention on a project relative to the day-to-day priorities;

. inability of the function to cope with different projects characteristics;

. feeling of exploitation by staff as a consequence of projects being viewed as anextra workload; and

. lack of project management experience by an organisation.

Duncan (1996), when discussing possible structures applicable to project managementwithin traditional organisations, identifies four possibilities: functional, projectised,weak matrix and a balanced matrix organisational structure. Hayes et al. (1988) alsoidentify a number of possible organisational structures for supporting projectmanagement. These are the functional organisation, the lightweight project manager,the heavy weight project manager and the tiger team organisation. Thus, withinorganisations undertaking significant change and innovation, there is a need for thesupporting systems of the functional structures to be altered to better balance betweenfunctional and project pressures (Elonen and Artto, 2003). The matrix structure offersorganisations the benefit of achieving both a functional and project perspective, butalso introduces specific challenges that must be addressed if such a structure is to beeffective. When discussing structure, Kuprenas (2003) identifies certainimplementation challenges that the organisation must address relative to the matrix

structure. These are:. confusion and conflict over roles and responsibility between function and project

managers;

. unsuitability of existing reporting and reward systems;

. politicisation of assignment of scarce resources;

. reduced motivation and job satisfaction due to ambiguity; and

. poor communication between parties.

JMTM16,5

470


6/17

Organisations must be cognisant of these weaknesses within the matrix structure andinstigate routines that effectively manage the evolving relationships betweenfunctional and project managers (Van der Merwe, 2002) in order to avoid conflictand inefficiencies in the portfolio management.

Highly interrelated with the control structure are the difficulties associated withresource allocation when managing multiple projects. Engwall and Jerbrant (2003)describe this as the prime challenge of managing multiple projects. Whenorganisations innovate, they have limited financial budgets with which to do so.Equally, the organisation has a limited amount of human resource loading to assignto development projects. Thus the availability of resources limits the number ofprojects that can be undertaken at any one time. If more projects are undertaken bythe organisation than resources exist, then resource shortages will occur across theportfolio and projects will begin to compete against each other. This competitioncan result in the politicisation of the individual projects (Kuprenas, 2003) and canspread conflict across the matrix structure. If the project portfolio is not plannedand controlled effectively, then organisations will constantly overcommit theirdevelopment capacity resulting in what Wheelwright and Clark (1992) refer to asthe canary cage approach. Under such a scenario, ever more projects are added tothe portfolio cage, increasing the competition for scarce resources and impedingthe development of the various projects. Quality information must be readilyavailable to management to allow the assessment of available resources relative todecisions to undertake projects. This will not only influence the developing projects,but also the project being implemented as the information may lead to killing offunsatisfactory projects in order to free up resources for higher priority ones (Cooperet al., 2000). As with all management decisions, the reasoning behind the decisionshould be clearly communicated across the organisation to prevent conflict ordisillusionment amongst those involved. Thus, leadership and consistency in

decision making is fundamental.Learning and knowledge. Another problem at the core of managing multiple projects

is that many organisations find it difficult to improve the process as they fail to learnfrom their past errors. Hayes et al. (1988) highlight the importance by statingcontinual improvement is not only sought through procedures and organizationalapproaches alone, but also through mechanisms that facilitate individual andorganizational learning across projects. Thus, the organisation must consciously seekto exploit all sources of knowledge to their full potential. Pava (1983) states: whenmanagement fail to evoke organizational learning and change, even the mostsophisticated [systems]. . .cannot realize substantial benefits for the enterprise.

Tiddet al.(2001) state that: well designed and controlled [projects] . . .minimise theincidence of failure and ensure that where it does occur, lessons are learned to avoid

falling into the same trap in the future. Grundy (1993) indicates, however, thatorganisations are notoriously bad at learning. A learning organisation concentrateson the management of its innovation process, through utilising two interrelatedlearning loops (Tiddet al., 2001). The first of these loops refers to learning about theiroperation processes and how to manage these systems more effectively. The secondloop refers to the knowledge the organisation acquires relating to effectivemanagement of the innovation process itself and the appropriateness of its strategicdirection. Argyris (1977) believes that this double-learning loop results in an


471


7/17

organisations knowledge resource is being continually validated and developed.Through such an approach, an organisation develops a corporate consciousness oftheir successes and failures (Tyson, 1997). Instead of reacting with their traditionalresponse, learning allows employees to critically reflect on an organisations

fundamental routines and be more creative in their solutions.The main difficulty with projects is that they are temporary in nature and although

possessing some repetitive features, are primarily unique (Duncan, 1996). Thistemporary nature makes it difficult for organisations to learn from the undertaking andthus avoid the reoccurrence of mistakes. The management of an individual project mayoften be an extremely detailed task, much of which is not required by seniormanagement to manage the portfolio. Drawing on socio-technical theory, Pava (1983)promotes the use of minimal critical specifications, that concentrate on core featuresof a project, necessary for allowing high level decisions to be made. This informationmay include data such as interrelationship to other projects, key resources, teamleaders and current status, which can then inform management decision making withrespect to the portfolio.

Many projects undertaken by organisations are never analysed to determine howsuccessfully they have been relative to their objectives. Leintz and Rea (1995) stress theimportance of tracking and monitoring projects in order to effectively manage andevaluate their performance. Currently there is little knowledge recovered by thefeedback loop and as a result, organisations continue to repeat the same mistakes (Tiddet al. 2001). Hayes et al. (1988) report that: continual improvement is sought notthrough procedures and organizational structure alone, but also through mechanismsthat facilitate both individual or organization learning across projects.

Tiddet al.(2001) emphasise the importance of learning from project failure as it canimprove existing routines for the future. It is only from learning from the mistakes thathave been made during the management of past innovation projects, that organisations

can improve their innovation process management. The monitoring of the results of thesystems output allows certain controls to be maintained. The need for feedback ofknowledge with respect to results management, relates both to the achievement ofindividual project targets (Rosenau 1998), operational performance targets and also tothe longer term strategic goals of an organisation (Disterer, 2002). The importance ofresults management is emphasised by Kaplan and Norton (1996), who propose the useof a balanced scorecard to evaluate the progress of the organisation towards goalachievement and to drive strategy to the operational level. Platje et al. (1994) alsoemphasis the importance of regular feedback concerning the progress of the individualprojects and propose that it takes place on a frequent basis. Thus, through feedbackand documentation, the organisation can begin the process of learning.

Synopsis.It is evident from the above that the management of multiple projects is an

issue, which will face all organisations as they adapt to their changing environmentand has its own challenges. Organisations, undertaking the management of multipleprojects need to ensure that systems and processes are in place to adequately addressthese challenges in order to maximise the benefits for the organisation. Allowing adhoc approaches to develop will result in an uncorrelated collection of projects thatcompete against each other for organisational champions and scare resources. Thesynopsis of the major problems associated with the management of multiple projectsmay be categorised into three broad headings (see Table I), namely:

JMTM16,5

472


8/17

(1) alignment management;

(2) communication and control; and

(3) learning and knowledge management.

In order to maximise the benefit to the organisation from its portfolio of projects,support systems must address the particular challenges associated with managingmultiple projects. In the following section, we propose a tool to support managementsefforts to manage multiple projects and enhance the benefits to the organisation.

Multi-project management framework

It is clear that organisations require a supporting framework to address the needs ofmultiple projects and maximise the benefit to the organisation. The first issue that anorganisational framework must address is balancing individual project objectives withoverall organisational objectives, in order to maximise benefit to the organisation.Thus, the proposed structure must provide mechanisms not only for aligning existingproject objectives, but also for aligning and screening potential projects that are at aconceptual or developmental stage. By encompassing the entire project life cycle underthe proposed structure, organisations can attain a better correlation between themultiple projects within the portfolio and also the correlation to the organisationalobjectives. The first step within such a framework is the identification of whichorganisational objectives are being achieved by the projects undertaken. Theseorganisational level objectives are driven by requirements from sources such as

customer, corporation, competitors or government regulations and are usually definedin terms of vision, strategies and performance measures. The concept of stronginterrelationships between strategies and performance metrics as a means ofimpacting change at an operational level is also highlighted by the AMBITE project(Jagdev et al., 2004), where researchers strove to provide decision makers with anapproach to allow them evaluate the impact of new manufacturing technologies onbusiness objectives. The clarification and interrelationship of the organisationalobjectives communicates to employees the broad thrusts of how the organisation

Alignment management Balancing individual project objectives with overallorganisational objectivesManaging the issues of a rolling development plan (parallelproject generation, implementation or closure)

Inability to adapt to emergent shifts in environmentIncreasing visibility of projects relative to day-to dayoperations

Control and communication Responsibility of individuals within functional structureMaintaining effective communication in both vertical andlateral dimensionsMaintaining motivation across multiple project teamsManagement overload from too many issues to controlMaintain optimal resource allocation across the portfolio

Learning and knowledge management Inability to learn from past projectsLoss of valuable information due to temporary nature ofprojectLack of timely information to allow intervention

Table I.Multiple project

management issues


473


9/17

wishes to change over the forthcoming years. This knowledge provides a structurewithin which employees can focus their creativity and generate project proposals thatactively contribute to the achievement of the defined organisational objectives. Theabsence of this communication and clarification of organisational objectives can result

in a mismatch of project proposals, which do not contribute directly to theorganisational efforts to fulfil its vision (see Figure 1).

Relating project outcomes to strategy fulfilment may provide a method ofscreening the developing projects through the life-cycle process. The application of amatrix to identify the interrelationships between the organisational objectives and theprojects can be a useful tool for communicating and managing the portfolio make-up.Figure 2 provides an example of a strategy matrix. As is evident from the example inFigure 2, the relationship between strategy and project is not often a simple one-to-onerelationship but can instead be a many-to one or a one-to-many relationship (e.g.Project 4). Stated another way, one project may fulfil the objectives of one particularstrategy, where another project may contributes to the achievement of the objectives ofa number of strategies. The strategy matrix also identifies the department head whowill act as strategy champion for the fulfilment of a specific organisational strategyand is responsible for projects within the portfolio that relate to their strategy. Thuseach department head will have a dual responsibility; to manage their functionaldepartment and also to manage the projects ongoing to achieve the specific strategythey champion.

Through the strategy matrix structure, we believe that the organisationsmanagement team can review the projects underway relative to specific strategies,encourage specific project proposals in strategic areas where they are weak andreprioritise strategic priorities based on emerging requirements over time. From thisinformation, management can influence the portfolio mix of projects underway toachieve their organisational objectives by decisions that merge, postpone, fast-track or

Figure 1.Alignment management

JMTM16,5

474


10/17

even abandon specific projects. The inclusion of developing projects into the matrixcan enlighten management as the suitability of the draft proposal relative to theorganisational objectives and provide a useful screening criteria. The strategy-matrixalso communicates which organisational employees are responsible for leading specificprojects.

Any framework to ensure effective management of multiple projects must addressthe issue of control and communication. Van Der Merwe (1997), when analysingstructure and control of managing multiple projects proposes the use of a matrix tocommunicate project roles such as the champion and manager in relation to theorganisational structure. The project role of champion is one undertaken by amember of the management team, where they endeavours to progress the projectsdevelopment where possible. The strategy matrix communicates the relativepriority of specific projects within the portfolio to overall organisational objectives(e.g. in the example in Figure 2, Strategy 3 is currently only being fulfilled by Project4, so what will happen should this project fail), together with the identity of thestrategy champion (C) and the employee (L) leading the specific project team.However, as mentioned earlier, due to the cross-disciplinary nature of projects,organisations can experience difficulty in maintaining control and conflicts may ariserelative to the matrix lines of control. This authority conflict may result in mixedmessages being communicated to employees and also ineffective management ofindividual projects. Therefore organisations require a framework capable ofbalancing the necessary authority levels between functional and project lines.Turner and Speiser (1992) identify three core roles in ensuring an appropriate controland communication structure for effective programme management. These are theprogramme director (responsible for achievement of holistic development objectives),

Figure 2.Strategy matrix


475


11/17

the resource manager (responsible for maximising efficient usage of resources acrossportfolio) and finally the project manager (responsible for delivery of the specificproject objectives).

In balancing the necessary authority levels between functional and project

management, a consistent message is communicated from one organisational level toanother. Thus each layer of the organisation must adopt a group or consensus-basedapproach to decision making to ensure a common direction. This concept of groupdecision making improves understanding of the various functional perspectives andstrives to achieve a workable compromise that avoids authority conflicts. Throughoperating as a group, informal lines of communication are established that cut acrossorganisational boundaries and reduce the risk of projects from becoming politicised.Management can address potential conflict between functional and project lines ofauthority can be addressed before they spiral out of control. This will reduce one of thecore problems of the matrix structure, facilitating the effort to balance betweenoperational issues (functionally driven) and development issues (project driven).

In order to clarify the matrix organisational structure and enhance control, thereporting lines for each mode must be transparent, otherwise, individual employeeswill find themselves answering to multiple bosses and attempting to reconcile varyingdirections. The responsibility matrix is introduced to address this need and clarify thereporting structure of individuals with both operational and developmentresponsibilities (see Figure 3). According to Platje et al. (1994), there are threedistinct parties, each with their own responsibilities within the portfolio planningcycle. Adopting a similar hierarchy to that of Platjeet al.(1994), the portfolio planningcycle can be viewed as consisting of the project leader (L), department head (DH) andthe senior management team (SMT). The project leader has responsibility for achievingthe specific project goals and communicating hierarchically to their relevant strategychampion (C). The department heads (DH) are responsible for the most efficient and

effective use of their departmental resources and for overseeing specific projects thatrelate to strategies that they champion. The third party, namely the senior

Figure 3.Responsibility matrix

JMTM16,5

476


12/17


13/17

can later supplement these data and create whatever level of complexity they desire formanagement of their individual project. Thus the presence of a project recordtemplate that identifies critical information allows the management team to remainbetter informed of their portfolios progress without getting submerged in the detail ofspecific projects. The template allows management to periodically review the status ofrelevant projects, in a concise manner and to adopt a management by exceptionapproach. Thus, the responsibility for the day-to-day management rests with thespecific project manager, but the management team can attain a holistic perspective ofprogress across the entire portfolio. The inclusion of a traffic-light system on theproject record, similar to that used in Toyotas production process (Ohno, 1988), mayalso provide a simple, yet effective means to draw managements attention to specificproject problems that require their intervention. Under such a system, project recordswhich display a green signal may be ignored by the senior management team, where asrecords with an amber or red signal require the management team to intervene atvarying levels.

Once the project is completed, the project record template requires the specificproject leader to evaluate the success of their project and document the insights andlessons learned from the experience. These experiences may then be stored on a

database and form the basis of an organisational consciousness (Tyson, 1997), which isreferred to prior to the undertaking of new projects. Thus through such a mechanism,organisations may begin to learn from their project actions and improve themanagement of multiple projects by preventing the reoccurrence of costly mistakes.

The application of these three techniques within an organisation will not eliminate

all the problems associate with managing multiple projects. They will however addresssome of the core problems and provide the basis on which organisations can developtheir systems further (Table II).

Figure 4.Project record sheets

JMTM16,5

478


14/17

Case studyThe above tool was used by a medium-sized manufacturing organisation in order toassess its operability. The organisation selected for the trial is a sub-supplier to thebiomedical industry and by its own admission is constantly in a state of adaptation

and flux. The tool was utilised by a senior manager to analyse the effectiveness of thecompanys existing project portfolio and identify areas where scope existed forimprovement. A brief induction to the operation of the tool was provided to a seniormanager prior to its use. The organisation is structured under five functionaldepartments (Manufacturing, Quality, Engineering (R&D), Customer Service andFinance), which answer directly to a general manager and consists of fourorganisational layers.

From analysis of the tools use, the senior manager concluded the following withrespect to his companys development activities:

(1) Strategic matrix findings:. It was unclear which member of the senior management team were

ultimately responsible for championing specific strategies.. Two separate projects were ongoing that had highly similar objectives.

. Approximately 60 per cent of the project leaders were from Engineering(R&D) departments.

. All strategies, except Strategy 1, had a minimum of two projectscontributing to its achievement.

. Analyses of project contribution to strategic objectives highlight the need toincrease the priority and resources of project A as it was the sole contributorto Strategy 1.

. There were far more development projects ongoing within the organisation

than the senior manager was aware of.

(2) Resource matrix findings:. Highlighted that manufacturing staff were members of 80 per cent of

projects ongoing in organisations.

. Average project workload was 4.5 projects for manufacturing staff asopposed to the organisational average of 3.1.

. One individual from Engineering (R&D) was project leader of three projects.

. Two staff were engaged in 60 per cent of all projects.

. Even within small organisations, project interdependencies existed that

senior management team were unaware of.

Macro problem Facilitating tool

Alignment management Strategy matrixControl and communication Responsibility matrixLearning and knowledge management Project records

Table II.Multiple project

management framework


479


15/17

(3) Project learning findings:. no structural analysis of complete projects took place; and

. no structured list of developing, ongoing or past projects existed and people

were unclear of the number and type of projects ongoing at any one time.

From the above, the senior manager concluded the following:

. His best people were engaged in an ever-increasing number of projects and wereunder pressure to achieve their operational duties.

. Internal conflict between department heads of Engineering and Manufacturingwas a consequence of the fact that little attention was taken of project schedulingrelative to production schedules.

. Clarification with respect to ownership of specific strategies needed to take place.

. Project priorities needed to be re-evaluated relevant to their ultimate contributionto strategy rather than individual cost-benefit.

. Limits on the number of projects an individual is allowed to engage in needed tobe imposed and also limits on the percentage of projects led by specificdepartments.

. Need for each project to have a wake on completion to evaluate its effectivenessand highlight improvements for future.

The company that tested the tool is representative of many of the medium sizemanufacturing organisations that supply to larger multi-nationals in the region. It wasthe opinion of the manager that the framework tool helped to raise the profile of theprojects and the interrelationships ongoing within the organisation and highlightcertain areas where possible improvements could be made.

ConclusionsThe problems associated with the management of multiple projects are more that thesum of the problems associated with individual projects. As with any hierarchy, themanagement team is ultimately responsible for alleviating any project problemsexperienced by their subordinates, but they must also address the additionalchallenges specific to management of the portfolio. These additional challengesassociated with achieving the most effective output from managing multiple projectshave been categorised into the following three headings.

(1) alignment management;

(2) control and communication; and

(3) learning and knowledge management.

This paper examines each of these headings and analyses the core challenges that anorganisations management must meet. The reader is presented with a number ofsupport tool that have been developed that address the core challenges under theseheadings and enhance an organisations ability to effectively manage multiple projects.As is evident from the case study, the tool focuses managements attention on theportfolio perspective rather than that of the individual projects and provides them with

JMTM16,5

480


16/17

information with respect to portfolio mix and resource allocation that allow them toidentify potential conflicts that may be looming in the future.

Future work being undertaken by the research team focuses on the implication thatenlightened portfolio management has on senior management decision making and

also to develop the framework further so that its routines become systemic within theorganisational culture, as opposed to an analysis tool for senior management.

References

Argyris, C. (1977), Double loop learning, Harvard Business Review, September-October.

Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J. and Klienschmidt, E.J. (2000), New problems, new solutions: makingportfolio management more effective, Research Technology Management, Vol. 43 No. 2,pp. 18-33.

Davenport, T.H. (1993), Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through InformationTechnology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Disterer, G. (2002), Management of project knowledge and experience, Journal of KnowledgeManagement, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 512-20.

Dooley, L. (2000), Systems innovation management, PhD thesis, National University of Ireland,Galway.

Dooley, L. and OSullivan, D. (2003), Developing a software infrastructure to support systemicinnovation through effective management, The International Journal of Technological

Innovation and Entrepreneurship (Technovation), Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 689-704.

Duncan, W.R. (1996), The Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, ProjectManagement Institute Standards Committee, Upper Darby, PA.

Elonen, S. and Artto, K.A. (2003), Problems in managing internal development projects inmulti-project environments, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 6,pp. 395-402.

Engwall, M. and Jerbrant, A. (2003), The resource allocation syndrome: the prime challenge ofmulti-project management, International Journal of Project Management., Vol. 21 No. 6,pp. 403-9.

Graham, R.J. and Englund, R.L. (1997),Creating an Environment for Successful Projects: A Questto Manage Project Management, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Grundy, T. (1993),Implementing Strategic Change: A Practical Guide for Business , Kogan Page,London.

Hameri, A.P. (1997), Project management in a long-term and global one-of-a-kind project,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 151-7.

Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C. and Clarke, K.B. (1988), Dynamic Manufacturing: Creating theLearning Organization, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Jagdev, H.S., Brennan, A. and Browne, J. (2004), Strategic Decision Making in ModernManufacturing, Kluwer Academic Publishing, London.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic managementsystem, Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 75-85.

Kuprenas, J.A. (2003), Implementation and performance of a matrix organizational structure,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 51-62.

Leintz, B.P. and Rea, K.P. (1995), Project Management for the 21st Century, Academic Press,London.


481


17/17

Meredith, J.R. and Mantell, S.J. (1995), Project Management: A Managerial Approach, 3rd ed.,John Wiley, New York, NY.

Ohno, T. (1988), Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-scale Production, Productivity Press,Cambridge, MA.

OSullivan, D. (1994), Manufacturing Systems Redesign: Creating the Integrated ManufacturingEnvironment, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Pava, C. (1983), Managing New Office Technology: An Organizational Strategy, The Free Press,New York, NY.

Pellegrinelli, S. (1997), Programme management: organizing project-based change,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 141-9.

Platje, A. and Seidel, H. (1993), Breakthrough in multiproject management: how to escape thevicious cycle of planning and control, International Journal of Project Management,Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 209-13.

Platje, A., Harald, S. and Wadman, S. (1994), Project and portfolio planning cycle: project-basedmanagement for the multiproject challenge,International Journal of Project Management,Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 100-6.

Reiss, G. (1992), Project Management Demistified, Chapman Hall, London.

Rosenau, M.D. (1998), Successful Project Management: A Step by Step Approach with PracticalExamples, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Tidd, J., Blessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2001), Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological,Market and Organizational Change, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Turner, J.R. and Muller, R. (2003), On the nature of the project as a temporary organization,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-8.

Turner, J.R. and Speiser, A. (1992), Programme management and its information systemrequirements, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 196-206.

Tyson, K.W.M. (1997), Competition in the 21st Century, St Lucie Press, Orlando, FL.

Van Der Merwe, A.P. (1997), Multi-project management: organizational structure and control,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 223-33.

Van Der Merwe, A.P. (2002), Project management and business development: integratingstrategy, structure, process and project, International Journal of Project Management,Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 401-11.

Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B. (1992), Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leapsin Speed, Efficiency and Quality, The Free Press, New York, NY.

JMTM16,5

482

Multiple Project Management

Documents