PAPERS
\nFebruary 2013 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj 59
\nINTRODUCTION \u25a0
\nT
\nhe organizational phenomenon of the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management office
\n(PMO) keeps the interest within the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management research
\nfield. An indicator of this situation is the noticeable recent research production
\non this subject in research conferences L. H. Crawford, 2010;
\nKulvik, Poskela, Turkulainen, & Artto, 2010; Winch, Meunier, & Head, 2010)
\nand in specialized project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management journals (Aubry, Hobbs, M\u00fcller, &
\nBlomquist, 2010; Hurt & Thomas, 2009; Pellegrinelli & Garagna, 2009). This
\nstatement can also be extended to other project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management subjects that
\npertain to the organizational level (as opposed to the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) level) such as
\nprogram, portfolio, business project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s, and so forth.
\nOne interpretation of the vigor of this research trend suggests that
\nresearch has not yet delivered those answers needed to help professionals
\nsolve their problems. In a more critical approach, it can also be interpreted
\nas a fashion nurtured by, among others, researchers themselves. To avoid the
\nfashion effect and the fade out, L. H. Crawford (2010) suggested going back
\nto what PMOs really do and focus on their functions. In parallel, project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanagement structures continue to evolve. When considering a PMO as an
\norganizational innovation, Hobbs and colleagues (Hobbs, Aubry, & Thuillier,
\n2008) showed that the PMO is still in a ferment era. The phenomenon is not
\nstabilized yet.
\nUntil recently, empirical research has primarily looked at individual
\nPMOs, often because organizations had only implemented a single PMO to
\nserve project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management needs. Some of the well-researched questions
\nrelated to PMO models (Hobbs & Aubry, 2010), performance (Dai & Wells,
\n2004), or frequent transformations (Aubry et al., 2010; Hurt & Thomas, 2009).
\nWith some exceptions, however, there is only limited quantitative validation
\nto concepts and propositions regarding PMO performance (Dai & Wells,
\n2004), PMO typologies (Hobbs & Aubry, 2008), or patterns of change (Aubry
\net al., 2010).
\nMore recently, large organizations have started to implement multiple
\nconcurrent PMOs, each one having different mandates, functions, and characteristics.
\nFrom previous workshops in which the authors have participated,
\nthey know that implementation of multiple PMOs is often not coordinated;
\nthis results in multiple PMOs working in isolation, which is rather surprising
\ngiven that project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)-oriented organizations were developed to break
\nthese silos of functional units (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Turner &
\nKeegan, 1999). Organizations are now searching for a better articulation
\namong their PMOs and within their overall governance structure. As of now,
\nA Relational Typology of Project
\nManagement Offices
\nRalf M\u00fcller, Department of Leadership and Organizational Behaviour, BI Norwegian Business
\nSchool, Oslo, Norway
\nJohannes Gl\u00fcckler, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
\nMonique Aubry, School of Business and Management, Department of Business and
\nTechnology, Universit\u00e9 du Qu\u00e9bec a` Montreal, Qu\u00e9bec, Canada
\nABSTRACT \u25a0
\nThis explorative article develops a relational
\ntypology of PMOs based on their roles with
\nstakeholders. A multi-case study was used to
\nidentify the roles of PMOs in multiple-PMO settings.
\nA three-dimensional role space allows
\nlocating the complex relational profiles that
\nPMOs take on with respect to their stakeholders
\nin practice. Superordinate, subordinate, and
\ncoequal roles were identified in a framework of
\nservicing, controlling, and partnering in organizations.
\nWhile servicing (subordinate role profile)
\nand controlling (superordinate role profile) support
\norganizational effectiveness and exploitation
\nof knowledge, partnering (coequal role profile)
\ncreates the slack necessary for potential exploration
\nof new knowledge.
\nKEYWORDS: PMO; PMO networks; relational
\ntypology; organizational slack; innovation;
\nlearning
\nProject Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 1, 59\u201376
\n\u00a9 2013 by the Project Management Institute
\nPublished online in Wiley Online Library
\n(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002\/pmj.21321
\n60 February 2013 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj
\nA Relational Typology of Project Management Offices
\nPAPERS
\nthe authors are not aware of any academic
\nresearch that has looked at this
\nmulti-PMO phenomenon.
\nInstead of looking at one PMO at a
\ntime, this article suggests considering
\nmultiple PMOs within an organization
\nand understanding the consequences
\nof the diverse PMO roles for organizational
\noutcomes. For that, the authors
\nraise the following research question:
\nWhat is the nature of PMO in terms of relationships
\nwithin multi-PMO organizations?
\nOur unit of analysis is the
\nrelationship between a PMO and its
\nstakeholders, and among other project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanagers, peer PMOs, and\/or some
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)-related governance entities within
\nthe organization.
\nComplementary to prior conceptions
\nand typologies of PMO characteristics
\n(e.g., Hobbs & Aubry, 2008), this
\napproach does not only qualify PMOs
\nby their internal conditions and characteristics
\nbut, in addition, focuses on the
\nrelations that PMOs establish with their
\nstakeholders. The value of such a relational
\nperspective on PMOs, we argue, is
\nthat the actual relations between PMOs
\nand project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) managers will have a strong
\nimpact on the way an organization
\nlearns. It is assumed that innovations in
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management depend on effective
\nknowledge sharing between experts
\nin an organization. Specifically, the
\nauthors hypothesize that PMO roles
\naffect the quality of knowledge exchange
\nand thereby leverage innovation. This
\narticle pursues two concrete objectives:
\nFirst, it seeks to understand fundamental
\ntypes of PMOs from a role perspective,
\nboth conceptually and empirically.
\nSecond, it explores the impact of different
\nPMO role models on organizational
\nlearning and innovation in the field of
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management.
\nThe article is structured as follows.
\nThe section on Conceptual Framework
\ndevelops the PMO role typology by distinguishing
\nthree ideal role types that
\nPMOs can establish with their stakeholders
\nand the impact those PMO
\nroles may have on performance in
\nterms of slack and innovativeness. By
\ncombining the literature of organizational
\nlearning and the role triangle, we
\ndevelop propositions about the effects
\nof particular PMO roles on innovation
\nin project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management. The section on
\nMethodology reports the research
\ndesign and methodology of a multiple
\ncase study approach, data collection,
\nand analysis. The next section, Case
\nStudy Descriptions and Findings,
\nreconstructs four organizational case
\nstudies by analyzing the PMO roles. The
\nsection on Effects of PMO Roles interprets
\nthe cross-case findings by use of a
\ngraphical representation, the role triangle.
\nThe Discussion section brings four
\nthemes into the discussion, and the
\narticle closes with the conclusion.
\nConceptual Framework
\nRole Typology Based Upon PMO
\nRelationships
\nPMOs are extremely heterogeneous\u2014
\nthey vary in size, mandate, functions,
\nand so forth\u2014and they are very
\nephemeral in nature. One of the few
\nextended surveys on PMOs found that
\nthe majority of PMOs observed had
\nbeen implemented within the last 24
\nmonths only (Hobbs & Aubry, 2010).
\nGiven the seeming volatility and contextuality,
\nthere have been quite a
\nnumber of efforts to detect underlying
\ncommonalities and generalize concrete
\nideal types of PMOs (Hobbs & Aubry,
\n2008); however, most of these typologies
\nfocus on characteristics or attributes of
\nPMOs. This article takes a different
\ntypological approach. First, it focuses
\non the relationships that a PMO establishes
\nwith its intra-organizational
\nenvironment rather than its internal
\ncharacteristics. Second, the typology
\naims at identifying real types rather
\nthan ideal types in order to support
\nmanagement practice.
\nGiven the focus of this article on relationships,
\nwe adopt a perspective of
\nroles. A role describes a set of mutual
\nexpectations between two actors about
\ntheir pattern of behavior and interaction.
\nA role perspective is helpful to understand
\nrelational social and organizational
\nstructures in that it focuses on the
\nkinds of interactions and interdependencies
\nbetween organizations or organizational
\nunits. In the context of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanagement, the role concept has been
\napplied to the division of labor between
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) work and the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)\u2013client interface.
\nTurner and Keegan (2001) observed
\nthat project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s typically require two areas
\nof management: internal project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\nand the management of the
\nexternal needs and claims by the client.
\nThey consequently distinguish the roles
\nof the steward and the broker. This confirms
\nrole differentiation within project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanagement dealing with different
\nstakeholders (Turner & Keegan, 2001).
\nInstead of focusing on project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s, the
\nfocus of this article is on PMOs and
\nthe potential roles that they take vis-\u00e0vis
\ntheir stakeholders. A closer look at
\none of the most established definitions
\nof a PMO serves as a starting point:
\n\u201c[A PMO is] an organizational body or
\nentity assigned various responsibilities
\nrelated to the centralized and coordinated
\nmanagement of those project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\nunder its domain. The responsibilities
\nof the PMO can range from providing
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management support functions
\nto actually being responsible for the
\ndirect management of a project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)\u201d
\n(Project Management Institute [PMI],
\n2008, p. 443). This definition has two
\nimportant implications: first, the concept
\nof the PMO covers a wide range of
\norganizational designs, competencies,
\nand interdependencies with the rest of
\nan organization; second, the authority
\nof a PMO may range from mere \u201csupport
\nfunctions\u201d to the actual responsibility
\n\u201cfor the direct management of a
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees).\u201d This article contends that this
\nmakes a difference for the nature of
\nrelationships and for the organizational
\noutcomes, whether a PMO operates as
\na service unit or a management unit.
\nThe central argument of this article
\nis that PMOs relate in different (a)symmetric
\nways with their stakeholders.
\nFebruary 2013 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj 61
\nThree roles have been identified: serving,
\ncontrolling, and partnering. Some
\nPMOs, for example, are pure service
\nunits, others are management units
\nthat directly control project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s and evaluate
\nthe performance of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s or even
\nstaff, and again others cooperate on continuous
\nimprovement of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) knowledge
\nby means of reciprocal knowledge
\nsharing with their stakeholders. The
\ncentral difference between these three
\npure roles is the (a)symmetry in their
\nrelationships: management authority is
\na dominating role, service support
\nresponds to demand and is a complementary
\nor even dependent role, and
\ncooperation reflects a collegial role
\nof partnership. Definitions of the
\nthree PMO roles are provided in the following:
\n\u2022 Serving. PMOs exert a serving role if
\nthey operate as a service unit to internal
\nand external units, project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) managers,
\nand project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) workers. Typically, a
\nPMO offers a number of support functions
\nto project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s in order to increase
\nresource efficiency and outcome
\neffectiveness. In a serving role, a PMO
\nextends the administrative capacity of
\na project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) and provides for operational
\nsupport in project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s through training,
\nconsulting, and specialized task execution.
\nIt responds to stakeholder
\nneeds and ensures overall project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) performance.
\n\u2022 Controlling. At the other end of the
\nasymmetry, PMOs take a controlling
\nrole when they operate as management
\nunits for project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s under their
\ndomain. Depending on the scope of
\nmanagerial authority for which they
\nare commissioned, PMOs may be
\nresponsible for the enforcement of
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management standards such
\nas methods and tools, for the control
\nof compliance with set standards, for
\nAssessment of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) performance,
\nand sometimes even for the assessment
\nof employee performance and
\ncareer promotion. Whenever PMOs
\nare entitled not only to monitor and
\nevaluate but also to take managerial
\naction and sanction malpractice, they
\nexert a role of relative dominance and
\nsurveillance over project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) managers
\nand project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) workers.
\n\u2022 Partnering. A third role, not particularly
\nacknowledged in PMO research
\nis the partnering role. The partnering
\ndimension has received limited or no
\nattention so far and is not explicitly
\nacknowledged in the seminal PMI definition
\n(PMI, 2008). Partnering refers
\nto a relationship that is characterized
\nby reciprocity, mutuality, and equality.
\nPartnering implies lateral communication
\nbetween a PMO and other\u2014equally
\nqualified or equally commissioned\u2014
\nPMOs, project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) managers, or project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nworkers. Such a coequal relationship
\nwould enable or emerge from cooperation
\nand mutual interdependencies.
\nMore concretely, a PMO takes on a
\npartnering role when it engages in
\nequal knowledge sharing, exchange of
\nexpertise, lateral advice giving, and
\njoint learning with equal level stakeholders.
\nPMO Role Profiles, Organizational
\nSlack, and Performance
\nThe role typology developed in the previous
\nsection is not an end in itself but
\nis proposed as a strategic tool to assess
\nthe potential contribution of a PMO to
\ndiverse organizational outcomes. Once
\na PMO role profile is classified and
\nmapped in the ternary role model,
\nquestions arise about the effects of this
\nrole profile on corporate performance.
\nAs of now, academic research is unable
\nto statistically relate PMO characteristics
\nand functions to its performance
\nexpressed in terms of financial indicators
\n(Kwak & Ibbs, 2000) or project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) performance
\n(Dai & Wells, 2004). One more
\npromising approach would be to
\nextend the concept of performance
\nto include a diversity of perspectives
\nsuch as those suggested within the
\ncompeting values framework (Quinn &
\nRohrbaugh, 1983). This framework is
\nbased upon the assumption that organizations
\nare diverse and that multiple
\nand competing values coexist. It
\nalready has been shown that the PMO
\ncontribution to the organizational performance
\ncan be captured using this
\nframework (Aubry & Hobbs, 2011).
\nEfficiency and other financial ratios are
\nparts of the competing values framework
\nbut also include criteria from
\nhuman relations, innovation, and internal
\nprocesses. Such a perspective of
\nmultiple performance criteria, however,
\nstands in contrast to the evolution of
\nthe common approach to project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management.
\nProjects are organizational
\ntools used to optimize resource input to
\nachieve a certain goal in time, cost, and
\nquality. Although project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s are a means
\nto accomplishing short-termed tasks
\neffectively and efficiently, they are not
\ndesigned for long-term innovation. To
\nprioritize short-term achievements
\nover long-term improvement is one of
\nthe critical learning myopias identified
\nby Levinthal and March (1993).
\nTherefore, this article takes a closer
\nlook at the conditions that fundamentally
\nenhance learning, knowledge
\ntransfer, and innovativeness of a PMO
\nand project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management. PMOs are a
\nnovel intra-organizational form to
\nsupport project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management and to
\nleverage performance and sometimes
\ninnovation in project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management.
\nHowever, knowledge is often very sticky
\n(Szulanski, 2003), its transfer is difficult
\nto achieve, and it imposes high costs of
\nmaking new practice available and
\nusable to other parts of an organization.
\nAs Porter (1985) witnesses from
\ndecades of research in corporations,
\n\u201cthe mere hope that one business unit
\nmight learn something useful from
\nanother is frequently a hope not realized\u201d
\n(p. 352). Under what conditions
\ndo organizations innovate? Ever since
\nMarch\u2019s seminal work, one fundamental
\nrule has become visible: rational
\norganizations tend to prioritize the
\ncommercial exploitation of existing knowledge
\nover the exploration of new
\nknowledge, because exploitation yields
\nimmediate profits, whereas exploration
\n62 February 2013 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj
\nA Relational Typology of Project Management Offices
\nPAPERS
\n(i.e., research, development, and learning)
\nare investments into future profits
\nwith higher levels of uncertainty
\n(March, 1991). Learning processes are
\nsubject to myopia because organizations
\ntend to overlook distant times,
\ndistant places, and failures (Levinthal &
\nMarch, 1993).
\nOne approach to maintain exploration
\nand experimentation despite the
\nincentives to focus on short-term
\nexploitation is organizational slack.
\nTheoretically, the basic assumption is
\nthat every firm purchases and uses all
\nof its inputs efficiently; however, \u201cthe
\ndata suggest that there is a great deal of
\npossible variation in output for similar
\namounts of capital and labor and for
\nsimilar techniques, in the broad sense,
\nto the extent that technique is determined
\nby similar types of equipment\u201d
\n(Szulanski, 2003, p. 404). This x-efficiency
\nis defined as the discrepancy
\nbetween actual output and maximum
\noutput for a given set of inputs
\n(Leibenstein, 1966).
\nIn its classic definition, slack refers
\nto the \u201cdisparity between the resources
\navailable to the organization and
\nthe payments required to maintain the
\ncoalition\u201d (Cyert & March, 1963, p. 36).
\nExamples of slack are excess dividends
\nto shareholders, higher wages than
\nthose needed to keep labor, or the supply
\nof uncommitted resources. Slack is
\nthe \u201ccushion of actual or potential
\nresources, which allows an organization
\nto adapt successfully to internal
\npressures for adjustment or to external
\npressures for change in policy, as well
\nas to initiate changes in strategy with
\nrespect to the external environment\u201d
\n(Bourgeois, 1981, p. 30). Cyert and
\nMarch (1963) hypothesize a positive
\neffect of slack on performance; however,
\nslack does not produce endless
\nadvantage. Empirical studies in multinational
\nfirms suggest that organizational
\nslack enhances experimentation
\nbut that it also reduces discipline over
\ninnovative project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s, resulting in a
\nU-shaped relationship between slack
\nand innovation (Nohria & Gulati, 1996).
\nProjects are by definition opposed
\nto slack and experimentation because
\ntheir primary task is to complete objectives
\nin time, cost, and quality. Projects
\nusually are the device of efficiency. The
\nconcept of organizational slack has
\nmerely been applied to innovation in
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management. One interesting
\nexception is an explorative case study
\nby Keegan and Turner (2002) that found
\nan accordion effect in which slack
\nresources were tolerated more in some
\nsituations than in others: \u201cAccording to
\ndescriptions of respondents, it seems
\nthat following a period of poor innovative
\noutcomes, slack resources are considered
\nas potentially important for
\ninnovation and more resources are subsequently
\nmade available. On the other
\nhand, when positive results are slow to
\nemerge, the mood changes, and slack is
\nseen as negative and inefficient use of
\nresources\u201d (p. 377). Consequently, the
\nauthors conclude that for project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s to
\nperform good innovation project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s, new
\nmanagement techniques are necessary
\nto respect slack resources and use overcapacity
\nto leverage real innovation.
\nWhat is slack in the context of PMOs
\nand how could PMOs be fitted to
\nenhance innovation in project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management?
\nWe see at least three areas of
\nmissing slack in PMO organizations: (1)
\nshort life span; (2) missing human
\nresources dedicated to knowledge sharing
\nand innovation; and therefore (3), a
\nlimited engagement in a partnering role
\nwith other stakeholders. First, according
\nto prior extensive research, PMOs
\ntend to live short time spans (Hobbs &
\nAubry, 2010). Although the potential
\nbenefit of short-lived PMOs points
\ntoward their adaptability to changing
\nsituations of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management in an
\norganization, it also implies a dangerous
\nweakness. The fact that PMOs are
\nimplemented to meet certain objectives
\nand that they are dissolved immediately
\nafter accomplishment reflects
\norganizational efficiency. However, it
\nalso reflects a lack of slack in organizational
\ncapacity to consolidate lessons
\nlearned, to follow-up on achievements
\nand critical experiences and to develop
\nnew knowledge about project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\nperspectives, methods, or concrete
\ntechniques. This is in line with
\nresults from Williams (2007), confirming
\nthe difficulty to document lessons
\nlearned from project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s.
\nSecond, PMOs are often quite small
\nunits with limited human resources.
\nPMOs are designed for efficient
\nresource use and effective project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\noutcomes\u2014time, quality, and
\ncost targets. Hence, PMOs are often
\nunderequipped with personnel that
\ntakes care of collecting experience,
\nsensing \u201cbetter\u201d practice, and developing
\nnew templates for innovative practices
\nin project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management. Third,
\nand consequently, we expect that the
\nefficiency focus will lead to a predominance
\nof serving or controlling role profiles
\nin which PMOs either offer support
\nto efficient project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management or take
\nthe management responsibility directly.
\nInstead, partnering role profiles as
\nsuggested in the PMO role triangle
\nwould create slack through mutual
\nknowledge exchange, reflective action,
\nand feedback loops rather than purely
\nleveraging efficient project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) execution.
\nThis article hypothesizes that PMO
\npartnering creates slack and supports
\ncreative processes in yielding original
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management innovation (see
\nFigure 1).
\nMethodology
\nThis study uses an abductive epistemological
\napproach within a critical realist
\nperspective (Archer, Bhaskar, Collier,
\nLawson, & Norrie, 1998; Sayer, 2000).
\nBecause the research question focuses
\non a new understanding of the nature
\nof PMO relationships, the corresponding
\nresearch strategy follows a qualitative
\nmethodology. The reality of a single
\nPMO is quite well known; however, little
\nis actually known when considering
\nmultiple PMOs and their relationships.
\nIn this context, the first research step to
\nbe undertaken is the understanding of
\nthe phenomenon within its context
\n(Patton, 2002). This goal is better
\nFebruary 2013 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj 63
\nreached within a qualitative approach
\nsuch as case studies (Eisenhardt &
\nGraebner, 2007). We adopted a multiplecase
\ndesign, which implies replication
\nlogic (Yin, 2009) within which a case is
\ntreated as an idiosyncratic expression
\nof the phenomenon under study. Four
\norganizations have contributed to this
\nresearch. Data were mainly collected
\nthrough semi-structured interviews.
\nOther complementary data were
\nobtained from interviewees (such as
\ninternal reports, presentations, and so
\nforth) or from public information on
\ncompany websites. Organizations were
\nselected to offer a strong research
\ndesign with a mix between homogeneity
\nand heterogeneity (Eisenhardt,
\n1989). All four organizations share
\nsome characteristics: they are large and
\nthey have formalized their project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\nprocesses through implementation
\nof more than one PMO. On the
\nother hand, each organization is specific
\nto its geographical region and economic
\nsector. In each organization, interviews
\nwere realized with individuals representing
\na variety of roles, such as PMO
\ndirector, its supervisor, and project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) manager.
\nA total of 46 semi-structured interviews
\nwere conducted. (See Table 1 for
\nthe details on organizations and interviews.)
\nIn line with Yin (2009), validity
\nwas assured by looking for multiple
\nsources of evidence and by having the
\nkey-informants reviewing the research
\nreport and findings. Reliability was
\nassured through replication logic.
\nInterview data were analyzed by
\nusing different and complementary
\nstrategies (Langley, 1999). The interviews
\nfollowed a grounded theory approach for
\neach individual case. In line with an
\nabductive approach described for the
\ncross-case analysis, the grounded theory
\napproach followed the Glaser and
\nStrauss (1967) school. This implies an
\nanalysis after each individual interview
\nand a continuous comparison approach
\nto identify commonalities, as well as
\nruling out one-time events, thus ensuring
\na robust theory. Interviews in the first
\ncase study were registered, transcribed,
\nand then analyzed using ATLAS.ti
\n(ATLAS.ti Software Development, 2004).
\nIn the three other case studies, interviews
\nwere recorded and notes were taken by
\nthe researcher during the interview and
\nwere promptly analyzed; then, following
\nMiles and Huberman (1994) and
\nEisenhardt (1989), we undertook crosscase
\nanalyses to develop the underlying
\nconcepts. There was a steady back and
\nforth between data from the cases and the
\nidentified concepts in order to ensure that
\nthe concepts were consistent with the
\ndata (and valid). Within each case, multiple
\nrespondents participated in semistructured
\ninterviews to provide reliability
\nof results. For each PMO, data were crossvalidated
\nbetween respondents.
\nCase Study Descriptions and
\nFindings
\nIn this section, the four case studies are
\nfirst shortly described in their specific
\ncontexts; then, the structure of the
\nPMO\u2019s network is described and analyzed
\nunder the three basic PMO roles
\n(serving, controlling, and partnering).
\nFor each case study, a synoptic table
\nsummarizes findings and presents the
\nintensity of roles for each PMO.
\nCase 1:Healthcare Service Provider
\nContext
\nThis case study is a public healthcare
\nservice provider constituted of quasiautonomous
\norganizations spread over
\nthree structural layers: national, regional,
\nand local (hereafter, Healthcare).
\nLike in many western countries, the
\nhealthcare system is facing major challenges,
\nsuch as the aging population,
\nlack of personnel, outdated facilities,
\nsub-optimal processes, and so forth.
\nMajor investments are therefore authorized
\nand aimed at the healthcare
\nsystem\u2019s renewal. Projects include construction
\nof new hospitals, clinical
\nprocesses reengineering, and implementation
\nof new technologies. Stakeholders
\nand change management are crucial to
\nsuccess. Project management practices
\nPMOs ROLES IN THEIR
\nRELATIONSHIPS
\nPERFORMANCE
\n\u2022 Serving
\n\u2022 Controlling
\n\u2022 Partnering
\n\u2022 Slack and
\n innovativeness
\n\u2022 Ambidexderity
\nFigure 1: Conceptual model: Relations between PMO roles and performance.
\nCase #1 Case #2 Case #3 Case #4 Total
\nGeographical location North America Europe Asia Europe 4
\nEconomic sector Healthcare Telecommunication Pharmaceutical Finance 4
\nNumber of PMOs investigated 11 7 5 4 27
\nNumber of interviews 21 7 10 8 46
\nTable 1: Case study descriptions.
\n64 February 2013 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj
\nA Relational Typology of Project Management Offices
\nPAPERS
\nare quite well established at the national
\nlevel but are often limited to the IT
\nsector. There are various roles to PMOs,
\ndepending on their level and on their
\nleadership to implement and develop
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management competencies. Project
\nmethodology has been adopted since
\nbeing at the national level for a few
\nyears and is actually in implementation
\nat the other levels. Since 2004, rigorous
\ngovernance rules have been applied to
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management.
\nStructure of the PMO\u2019s network at
\nthe healthcare case study mirrors the
\norganizational three-layer structure:
\nnational, regional, and local levels. At
\nthe national level, there are three
\nPMOs. One PMO is located within the
\nIT department. This national IT PMO is
\nprimarily responsible for project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) portfolio
\nmanagement and more specifically
\nconcerned with investment strategy,
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) coordination, project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\ncontrol, and so forth. It also aims
\nat enhancing the overall project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\ncompetencies by the implementation
\nof project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\nmethodology, tools, and techniques at
\nthe regional level. Projects are realized
\nby a private partner, outside the national
\nIT PMO. This PMO also manages a
\nPMO coordination committee where all
\nregional PMO directors meet on a
\nmonthly basis. This committee serves
\nas a sharing and learning mechanism,
\nresulting in spreading out best practices
\nto enhance the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\ncompetencies. The second PMO
\nat the national level is dedicated to the
\nspecific project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) of Personal Health
\nRecord (PHR). The third one is the
\ndelivery arm to the national IT PMO
\nwhere project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s are realized.
\nThe 18 regional PMOs have been
\nput in place following a recommendation
\nfrom the national level. The majority of
\nthem are located in the IT department
\neven if project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s are rarely purely IT. There
\nare large variations between these 18
\nPMOs regarding their size and their
\nmaturity in project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management, and
\nthese PMOs are accountable for the
\nimplementation of the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s in local
\nsettings. Their project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) managers are
\nparticularly interested in the implantation
\nstrategy and change management.
\nMultiple informal links exist
\nbetween regional PMO directors
\nand between regional and local PMO
\ndirectors. There is a climate of collaboration
\nand help.
\nLocal PMOs are located in a global
\nlocal center and within individual hospitals
\nand healthcare centers. This level
\nalso includes university hospitals;
\ntherefore, they are in direct contact with
\npatients. There are approximately 100
\nPMOs disseminated over these local
\nhealthcare institutions. Some variations
\nin size and project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management maturity
\nexist between the local PMOs. The
\nbiggest PMOs are actually found in university
\nhospitals, because major investments
\nare placed there. PMOs are often
\nspecialized in construction, IT, or
\nprocess reengineering. Project managers
\noften have certified qualifications.
\nIdentifying PMO Roles
\nEleven healthcare PMOs participated in
\nthis research. The analysis of their relationship
\nunder the basic PMO roles
\npermits identifying five different groups
\nof PMOs that are presented in more
\ndetail in the following paragraphs (see
\nTable 2).
\n1. PMOs at the national level (national
\nIT PMO and PMO for PHR project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)).
\nThese PMOs perform two high-level
\nfunctions for controlling and partnering
\nin relationship with other
\nPMOs. On one hand, they strongly
\ncontrol project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s within strict governance
\nmechanisms. The national IT
\nPMO asks the local hospital PMO to
\nreport periodically on their project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s\u2019
\ncosts expenditures and project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)ions
\nand asks for financial indicators or
\nfor more global value-added indicators.
\nOn the other hand, the same
\nnational IT PMO initiated a knowledge
\nplatform for use by all PMO
\nmanagers and project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) managers. This
\neffort could be regarded as a communities
\nof practices activity. It takes the
\nform of a national committee, one
\ngrouping regional PMO directors and
\nthe other grouping regional project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanagers. The ultimate goal is to
\ndevelop and engage the national
\nhealthcare system in project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management.
\nIn the short term, the
\nobjective is to share good practices
\nand to develop together any missing
\nprocesses or tools. The partnering
\nshows less intensive function in the
\nimplementation of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) portfolio
\nmanagement. Actually, there is no
\ninventory of all project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s going on at
\nall three levels in the healthcare
\nnational system, and consequently,
\nthere is no idea of the global
\nresources allocated to project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s.
\nHowever, regional and local organizations
\nsometimes perceive this initiative
\nas an intrusive approach. The
\nserving function is performed at a
\nvery low level.
\n2. National IT supplier and local PMOs.
\nThese PMOs concentrate their most
\nimportant function on the controlling
\nand do not perform that much of
\nthe partnering and serving. This
\nfunction is accompanied by strong
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management techniques and
\nstrict methodology, processes, and
\ntools. The national IT supplier PMO
\nadopted a strategy of suppliers to
\ndeliver IT software components. This
\nPMO manages a portfolio of contracts.
\nWith strong project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\nmethodology, processes, and
\ntools, this PMO can monitor and
\ncontrol its suppliers\u2019 work. Not surprisingly,
\nthis PMO owns an ISO certification
\nin project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management.
\nLocal PMOs dedicated to IT or real
\nestate project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s could also be associated
\nwith this national supplier PMO.
\n3. Regional PMOs. These PMOs present
\na strong function of serving clients.
\nEverything is turned toward this goal
\nof satisfying the needs of their clients.
\nTheir mandate covers two types of
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s based on their clients: internal
\nclient\u2014more often from a functional
\nunit\u2014and local needs where clinical
\nsolutions are directly implanted for
\nPMO BASIC ROLES
\nPMO Identification Serving Controlling Partnering
\n1. National IT PMO and PHR PMO LOW HIGH HIGH
\n\u2022 Serving functions are less present at the national \u2022 Monitor and control project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s costs\/ \u2022 Knowledge of national platform
\nlevel schedule\/content particularly with local with regional PMO directors and
\nPMO for major project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s and with the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) managers
\nnational IT supplier PMO
\nMODERATE
\n\u2022 Implementation of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) portfolio
\nmanagement: inventory of
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\n2. National IT supplier and LOW HIGH LOW
\nLocal PMOs \u2022 Develop methodology, processes,
\nand tools
\n\u2022 Monitor and control project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s costs\/
\nschedule\/content particularly with major
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s sub-contractors
\n3. Regional PMOs HIGH LOW TO MODERATE MODERATE
\n\u2022 Develop and implement methodology, \u2022 Monitoring and control of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s under \u2022 Participation to the national
\nprovide tools their mandate PMO coordination committee
\n\u2022 Manage project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s under their regional mandate \u2022 To local PMO directors: informal
\n\u2022 Provide support to project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) teams for project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) not sharing of good practices
\ndirectly in their mandate Low partnering function:
\n\u2022 To internal organizational governance:
\nnot that much included
\n4. Regional\/Local PMO HIGH LOW HIGH
\n\u2022 Develop a project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management framework, \u2022 PCO: not acting as controller but collect \u2022 Participation to the national
\nincluding methodology, processes, and tools information to present a global view of PMO coordination committee
\n\u2022 Manage project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) in a coaching approach the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) portfolio. Soft approach \u2022 With regional and PMO
\n\u2022 Provide support to project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) teams for project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) not management language directors: informal sharing of
\ndirectly in their mandate good practices
\n\u2022 Participate and influence internal
\norganizational governance
\n5. University hospital MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE
\n\u2022 Clear mandate to support organizational change \u2022 To national project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) governance: provide \u2022 Executive Board members as
\n\u2022 Manage project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s: Co-construction with project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) team strict monitoring and control of \u201cpartners\u201d to the PMO
\n\u2022 Innovation is encouraged project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees). A specific function of the PMO \u2022 Knowledge acquisition and
\n\u2022 Support project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management within a is to evaluate project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s and project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) transfer through project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\nmultidisciplinary advisor committee management financial report. \u2022 Strong relationship with other
\nfunctional departments
\nTable 2: PMO roles in Healthcare case study.
\n66 February 2013 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj
\nA Relational Typology of Project Management Offices
\nPAPERS
\npatients. They manage the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) for
\nthe former and the support project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\nfor the latter. Following this serving
\napproach, control of the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) is
\nrather low. Considering now the partnering
\nfunction, PMOs of this type
\nare at a low or moderate level. They
\nare at a low partnering level when
\nconsidering its role vis-\u00e0-vis the
\ninternal organizational governance.
\nThis type of PMO is only partially
\ninvolved in governance. But, when
\ntaking specifically a project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\nperspective, this PMO participates
\nin partnership at the national
\nlevel as a member of the PMO\u2019s coordination
\ntable. These PMOs are also
\nassociated with other local or regional
\nPMO directors for sharing experience
\nin an informal approach.
\n4. Regional\/local PMO. This PMO has a
\nparticular double mandate, including
\nregional and local responsibilities.
\nLike regional PMOs, it has a
\nstrong serving function dedicated to
\ninternal clients and to local needs
\nand quite low control over project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s.
\nThis PMO has developed its own project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanagement framework, which
\nincludes methodology, processes,
\nand tools. It has a soft approach to
\ntheir clients in order to get them
\nengaged softly in project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management;
\nhowever, this PMO has a
\nstrong partnering function. Its director
\nparticipates very strongly in the
\nnational PMO\u2019s coordination committee
\nand in other specific working
\nsubcommittees. He also created
\nother networks between PMO directors
\nto share and build new components
\nwithin the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\nframework. This PMO participates
\nactively in the internal organizational
\ngovernance. The project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\nframework is at a point of being
\naccepted at the organization level
\nas a common project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\nlanguage.
\n5. University hospital PMO. This PMO
\nmight be quite exceptional, showing
\nmoderate results in all three dimensions
\nof serving, controlling, and
\npartnering. It refers to a PMO in a
\nuniversity hospital with a mandate to
\naccompany a major organizational
\nchange. Serving clients is clearly in its
\nmandate. Generic project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) methodology
\nprocesses and tools have been
\ndeveloped but are adapted to each
\nspecific project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)\u2019s needs. Innovation
\nin management is encouraged. A
\nmultidisciplinary advisory committee
\nhas been put in place for the PMO
\nto support the entire organization in
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management and, ultimately,
\nin managing changes. This PMO has
\nalso provided results to the national
\ngovernance level within strict financial
\nlimitations. A specific function
\nwithin the PMO is to evaluate project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\nand project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management financial
\nperformance and to report on it.
\nTurning now to partnering, this PMO
\nestablishes strong internal links; it
\nparticipates in the executive board,
\nwhere members are considered as
\npartners of the PMO (PMOs have
\ngiven them the title of Partner).
\nAnother partnering function relates
\nto knowledge management. This
\nPMO has implemented a specific
\nfunction to collect and share knowledge
\nthrough project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s and a specific
\nrole of knowledge broker. They want
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s to be based on evidencebased
\ndata. This is true for clinical content,
\nbut also for management
\ncontent. PMO has taken the leadership
\nto establish strong relationships
\nwith other functional departments,
\nsuch as human resources or quality
\nmanagement. Common project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanagement processes were developed
\nto insure a common and appropriate
\ncontribution from those units
\nto project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s.
\nCase 2:Mobile Phone Development
\nand Manufacturing
\nContext
\nThe company is a long established global
\ntelecommunications company, headquartered
\nin Northern Europe, acting as
\na main player in a fast moving and competitive
\nmarket (hereafter Telecom).
\nProject management is a well-established
\nrole in the organization. Most of the
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) managers are professionally certified,
\nformally assigned to project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s, and
\nrespected in this role. The project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s are
\ntelecom project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s for systems integration,
\nmultimedia, or network rollout.
\nProject performance is assessed in
\nterms of reaching targets for time, budgets,
\nquality, and customer satisfaction.
\nThe particular role of the PMOs is to
\nprovide subject matter expertise in project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanagement for particularly important
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s, and within countries
\nwhere the required expertise is not (yet)
\nbuilt up locally. Dedicated methodologies
\nare in place for both project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\nand project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) governance (see
\nTable 3).
\nIdentifying PMO Roles
\nThe PMO network consists of approximately
\n200 individual PMO organizations,
\nwith approximately 500 members
\naltogether. The network is hierarchically
\nstructured in a PMO at Headquarters,
\nas well as those at the global, regional,
\nand country levels.
\n1. Headquarters PMO. This PMO develops
\nand owns project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\nin the corporation. The hierarchical
\nconcept of the PMO network is developed
\nhere and deployed through the
\nother PMOs. The main task is in policy
\ndevelopment and deployment,
\nwhich includes new tools, techniques,
\ntraining, and certification programs.
\nFeedback on the scope and depth of
\ndeployment at the regional and country
\nlevels is through the work of
\nthe global PMO. Synchronization of the
\ndifferent PMOs takes place through
\ncommon charters, objectives, and
\nincentives, as well as missions tailored
\nfor the different layers of the
\nnetwork hierarchy. The mission of
\nthe Headquarters PMO is to establish
\nworld-class PMOs and be recognized
\nin the market for this.
\n2. Global PMO. This PMO works as the
\ninterface between the Headquarters
\nPMO and the regional PMO by serving
\nthe Headquarters in terms of
\nFebruary 2013 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj 67
\nmanaging global deployment but
\nalso in assessing and evaluating project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanagement maturity in the
\nregions. The latter includes control of
\nregional PMOs. The majority of work is
\ndone in partnership with the regional
\nPMO for tailoring Headquarters
\ndeployment blueprints to the needs
\nof the regions, supporting regions in
\nbalancing resources across organizational
\nand country borders, as well
\nas organizing global knowledge
\nexchange events. The global PMO
\nsynchronizes with the regional
\nPMOs through key performance
\nindicators.
\n3. Regional level PMOs. Regional level
\nPMOs work mainly in partnering functions
\non the recovery of troubled project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\nor as \u201cplace holders\u201d in case of a
\nlack of skills in a particular country
\norganization. In the former role, they
\nwork with country-level project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) managers
\non project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) recoveries and on
\nskills transfer. In the latter role, they
\nserve a country organization by managing
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s within a country until
\nlocal skills are deployed. Some control
\nthrough standardization and improvement
\nof project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management within
\nthe organization is also done here, but
\nonly by a few PMO members.
\n4. Country level PMOs. The mission for
\ncountry and regional level PMOs is to
\nprovide resources for balancing competencies
\nacross borders. Country
\nlevel PMO members manage project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\nat customer sites toward set objectives
\nin terms of time, cost, quality,
\nand customer satisfaction.
\nCase 3:Pharmaceutical Development
\nand Manufacturing Company
\nContext
\nThis company is a relatively young
\ndevelopment and manufacturing
\ncompany of medical and healthcare
\nproducts with Headquarters in China
\n(hereafter, Pharma). Since its start-up,
\nthe company has grown extensively
\nwithin an established, but competitive
\nmarket. The majority of its 30,000 people
\nworkforce is employed in China; however,
\ncooperation with other institutions
\nand sales are done worldwide. Project
\nmanagement is a well-established function,
\nwith approximately 100 (in their
\nmajority certified) project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) managers.
\nProjects are classified by scope and complexity
\n(A strategic, B cross departmental,
\nC within a line function).
\nProject managers are assigned to project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\nbased on their project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\nexperience (see Table 4).
\nIdentifying PMO Roles
\nThe PMO is a virtual organization within
\nthe company\u2019s headquarters. It consists
\nof the PMOs of different departments.
\nEach PMO representative at the
\nHeadquarters level functions in a dual
\nrole as department manager and as a
\nPMO in his or her respective organization.
\nAt the Headquarters level they are
\nreferred to as an expert group for project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanagement. This group consists of
\nsix members plus a manager. These
\nmanagers frequently draw upon the
\nknowledge from an additional 12 project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanagement experts from within
\nthe community of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) managers.
\nThe Headquarter PMO is supported
\nby a project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) information management
\ngroup for the communication in the
\nform of information collection and distribution,
\nmainly using an IT platform.
\n1. The Headquarter PMO. This PMO
\nselects project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s; assigns project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) managers;
\nand provides the methods,
\ntechniques, career path, certification,
\nand communication platform for
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) managers. Simultaneously,
\nthe PMO functions as the steering
\ncommittee and the escalation point
\nfor project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s in execution.
\nDevelopment work within the PMO
\n(e.g., of new practices) is assigned to
\nPMO BASIC ROLES
\nPMO Identification Serving Controlling Partnering
\n1. Headquarter PMO LOW HIGH LOW
\n\u2022 Development and ownership of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanagement, its processes, methods,
\nand policies
\n2. Global PMO LOW HIGH MODERATE
\n\u2022 Worldwide deployment \u2022 Tailoring to regional needs
\n\u2022 Assessment of maturity
\n3. Regional PMO LOW MODERATE HIGH
\n\u2022 Manage project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s on behalf of \u2022 Deployment of processes, methods, \u2022 Recovery of troubled project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\ncountry project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) manager and policies \u2022 Knowledge transfer to local
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) managers
\n\u2022 Tailoring to local needs
\n4. Country PMO HIGH LOW LOW
\n\u2022 Managing project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\nTable 3: PMO roles in Telecom case study.
\n68 February 2013 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj
\nA Relational Typology of Project Management Offices
\nPAPERS
\na member of the PMO, who then
\nengages relevant experts. The final
\nproduct is reviewed by the PMO
\nexpert group and may be adjusted
\nbefore deployment through the web
\nplatform. Through this structure, the
\nPMO does not interfere with the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanagers\u2019 day-to-day work but
\ngoverns project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management in a
\nsubtle but comprehensive manner.
\nTable 4 summarizes the roles and
\nfunctions of the PMO in this case.
\nCase 4:Financial Services Provider
\nContext
\nThe organization is a leading co-operative
\nbank in Germany with approximately
\n7000 employees (hereafter, Financial).
\nA recent change of owner increased the
\nnumber of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s because of the need
\nto align the business and governance systems
\nof the two organizations. Project
\nand portfolio management are established
\nfunctions. Approximately 100
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s were ongoing at the time of
\ninvestigation. Four PMO organizations
\nexist within the bank some of them in a
\nhierarchical relationship, others at
\na peer-to-peer level (see Table 5).
\nIdentifying PMO Roles
\nThe four PMO organizations are:
\n1. Business Project Office (BPO), reporting
\nto the executive board. This eightperson
\nPMO consists of a group for
\nportfolio management and an expert
\ngroup for finance, marketing, and
\nstrategy project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s. This is the \u201croof
\norganization\u201d of all PMOs with a
\nholistic view over all project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s. They
\nhold a strong controlling role
\nthrough ownership of the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanagement process and by providing
\nportfolio management and
\nfollow-up on project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s; furthermore,
\nthey ensure the communication
\nbetween business and IT functions.
\n2. Project Management and Strategic
\nIntegration Office (PMSI),reporting to
\nthe Executive Board. This 20-person
\nPMO focuses on IT project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s and
\nserves as the interface between business
\nand IT. Their tasks include
\ntranslation of business into technical
\nPMO BASIC ROLES
\nPMO Identification Serving Controlling Partnering
\n1. Headquarter PMO LOW HIGH LOW
\n\u2022 Authorizing of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s \u2022 Knowledge transfer through training
\n\u2022 Ownership of processes, methods, and policies
\n\u2022 Project steering group
\n\u2022 Assessment of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) and project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) manager performance
\n\u2022 Certification program
\nTable 4: PMO roles in Pharma case study.
\nPMO BASIC ROLES
\nPMO Identification Serving Controlling Partnering
\n1. Business Office Project (BPO) LOW HIGH LOW
\n\u2022 Portfolio management of
\ncountry level project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\n\u2022 Ownership of processes
\n\u2022 Project follow-up
\n2. Project Management and MODERATE LOW HIGH
\nStrategic Integration Office (PMSI) \u2022Application testing \u2022 Interface business and IT
\nthrough translation of
\nrequirements
\n3. Local IT PO HIGH LOW LOW
\n\u2022 Corporate-wide IT
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\n4. Strategic Project Office (SPO) MODERATE LOW MODERATE
\n\u2022 Project management \u2022 Definition of strategic project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\nfor some of the strategic
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\nTable 5: PMO roles in Financial case study.
\nFebruary 2013 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj 69
\nrequirements; assessment of impact
\nof changes on policies, structures,
\nand so forth; as well as testing of software.
\nIn this role, they show a highpartnering
\nprofile across the IT and
\nbusiness functions of the organization.
\nSome minor serving is done by
\ntesting software, which is developed
\nelsewhere in the organization in
\naccordance with specifications that
\nthis PMO helped to translate from
\nbusiness to IT language.
\n3. Local IT Project Office (Local IT PO),
\nreporting to the IT Operations
\nCommittee, led by the chief information
\nofficer of the new owner of the
\nbank (that is, another European
\nfinancial institution). This six-person
\nPMO manages, coordinates, and
\ntracks the largest IT change project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s.
\nThey focus on cross-organizational
\nIT project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s, by doing this, they mainly
\nperform a serving function for and
\nwithin corporate-wide IT project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s.
\n4. Strategic Project Office (SPO), reporting
\nto the Operations & Technology
\n(O&P) department. Their focus is on
\nstrategic project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s in O&P, which can
\nalso be non-IT project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s. This PMO
\ndevelops the strategies for the O&P
\ndepartment. This constitutes a controlling
\nrole; however, they also
\ndefine and manage some of these
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s. This constitutes a serving
\nrole, so their combined role is the
\nmost balanced role among all PMOs,
\ngiven by the balance of a partnering
\nand serving role in their work.
\nCentral control lies with BPO, which
\nprovides the interface structure of the
\nPMOs; however, PMO members feel
\nresponsible to act informally across
\norganizations. This is especially visible in
\nthe participatory decisions and synchronization
\nmeetings, which have no central
\nmanager, only a facilitator without an
\nascribed position or responsibility.
\nThe four case studies described and
\nanalyzed previously provide a novel
\napproach to a PMO typology based upon
\ntheir relationship with stakeholders.
\nResults reveal differentiation between
\nPMOs within the three basic roles leading
\nto a specific location within one of the
\nfour regions within a role triangle,
\nwhich constitutes the relational typology.
\nAs said earlier, the typology is not an
\nend per se. It allows associating a PMO
\ntype with capabilities, here learning
\ncapabilities and support to innovation.
\nThe following section highlights some
\nfacets from these findings.
\nEffects of PMO Roles
\nIntroducing the Triangle
\nThe conceptual framework presented
\nin Figure 1 includes components that
\ncapture relationships between PMOs
\nbased on three base roles: serving, controlling,
\nand partnering. The four case
\nstudies described above were analyzed
\nwith respect to these roles. We argue
\nthat potential responsibilities and
\nactions that PMOs take on can be
\nmapped into one of these three base
\nroles. In practice, however, each PMO
\nwill most likely take on various roles
\nsimultaneously and will thus exhibit a
\ncomplex profile made up of a mixture of
\nthese roles. In order to capture such an
\nempirical role profile, we developed a
\nternary role model that offers a location
\nfor every theoretical combination of the
\nthree base roles: serving, controlling,
\nand partnering. This typological
\napproach is best realized by use of a ternary
\ndiagram.
\nA ternary diagram is a triangle that
\ndisplays the relative proportions of
\nthree possible categories of individual
\nelements, which make up an aggregate
\npopulation. These categories must be
\nmutually exclusive and collectively
\nexhaustive (Plewe & Bagchi-Sen, 2001).
\nA labor market, for example, is composed
\nof employment, which is either
\nprimary (agriculture), secondary (manufacturing),
\nor tertiary (services)
\n(Preusser, 1976). Ternary diagrams are a
\ngraphical technique, which is common
\nin various disciplines (e.g., demography,
\ngeography, chemistry, or pedology).
\nThey are used to represent trivariate
\ndata in which the three variables represent
\nproportions of a whole (Graham &
\nMidgley, 2000), such as the composition
\nof a territorially bounded population by
\nage (adolescent, adult, retired) or ethnicity
\n(Plewe & Bagchi-Sen, 2001), or
\nthe composition of a population of
\nschoolchildren according to public, private,
\nor post-secondary schools
\n(Patterson et al., 2007). In the context of
\nPMOs, serving, controlling, and partnering
\nare clearly exclusive role elements
\nthat combine into an aggregate
\nrole profile. Within a three-dimensional
\nrole space, each theoretical mix of roles
\ncan be plotted as a specific role profile.
\nFor reasons of simplicity, we distinguish
\nfour role regions based upon role
\nprofiles (see Figure 2): the superordinate
\nrole profile (controlling), the subordinate
\nrole profile (servicing), the
\ncoequal role profile (partnering), and a
\nbalanced profile in the center without
\na focused orientation. Every PMO role
\nprofile can now be located in this
\nrole space. Within this conceptual
\nframework of a ternary role space any
\nconcrete combination of roles that a
\nPMO exerts can be associated with a
\nparticular role region and thus be located
\nas a ternary role profile. The diagram
\ncan be used for different scales of
\nanalysis, that is, at the level of the PMO
\n(mapping the distinct activities), at the
\nlevel of the organization (mapping the
\ndifferent PMOs), or at the level of a
\ngroup of organizations (mapping the
\ndistinct PMO cultures for a set of organizations).
\nPMO Role Profile
\nThe case studies presented above can
\nnow be analyzed using the role triangle.
\nIn this section, a cross-case analysis is
\npresented comparing the four individual
\ncase studies. As illustrated in Figure 3,
\nPMO networks can be drawn for each of
\nthe case studies showing interesting
\nresults about PMO relationships.
\nExcept for the Pharma case, the
\nother three case studies show a variety
\nof PMO roles. PMOs at the top apex in
\nthe superordinate profile are positioned
\nhigher in the organizational
\nhierarchy. They share the accountability
\nfor project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) results with respect to scope,
\n70 February 2013 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj
\nA Relational Typology of Project Management Offices
\nPAPERS
\nbudget, and schedule. This is obvious in
\nTelecom and Finance, where PMOs at
\nthe top level have direct formal authority
\nover PMOs at the regional level. In
\nHealthcare, the two superordinate
\nPMOs are not in a position of formal
\nauthority over the other ones, but they
\nhave established relationships under
\nthe control of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s. In Pharma, the
\nvirtual PMO has clear authority over
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) managers, for example, through
\nthe annual assessment. Altogether, the
\nposition of PMOs within the triangle
\nand the analysis of their position within
\nthe organizational chart may be contrasted
\nto the hierarchical PMO model
\nsuggested in K. J. Crawford (2010),
\nwhere multiple PMOs coexist at different
\nhierarchical levels without taking into
\naccount their relationships. However,
\nto date, no research has identified a
\nclear correlation between organizational
\nhierarchy level and the function
\nof a PMO, for example, monitoring and
\ncontrol of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s (Hobbs & Aubry,
\n2008).
\nResults also show PMOs in serving
\nroles. In three cases, these PMOs are
\ndirectly managing project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s; they are in
\nbetween a PMO that asks for control
\nand other PMOs that are implementing
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s.
\nOn the partnering apex, there are
\nthree PMOs offering different interpretations.
\nIn Telecom, this regional level
\nPMO has clearly in its mandate to support
\nand help in troubled project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s. This
\nfunction has more chance to succeed in
\na partnership type of relationship,
\nwhere learning is a value rather than a
\nfault culture often associated with control.
\nIn Healthcare, this PMO maintains
\nrich network opportunities through
\nimplication of its director at different
\norganizational levels. Under this PMO
\nleadership, many new project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\ninitiatives have been implemented
\non a voluntary basis and diffused
\nthroughout the whole network. In
\nFinance, the coequal PMO type has a
\nstrategic mandate with a translation
\nresponsibility between business and IT.
\nIn this particular case, partnership
\nappears to be a good approach to opening
\nup a dialogue between stakeholders
\nthat more often have different perspectives
\non project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s.
\nAt the central part of the triangle,
\nthe balanced PMO role is positioned,
\nreflecting equilibrium in the intensity
\nof controlling, serving, and partnering.
\nTwo PMOs are at this triangle position.
\nIn the Healthcare case, the PMO has a
\ncontrolling relationship over the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\nit manages because it has great
\npressure from upper levels to respect
\nthe budget and make project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s contribute
\nto the ROI. On the other hand,
\nin the healthcare sector in general, the
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management standardization is
\nrather low. The approach this PMO has
\ndeveloped with PMOs in clinical project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\nis to serve and help participants
\ngrow their project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s and learn constructively.
\nThis PMO has also developed
\npartnerships with other functional
\nunits, which otherwise would have possibly
\nentered in tensions or power
\nstruggles (Aubry, Hobbs, M\u00fcller, &
\nBlomquist, 2011). In short, this PMO in
\nHealthcare undertook strong actions in
\nall three roles. In Finance, the PMO
\nundertook rather moderately strong
\nactions in each role.
\nSlack and Innovativeness Through
\nPartnering Roles
\nIn this section, a cross-case analysis is
\npresented taking an integrative view of
\nthe 27 PMOs identified in this research.
\nFigure 4 suggests a new interpretation
\nfrom the qualitative case studies.
\nInterestingly, what could be
\nobserved from Figure 4 is that the distribution
\nof PMOs in the ternary diagram
\nServing \u2013 +
\nControlling \u2013 +
\n\u2013 Partnering +
\nSubordinate
\nPMO role
\nCoequal
\nPMO role
\nBalanced
\nPMO role
\nSuperordinate
\nPMO role
\nFigure 2:The PMO role triangle.
\nFebruary 2013 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj 71
\nshows that PMOs are more likely to take
\non controlling or serving roles rather
\nthan partnering roles, with both being
\nseparated by a bold line with nine out of
\nfourteen PMOs. Some of the circles
\nstand for more than one individual
\nPMO. When taking the reference to the
\nnumber of individual PMOs, it is 10 in
\nthe controlling role and five in the serving
\nrole out of 21 PMOs, or globally, 71%
\nfor both roles. The five other PMOs are
\nassociated with the partnering role.
\nControlling is the most common
\nrole and can be associated more specifically
\nwith the PMO function of monitoring
\nand controlling project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s. This
\nresult is in line with previous research
\nthat has shown that this function is the
\nmost important one and one that is
\nunder the mandate of most PMOs
\n(Hobbs & Aubry, 2010). Conversely, the
\nserving role is associated with a collaborative
\napproach to internal clients. In
\nthis role, a PMO is more likely to offer
\nservices to project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management stakeholders.
\nThe serving PMO will negotiate its
\nown mandate to answer the specific
\nneeds of stakeholders and to respect
\nthe relationship with it (Huemann,
\n2010). Instead of imposing a methodology,
\na process, or a tool, this approach
\nsupposes that the PMO will adapt its
\nsolution to the need and the degree of
\nformalization of each stakeholder.
\nThese PMOs share a certain degree of
\nfear of being rejected; being rejected
\nmay mean attacking the PMO\u2019s legitimacy.
\nFifty percent of PMOs have been
\nput into question over their last two
\nyears (Hobbs & Aubry, 2010). Avoiding
\nconflict to maintain PMO survival was
\nthe strategy of some of PMOs in the
\nserving role.
\nDeveloping partnerships with
\nstakeholders takes time and engagement
\nfor long-term relationships. It
\nmay seem curious to invest resources in
\na long-term partnership knowing that
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s are temporary organizations
\n(Lundin & S\u00f6derholm, 1995; Turner
\nServing \u2013 +
\nControlling \u2013 +
\nPartnering
\nTELECOM
\n\u2013 +
\nTC
\n1
\nTC
\n2
\nTC
\n3
\nTC
\n4
\nServing \u2013 +
\nControlling \u2013 +
\nPartnering
\nFINANCE
\n\u2013 +
\nFS
\n1
\nFS
\n4
\nFS
\n2
\nFS
\n3
\nServing \u2013 +
\nControlling \u2013 +
\nPartnering
\nHEALTHCARE
\n\u2013 +
\nHC
\n2
\nHC
\n1
\nHC
\n4
\nHC
\n5
\nHC
\n3
\nServing \u2013 +
\nControlling \u2013 +
\nPartnering
\nPHARMA
\n\u2013 +
\nPH
\n1
\nFigure 3:The four case study triangles.
\n72 February 2013 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj
\nA Relational Typology of Project Management Offices
\nPAPERS
\n& M\u00fcller, 2003) and that PMOs are transitioning
\nover time as do the environment
\nand their organization (Aubry
\net al., 2011). This is exactly the point of the
\nrole of the PMO as a leader in knowledge
\nsharing between different project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanagement stakeholders. An example
\nfrom the Healthcare PMO is the dialogue
\nthat has opened up on process
\ndevelopment between the PMO and
\nthe HR department. The PMO has the
\nmandate for reviewing almost all clinical
\nprocesses within the new hospital
\nconstruction project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees). Process development
\nwas part of the HR department,
\nwhich first reacted against the PMO,
\nbut the PMO director managed to
\ninvolve the HR department in reviewing
\ntogether how this work should be
\nundertaken in the specific large project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\ncontext. They both agreed on a chart,
\nresulting in the HR department
\nembarking on the journey with the
\nPMO. For the PMO director, this is
\nthe only way to succeed in the long term.
\nThis partnering role is not an ad hoc
\nway of working; it is based on foundations,
\nsuch as values and shared vision,
\nwhich are pervasive in all their relationships.
\nThe common characteristics of
\nPMOs in partnership roles, is that they
\nare parts of the network governance;
\nthey don\u2019t feel the fear, or if they feel
\nit, they act to pursue their vision and to
\ninfluence decision makers and they are
\nrisk taking.
\nDiscussion
\nWithin-case analysis indicates that
\nPMOs within the same organization
\nshow different role profiles when interacting
\nwith different stakeholders. This
\nbecomes evident through the relation
\ntype and the particular position a PMO
\noccupies within the PMO role triangle.
\nCross-case analysis shows that some
\nPMOs occupy pure roles, whereas others
\nare more diversified or mixed
\nin their roles. From these results, four
\nthemes are discussed in more detail in
\nthis section.
\nSuperordinate Type PMO Limits
\nKnowledge Exchange
\nA pure PMO role is defined as one
\nshowing a strong expression of one role
\nand little of the other two roles. From
\nthe three possible pure PMO roles, the
\ncontrolling role is the most common
\nrole associated with a superordinate
\nPMO. It is present in all four case studies,
\nsuggesting that this function prevails
\nwithin organizations dealing with
\nmultiple project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s. PMOs in superordinate
\nroles are found at higher levels in
\nthe organizational hierarchy or in
\nsimilarly legitimized authoritative positions;
\nhowever, the shared commonality
\nof these PMOs is a lack of learning or
\nknowledge-sharing mechanisms. These
\nresults are in line with previous empirical
\nresults where control over project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\nis compared with the return of the iron
\ncage, thus giving great emphasis on
\ncontrolling project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s (Maylor, Brady,
\nCooke-Davies, & Hodgson, 2006) over
\ncreativity and innovation (Turner &
\nKeegan, 2004).
\nThe Pharma PMO is very strong in
\ncontrolling and they even do a project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanager performance Assessment,
\nwhich influences their career options;
\ntherefore, project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) managers respect the
\nPMO and have incentives to be recognized
\nonly for good work performance
\nand learning activities. They would,
\nhowever, not seek the help of a PMO if
\nthe knowledge deficit could be interpreted
\nas negative.
\nThe two other PMO roles are rarely
\nfound in their pure forms; of those few,
\nPMOs that show a pure serving role
\nhave a specific expertise and support
\nthe organization through this expertise.
\nFor example, the Local IT PMO from
\nthe Finance case has a coordination
\nFigure 4: Integrative view on PMO roles.
\nTC
\n2
\nHC
\n1
\nServing \u2013 +
\nControlling \u2013 +
\nPartnering
\nExploration
\n\u201cslack\u201d
\nExploitation
\nefficiency
\n\u2013 +
\nHC
\n2
\nTC
\n1
\nFS
\n1
\nPH
\n1
\nHC
\n5
\nTC
\n3
\nFS
\n4
\nHC
\n4
\nFS
\n2
\nTC
\n4
\nFS
\n3
\nHC
\n3
\nFebruary 2013 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj 73
\nrole throughout the whole organization
\nfor major IT project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s, while not having
\nany controlling or partnering function.
\nSimilarly, the country PMO within
\nthe Telecom case strongly supports the
\ncustomers at their own site.
\nPure partnering is not present at all
\nand only one PMO shows a pure serving
\nrole. One interpretation of this result
\nmight be that it is difficult for a PMO to
\nexist with just a partnering role.
\nPartnering may have to rely on other
\ncomplementary roles to exist.
\nStrengths and Drawbacks on
\nDiversification in PMO Roles
\nThe strength of the PMO role triangle
\nresides in its capacity to locate PMOs in
\na multidimensional space. Most of the
\nPMOs within the four case studies do
\npresent diversification in their roles;
\nthis result is in line with the difficulty
\nof typifying PMOs under a single set of
\nactivities. As shown here, most PMOs
\nperform more than one single function.
\nPMOs with diversification may fall into
\nthe four role types. Looking at mixes of
\nroles, superordinate PMOs are strong in
\ncontrolling but also in partnering.
\nThese PMOs adapt their role to different
\nstakeholders by providing strong
\ncontrol within strict governance mechanisms
\nand simultaneously establishing
\nor participating in learning mechanisms
\nwith regional or local needs. In
\nour case studies, we did not find a mix
\nbetween the controlling role and serving
\nrole within the superordinate PMO.
\nPMOs with a serving function in a
\nsubordinate role deploy their efforts to
\nsupport all project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management initiatives
\nwithin their organization. These
\nPMOs participate in others\u2019 partnering
\nefforts; usually, their legitimacy is fragile.
\nThey are rarely involved in local governance
\nwork. From our case studies,
\nwe see no indication of a combination
\nof serving function and controlling role
\nwithin the subordinate type.
\nRole diversification may lead to
\nbureaucracy and political lack of transparency.
\nThis shows up in the Telecom
\ncase study. The global setup supports
\ntacit and explicit knowledge exchange
\nacross the different layers of the hierarchy.
\nSpeed in communication up and
\ndown the hierarchy is increased
\nthrough the intranet-based communication
\nplatform, allowing for both formal
\nand informal communication
\nbetween the PMOs and their project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanagers. Formal and informal communication
\nstructures for PMO deployment
\nand related feedback loops allow
\nfor evaluating the deployment of both
\nPMO structures as well as project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\npractices. Communication
\nflows are, however, seen as confidential
\nby PMO members. Although the official
\nknowledge-sharing structures were
\nopenly discussed, the researchers\u2019
\nattempts to assess the real data flow in
\nthe PMO hierarchy were denied. The
\nunwillingness to support the commensuration
\nof formal and informal structures
\nindicates possible differences
\nthereof and \u201cturf fights\u201d at the level of
\nindividual PMOs. To that end, it supports
\nOuchi\u2019s (1977) argument for
\nbureaucratic control structures, based
\non norms and reciprocity of the environment,
\nthe legitimate authority of
\nleaders, plus the acceptance of hierarchy
\nby the members of the organization,
\nwhere information is carried by
\nrules.
\nBalanced Type PMO:Resources Slack
\nand Responsibilities Shift for
\nKnowledge Transfer to the Individual
\nThere are two elements that merit discussion
\nregarding the balanced type of
\nPMO; first, there is the resource slack.
\nBalanced PMOs occupy the heart of the
\nPMO role triangle. They are at the equilibrium
\nof all three roles, not necessarily
\nwith a strong role expression in all
\nthree roles but in at least two of them.
\nThe major characteristics of these
\nPMOs are:
\n1. A profound cultural orientation in
\nperforming the three roles. It is like
\nnot having silos between the three
\nfunctions. Partnering is present in
\ncontrolling as well as in serving roles.
\nPartnering is the basic approach for
\nmanaging stakeholders, not with a
\nlimited number of them.
\n2. These roles are embedded within the
\nPMO structure. There are dedicated
\nresources for performing activities in
\npartnering within the organization.
\nThese two basic values surround the
\nbalanced PMO; they are part of what
\nhas been identified earlier in this
\narticle as providing resource slack in
\nthe context of PMOs in order to
\nenhance innovation in project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management.
\nFrom our case studies, we
\nfound PMOs that have developed
\ncapabilities to interact with a diversity
\nof stakeholders in different roles.
\nWhat seems to be of major importance,
\nhowever, is the global orientation
\ntoward partnering.
\nSecond there is the responsibility
\nshift for knowledge transfer to the
\nindividual. The knowledge flow
\nbetween PMOs in this case is complex,
\nbecause of its cross-departmental
\nnature, the span of multiple hierarchical
\nlayers, and the geographic distance.
\nInformed decision making
\nacross PMOs would require a comprehensive
\nset of formal meetings and
\nother structured communication. To
\nbalance the shortcomings of this
\npotential bureaucracy, the communication
\nstructures are rather open and only
\nrudimentarily designed, and a \u201cclan\u201d
\nculture in the sense of Ouchi (1979) is
\nfostered to shift the responsibility for
\nknowledge flow for proper decision
\nmaking from the bureaucratic \u201csystem\u201d
\nto the individual. Knowledge
\nsharing is felt as an obligation, a condition
\nfor successful inter-organizational
\nperformance. Through that, the
\nPMO employees feel responsible for
\nensuring information flow and mutual
\nupdate across PMOs and hierarchies.
\nMeetings are held without a formal
\nmanager, and information is shared
\nthrough joint documents, extensive
\nemail communication, as well as formal
\nand informal meetings using all
\navailable media. Balanced PMO roles
\nincrease knowledge sharing but
\n74 February 2013 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj
\nA Relational Typology of Project Management Offices
\nPAPERS
\nreduce codification and compliance
\nwith standards.
\nPMO Ambidexterity
\nFrom our results, superordinate PMOs
\nperform mostly a single function of controlling
\nassociated with the search for
\nmore efficiency. In March\u2019s (1991) language
\nof ambidexterity in learning and
\ninnovation, these PMOs reflect the
\nrational thinking of exploitation, repeating
\nwhat is already known. At the other
\nend, the balanced PMOs could rather be
\nassociated with exploration, with the
\nlearning within uncertainty. Partnering
\ncalls for being engaged with different
\nstakeholders in learning from each
\nother, but at the same time, the balanced
\nPMOs perform a controlling and serving
\nrole. In this respect, the PMOs may reuse
\nexisting knowledge and adopt a more
\nrational approach; at the same time, the
\nbalanced PMO should play on exploitation
\nand experimentation.
\nThe concept of ambidexterity has
\nalso been applied at the individual
\nlevel. Aubry and Li\u00e8vre (2010) have
\nused this concept to understand the
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) manager competency to combine
\nand change different management
\nmodes in polar expeditions. This is
\nexactly what is needed from a PMO, to
\ncombine exploitation and exploration
\nand, more importantly, to change from
\none mode to the other when required.
\nConclusion
\nWe can now answer the research question:
\nWhat is the nature of PMOs in
\nterms of relationships within multiPMO
\norganizations? The PMO is a
\nmulti-role organizational phenomenon,
\nwhich adapts to the idiosyncratic
\nneeds of an organization by varying the
\nexpression of their controlling, partnering,
\nor serving role. This leads to different
\nrelationships with other PMOs and
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management related organizational
\nentities, in which the PMO is
\nseen as either superordinate, subordinate,
\ncoequal (respectively), or as balanced
\nacross the three extremes.
\nTo answer this question, we developed
\na simple role typology and a
\nthree-dimensional role space that
\nserves as a tool to capture the complex
\nrelational profiles that PMOs express
\nwith respect to their stakeholders in
\nempirical practice. The value-add of the
\ntriangular role model is twofold: First, it
\nreduces the high complexity of PMO
\nrelations into a comprehensive and
\nsimple typological framework and thus
\nmay qualify as a tool for managers in
\norganizational development. Second,
\nbased on the literature on organizational
\nlearning and innovation and grounded
\nin four organizational case studies
\ndiscussed in this research, the article
\nsuggests that for project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\nto enable absorptive capacity and
\nattain sustainable innovativeness,
\nPMOs should engage and intensify the
\npartnering dimension in their overall
\nrole profiles. Although service orientation
\n(subordinate role profile) and
\nmanagement orientation (superordinate
\nrole profile) support organizational
\neffectiveness and exploitation, partnering
\ncreates the slack necessary for
\npotential exploration.
\nThis research has limitations mostly
\ndue to its explorative nature. The typology
\nof PMO based on its relationship
\nwith stakeholders will need to be tested
\nagainst a larger number of PMOs; therefore,
\nmore quantitative studies for proving
\nand stabilizing the model presented
\nhere are suggested for the future. In
\nparticular, the partnering role would
\nbenefit from much more examples to
\nbuild a foundation of innovation and
\nslack resources in project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management.
\nThe strength of the research lies in the
\ncombination of so far discretely
\nresearched roles into one integrated
\nmodel.
\nMore research is needed to enlighten
\nthe role of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management in
\ninnovation, which will also serve the
\ncurrent critics on the lack of flexibility
\nfound in the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management field.
\nThe contribution to knowledge lies in
\nthe integration of thus far distinguished
\nroles and is therefore in line with current
\nmethodological trends, which seek
\nto integrate past dichotomies into new
\ncontinua in order to integrate views
\ntoward new and different knowledge
\n(Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2010). To that
\nend, it supports Kuhn\u2019s (1996) claim
\nthat new knowledge is created by rather
\nsmall paradigm shifts. \u25a0
\nReferences
\nArcher, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A.,
\nLawson, T., & Norrie, A. (1998). Critical
\nrealism. London, England: Routledge.
\nATLAS.ti Software Development.
\n(2004). ATLAS.ti. Berlin, Germany:
\nScientific Software Development.
\nRetrieved from www.atlas.ti.com
\nAubry, M., & Hobbs, B. (2011). A fresh
\nlook at the contribution of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanagement to organizational performance.
\nProject Management
\nJournal, 42(1), 3\u201316.
\nAubry, M., Hobbs, B., M\u00fcller, R., &
\nBlomquist, T. (2010). Identifying forces
\ndriving PMOs changes. Project
\nManagement Journal, 41(4), 30\u201345.
\nAubry, M., Hobbs, B., M\u00fcller, R., &
\nBlomquist, T. (2011). Identifying the
\nforces driving the frequent changes in
\nPMOs. Newtown Square, PA: Project
\nManagement Institute.
\nAubry, M., & Li\u00e8vre, P. (2010).
\nAmbidexterity as a competence of
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) leaders: A case study from two
\npolar expeditions. Project Management
\nJournal, 41(3), 32\u201344.
\nBourgeois, L. J., III. (1981). On the
\nmeasurement of organizational slack.
\nThe Academy of Management Review,
\n6(1), 29\u201339.
\nBurns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The
\nmanagement of innovation. London,
\nEngland: Tavistock Publications
\nLimited.
\nCrawford, K. J. (2010). The strategic
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) office (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL:
\nCRC Press.
\nCrawford, L. H. (2010, May).
\nDeconstructing the PMO. Paper presented
\nat the EURAM, Rome.Cyert,
\nR. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral
\ntheory of the firm. Englewood
\nCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
\nFebruary 2013 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj 75
\nDai, C. X., & Wells, W. G. (2004). An
\nexploration of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\noffice features and their relationship to
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) performance. International
\nJournal of Project Management, 22,
\n523\u2013532.
\nEisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories
\nfrom case study research.
\nAcademy of Management Review, 14,
\n532\u2013550.
\nEisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E.
\n(2007). Theory building from cases:
\nOpportunities and challenges.
\nAcademy of Management Journal,
\n50(1), 25\u201332.
\nGlaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The
\ndiscovery of grounded theory: Strategies
\nfor qualitative research. Chicago, IL:
\nAldine Publications.
\nGraham, D. J., & Midgley, N. G. (2000).
\nGraphical representation of particle
\nshape using triangular diagrams: An
\nExcel spreadsheet method. Earth
\nSurface Processes and Landforms,
\n25(13), 1473\u20131477.
\nHobbs, B., & Aubry, M. (2008). An
\nempirically grounded search for a
\ntypology of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\noffices. Project Management Journal,
\n39(Supplement), S69\u2013S82.
\nHobbs, B., & Aubry, M. (2010). The
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management office or PMO: A
\nquest for understanding. Newtown
\nSquare, PA: Project Management
\nInstitute.
\nHobbs, B., Aubry, M., & Thuillier, D.
\n(2008). The project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management office
\nas an organisational innovation.
\nInternational Journal of Project
\nManagement, 26(5), 547\u2013555.
\nHuemann, M. (2010). Considering
\nhuman resource management when
\ndeveloping a project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)-oriented company:
\nCase study of a telecommunication
\ncompany. International Journal
\nof Project Management, 28(4),
\n361\u2013369.
\nHurt, M., & Thomas, J. L. (2009).
\nBuilding value through sustainable
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management offices. Project
\nManagement Journal, 40(1), 55\u201372.
\nKeegan, A. E., & Turner, J. R. (2002).
\nThe management of innovation in
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)-based firms. Long Range
\nPlanning, 35, 367\u2013388.
\nKuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific
\nrevolutions. London, England:
\nUniversity of Chicago Press.
\nKulvik, I., Poskela, J., Turkulainen, V., &
\nArtto, K. (2010, May). The ambiguous
\nrole of PMO in the management of
\nfront end of innovation project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s. Paper
\npresented at the EURAM, Rome.
\nKwak, Y. H., & Ibbs, C. W. (2000).
\nCalculating project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management\u2019s
\nreturn on investment. Project
\nManagement Journal, 31(2), 38\u201347.
\nLangley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing
\nfrom process data. Academy of
\nManagement Review, 24(4), 691\u2013710.
\nLeibenstein, H. (1966). Allocative efficiency
\nvs. \u201cx-efficiency.\u201d The American
\nEconomic Review, 56(3), 392\u2013415.
\nLevinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993).
\nThe myopia of learning. Strategic
\nManagement Journal, 14, 95\u2013112.
\nLundin, R. A., & S\u00f6derholm, A. (1995).
\nA theory of the temporary organization.
\nScandinavian Journal of
\nManagement, 11(4), 437\u2013455.
\nMarch, J. G. (1991). Exploration and
\nexploitation in organizational learning.
\nOrganization Science, 2(1), 71\u201387.
\nMaylor, H., Brady, T., Cooke-Davies, T., &
\nHodgson, D. (2006). From project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)ification
\nto programmification.
\nInternational Journal of Project
\nManagement, 24(8), 663\u2013674.
\nMiles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M.
\n(1994). Qualitative data analysis: A
\nsource book of new methods. Beverly
\nHills, CA: Sage Publications.
\nNohria, N., & Gulati, R. (1996). Is slack
\ngood or bad for innovation? The
\nAcademy of Management Journal,
\n39(5), 1245\u20131264.
\nOuchi, W. G. (1977). The relationship
\nbetween organizational structure and
\norganizational control. Administrative
\nScience Quarterly, 22(1), 95\u2013113.
\nOuchi, W. G. (1979). A conceptual framework
\nfor the design of organizational
\ncontrol mechanisms. Management
\nScience, 25(9), 833\u2013848.
\nPatterson, L., Urban, M., Myers, A.,
\nBhaduri, B., Bright, E., & Coleman, P.
\n(2007). Assessing spatial and attribute
\nerrors in large national datasets for
\npopulation distribution models: A case
\nstudy of Philadelphia County schools.
\nGeoJournal, 69(1), 93\u2013102.
\nPatton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative
\nresearch & Assessment methods.
\nThousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
\nPellegrinelli, S., & Garagna, L. (2009).
\nTowards a conceptualisation of PMOs
\nas agents and subjects of change and
\nrenewal. International Journal of
\nProject Management, 27(7), 649\u2013656.
\nPlewe, B., & Bagchi-Sen, S. (2001). The
\nuse of weighted ternary histograms for
\nthe visualization of segregation.
\nProfessional Geographer, 53(3),
\n347\u2013360.
\nPorter, M. E. (1985). Competitive
\nadvantage: Creating and sustaining
\nsuperior performance. New York: Free
\nPress.
\nPreusser, H. (1976). Entwicklung und
\nr\u00e4umliche Differenzierung der
\nBev\u00f6lkerung Islands [The development
\nand spatial differentiation of the population
\nof Iceland]. Geografiska Annaler:
\nSeries B, Human Geography, 58(2),
\n116\u2013144.
\nProject Management Institute. (2008).
\nA guide to the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\nbody of knowledge (PMBOK\u00aeguide) \u2014
\nFourth edition. Newtown Square, PA:
\nAuthor.
\nQuinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A
\nspatial model of effectiveness criteria:
\nTowards a competing values approach
\nto organizational analysis. Management
\nScience, 29(3), 363.
\nSayer, A. (2000). Realism and social science.
\nLondon, England: Sage
\nPublications.
\nSzulanski, G. (2003). Sticky knowledge:
\nBarriers to knowing in the firm.
\nLondon, England: Sage Publications.
\nTeddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2010).
\nOverview of contemporary issues in
\n76 February 2013 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj
\nA Relational Typology of Project Management Offices
\nPAPERS
\nmixed methods research. In C. Teddlie &
\nA. Tashakkori (Eds.), Handbook of
\nmixed methods in Social & behavioral
\nresearch (2nd ed.; pp. 1\u201344). Thousand
\nOaks, CA: Sage Publications.
\nTurner, J. R., & Keegan, A. E. (1999).
\nThe versatile project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)-based organization:
\nGovernance and operational control.
\nEuropean Management Journal,
\n17(3), 296\u2013309.
\nTurner, J. R., & Keegan, A. E. (2001).
\nMechanisms of governance in the
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)-based organization: Roles of
\nthe broker and steward. European
\nManagement Journal, 19(3), 245\u2013267.
\nTurner, J. R., & Keegan, A. E. (2004).
\nManaging technology: Innovation,
\nlearning, and maturity. In P. W. G.
\nMorris & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley
\nguide to managing project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\n(pp. 567\u2013590). Hoboken, NJ: John
\nWiley & Sons.
\nTurner, J. R., & M\u00fcller, R. (2003). On
\nthe nature of the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) as a temporary
\norganization. International
\nJournal of Project Management,
\n21(1), 1\u20137.
\nWilliams, T. (2007). Post-project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nreviews to gain effective lessons learned.
\nNewtown Square, PA: Project
\nManagement Institute.
\nWinch, G. M., Meunier, M.-C., & Head,
\nJ. (2010, May). Projects as the content
\nand process of change: The case of the
\nHealth and Safety Laboratory. Paper
\npresented at the EURAM 2010, Rome.
\nYin, R. K. (2009). Case study research:
\nDesign and methods (4th ed.).
\nThousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
\nRalf M\u00fcller is a professor of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\nat BI Norwegian Business School in
\nNorway. His principal research interest is leadership
\nand governance of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s, programs,
\nportfolios, and PMOs. He is the author or coauthor
\nof more than 130 publications, and, among
\nother accolades, the receiver of the 2012 IPMA
\nResearch Award, which he received together
\nwith Monique Aubry and Brian Hobbs, and the
\nProject Management Journal\u2019s 2009 Paper of
\nthe Year Award. He holds an MBA from Heriot
\nWatt University and a DBA degree from Brunel
\nUniversity in the United Kingdom, and a PMP
\ncertification from PMI. Before joining academia,
\nhe spent 30 years in the industry consulting
\nwith large enterprises and governments in 47
\ndifferent countries for their project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\nand governance. He also held related line management
\npositions, such as the worldwide director
\nof project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management at NCR Teradata.
\nJohannes Gl\u00fcckler is a professor of economic
\nand social geography and research fellow at the
\nMarsilius Center for Advanced Study at the
\nUniversity of Heidelberg. He received his PhD
\nfrom the University of Frankfurt. Previously, he
\nwas a professor of economic geography at the
\nCatholic University of Eichst\u00e4tt-Ingolstadt. His
\nresearch interests are in the areas of economic
\ngeography, social networks, and service industries.
\nHe has written on relational economic
\ngeography, the geography of knowledge, and
\norganizational networks in journals such as
\nOrganization Studies, the Journal of Economic
\nGeography, Regional Studies, and the Service
\nIndustries Journal. He is coauthor of the monograph
\nThe Relational Economy (Oxford
\nUniversity Press, 2011), which analyzes the
\ngeographies of knowing and learning in the
\nglobal knowledge economy.
\nMonique Aubry, PhD, is a professor in the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanagement programs at the School of
\nManagement, Universit\u00e9 du Qu\u00e9bec \u00e0 Montr\u00e9al
\n(UQAM). Her principal research interest bears on
\norganizing for project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s and organizational
\ndesign, more specifically on project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\noffices (PMOs). She received the 2012
\nIPMA Research Award for her research on PMOs
\nalong with Brian Hobbs and Ralf M\u00fcller. The
\nresults of her work have been published in
\nmajor academic journals and presented at several
\ninternational conferences, both research
\nand professional. She is a member of the Project
\nManagement Research Chair (www.pmchair
\n.uqam.ca). She is also a member of the
\nStandards Member Advisory Group and the
\nResearch Informed Standards Steering
\nCommittee of the Project Management Institute.
\nCopyright of Project Management Journal is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be
\ncopied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written
\npermission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
\nPAPERS
\nFebruary 2012 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj 21
\nINTRODUCTION \u25a0
\nT
\nhis article considers the impact of program alignment and related factors
\nthat contribute to successful program delivery. The study
\nattempted to disclose the key underlying assumptions that connect
\nprogram management with related theories of strategic, organizational,
\nand project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management. Exposing the hidden management ideology
\nand practices that actually inform structure and content requires an
\nunderstanding of program success and failure factors (Lycett, Rassau, &
\nDanson, 2004). The identification of an interaction structure and management
\npractice that supports continuous alignment may thus provide significant
\npotential for reducing the unacceptable rate of program failures
\n(Kotter, 1995; Morris, Crawford, Hodgson, Shepherd, & Thomas, 2006). The
\nstudy should be of relevance to professionals who retain or exercise influence
\nover the formation and execution of programs.
\nBusiness strategy is complex and intertwined with all the processes and
\nsystems that are required to effectively manage an organization. Program
\nmanagement may be considered an effective building block and umbrella
\nframework in the operationalization of business strategy. The links between
\nbusiness strategy and program management reside within the alignment of
\nthe strategic processes of formulation and implementation. Strategic alignment
\nwill be unique to a particular organization and will involve a dynamic
\nand iterative process of mutual adjustment and reshaping (Beer, Voelpel,
\nLeibold, & Tekie, 2005). Strategic implementation in many companies is an
\nenigma due to misaligned project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s and a lack of a systemic approach to business
\nstrategies.
\nUnderstanding the potential contribution of program alignment may
\nthus further contribute to the improvement of the effectiveness and efficiency
\nof the delivery of strategic objectives (Burdett, 1994; Chorn, 1991;
\nStrassmann, 1998). This study has empirically explored implementing strategy
\nthrough programs and the need to continually manage program context.
\nProgram management environments are complex, and the uncertainty
\nthat arises from multiple combinations of unique personalities, stakeholder
\nexpectations, assumptions, constraints, changing environments, and human
\nsocial systems can provide the impetus for failure (Lehtonen & Martinsuo,
\n2009). The messy, complex, and multifaceted environment of program management
\nproduces a need to continually realign the program and related
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s to changing environmental and corporate objectives (Thiry, 2004).
\nPrevious research has recommended new directions that focus attention on
\ncausality and complexity in context (Ivory & Alderman, 2005; Morris & Pinto,
\n2007; Pollack, 2007). The inherent complexity involved in applying structured
\nprogram management frameworks to organizational contexts thus warrants
\nfurther serious consideration (Pellegrinelli, Partington, Hemingway,
\nMohdzain, & Shah, 2007). This study responds to this by applying a dynamic
\nSuccessful Programs Wanted:
\nExploring the Impact of Alignment
\nGraeme Ritson, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
\nEric Johansen, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
\nAllan Osborne, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
\nABSTRACT \u25a0
\nAlignment between formulation and implementation
\nof business strategy can be important for
\nachieving successful programs. The authors
\nhave explored the development of a program
\nmanagement alignment theory. Statistical testing
\nshowed that interaction between the study
\nmodel variables was found to be multidimensional,
\ncomplex, and subtle in influence. Thus,
\nthe authors conclude that programs have both
\ndeliberate and emergent strategies requiring
\ndesign and management to be organized as
\ncomplex adaptive systems. Program life-cycle
\nphases of design and transition were often
\nformed from an unclear and confusing strategic
\npicture at the outset, which can make those
\nphases difficult to control. Learning was established
\nas an underlying challenge. The study
\nmodel demonstrated continuous alignment as
\nan essential attribute contributing toward successful
\ndelivery. This requires program design
\nand structure to adopt an adaptive posture.
\nKEYWORDS: corporate strategy; program
\nmanagement; governance; continuous alignment;
\ndeliberate and emerging strategies
\nProject Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 1, 21\u201336
\n\u00a9 2011 by the Project Management Institute
\nPublished online in Wiley Online Library
\n(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002\/pmj.20273
\n22 February 2012 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj
\nSuccessful Programs Wanted
\nPAPERS
\nsystems perspective to program management.
\nThis may improve the usefulness
\nand practical application of existing
\ngood practice frameworks (Office of
\nGovernment Commerce [OGC], 2007;
\nProject Management Institute [PMI],
\n2009).
\nTheoretical Background
\nand Model
\nThe study was operationalized through
\nthe core concepts of systems, governance,
\ninnovation and learning, corporate
\nstrategy, environmental factors,
\ncontinuous alignment, and successful
\ndelivery (Figure 1). This viewed success
\nas a multidimensional construct\u2014
\nprogram management success, program
\nsuccess, achieving business objectives,
\nstrategic orientation, and business success
\n(Shenhar, Dvir, Levy, & Maltz,
\n2001). These dimensions consider success
\nfrom a business, corporate, and
\neconomic level, respectively. Appropriate
\nhypotheses were advanced to
\nformulate a reasonable prediction
\nabout the relationship of the variables
\ncontained in the model.
\nCorporate Strategy, Project, and
\nProgram Management
\nProgram management is strategic in
\norientation through delivering outcomes
\nand benefits related to the organization\u2019s
\nstrategic goals (Association
\nfor Project Management [APM], 2007a;
\nOGC, 2007; PMI, 2009). This will require
\nthe program and interrelated project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\nto have their objectives and strategies
\naligned with corporate strategy to create
\nan iterative hierarchy that develops
\ninto business operations (Dietrich &
\nLehtonen, 2005). Some organizations
\nmay be adopting program management
\nas they develop their strategic
\nmanagement capability. There will be a
\nmultiplicity of options available in
\nachieving strategic objectives through
\nprogram-driven approaches requiring
\nintelligent program design. Context will
\nbe crucial in determining appropriate
\nprogram formation (Pellegrinelli, 2002;
\nPellegrinelli et al., 2007). International,
\ngovernment, societal, industrial, commercial,
\nand business programs will
\ndiffer in focus and predictability of outcome.
\nClearly articulated corporate strategy
\nwill support the prioritization and
\nexecution of the right programs and
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s. This alone will not guarantee
\nprogram success. Ill-conceived business
\nstrategy will not necessarily be
\nredeemed by program and project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanagement. This will make reliable
\nprioritization and consistent allocation
\nof resources based on the greatest
\nstrategic contribution more difficult
\n(Hrebiniak, 2006). Programs may also
\nbe compromised by strategic business
\ncase misrepresentation. This will result
\nin misalignment with strategic objectives.
\nManaging programs will involve
\nthe task of remaining aligned with corporate
\nstrategy (OGC, 2007).
\nSome organizations have welldeveloped
\nprogram management
\nmaturity and organizational management
\nsystems that support continuous
\nalignment. Well-aligned organizations
\nwill be able to prioritize both activities
\nand how identified work gets executed.
\nThe greater the alignment between the
\noperating environment, strategy, structure,
\nand processes, the more positive
\nH1. Corporate strategy
\nH6. Continuous
\nalignment
\nH2. Internal and external
\nenvironments
\nH4. Systems, subsystems,
\nand processes H3. Successful delivery
\nH5. Program
\ngovernance
\nH7. Learning and
\ninnovation
\nFigure 1:Theoretical model and hypotheses.
\nFebruary 2012 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj 23
\neffects this will have on performance
\n(Middleton & Harper, 2004). Alignment
\nwill be essential for strategic success,
\nalthough nonalignment may exist for
\ntemporary periods through significant
\norganizational and industry-sector
\nchange. Strategy formulation and
\nimplementation will thus require organizational
\nalignment with its resource
\ncapability (Engwall & Jerbrant, 2003).
\nShenhar et al. (2001) also suggested
\nthat project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) success will be strongly
\nlinked to an organization\u2019s business
\neffectiveness.
\nResearch indicates that project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) failure
\nis distinctly linked to factors at the
\nfront end of a project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) through misalignment
\nwith an organization\u2019s key strategic
\npriorities (Pinto & Slevin, 1998). Hyvari
\n(2006) and Engwall (2003) supported
\nthis in concluding that organizational
\ncontext will be an important factor
\nin determining success or failure.
\nPrograms should be selected and
\nformed from organizational strategy by
\naligning and coordinating related project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\n(Morris & Jamieson, 2005). Program
\nformation and structure may be unclear
\nat the outset, requiring flexible
\nstrategic implementation planning and
\nmodular phased project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s. This need for
\na dynamic interface provides a clear
\nbusiness case for organizations to
\nimprove their capability in the management
\nof programs of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s and to
\nensure that structure follows business
\nstrategy. These and other contextdependent
\nand decision-oriented
\nissues lead to the following hypothesis:
\nH1: Corporate strategy leads to a
\nvision and stakeholder strategy that
\ntakes account of the organization,
\nmarket, and sector in which it operates.
\nEnvironmental Factors
\nModern organizations are constantly
\nanalyzing their business activities and
\nindustry sector, searching for business
\nopportunities (Venkatraman, 1989).
\nThis may result in constant change of
\nbusiness priorities and plans. De Wit
\nand Meyer (2005) argued that the most
\ncommon cause of corporate failure is
\nmisalignment between the organization
\nand its environment. Sheppard
\nand Chowdhury (2005) strengthened
\nthis argument and emphasize that a
\nfundamental failure of management
\nwill exist if they do not properly evaluate
\nthe environment. Globalization and
\ntechnological innovation create dynamic
\nand complex environments for many
\ncurrent businesses where change is
\na constant factor. Managing major
\nchanges successfully may require an
\norganization-wide approach, and this
\nwill impact at both the operational and
\nstrategic levels (Carnall, 2007). The size
\nand scale of some organizations make it
\nimpracticable for a radical change from
\nexisting practices to be orchestrated at
\nthe same time. Strategic change decisions
\nmust be oriented in the most
\nappropriate sequence to increase the
\nlikelihood of execution success (Bruch,
\nGerber, & Maier, 2005). The OGC (2008)
\nrecommended the adoption of program
\nand project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) prioritization categories to
\nensure alignment between business
\npriorities, current capability, and
\ncapacity to deliver.
\nWell-constructed and well-managed
\nprograms should provide confidence
\nthat the right project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s are being sponsored
\nand that the desired benefits will
\nbe achieved. Managing a program
\nwill be a complex undertaking requiring
\nboth project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management acumen
\nand the capability of a business leader
\n(Pellegrinelli, 1997). Every program will
\nbe unique to its contextual environment.
\nRapidly changing and chaotic
\nenvironmental factors will create a high
\nlevel of task and organizational complexity.
\nThis will require the impetus to
\nmonitor and challenge program and
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) performance. Increasing program
\ncomplexity may provide an ever-present
\nthreat of failure. Solving one unyielding
\nproblem may create unexpected drawbacks
\nelsewhere. The more complex the
\nprogram, the greater interaction risk and
\ninterdependence with the internal
\nand external environment (Verma &
\nSinha, 2002). This will necessitate a focus
\non the tension between strategic direction,
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) delivery, operational effectiveness,
\nand external influences. The
\norganization is unlikely to be in total
\nalignment and will have different
\nchange capabilities. An open outlook
\nand sense of cooperation would be
\nideal but this is seldom realized in practice
\n(Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008).
\nOrganizational change resistance will
\nbe inherent (Ford & Ford, 2009). The
\nprogram will more than likely be differentiated
\nand gradual rather than radical
\nand coordinated.
\nKnowledge of the current and future
\nenvironment will influence the choice of
\nstrategic objectives and strategies
\nemployed. Changes to the organizational
\nand business environment may lead
\nto significant alterations to the program
\nscope and priorities. The time horizon
\nand long-term nature of some programs
\ncan have a significant impact on manageability.
\nThe speed of technical evolution
\nand communication technology
\nmay require adjustment or even cancellation
\nof tight-time-frame programs.
\nThe program\u2019s mission should provide a
\nfocus for an integrated continuous decision
\nalignment framework (Scherpereel,
\n2006). Major strategic reviews may be
\nrequired at different times in the
\nprogram\u2019s life cycle to coordinate alignment.
\nThis will be an indicator of organizational
\nstrategic maturity (APM,
\n2007b). Unpredictable environmental
\nfactors are thus cross-linked to managing
\nprograms and will require a dynamic,
\nflexible, and adaptive temporary
\norganization. Program management in
\npractice will involve top-down strategic
\nimplementation linked with bottom-up
\nemerging management strategy through
\nsuccessful project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) integration in the
\nhost organization (Srivannaboon &
\nMilosevic, 2006). These emergentshaping
\nconjectures lead to the following
\nresearch hypothesis:
\nH2: The organization\u2019s strategy is
\ninfluenced and reshaped from both
\nthe internal and the external environments.
\n24 February 2012 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj
\nSuccessful Programs Wanted
\nPAPERS
\nSystemic Factors
\nProgram management is a management
\nstrategy informed by complexity
\nthinking, which increases manageability
\nand coordination. Deliberate and
\nemergent business strategies will
\nrequire flexibility in the program design
\n(Elizabeth & Ysanne, 2007; Mintzberg,
\n1994; Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel,
\n1998; Mintzberg & Waters, 1985).
\nEmergence describes a dynamic
\nprocess that is the product of ongoing
\nsystem interactions. This refers to the
\ncoexistence and impact of program
\nmanagement, project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management,
\nbusiness-as-usual activities, environmental
\nfactors, and corporate governance.
\nThe emergent and coevolutionary
\ndynamic of program management will
\nrequire open systems. Open system
\nrefers to the uncontrollable variable of
\nthe environment and the self-organizing
\ntendency if left unmanaged. This introduces
\nnonlinear interaction, unpredictability,
\nand feedback loops in support
\nof organizational learning theory.
\nOpen systems theory considers the
\norganization as a number of interdependent
\nsubsystems that are open to
\nand connected with their environment.
\nThis provides the potential for the
\nsystem to take on a new form in
\nresponse to environmental factors
\nrequiring the facilitation of informationdriven
\nactivities.
\nProgram management provides an
\nintegration solution for strategic business
\nmanagement in dealing with
\ncomplexity and chaos in multiproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nenvironments (Pourdehnad, 2007).
\nEstablishing systemic alignment
\nbetween people, processes, and technology
\nwill provide benefits. Emerging
\ntechnologies can be adopted to enhance
\norganizational alignment capability and
\nmaturity (Gaddie, 2003). The program
\nsystem may be radically unpredictable
\nbeyond its immediate future, requiring a
\ndynamic approach of emergent planning
\n(Kash & Rycoft, 2000). The capability
\nof an organization and the coordinated
\npresence of critical program elements
\nwill influence integration success.
\nCritical program elements refer to the
\ncontextual program design or blueprint.
\nEstablished program processes
\nwill need to continuously integrate
\nadaptive decision making through
\nlearning processes (Lindkvist, 2008).
\nThis will require a focus on complex
\ninteractions, interdependency, processes,
\nand the coevolution of business
\nsystems.
\nUnderstanding what management
\npractices are required for any given program
\nwill be an important challenge. It
\nwill be fundamentally important that
\nthe distinguishing features of the program
\nare understood, as this should influence
\nprogram design (Meyer, Loch, &
\nPich, 2002). Uncertainty (structural,
\ntechnical, directional, and temporal)
\nwill be inevitable and a basic feature of
\nthis complex system. Leading a program
\nwill thus be multifaceted, situational,
\nand transient (Uhl-Bien, 2006).
\nContextual uncertainty may materialize
\nin the form of an opportunity or risk.
\nHigh uncertainty and complexity will
\nrequire a holistic approach in designing
\nthe program (Maylor, Brady, CookeDavies,
\n& Hodgson, 2006). Influences
\nfrom the external environment may be
\nfrequent, accidental, and unpredictable,
\nwith the internal environment
\nbeing equally as dynamic (Rybakov,
\n2001). Drawing together these system
\ndynamic principles leads to the following
\nresearch hypotheses:
\nH3: The program mission and objectives
\nsupport the creation of worthwhile
\nbusiness benefits and the
\nsuccessful delivery of the program.
\nH4: Programs and project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s are managed
\nthrough a set of interdependent
\ncritical processes and subsystems
\nthat support strategic alignment and
\nrealignment.
\nGovernance
\nCorporate governance provides the
\nstructure for initiating and determining
\nthe objectives of an organization and the
\nmeans of monitoring, evaluating,
\nand influencing performance. Effective
\nprogram governance will be a major
\nstrategic factor and cannot be confined
\nto a narrow static model that ignores
\ndynamic complexity. This will require
\nemphasis toward flexibility with the
\norganization-program-governance interface
\n(Rycroft & Kash, 2004). The sponsoring
\ngroup will be pivotal for success.
\nA further critical aspect will be the
\ndetermination of structures and control
\nmeasures to ensure alignment with
\nthe unique organizational and contextual
\nenvironments. The success of the
\nprogram will require a flexible governance
\nstructure that can be identified
\nfrom contextual design criteria to
\nensure that it is fit for purpose. The
\nprogram mission will be a critical reference
\npoint for aligning structures,
\npolicies, procedures, behaviors, and
\ndecision making.
\nMultiowned program governance
\nwill require a strong focus on alignment
\n(APM, 2007b). This will be derived from
\nintertwining multiple perspectives of
\ngovernance in establishing a self-organizing
\ncomplex adaptive system (White,
\n2001). Various alignment strategies may
\nbe needed in response to stakeholder
\nobjections and agenda-setting behaviors.
\nEmergent and ill-defined programs
\nwill need to make greater use of alignment
\nmechanisms and tools. Welltimed,
\naccurate, and focused reporting
\nwill be central to integrating both performance
\nand learning loops. These
\nattributes provide the essential platform
\nfor configuration activities in the
\nprocess of actively shaping and reactively
\nadapting to the shifting contextual
\nenvironment. These issue and problembased
\nsuppositions lead to the following
\nresearch hypotheses:
\nH5: Program governance provides
\nthe control framework through
\nwhich the objectives are delivered
\nwhile remaining within corporate
\nvisibility and control.
\nH6: A continual process of realignment
\nensures that programs and project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\nremain linked to corporate objectives
\nand environmental influences.
\nFebruary 2012 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj 25
\nInnovation and Learning
\nOrganizational learning is essentially
\nabout an organization increasing its
\nability to explore opportunities and
\nundertake effective action (Carlile,
\n2004). This may lead to far-reaching
\nchanges and the formulation of new
\norganizational strategies. Learning and
\ncontinuous improvement is attributed
\nas the highest level of management
\nmaturity. There must be defined roles,
\nfunctions, and procedures for learning
\nto become organizational (Lipshitz,
\nPopper, & Friedman, 2002). The various
\nbodies of knowledge incorporate the
\nneed to learn from project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s. Learning
\nthrough programs and project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s is thus a
\nsubset of organizational learning
\n(Brady & Davis, 2004). This will need
\nthe systemic integration of data, information,
\nand knowledge. Sense (2007)
\nsuggested that project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s are an embryonic
\nstructure that develops a new
\ncommunity of practice through situational
\nlearning and negotiation of
\nemergent opportunities. This provides
\nan experientially constructed temporary
\nsystem for solving problems and
\nknowledge transfer.
\nLearning from both success and
\nfailure will thus be essential in a program
\nof project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s. Programs provide
\nenhanced opportunity for learning
\nthrough the batching of related project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s,
\ninterdependency, and the
\nincreased socialization from resource
\nsharing. Project management practices
\nwill differ between industry sectors and
\norganizations, providing a potential
\ngulf in language and learning that must
\nbe considered. The ill-defined requirements
\nof some programs will challenge
\nthe linear stage-gate process of innovation
\nthrough inherent iteration (Smith &
\nWinter, 2005). Programs may require
\ndiffering distinctive leadership styles at
\ndifferent junctures in the program life
\ncycle. Multidisciplinary learning will
\nemerge through a process of activity
\nand alignment decision making (Fong,
\n2003). The following research hypothesis
\ncaptures this strong learning relationship:
\nH7: Within the life cycle, program
\nand project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) processes embrace
\nchange and realignment by using
\nlearning to create innovation and
\nimprovement opportunities to support
\nthe successful delivery of the
\nprogram.
\nMethod
\nThe study was designed to bring to the
\nforefront critical issues that supported
\nthe advancement of alignment theory
\nfor program management. The need for
\na rigorous theory-building process led
\nto the selection of a mixed-method
\nstudy design that involved both statistical
\nand text analysis.
\nSample and Data Collection
\nThe participants were selected from
\na population profile that was established
\nfrom the Rethinking Project
\nManagement Network, accredited project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanagement training and consulting
\norganizations, the e-mail list for the
\nAssociation for Project Management
\nProgramme Management Specific
\nInterest Group, and specific e-mail
\ngroups from a UK-wide service-led
\norganization. The Rethinking Project
\nManagement Network was a UK government-funded
\nresearch initiative that
\naimed to develop, extend, and enrich
\nmainstream project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management ideas
\nin relation to developing practice. This
\nincluded leading academics and practitioners
\nin the field of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management.
\nThe program concluded with five
\ndirections established for future
\nresearch, which were outlined in a 2006
\nspecial issue of the International Journal
\nof Project Management. These themes
\ncomplemented this study through a
\ngrowing emphasis on programs and
\nmanaging collections of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s.
\nAssociation for Project Management
\nAccredited Project Management training
\nproviders specialize in the delivery of
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)-based training that is aligned to
\nAPM qualifications. These companies
\ninfluence developing practice and project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nprofessionals through their consultancy
\npractice. The APM Programme
\nManagement Specific Interest Group
\naims to be the leading internationally
\nrecognized group for program management.
\nThis study contributed to their
\nmission to promote the science and discipline
\nof program management. The
\nspecific e-mail groups from the serviceled
\norganization consisted of those
\ninvolved in both transformational
\nchange and information system programs.
\nAll respondents were further
\nclassified by their role within programs
\nand the context of their practice-related
\nexperience. This targeted professional
\ngroups who were classified as consultants
\nor experts, senior managers that are
\nactively involved in programs, program
\nmanagers, project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) managers, and those
\nholding project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)-related job functions.
\nThis ensured the respondents were representative,
\nknowledgeable, and appropriate
\nto the study.
\nData collection was by means of a
\nstandardized questionnaire and semistructured
\ninterviews. The quantitative
\ndata was collected through a multimode
\nadministration method primarily
\nfrom an e-mail-driven strategy supported
\nby a web survey. The web survey
\nmirrored the self-administered questionnaire.
\nThis did not include advance
\nnotification, as it was administered
\nthrough the Programme Management
\nSignificant Influence Group monthly
\nnewsletter. The e-mail-driven list consisted
\nof 264 subjects, while the web
\nsurvey provided 2,005 additional subjects.
\nSix volunteer informants were
\nrandomly selected for interviews that
\nclassified themselves as either program
\nconsultants or experts and program
\nmanagers to ensure absolute knowledge
\nof the dynamics of the study model.
\nEach interview volunteer further represented
\na different program management
\ncontext\u2014information technology,
\norganizational change, new product
\ndevelopment, civil engineering, and
\nsomeone who had diverse experience
\nwith different types of programs. These
\ninterviews further explored the causal
\nrelationships of the research model to
\nunderstand how participants actually
\nconstructed theory and determined
\n26 February 2012 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj
\nSuccessful Programs Wanted
\nPAPERS
\nemerging phenomena in relation to the
\nstudy. This provided the opportunity for
\nthe interviewee to introduce issues that
\nthey conceived as important. The quantitative
\nand qualitative phases were
\nintegrated by an iterative process, with
\neach influencing the other accordingly.
\nMeasures
\nThe questionnaire design was structured
\nto gather information and understanding
\nabout organizational, environmental,
\nprogram, and project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\nalignment. Respondents were requested
\nto respond based on their practicerelated
\nexperience and expertise. This
\nrequired questions to be answered by
\nrespondent experience and insight.
\nClosed-ended questions were used to
\nclassify the professional orientation
\n(program management consultant\/
\nexpert; senior manager involved in programs;
\nprogram manager\/director;
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) manager involved in programs;
\nother\u2014please specify) and program
\nmanagement context of participants
\n(IT\/software development; organizational
\nor management change; new
\nproduct development; construction\/
\ncivil engineering; generalized). These
\ndiffering characteristics and attributes
\nwere coded by a five-category nominal
\nlevel of measurement. The model variables
\nand hypotheses were included in
\nthe questionnaire as closed-ended
\nquestions to validate the respondent\u2019s
\nopinion of the statements. These were
\nmeasured on a four-point Likert scale
\nranging from 1 (never) to 4 (always).
\nThis was a deliberate decision in
\nremoving the availability of a middle
\nalternative to ensure respondents indicated
\nthe direction of their viewpoint.
\nThe model variables and hypotheses
\nneeded to be constructed into a
\nstructural equation model to test and
\nconfirm proposed relationships. This
\ninvolved translating the proposed
\nalignment theory into a structural
\nmodel. Learning and innovation, program
\ngovernance, and systemic factors
\nwere classified as independent variables
\nin the study model. Successful
\ndelivery was the dependent variable,
\nwhich was hypothesized to be influenced
\nby the independent variables
\nand intervening variables of environment,
\ncontinuous alignment, and corporate
\nstrategy. The general sample
\ncharacteristics and size of the study
\ndata determined the measurement and
\ninterpretation of the statistical analysis.
\nThe selection of structural equation
\nmodeling ensured that measurement
\nerror was taken into account in the procedures
\n(Schumacker & Lomax, 2004).
\nThe model was identified by including
\nan error parameter for each variable
\nthat fixed the factor loading to 1.
\nThis multivariate statistical approach
\ncombined the application of both
\npath and confirmatory factor models in
\nanalyzing the causal model and study
\ndata. Analysis of Moment Structures
\n(AMOS) is an add-on module for SPSS
\nthat allows structural equation models
\nto be specified by using a simple dragand-drop
\ndrawing tool to test proposed
\ncausal relationships. The specified
\nstructural model follows standard
\ndrawing conventions to show the causeand-effect
\nrelationships (Figure 2). The
\nvariables measured in the study model
\nare depicted by enclosed rectangles.
\nUnobserved variables or model measurement
\nerrors are denoted by circles.
\nThis ensured that measurement errors
\nwere explicitly considered in statistical
\ncalculations. Straight-line singleheaded
\narrows from one variable to
\nanother indicate a direct influence
\nfrom that variable to the other. Zero rating
\nvalues would indicate that there
\nwas no direct impact. The absence of a
\nstraight-line single-headed arrow
\nbetween variables indicates that there
\nare no direct effects hypothesized.
\nDouble-headed curved lines between
\nvariables indicate a covariance. These
\ncoefficients detect and measure the
\nrelationship between two variables
\nthrough an index range, with zero indicating
\nno relation and 1.0 suggesting a
\nperfect relationship. The strength and
\nimpact of each model parameter estimate
\nis illustrated by the numerical output
\nbeside an arrowhead or variable in
\nthe study model. Problems in specifying
\nStudy Variable
\nStudy Variable
\nParameter value Error
\nindicating no relation
\nParameter value
\nindicating a perfect relationship
\n1.0
\n0.0
\nCircle used to draw
\nthe unobserved
\nvariables\/model
\nmeasurement error
\nStudy Variable
\nSingle-headed arrows
\nused to draw the causeeffect
\nrelationship
\nbetween variables
\nRectangle used to draw
\nthe study variables
\nDouble-headed arrow
\nused to draw the
\ncovariance between
\nvariables
\nError
\nError
\nFigure 2: Structural equation model drawing conventions.
\nNote. Model measurement error factor loading fixed to 1.0.
\nFebruary 2012 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj 27
\nthe drawn model structure are highlighted
\nby an error message or by the
\nAMOS text output not calculating.
\nMeasurement and study model modification
\ninvolved identification with and
\nlinking of qualitative data.
\nReliability and Validity
\nThe mixed-method study design combined
\nthe different criteria used for
\nvalidity and reliability in both qualitative
\nand quantitative research. There
\nwere a number of prerequisites that
\nneeded to be satisfied before a multivariate
\nanalysis could be undertaken.
\nExploratory data analysis validated the
\nappropriateness of statistical methods
\nand techniques (Table 1). Kurtosis outputs
\nestablished that outliers in the
\ndata sample were not problematic, as
\nthis can provide misleading values with
\nstatistical methods and techniques. The
\npresence of outliers would affect structural
\nequation model fit significance tests.
\nThe Pearson\u2019s correlation coefficient
\nand two-tailed significance-level tests
\nindicated that all variables were significantly
\ncorrelated. Correlation is a
\nmeasure of linear dependence between
\nvariables. The stronger the correlations,
\nthe more power structural equation
\nmodeling has to detect an incorrect
\nfitting model. Reliability testing
\nprovided an indication of the general
\nquality of the study data. The
\nCronbach\u2019s alpha statistic (1951) was
\nadopted as a measure of the internal
\nconsistency and reliability of the study
\ndata. This statistical output is from any
\nvalue less than or equal to 1 and provides
\nan unbiased estimate of the ability
\nof the data to be generalized. The
\nvalue of above 0.70 is recommended,
\nalthough values exceeding 0.80 are
\ndesirable for higher reliability test studies.
\nThe Cronbach\u2019s alpha statistic output
\nof 0.831 thus validated that the
\ninternal consistency reliability of this
\nanalysis was good. The exploratory
\ndata analysis procedure concluded that
\nthe data were approximately multivariate
\nnormal in distribution and suitable
\nfor application to structural equation
\nmodeling. This classification was
\nessential, as small deviations from
\nmultivariate normality can lead to a
\nlarge difference in the Chi-square test.
\nAMOS labels this test global model fit
\n(CMIN). This label will now be adopted
\nthroughout the remainder of this article
\nwhen referring to the Chi-square test.
\nMultiple pilot-testing methods
\nwere used to refine the standardized
\nquestionnaire and qualitative interview
\nstructure to validate that the designs
\nwere clear, simple, and elicited the
\nappropriate responses. Missing data
\nwere eliminated with participants of
\nthe online survey by adopting a computer
\nquestionnaire, which needed a
\nresponse before completing the survey.
\nThe quality and completeness of the
\nreturned e-mail questionnaires was
\nextremely high. The only incidence of
\nmissing data was clarified by a follow-up
\n0 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean SD
\nStrategy Correlation 0.407** 0.402** 0.366** 0.360** 0.441** 0.386** 2.89 0.695
\nSig. (two-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
\nEnvironment Correlation 0.297** 0.309** 0.301** 0.403** 0.336** 3.23 0.673
\nSig. (two-tailed) 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000
\nSuccessful Delivery Correlation 0.503** 0.485** 0.442** 0.454** 2.93 0.726
\nSig. (two-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
\nSystemic Factors Correlation 0.490** 0.453** 0.406** 2.89 0.782
\nSig. (two-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000
\nGovernance Correlation 0.531** 0.354** 2.89 0.758
\nSig. (two-tailed) 0.000 0.000
\nContinuous Alignment Correlation 0.522** 2.70 0.761
\nSig. (two-tailed) 0.000
\nLearning and Innovation Correlation 2.50 0.751
\nSig. (two-tailed)
\nCronbach\u2019s Alpha Reliability Statistics Based on Standardized Items 0.831
\n**Pearson\u2019s correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
\nTable 1: Pearson\u2019s correlation and Cronbach\u2019s alpha reliability tests.
\n28 February 2012 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj
\nSuccessful Programs Wanted
\nPAPERS
\ne-mail. Structural equation modeling
\nused interval data from the questionnaire
\nfor testing purposes. Randomized
\nselection was adopted for the interview
\ninformants to address the amount of
\ndiversity bias evident from the quantitative
\ndata phase. This ensured that a
\nrepresentative sample could be generalized
\nacross the wider program management
\ncommunity. The semistructured
\ninterviews focused on rigorous subjectivity
\nby respondent validation of the
\nquantitative research findings. This
\ninvolved asking questions such as
\n\u201cDoes the model structure make
\nsense?\u201d and \u201cAre the relationship paths
\nrepresentative of your experience?\u201d
\nRespondents were then encouraged to
\njustify opinions and provide alternative
\nexplanations. This facilitated understanding
\nand interpretation of relationships
\nbetween study variables.
\nStructural equation modeling validation
\nessentially involved statistical
\nand theoretical Assessment of model fit.
\nThe selection of appropriate statistical
\nfit measures considered issues such as
\nsample size and overall complexity of
\nthe model. These tests are based on the
\nassumption that the correct and complete
\nrelevant data have been modelled.
\nThe study sample size adopted a
\nlower limit of 100 respondents as proposed
\nby some authors (Chen, Bollan,
\nPaxton, Curran, & Kirby, 2001; Gagne &
\nHancock, 2006). Unobserved error variables
\nwere included to explicitly depict
\nthe unreliability of measurement in the
\nmodel. This allows the structural relations
\nbetween variables to be accurately
\nestimated. Criteria for study model fit
\nand testing were determined from the
\nsize of the study data and sample multivariate
\ncharacteristics. Model validation
\nwas determined through global
\nmodel fit (CMIN), root mean square
\nerror of approximation (RMSEA), goodness-of-fit
\nindex (GFI), and other normalized
\nmodel fit measures. CMIN of
\nzero illustrates a perfect model fit,
\nalthough it is generally accepted that
\nthis is impractical in reality. For reasonable
\nsample sizes, a difference enough
\nto produce a CMIN in the region of the
\ndegrees of freedom (DF) would suggest
\na close model fit. RMSEA was adopted
\nbecause it provides an output that
\ndoes not penalize model complexity.
\nModification index results following a
\nspecification search illustrated the reliability
\nof the relation paths drawn in a
\nspecified structural equation model.
\nData Analysis
\nStudy model modification followed an
\niterative process between the structural
\nequation modeling statistical analysis
\n(Arbuckle, 2007) and model structure
\ntheoretical validation through semistructured
\ninterviews (Silverman,
\n2006). The best-fitting model that was
\nalso consistent with theory was selected.
\nStructural equation models combine
\nmeasurement models (e.g., reliability
\ntests) with structural models (e.g.,
\nregression weights). This is based on
\ndata-driven model fitting. AMOS provided
\nautomated modification indices
\nas an alternative to manual model
\nbuilding and model trimming. Model fit
\nwas first measured on the closeness of
\nthe study-sample variance-covariance
\nmatrix. Modification needed to satisfy
\nthese measurement criteria and also
\nmeet the need for theoretical meaningfulness.
\nStatistical model cross-validation
\nthrough semistructured interviews
\nestablished problems in the structure of
\nthe model. This resulted in the model
\nstructure being redefined with the variables
\narranged differently, affecting
\npath relations (Figure 1).
\nThe model estimates were then
\nrecalculated. This involved the AMOS
\nautomated modification function, indicating
\nthat all the model correlations
\nand direct relations from the independent
\nvariables to the intervening variables
\nwere optional. This supported the
\npotential of further model refinement by
\nremoving poorly weighted relationship
\nparameters following the specification
\nsearch. This provided a multiplicity of
\nother models that fitted the data and
\nidentified potential adjustments that
\ncould be made to the model. The AMOS
\ntext output indicated the estimated
\nchange and reliability in the new path
\ncoefficient for each alternative model
\nproposed. Improvement in model fit
\nwas measured by a reduction in CMIN.
\nThe statistical model output indicated
\nthat overall model fit was adequate and
\ncould not be further statistically
\nimproved (Table 2 and Figure 2). The
\nmodel structure was then further
\nrefined to provide a theoretically validated
\nmodel. This introduced a new
\nvariable that could not be statistically
\nmeasured.
\nResults
\nThe e-mail survey provided a response
\nrate of 31% (81). The web survey had a
\nlarger population but significantly
\nlower response rate of 1% (29), reducing
\nthe overall study response rate to 5 percent
\n(110). This provided some concern
\nregarding statistical significance.
\nVarious studies have concluded that a
\nlower response rate does not necessarily
\ndifferentiate reliably between accurate
\nand inaccurate data (Keeter,
\nKennedy, Dimock, Best, & Craighill,
\n2006; Visser, Krosnick, Marquette, &
\nCurtin, 1996). The findings of these
\nstudies found that much lower
\nresponse rates were only minimally less
\naccurate. The 29 web survey respondents
\nwere included, as they provided a
\nrich source of expert data. More importantly,
\ntheir responses also enhanced
\nthe sample size to improve statistical
\nmodel significance. Survey respondents
\nwere reasonably dispersed over
\nfour program management practicerelated
\ngroups\u2014experts (25%), senior
\nmanagers (27%), program managers
\n(21%), and project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)-related roles (27%).
\nAn Assessment of Hoelter\u2019s (1983) critical
\nN from the model output suggests
\nthat the largest model sample size
\nrequired at a significance level of 0.05 is
\na threshold of 37. This provided reasonable
\nconfidence of sample-size adequacy
\n(N 110) against concerns of statistical
\nsignificance.
\nThe statistically modified model
\nis illustrated in Figure 3 following
\nFebruary 2012 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj 29
\nParameter Standardized
\nDescription of Path Estimate SE CR P Estimate
\nEnvironment d Governance 0.134 0.091 1.473 0.141 0.151
\nEnvironment d Systems 0.124 0.090 1.378 0.168 0.144
\nEnvironment d Learning 0.201 0.087 2.293 0.022 0.224
\nAlignment d Systems 0.122 0.084 1.457 0.145 0.125
\nAlignment d Environment 0.191 0.088 2.171 0.030 0.169
\nAlignmentd Governance 0.312 0.084 3.705 *** 0.311
\nAlignment d Learning 0.308 0.082 3.741 *** 0.304
\nStrategy d Environment 0.233 0.093 2.515 0.012 0.226
\nStrategy d Alignment 0.160 0.099 1.621 0.105 0.175
\nStrategy d Governance 0.086 0.092 0.932 0.352 0.094
\nStrategy d Systems 0.101 0.087 1.167 0.243 0.114
\nStrategy d Learning 0.129 0.090 1.436 0.151 0.140
\nSuccessful delivery d Environment 0.084 0.102 0.826 0.409 0.078
\nSuccessful delivery d Alignment 0.293 0.091 3.201 0.001 0.307
\nSuccessful delivery d Strategy 0.246 0.100 2.454 0.014 0.236
\nTable 2: Regression weights and standardized regression weights.
\nProgram governance
\nSystemic factors
\nLearning and innovation
\nEnvironment
\nContinuous alignment
\nCorporate strategy
\n0.57
\ne1
\n1
\n0.61
\ne2
\n1
\n0.56
\ne3
\n1
\nSuccessful delivery
\n0.37 e4
\n0.32
\ne5
\ne6 0.34
\n1
\n1
\n1
\n0.12
\n0.23
\n0.19
\n0.16
\n0.08
\n0.29
\n0.25
\n0.13
\n0.31
\n0.12
\n0.10
\n0.20
\n0.13
\n0.31
\ne7 0.39
\n1
\n0.24
\n0.29
\n0.20
\nProgram Management Alignment Theory
\nChi-square 23.156 (3 df)
\np 0.000
\n0.09
\nFigure 3: Statistically modified structural equation model.
\n30 February 2012 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj
\nSuccessful Programs Wanted
\nPAPERS
\nmeasurement model reliability testing.
\nAn analysis of the number of distinct
\nparameters (NPAR 25) and the number
\nof degrees of freedom (DF 3)
\ndetermined that the model was complex.
\nThis outcome will provide conflicting
\nresults with some model fit
\nmeasures that attempt to balance parsimony
\nor simplicity against model
\ncomplexity. RMSEA provides an output
\nthat does not penalize model complexity.
\nThe modified model has an output
\nof 0.248 that exceeds the reasonable
\nerror approximation of 0.1 suggested by
\nBrowne and Cudeck (1989). This suggests
\npoor model fit, although RMSEA
\ncan be misleading when the minimum
\nsample discrepancy function (CMIN\/
\nDF) is small and sample size is not large
\n( 200). Figure 3 illustrates the modified
\nmodel, which provides an adequate
\nCMIN of 23.156, with the minimum
\nsample discrepancy function
\nbeing satisfactory (CMIN\/DF 7.719).
\nThe minimum sample discrepancy
\nfunction (CMIN\/DF) attempts to make
\nCMIN less dependent on sample size.
\nThe minimum sample discrepancy
\nfunction (CMIN\/DF) should be close to
\n1 for perfect fitting models. CMIN for
\nmodels involving 75 to 200 cases are a
\nreasonable measure of model fitness.
\nHowever, complex models are more
\nlikely to have a good CMIN. The p values
\nfor CMIN for sample sizes less than
\n200 are also useful as this measure is a
\nfunction of sample size (p 0.000).
\nOther measures of model fit were
\nconsidered in addition to the CMIN
\nstandard. The objective was to find the
\nmost parsimonious model, which was
\nwell fitting by a selection of GFI tests.
\nComparison against a baseline model
\nallows a further Assessment against the
\nsaturated (e.g., guaranteed to fit any set
\nof data perfectly) and independence
\n(e.g., severely constrained to provide a
\npoor fit) models through a number of
\nindices. These fitness measures are normalized
\nto fall between 0 and 1, with an
\noutput close to 1 indicating a good fit.
\nJ\u00f6reskog and S\u00f6rbom\u2019s (1984) GFI supports
\nthis outcome of good model fit
\n(GFI 0.948). The Bentler-Bonett
\n(1980) normed fit index (NFI) further
\nsuggests a good model fit (NFI 0.900),
\nalthough results less than this value
\nindicate that substantial improvement
\nis required. Bollen\u2019s (1989) incremental
\nfit index (IFI) and Bentler and Weeks\u2019
\n(1980) comparative fit index (CFI) both
\nindicated a very good model fit (IFI
\n0.912 and CFI 0.904).
\nParsimony-adjusted measures provide
\nan estimate of the required parameters
\nto achieve a specific level of model
\nfit. This rewards parsimonious models
\nwith relatively few parameters to estimate
\nin relation to the number of variables
\nand relationships in the model.
\nSome researchers oppose penalizing
\nmodels with more parameters. There is
\nno commonly agreed-upon cut-off
\nvalue for an acceptable model,
\nalthough some authors use above 0.50
\nand others 0.60 (Preacher, 2006). The
\nJames, Mulaik, and Brett (1982) parsimonious
\nnormed index (PNFI 0.129)
\nand parsimonious comparative fit
\n(PCFI 0.129) suggest poor model fit.
\nThese results are influenced by model
\ncomplexity. This measure of fit thus
\noffers little in contributing to the selection
\nof the best-fitting model other than
\nfor assessment after consideration of
\ngoodness-of-fit measures among proposed
\ncompeting models.
\nPath correlation coefficients in the
\nmodel were interpreted after a well-fitting
\nmodel had been accepted.
\nRegression weight significance tests for
\neach parameter relationship in the
\nstructural model are given in Table 2.
\nThe first column is labelled Parameter
\nEstimate (PE), with the next column
\nindicating the Standard Error (SE) for
\neach parameter. The Critical Ratio (CR)
\nis the parameter estimate divided by
\nthe SE. Any critical ratio that exceeds
\n1.96 in size would be identified as significant,
\nusing a significance level of
\n0.05. The SE is only an approximation
\nand therefore may not be the best
\napproach in determining parameter
\nsignificance, and caution was used in
\nits interpretation. Individual parameter
\nvalues can also be affected by sample
\nsize, with Anderson (1984) recommending
\nthat sample sizes exceed 150
\nfor reasonable and stable parameter
\nrelationship estimates. Structural path
\ncoefficients are the effect sizes calculated
\nby AMOS. These are displayed above
\ntheir respective arrows in the structural
\ndrawing diagram (0.8: high, 0.5: moderate,
\nless than 0.2: low).
\nAll correlation coefficients for the
\nvariables that represent the critical program
\nelements are positive in direction
\nand have moderate strength (0.20 to
\n0.29). The CRs for each of these are statistically
\nsignificant (CR 3.927, 4.595,
\nand 3.487). This indicates that there is a
\nclosely defined relationship between
\nthe critical program variables, suggesting
\na finely balanced direct correlated
\neffect on the intervening variables. The
\ncontinuous alignment intervening variable
\nis directly influenced the greatest
\nfrom the collective strength of all the
\nindependent variables (0.31, 0.12, and
\n0.31). Both the governance and learning
\nand innovation variables are
\ndeemed statistically significant (CR
\n3.705 and 3.741, respectively), although
\nthe systemic variable is insignificant
\n(CR 1.457, p 0.145). The dominant
\nindependent program variable in relation
\nto strength impact is learning and
\ninnovation (0.13, 0.31, and 0.20)
\nThe relationship paths from the
\nenvironment variable to continuous
\nalignment and strategy are both statistically
\nsignificant (CR 2.171, p 0.030
\nand 2.515, p 0.012, respectively).
\nThe environment variable has a direct
\n(CR 0.826, p 0.409) and indirect
\neffect on the successful delivery dependent
\nvariable through both the continuous
\nalignment and corporate strategy
\nintervening variables. Continuous
\nalignment also has a direct (CR 3.201,
\np 0.001) and indirect effect on the
\nsuccessful delivery dependent variable
\nthrough corporate strategy. Continuous
\nalignment and corporate strategy have a
\nmoderate direct individual effect but a
\nstrong collective influence on successful
\ndelivery (0.29 and 0.25, respectively).
\nFebruary 2012 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj 31
\nThe environment variable has a low
\ndirect impact on successful delivery
\n(0.08) but moderately contributes indirectly
\nthrough two other intervening
\nvariables (0.19 and 0.23). Table 3 further
\nsummarizes the testing of hypothesized
\nrelation pathways in the accepted
\nstudy model (CR 1.96, significant at
\nthe p 0.05 level).
\nThe findings of the statistical investigation
\nsuggest that the independent
\nvariables are predicators of successful
\nprogram delivery through the complex
\ninteraction of the intervening variables.
\nThe outcome of the analysis illustrates
\nthat the model is complex, with relationships
\namong indicators precariously
\nbalanced. The modified model offers
\nan empirical explanation of the critical
\nrelationships involved for continuous
\nalignment and successful delivery. The
\nresults of this mathematical maximization
\nprocedure are sample-specific and
\ncan only be generalized to the study
\npopulation. This provides a causal
\nmodel that articulates but does not
\nconclude causal assumptions. The
\nsemistructured interviews further validated
\nthe relationship and importance
\nof the statistical analysis impact
\nweighting for each parameter. An
\nunderlying theme that emerged from
\neach interview was the need to make
\nmore clearly explicit the activity of program
\ndesign. This provided a strong
\njustification for the importance and
\ninclusion of program design in the
\nstudy model. The inclusion and visibility
\nof this variable were further supported
\nby expanding the necessary dynamic
\nfeedback from corporate strategy.
\nThe model structure was revised
\naccordingly (Figure 4). Quantitative
\ndata had already been gathered, so the
\nmodified and theoretically validated
\nPath Coefficients Critical
\nDescription of Relationship Path (Estimate) Ratio (CR) p-value Result
\nH1 Successful delivery d Strategy 0.246 (Moderate) 2.454 0.014 Significant
\nDesign d Strategy No data No data No data Untested
\nH2 Alignment d Environment 0.191 (Low) 2.171 0.030 Significant
\nStrategy d Environment 0.233 (Moderate) 2.515 0.012 Significant
\nSuccessful delivery d Environment 0.084 (Low) 0.826 0.409 Insignificant
\nH3 Successful delivery d Strategy 0.246 (Moderate) 2.454 0.014 Significant
\nSuccessful delivery d Environment 0.084 (Low) 0.826 0.409 Insignificant
\nSuccessful delivery d Alignment 0.293 (Moderate) 3.201 0.001 Significant
\nH4 Environment d Systems 0.124 (Low) 1.378 0.168 Insignificant
\nAlignment d Systems 0.122 (Low) 1.457 0.145 Insignificant
\nStrategy d Systems 0.101 (Low) 1.167 0.243 Insignificant
\nH5 Environment d Governance 0.134 (Low) 1.473 0.141 Insignificant
\nAlignment d Governance 0.312 (Moderate) 3.705 *** Significant
\nStrategy d Governance 0.086 (Low) 0.932 0.352 Insignificant
\nH6 Strategy d Alignment 0.160 (Low) 1.621 0.105 Insignificant
\nSuccessful delivery d Alignment 0.293 (Moderate) 3.201 0.001 Significant
\nH7 Environment d Learning 0.201 (Moderate) 2.293 0.022 Significant
\nAlignment d Learning 0.308 (Moderate) 3.741 *** Significant
\nStrategy d Learning 0.129 (Low) 1.436 0.151 Insignificant
\nH8 Learning d Design No data No data No data Untested
\nSystems d Design No data No data No data Untested
\nGovernance d Design No data No data No data Untested
\nTable 3:Tests of hypothesized relationship pathways (p-value 0.05).
\n32 February 2012 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj
\nSuccessful Programs Wanted
\nPAPERS
\nmodel could not be statistically tested
\nfurther.
\nDiscussion
\nThe study was designed to advance the
\ndevelopment of an alignment theory for
\nprogram management through a rigorous
\ntheory-building process. Structural
\nequation modeling was selected as a
\ntechnique that was used to estimate,
\nanalyze, and test the study model that
\nspecified relationships among variables.
\nThis allowed testing and validation
\nof already constructed theories
\ninvolving an Assessment of structure and
\nmodel fit. Semistructured interviews
\nwere discovery-focused, which uncovered
\ncontradictions and new ways of
\nthinking in the study model. This resulted
\nin the respecification of the structural
\nmodel variables and validation of
\nthe accepted conceptual model. The
\nstrength of structural coefficient paths
\nin the model needed assessment, as
\ngoodness-of-fit measures do not provide
\nan absolute guarantee that each
\nparticular part of the model fits well.
\nThe structural model was evaluated by
\nmodification indices that report the
\nimprovement in fit that results from
\nadding or deleting an additional path to
\nthe model. This introduced competing
\nmodels and the Assessment of individual
\nparameters. Modification indices results
\nsuggested that model adjustments
\nwould make no further improvements
\nto CMIN. Modifications also needed to
\nhave substantive sense and theoretical
\nvalidation.
\nModel Assessment is one of the most
\ndisputed and difficult issues connected
\nwith structural modeling (Arbuckle,
\n2007). Structural equation models are
\ngenerally considered a good fit if the
\nvalue of the global model fit (CMIN
\n23.156, p 0.000) and badness of fit
\nindex (RMSEA 0.248) test is adequate,
\nand at least one incremental fit index
\n(GFI 0.948) and one baseline fit measure
\n(NFI 0.900; IFI 0.912 and CFI
\n0.904) meet the predetermined criteria.
\nThe study model satisfies and in some
\ncases exceeds this convention with the
\nexception of badness of fit index
\n(RMSEA). The minimum sample discrepancy
\nfunction (CMIN\/DF) and
\nstudy sample size make RMSEA difficult
\nto interpret. This may be deceptive and
\nnot necessarily indicate a poorly fitting
\nmodel. The structural model could be
\nconsidered adequate against prescribed
\nmeasures of fit providing a model that
\nconveys causal assumptions. The meaning
\nof \u201ccausal,\u201d in this study, should be
\ninterpreted with care, as structural equation
\nmodeling does not confirm that
\nan accepted model produces validated
\ncausal conclusions. The research
\nframework provided convergence and
\nProgram governance
\nSystemic factors
\nLearning and innovation
\nEnvironment
\nContinuous alignment
\nCorporate strategy
\ne1
\n1
\ne2
\n1
\ne3
\n1
\nSuccessful delivery
\ne4
\ne5
\ne6
\n1
\n1
\ne7
\n1
\n1
\nProgram design
\ne8
\n1
\nFigure 4: Statistically modified and theoretically validated model.
\nFebruary 2012 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj 33
\ncorroboration of findings resulting in
\nthe statistically modified and theoretically
\nvalidated model. This was responsive
\nto changes in the unfolding of the
\nstudy. The study model was only partly
\nstatistically tested due to insufficient
\ndata, which revealed weaknesses in the
\nresearch design and methodology. These
\nwere addressed to validate the structural
\nmodel and hypotheses before administrating
\nthe test instrument to the wider
\nstudy population.
\nThe qualitative research aspects of
\nthe study design offered a richness and
\ndepth of understanding unlikely to be
\nachieved with a stand-alone quantitative
\napproach. Some interesting underlying
\nissues, most notably relationships
\namong strategy, learning, and program
\ndesign, were exposed. There was reasonably
\nclear demonstration that
\nstrategic vision was being translated
\ninto programs. Program life-cycle phases
\nof design and transition were found
\nto be particularly problematic in practice
\nby interview respondents. This
\nemphasized that strategy was a rather
\nambiguous phenomenon in practice.
\nThe creation of strategy was seen to be
\nan easier process than implementation.
\nThis reinforced that organizations were
\ncomplex systems. Strategic management
\nwas principally perceived by
\ninterview respondents as providing
\nrequired organizational direction in
\ndealing with success and failure from a
\nbusiness context. There was recognition
\nthat program success would not be
\nguaranteed even when a clearly articulated
\nbusiness strategy was apparent
\nfrom the outset. Strategy was generally
\nseen to be emergent, affecting the program
\nas it moves down the organization.
\nThere was recognition that
\nabsolute organizational alignment may
\nbe difficult and unrealistic as a consequence.
\nInterview respondents confirmed
\nthat this made it necessary to
\nview programs as dynamic and evolving
\nstructures.
\nThe front-end of programs were
\nidentified to be frequently ill defined,
\nwith low levels of formation constraining
\nthe early definition of success. This suggested
\nthat program design and structure
\nwas a dynamic process that needed
\nto be continually assessed from program
\nformation through to program
\nclose. Interview respondents emphasized
\nthat programs of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s should
\ncontinually use the best knowledge
\nobtainable to inform a systems view. In
\ntheir view, this was necessary to align
\npractice with stated goals. Other viewpoints
\nemphasized the need to move
\naway from the linear, milestone-based
\nprocesses of some business activities,
\nbecause integration was seen to go
\nhand-in-hand with experienced complexity.
\nThe different practice-related
\nviews of the interview respondents
\ndemonstrated that in contextual detail
\nevery program will be unique. This further
\nconfirmed the presence of a high
\nlevel of execution-complexity with a
\nhigh level of organizational and environmental
\ncomplexity, since a wide
\nvariety of variables need to be considered.
\nThere was general consensus that
\nmany organizations were not designed
\nfor project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management. Program
\ndesign was stated to be much more
\ncomplex than a static process. Practical
\nchallenges were identified when the
\nhost organization did not have the requisite
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management capability.
\nThis further emphasized the highly
\ncomplex nature of effectively designing
\nprograms of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s. Interview respondents
\nstated that program design was a
\nsignificantly important pre-implementation
\nactivity. This led to its greater
\nprominence in the study model, as
\ninappropriate setup was seen as something
\nthat would negatively impact
\nimplementation and management of
\nthe program. Interview respondents
\nsuggested that programs need to be
\ndesigned to acknowledge the complexity
\nand emergent details of the program.
\nThe study further exposed that program
\nculture was often underscored by
\nlearning and innovation in responding
\nto inherent program complexity. This
\nstrong underlying profile for learning
\nand knowledge-sharing practices was
\noccasionally underrated in the interview
\nphase of the study. There was
\nsome evidence of systemic learning,
\ndriven by a project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\napproach, with people who had similar
\nlevels of knowledge. Nonetheless, there
\nwas a general tendency for learning to
\nbe classified as a low priority. However,
\nthe statistical model findings strongly
\nsuggest that learning and innovation in
\nprograms are fundamentally important
\nfor success. The different types of learning
\nthat emerged related less to structured
\napproaches and more to satisficing
\nand improvisational outcomes. There
\nwas some recognition that increasing
\nprogram complexity will make organizational
\nlearning a primary measure of
\nprogram management effectiveness.
\nExamples were given where program
\nlearning had been effective but had
\nnot been transferred to the wider
\norganization.
\nConclusions
\nThe selected model provides a conceptual
\nframework to support the understanding
\nof programs. The strength of
\nthe model is in the illustration of the
\nsystemic characteristics that will make
\nprograms particularly challenging to
\nunderstand and manage. The hypothesized
\nstatements can be conceived to be
\na plausible set of interconnected narratives
\nthat describe the relationships that
\nsupport the conceptualization of the
\nstudy model. This needs to include
\nthe program design variable to allow
\nrecursive feedback in the model. The
\nstudy model does highlight the importance
\nof effective program design and
\ntransition management. The model
\nsuggests that successful program delivery
\nwill be an elusive concept in practice
\nthat requires flexibility for strategic and
\nenvironmental adaptation.
\nThe findings of the study conclude
\nthat programs have both deliberate and
\nemergent strategies, requiring program
\ndesign and management to be organized
\nas complex adaptive systems. This
\nintegrates theoretical concepts from
\n34 February 2012 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj
\nSuccessful Programs Wanted
\nPAPERS
\nsystems thinking, organizational, and
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management theory. Complex
\nadaptive systems are often illustrated
\nby unclear strategies from the outset
\nand influential constant changes.
\nInterviewee knowledge of the concept
\nof complex adaptive systems was limited,
\nalthough descriptions and viewpoints
\nsupported this system dynamic. Senior
\nmanagers and program managers need
\nto recognize the importance of all the
\nstudy model variables, how they align,
\nand the program capability required in
\nsuccessfully delivering business strategy.
\nThe adoption of program management
\nshould thus be a well-considered
\nstrategic decision.
\nThis study contributes to program
\nmanagement by the understanding of
\ncomplex adaptive systems and its application
\nto the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management field
\nin many ways. First, the study identified
\nseveral high-level variables that should
\nbe considered to ensure the successful
\nalignment of programs. These variables
\ncan be used to analyze project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) and program
\nfailures contributing to organizational
\nlearning. Second, the exploration
\nof these variables has led to the development
\nof a model that reveals an interaction
\nstructure depicting program formation
\nand implementation in practice.
\nFinally, the results of validating the
\nstudy model have identified some of
\nthe managerial problems that should be
\nconsidered when designing and managing
\nprograms of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s.
\nRecommendations for Further
\nResearch
\nBased on the literature review, study
\nresults and emergent issues identified in
\nthe study, there were some insights that
\nprovide direction for future research. The
\nemergent reality of program management
\nrequires a clearer understanding
\non the impact of structured, incremental,
\nand contextual learning. Learning
\nwithin programs is also an identified gap
\nwithin the published literature. The
\nstudy also identified a significant need
\nto identify the effective practices and
\napproaches that support successful
\nprogram design. Research in this field
\nshould consider how organizations
\neffectively apply an adaptive posture to
\nenvironmental factors.
\nLimitations
\nThe study has a number of limitations.
\nStructural equation modeling cannot
\ntest directionality in relationships. The
\ndirections of arrows in the accepted
\nstructural equation model represent the
\nresearcher\u2019s hypotheses of causality
\nwithin a program management system.
\nThis is limited to the choice of selected
\nvariables and hypothesized relation
\npathways. Increasing the sample size
\nwould improve the statistical model
\nconvergence and parameter estimate
\naccuracy, providing greater confidence
\nin the model outcome. This may directly
\naffect the model path regression
\nweightings. The findings of the statistical
\nmodel are also influenced by the
\nresearcher\u2019s organization, which was
\nundergoing a significant organizationwide
\nchange program. This potential
\nbias was adequately accounted for in
\nthe selection strategy for the semistructured
\ninterviews. Change programs are
\nvision-led and emergent. This puts
\ngreater emphasis on culture change and
\norganizational readiness, which may
\nhave enhanced the model path relationship
\nregression weightings for learning.
\nEvery program classification will have
\nan inherent need to remain aligned with
\nbusiness strategy, regardless of issues
\nrelating to program context. \u25a0
\nReferences
\nAnderson, T. W. (1984). An introduction
\nto multivariate statistical analysis. New
\nYork, NY: Wiley.
\nArbuckle, J. L. (2007). AMOS\u2122 16.0
\nuser\u2019s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.
\nAssociation for Project Management.
\n(2007a). Programme management SIG:
\nAPM introduction to programme management.
\nRetrieved from http:\/\/
\nwww.e-programme.com\/progm.thm
\nAssociation for Project Management.
\n(2007b). Governance SIG: Co-directing
\nchange: A guide to the governance of
\nmulti-owned project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s. Retrieved from
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/apm.org.uk
\nBeer, M., Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M., &
\nTekie, E. B. (2005). Strategic management
\nas organizational learning:
\nDeveloping fit and alignment through
\na disciplined process. Long Range
\nPlanning, 38(5), 445\u2013465.
\nBentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980).
\nSignificance tests and goodness of fit
\nin the analysis of covariance structures.
\nPsychological Bulletin, 88(3),
\n588\u2013606.
\nBentler, P. M., & Weeks, D. G. (1980).
\nLinear structural equations with latent
\nvariables. Psychometrika, 45(3),
\n289\u2013308.
\nBollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental
\nfit index for general structural equation
\nmodels. Sociological Methods and
\nResearch, 17(3), 303\u2013316.
\nBrady, T., & Davis, A. (2004). Building
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) capabilities: From exploratory
\nto exploitative learning. Organization
\nStudies, 25(9), 1601\u20131621.
\nBrowne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1989).
\nSingle sample cross-validation indices
\nfor covariance structures. Multivariate
\nBehavioral Research, 24, 445\u2013455.
\nBruch, H., Gerber, P., & Maier, V.
\n(2005). Strategic change decisions:
\nDoing the right change right. Journal
\nof Change Management, 5(1), 97\u2013107.
\nBurdett, J. O. (1994). The magic of
\nalignment. Management Decision,
\n32(2), 59\u201363.
\nCarlile, P. (2004). Transferring, translating,
\nand transforming: An integrative
\nframework for managing knowledge
\nacross boundaries. Organization
\nScience, 15(5), 555\u2013568.
\nCarnall, C. (2007). Managing change in
\norganizations (5th ed.). Harlow, Essex,
\nUK: Pearson Education.
\nChen, F., Bollan, K. A., Paxton, P.,
\nCurran, P. J., & Kirby, J. B. (2001).
\nImproper solutions in structural equation
\nmodels: Causes, consequences
\nand strategies. Sociological Methods &
\nResearch, 29(4), 468\u2013508.
\nFebruary 2012 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj 35
\nChorn, N. H. (1991). The alignment
\ntheory: Creating strategic fit.
\nManagement Decision, 29(1), 20\u201324.
\nCronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient
\nalpha and the internal structure of
\ntests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297\u2013334.
\nDe Wit, B., & Meyer, R. (2005). Strategy
\nsynthesis: Resolving strategy paradoxes
\nto create competitive advantage (2nd
\ned.). London, UK: Thompson Learning.
\nDietrich, P., & Lehtonen, P. (2005).
\nSuccessful management of strategic
\nintentions through multiple project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s\u2014
\nReflections from an empirical study.
\nInternational Journal of Project
\nManagement, 23(5), 386\u2013391.
\nElizabeth, M., & Ysanne, C. (2007).
\nStrategy as order emerging from chaos:
\nA public sector experience. Long Range
\nPlanning, 40(6), 574\u2013593.
\nEngwall, M. (2003). No project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) is an
\nisland: Linking project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s to history and
\ncontext. Research Policy, 32(5), 789\u2013808.
\nEngwall, M., & Jerbrant, A. (2003). The
\nresource allocation syndrome: The
\nprime challenge of multi-project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management.
\nInternational Journal of
\nProject Management, 21(6), 403\u2013409.
\nFong, P. S. W. (2003). Knowledge creation
\nin multidisciplinary project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nteams: An empirical study of the
\nprocesses and their dynamic interrelationships.
\nInternational Journal of
\nProject Management, 21(7), 479\u2013486.
\nFord, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2009).
\nDecoding resistance to change\u2014
\nStrong leaders can hear and learn from
\ntheir critics. Harvard Business Review,
\n87(4), 99\u2013103.
\nGaddie, S. (2003).Enterprise programme
\nmanagement: Connecting strategic
\nplanning to project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) delivery. Journal of
\nFacilities Management, 2(2), 177\u2013189.
\nGagne, G., & Hancock, G. R. (2006).
\nMeasurement model quality, sample
\nsize, and solution propriety in confirmatory
\nfactor models. Multivariate
\nBehavioral Research, 41(1), 65\u201383.
\nHoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of
\ncovariance structures: Goodness-of-fit
\nindices. Sociological Methods and
\nResearch, 11(3), 325\u2013344.
\nHrebiniak, L. G. (2006). Obstacles to
\neffective strategy implementation.
\nOrganizational Dynamics, 35(1), 12\u201331.
\nHyvari, I. (2006). Success of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s in
\ndifferent organizational conditions.
\nProject Management Journal, 37(4),
\n31\u201341.
\nIvory, C., & Alderman, N. (2005). Can
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management learn anything
\nfrom studies of failure in complex systems?
\nProject Management Journal,
\n36(3), 5\u201316.
\nJames, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M.
\n(1982).Causal analysis: Assumptions,
\nmodels, and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
\nJ\u00f6reskog, K. G., & S\u00f6rbom, D. (1984).
\nLISREL-VI user\u2019s guide (3rd ed.).
\nMooresville: IN: Scientific Software.
\nKash, D. E., & Rycoft, R. W. (2000).
\nPatterns of innovating complex technologies:
\nA framework for adaptive
\nnetwork strategies. Research Policy, 29,
\n819\u2013831.
\nKeeter, S., Kennedy, C., Dimock, M.,
\nBest, J., & Craighill, P. (2006). Gauging
\nthe impact of growing nonresponse on
\nestimates from a national RDD telephone
\nsurvey. Public Opinion
\nQuarterly, 70(5), 759\u2013779.
\nKotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change:
\nWhy transformation efforts fail.
\nHarvard Business Review, 73(2), 59\u201367.
\nKotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008).
\nChoosing strategies for change.
\nHarvard Business Review, 86(7\/8),
\n130\u2013139.
\nLehtonen, P., & Martinsuo, M. (2009).
\nIntegrating the change program with
\nthe parent organization. International
\nJournal of Project Management, 27(2),
\n154\u2013165.
\nLindkvist, L. (2008). Project organization:
\nExploring its adaptation properties.
\nInternational Journal of Project
\nManagement, 26(1), 13\u201320.
\nLipshitz, R., Popper, M., & Friedman, V.
\n(2002). A multifaceted model of organizational
\nlearning. Journal of Applied
\nBehavioral Science, 38(1), 78\u201398.
\nLycett, M., Rassau, A., & Danson, J.
\n(2004). Programme management: A
\ncritical review. International Journal of
\nProject Management, 22(4), 289\u2013299.
\nMaylor, H., Brady, T., Cooke-Davies, T.,
\n& Hodgson, D. (2006). From project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)ification
\nto programmification.
\nInternational Journal of Project
\nManagement, 24(8), 663\u2013674.
\nMeyer, A. D., Loch, C. H., & Pich, M. T.
\n(2002). Managing project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) uncertainty:
\nFrom variation to chaos. MIT Sloan
\nManagement Review, 43(2), 60\u201367.
\nMiddleton, P., & Harper, K. (2004).
\nOrganizational alignment: A precondition
\nfor information systems success?
\nJournal of Change Management, 4(4),
\n327\u2013333.
\nMintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise
\nof strategic planning. Harvard Business
\nReview, 72(1), 107\u2013114.
\nMintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., &
\nLampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari: The
\ncomplete guide through the wilds of
\nstrategic management. Harlow, Essex,
\nUK: Pearson Education.
\nMintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985).
\nOf strategies, deliberate and emergent.
\nStrategic Management Journal, 6(3),
\n257\u2013272.
\nMorris, P. W. G., Crawford, L., Hodgson,
\nD., Shepherd, M. M., & Thomas, J.
\n(2006). Exploring the role of formal
\nbodies of knowledge in defining a profession:
\nThe case of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management.
\nInternational Journal of Project
\nManagement, 24(8), 710\u2013721.
\nMorris, P. W. G., & Jamieson, A. (2005).
\nMoving from corporate strategy to
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) strategy. Project Management
\nJournal, 36(4), 5\u201318.
\nMorris, P. W. G., & Pinto, J. K. (2007).
\nThe Wiley guide to project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees), program &
\nportfolio management. Hoboken, NJ:
\nWiley.
\nOffice of Government Commerce
\n(OGC). (2007). Managing successful
\nprogrammes (3rd ed.). London: The
\nStationery Office.
\nOffice of Government Commerce (OGC).
\n(2008). OGC prioritization categories.
\n36 February 2012 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj
\nSuccessful Programs Wanted
\nPAPERS
\nRetrieved from https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/ogc
\n.gov.uk\/documents\/
\nPrioritisation_Categories.pdf
\nPellegrinelli, S. (1997). Programme
\nmanagement: Organizing project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nbased change. International Journal of
\nProject Management, 15(3), 141\u2013149.
\nPellegrinelli, S. (2002). Shaping context:
\nThe role and challenge for programmes.
\nInternational Journal of
\nProject Management, 20(3), 229\u2013233.
\nPellegrinelli, S., Partington, D.,
\nHemingway, C., Mohdzain, Z., & Shah,
\nM. (2007). The importance of context
\nin programme management: An
\nempirical review of programme practices.
\nInternational Journal of Project
\nManagement, 25(1), 41\u201355.
\nPinto, J., & Slevin, D. (1988). Critical
\nsuccess factors across the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) life
\ncycle. Project Management Journal,
\n19(3), 72\u201384.
\nPollack, J. (2007). The changing paradigms
\nof project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management.
\nInternational Journal of Project
\nManagement, 25(3), 266\u2013274.
\nPourdehnad, J. (2007). Synthetic (integrative)
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management: An idea
\nwhose time has come. Business
\nStrategy Series, 8(6), 426\u2013434.
\nPreacher, K. J. (2006). Quantifying parsimony
\nin structural equation modeling.
\nMultivariate Behavioral Research,
\n41(3), 227\u2013259.
\nProject Management Institute. (2009).
\nThe standard for program
\nmanagement\u2014Global standard (2nd
\ned.). Newtown Square, PA: Author.
\nRybakov, L. A. (2001). Environment
\nand complexity of organizations.
\nEmergence, 3(4), 83\u201394.
\nRycroft, R. W., & Kash, D. E. (2004).
\nSelf-organizing innovation networks:
\nImplications for globalization.
\nTechnovation, 24(3), 187\u2013197.
\nScherpereel, C. M. (2006). Alignment:
\nThe duality of decision problems.
\nManagement Decision, 44(9),
\n1258\u20131276.
\nSchumacker, E. R., & Lomax, G. R.
\n(2004). A beginner\u2019s guide to structural
\nequation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah,
\nNJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
\nSense, A. J. (2007). Structuring the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nenvironment for learning.
\nInternational Journal of Project
\nManagement, 25(4), 405\u2013412.
\nShenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., &
\nMaltz, A. C. (2001). Project success:
\nA multidimensional strategic concept.
\nLong Range Planning, 34(6), 699\u2013725.
\nSheppard, J. P., & Chowdhury, S. D.
\n(2005). Riding the wrong wave:
\nOrganizational failure as a failed turnaround.
\nLong Range Planning, 38(3),
\n239\u2013260.
\nSilverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative
\ndata (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
\nSmith, C., & Winter, M. (2005).
\nRethinking project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management:
\nActuality and uncertainty. Engineering
\nand Physical Sciences Research
\nCouncil Network. Retrieved from
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/rethinkingpm.org.uk
\nSrivannaboon, S., & Milosevic, D. Z.
\n(2006). A two-way influence between
\nbusiness strategy and project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management.
\nInternational Journal of Project
\nManagement, 24(6), 493\u2013505.
\nStrassmann, P. A. (1998, August). What
\nis alignment? Alignment is the delivery
\nof the required results. Cutter IT
\nJournal, p. 108.
\nThiry, M. (2004). For DAD: A programme
\nmanagement life-cycle
\nprocess. International Journal of
\nProject Management, 22(3), 245\u2013252.
\nUhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership
\ntheory: Exploring the social
\nprocesses of leadership and organizing.
\nLeadership Quarterly, 17(6),
\n654\u2013676.
\nVenkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic orientation
\nof business enterprises: The
\nconstruct, dimensionality, and measurement.
\nManagement Science, 35(8),
\n942\u2013962.
\nVerma, D., & Sinha, K. K. (2002).
\nToward a theory of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) interdependencies
\nin high tech R&D environments.
\nJournal of Operations
\nManagement, 20(5), 451\u2013468.
\nVisser, P., Krosnick, J., Marquette, J., &
\nCurtin, M. (1996). Mail surveys for
\nelection forecasting? An Assessment of
\nthe Colombia dispatch poll. Public
\nOpinion Quarterly, 60(2), 181\u2013227.
\nWhite, L. (2001). Effective governance
\nthrough complexity thinking and management
\nscience. Systems Research and
\nBehavioral Science, 18(3), 241\u2013257.
\nGraeme Ritson is a construction lecturer at
\nNorthumbria University. His background is in
\nconstruction and business-related project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s. He
\nhas 10 years of practical experience in managing
\nbusiness improvement project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s in a large
\nservice organization.
\nEric Johansen is the director of construction at
\nNorthumbria University. After 20 years of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)
\nmanagement experience in the construction
\nindustry, he became an academic in 1990. He
\nmanages the Construction Group and teaches
\nand researches in lean construction, planning,
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees), program, and portfolio management.
\nAllan Osborne is director of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) management
\nat Northumbria University. He manages
\nthe Project Management Group at the university
\nand teaches and researches in project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) team
\ndynamics and interorganizational relationships.
\nCopyright of Project Management Journal is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be
\ncopied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written
\npermission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
PAPERS February 2013 \u25a0 Project Management Journal \u25a0 DOI: 10.1002\/pmj 59 INTRODUCTION \u25a0 T he organizational phenomenon of the project ( help with nursing paper\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8827,10099,10540,10536,10892,10538,10539,10537,10891],"tags":[10549,10616,10615,7687,10627,8857,10552,10295,10548,10622,8907],"class_list":["post-130441","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-australia-essays","category-buy-essay","category-cheap-essay-writers","category-get-assignments-done","category-page-paper","category-phd-essay-writers","category-research-paper-writing-service-for-any-topic","category-study-bay-essay","category-write-my-assignment-ireland","tag-ai-plagiarism-free-essay-writing-tool","tag-australian-best-tutors","tag-best-trans-tutors","tag-buy-essay-uk","tag-cheap-dissertation-writer","tag-help-with-writing-an-essay","tag-help-write-my-paper-ai-free","tag-homework-for-you","tag-online-essay-writers","tag-phd-essays","tag-write-my-essay-for-me"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130441","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=130441"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130441\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130441"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130441"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130441"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}