moving from corporate strategy to project strategy

8/10/2019 MOVING FROM CORPORATE STRATEGY TO PROJECT STRATEGY

1/15

MOVINGFROM CORPORATESTRATEGYTOPROJECTSTRATEGY

Much of the management writing around

strategy tends to cover the practices at

the corporate and business level; there is

a dearth of writing about how corporate

strategy gets implemented by projects

and programs and translated into pro-

gram or project strategies. This paper

reviews evidence from four case studies

together with questionnaire data from

PMI Europe members, which shows that

the processes, practices, and people

issues involved in moving from corporate

strategy to programs and projects is done

in a much more systematic way than is

generally recognized. The findings point

to areas that future revisions of the

PMBOKGuide should be looking at.

Keywords: corporate strategy; project strat-egy; portfolio management; programmanagement; project management; valuemanagement; risk management; leader-ship; competencies

2005 by the Project Management Institute

Vol. 36, No. 4, 5-18, ISSN 8756-9728/03

Introduction

Corporate strategy is one of the most actively researched and taught subjects

in business today. Projects and project management are often quoted as

important means of implementing strategy, but there is some confusion in

the literature on how this happens and, in any case, the topic has not been the sub-

ject of detailed review.

This paper reports on research funded by PMI, industry, and academia that

addressed the way corporate strategy is developed and implemented via the man-

agement of portfolios, programs, and projects. It does so by detailing the key find-

ings from four case studies, together with data from a survey of PMI members.

Developing Corporate Strategy

Corporate strategy is a means of thinking through and articulating how an organi-

zations corporate goals and objectives will be achieved. This strategy is then typically

operationalized at a strategic business unit [SBU] level; strategic initiatives are then

often clustered into portfolios of programs and projects for implementation. (The

distinction between programs and projects and portfolios is defined shortly.)

Much of traditional management writing tends only to cover the strategic man-

agement processes that formulate and implement strategy at the corporate level (for

example, Thompson, 2001; Mintzberg & Quinn, 1996; Hill & Jones, 2001); there is

a dearth of writing about how corporate strategy gets translated into implementa-

tion, particularly at the program or project level. Yet, in practice, the two sets of activ-

ities are well connected; projects and programs are important ways for strategy to beimplemented in the enterprise and we ought to understand much better how this

occurs.

Strategic management is often ambiguous and complex, fundamental and

organization-wide, and generally has long-term implications (Johnson & Scholes,

1997). While the typical corporate planning process is generally ordered and ana-

lytical, strategy management is also a dynamic process. Mintzberg (1996) has dis-

tinguished deliberate strategy from that which is emergent that is, becomes

evident as it, and events, emerge with time (Mintzberg & Waters, 1994). This emer-

gence suggests a more incremental approach to strategy formulation and imple-

mentation where results are regularly appraised against benefits and changes are

made and managed against the evolving picture of performance.

PETER W. G. MORRIS, Professor of Construction and Project Management

School of Construction and Project Management, The Bartlett School of

Graduate Studies, University College London

ASHLEY JAMIESON, Research Fellow, School of Construction and Project

Management, The Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London

ABSTRACT


2/15

Similarly, the interaction between

projects or programs and the enter-

prises strategy may be both deliber-

ate (as formal vehicles for strategy

implementation, as in capital expendi-

ture projects, for example), and emer-

gent (in that when they are

implemented, they create new condi-tions that, in turn, influence and shape

the intended strategy) (Grabher,

2002). Consequently projects and pro-

grams often have a two-way relation-

ship with the corporate environment

in which they evolve. And though

there may be formal strategy planning

processes and practices, strategy may

not be realized in as rigid or formal a

manner as many planners assume. This

said, however, a formal strategy

process is important it brings clarity

and discipline.

But the role of project manage-

ment in implementing such strategy is

often not clear. Crawford (2005), for

example, found that senior managers

believed project managers should not

be involved in strategy formulation.

Thomas, Delisle, Jugdev, and Buckle

(2002) found that project manage-

ment is seen as strongly execution ori-

ented and as such is not perceived as

strategically important by senior man-

agers. Bourgeois and Brodwin (1984)proposed that project managers

should be involved in strategy formu-

lation but are not competent to carry

out implementation effectively since

they will not have been exposed to the

factors that initiate change in projects,

a view echoed by Englund and

Graham (1999). And there is a grow-

ing view, at least in the UK, that busi-

ness and organizational change

projects are really managed best by

program management, as defined, forexample, by the Office of Government

Commerce (OGC, 2003), rather than

by project management (Bartlett,

1998; Partington, Pellegrinelli, &

Young, 2005; Reiss, 1996).

It is important that organizations

understand properly their business

management model and the position

of project, or program, management

within it; and hence for project man-

agement to see how they are sit along-

side and are perceived by the

business management functions.

Research shows, for example, that one

of the reasons new product innovation

projects often fail is because they lack

wider organizational support

(Wheelwright & Clark, 1992). While

project management practitioners may

think their function is central to thesuccess of a company, it may have little

meaning within the enterprise unless it

is clearly established and embedded

within the enterprises structure and

business management models and

processes.

The involvement of some disci-

pline explicitly concerned with the

management of projects in strategy

implementation seems a priori to be

sensible, if only because of the need of

senior management to have some con-

trol over expenditure and intended

action. McElroy (1996) emphasizes

the need for senior management

involvement if project management is

to be successful in strategy implemen-

tation, a view shared by Broner,

Ruekert, and Walker (2002). And good

governance practice now explicitly

requires, among several things, formal

alignment between business, portfolio,

program and project plans, and trans-

parent reporting of status and risks to

the Board (Association for ProjectManagement [APM], 2004).

Senior management involvement

may also be needed for quite opera-

tional issues. Not all strategy imple-

mentation is just downwards from the

corporate level through portfolios to

programs and projects. Just as in strate-

gic planning there is upward flow from

Strategic Business Units (SBUs), so in

implementation there is, as we have

seen, management information and

action bearing up from programs andprojects onto portfolio, business unit

and corporate strategy. For example, a

fundamental responsibility of project/

program management is to manage

the resources needed to define and

deliver its programs and projects effec-

tively. We shall see that resource man-

agement becomes a critical factor in

moving from corporate strategy into

project implementation.

Hierarchy is usually important in

any discussion of implementing strate-

gy. A hierarchy of objectives and strate-

gies can generally be formed as a result

of using a strategy planning process;

this can be a highly effective means of

structuring and managing strategy, and

communicating it to the organization.

One such model is Archibalds hierar-

chy of objectives, strategies and projects(Cleland, 1990; Archibald, 2003). This

model proposes that objectives and

strategies are developed at the policy,

strategic, operational and project levels

and cascaded down, thereby ensuring

alignment and continuity of strategy.

Similarly, Kerzner (2000) shows a hier-

archy where strategic plans are cascad-

ed from corporate strategy to SBUs and

from SBUs to supporting plans.

Another model is the Stanford Research

Institutes System of Plans

(Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel,

1998).

Partington (2000), in distinguish-

ing the three levels of strategy as corpo-

rate, business and operational, suggests

that operational level strategies tend to

focus on programs and projects

(though Shenar and Dvir [2004] define

the levels slightly differently). However,

the implications of Archibalds work

(2003) and Kerzners (2000) is that the

linkage often starts or can start even

higher: something we shall, in fact, findconfirmed in the research reported

here.

Turner (1999) proposes a cascade

to show how organizations position

programs and projects to achieve their

development objectives. As a result of

our research we have adapted this

model to include business strategy and

portfolios, as shown in Figure 1. This

said, the model should be treated with

caution for it reflects the intended

deliberate sequencing of movementfrom corporate strategy to projects and

fails to capture the iterative nature of

emergent information and strategy

modification described above.

Artto and Dietrich (2004) outline

a number of practices for managing

the strategic-portfolio-project linkage

in multiple project environments.

Grundy (1998) too has proposed a

number of techniques to move corpo-

rate strategy into portfolios, programs

(and projects), such as scenario plan-


3/15

ning, force-field analysis, stakeholder

analysis, and attractiveness/imple-

mentation difficulty analysis. Indeed,

as the case studies reported below

show, many companies have, in fact,

developed structured approaches for

creating and managing strategy via

portfolios, programs, and projects inways which are integrated with busi-

ness strategy.

Portfolios, programs, and projects

Turner (2000) points out that the

majority of projects take place as part of

a portfolio of several projects or pro-

grams. Project portfolio management is

the art and science of applying a set of

knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques

to a collection of projects or programs

to meet or exceed the needs and expec-tations of an organizations investment

strategy (Dye & Pennypacker, 1999).

According to Platje, Seidel, and

Wadman (1994), a project portfolio is

a set of projects that are managed in a

coordinated way to deliver benefits that

would not be possible if the projects

were managed independently, a view

shared by Artto, Martinsuo, and Aalto

(2001). A slightly different but wide-

ly accepted view is that a project port-

folio is a collection of projects to be

managed concurrently under a single

management umbrella, where each

project may be related or independent

of the others (Thiry, 2004; Martinsuo &

Dietrich, 2002). Archer and

Ghasemzadeh (2004) stress that port-

folio management is pre-eminently

about selecting or prioritizing thebest projects or programs to proceed

with. Project portfolio management,

then, is predominantly about choos-

ing the right project, whereas project

management is about doing the proj-

ect right (Cooke-Davies, 2002, 2004).

Archer and Ghasemzadeh (1999)

have provided a general framework for

project portfolio selection that demon-

strates the need for strategy to be set at

the corporate level and then filtered

down to the project level.Subsequently, they emphasized the

importance of aligning resource

demand with resource availability to

achieve a set of strategic goals (Archer &

Ghasemzadeh, 2004). Knutson (2001)

points out that the project portfolio

management process provides a means

of consistently and objectively evaluat-

ing each proposed project that is vying

for a limited pool of resources, thereby

aiding the process of making the most

effective strategic use of the resources.

Linking company strategy to port-

folio development is critical, particular-

ly when company strategy involves both

a high degree of innovation and a high

rate of growth (Wadlow, 1999).

Advances in portfolio selection and

management practice have been

notably strong in new product develop-ment (Archer & Ghasemzadeh, 2004;

Cooper, Edgett, & Kleinschmidt, 2001),

whereas there is evidence that the top

performing businesses display strong

management support for portfolio

selection and management, using for-

mal portfolio management methods to

manage their portfolio strategy within

the context of the enterprise business

strategy (Cooper, Edgett, &

Kleinschmidt, 1999). Other examples of

portfolio management practiceemployed by a diversity of major com-

panies are given in Cooper, Edgett, and

Kleinschmidt (1998). Artto and

Dietrich (2004) provide examples of

portfolios of different project types and

an outline of the major types of

methodologies used in portfolio selec-

tion. Shenhar and Dvir (2004) propose a

strategic portfolio classification frame-

work that is based on the need to select

projects due to their strategic impact and

to form a policy for project selection.

Portfolio

Strategy

Portfolio

Objectives

Program

Strategy

Program

Objectives

Project

Strategy

ProjectObjectives

Phase

Strategy

Phase

Objectives

Team

Strategy

Team

Objectives

Individual

Strategy

Individual

Objectives

STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR PROJECTS

Business

Strategy

Context

Source: The Handbook of Project-Based Management, 2nd ed.J.R.Turner 1999 Reproduced by kind permission of the Open University Press / McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.

Adapted by Morris and Jamieson (2004).

Figure 1: Linking corporate and project strategy


4/15

Archer and Ghasemzadeh (2004)

identify risk and outsourcing as having

a particularly strong impact on portfo-

lio selection and management. They

point out that a key criterion for suc-

cessfully applying risk evaluation in

portfolio selection is that risk assess-

ment and quantification be uniformlyapplied across all projects and teams, a

requirement now mandated by good

governance (APM, 2004).

Programs

Program management is a powerful

way of coordinating projects that have

a shared business aim and, according

to Thiry (2004), is the most suitable

methodology for ensuring the success-

ful implementation of strategies, since

it is subtler and more able to respond

to emerging data. Both portfolio man-

agement and program management

focus on prioritizing resources and

optimizing the business benefit

(Bartlett, 1998; Partington, 2004; Reiss,

1996). Program management is more

involved in day-to-day implementation

management than portfolio manage-

ment, which is more periodic and is

strongly analytical. Pellegrinelli,

Partington and Young (2003) see

implementing strategy through pro-

gram management as involving contin-uous re-formulation and adjustment.

There is some confusion in the lit-

erature and a variation in practice

over just what really is involved in pro-

gram management. Most commenta-

tors define program management as

involving the management of a collec-

tion of interrelated projects. Several

perspectives exist on the optimal ways

to configure programs to achieve

strategic objectives and deal with

change (Murray-Webster & Thiry,2000). Some emphasize the technolo-

gy base, as in platform projects

(Wheelwright & Clark, 1992). Others,

particularly those coming from

Information Technology, also empha-

size the importance of business benefit

(OGC, 2003). Pellegrinelli (1997) and

Murray-Webster and Thiry (2000) have

proposed a more generic portfolio and

program typologies.

Programs are often ongoing or

long-term and are subjected to both

uncertainty and ambiguity (Thiry,

2004). Programs and program man-

agement are frequently used in large

organizations to implement strategic

initiatives. The UK Office of

Government Commerce (OGC), for

example, considers the alignment

between strategy and projects to beone of the main benefits of program

management (OGC, 2003) though

this seems rather dated in light of the

more recent guidance on good gover-

nance (APM, 2004): they require a

decision management paradigm which

takes into account the appropriate

strategic perspective. Programs often

have to strive for the achievement of a

number of conflicting aims whereas

projects aim to achieve single predeter-

mined results (Wijen & Kor, 2000).

Projects on the other hand are more

typically seen as concentrating on

achieving one single particular result

within set time and cost constraints

(Grg & Smith, 1999). Many com-

mentators position projects as more

appropriate for implementing delib-

erate (planned) strategies, while see-

ing programs for both deliberate and

emergent (unplanned) strategies.

(However, in the research to be report-

ed here, we found this to be so for the

aerospace case, but not for the drugdevelopment or construction cases.)

Projects

Projects, in distinction to programs,

have a unique objective and follow a

single development life cycle. PMIs

PMBOK Guide (2004) is cursory in its

treatment of the linkage between the

organizations business requirements

(there is no real discussion of business

strategy) and the project (via its charter

[4.1], project plan [4.3], and scope[4.2; 5.1.1]). Turner (1999) is better,

by advocating the development of a

comprehensive definition of a project

at the start of the project, in which

business plans are aligned with project

plans containing key elements of proj-

ect strategy. Simister (2000) shows the

development of business cases and

strategic briefs as part of the project

definition process. Gardiner (2005)

provides an authoritative text with sev-

eral case studies on project strategy.

Morris (1997) summarizes the elements

a project strategy based on an analysis

many projects in his historical account

the development of project managemen

The Association for Project Managem

Body of Knowledge (APM BOK) (Dixo

2000) gives fuller recognition to the bu

ness context within which the projresides, as well as recognizing portfolio a

program management, and requireme

management. (The business and operati

requirements of a project frequently aff

project strategy significantly and, for t

reason, the APM BOK identifies requi

ments as a key project manageme

process (Davis, Hickey, & Zweig, 20

Stevens, Brook, Jackson, & Arnold, 1997

Work by the authors in integrat

what the PMBOK Guide and the AP

BOK have to say about the way strate

shapes project definition shows the la

number of factors involved in creati

project strategy at the front-end of a pr

ect (Morris & Jamieson, 2004). This hig

lights the need for an effective way

manage project strategy creation, cover

not only the front end of a project, but t

entire project life cycle.

As the case studies reported bel

show, many companies have, in fa

developed structured approaches for cre

ing and managing project (and progra

strategy that cover the entire project lcycle and are integrated with the busin

strategy development processes.

Competencies, roles, responsibilities a

accountabilities for moving strategy

Corporate strategy is not translated in

project strategy by process alone. Movi

strategy through such processes and pr

tices as we have just reviewed requires

extensive range of personal competenc

and a clear definition of roles, responsib

ities and accountabilities.Following Boyatzis (1982), seve

definitions of competence (and capabili

have been offered. Hornby & Thom

(1989) for example defined competen

as the knowledge, skills and qualities

effective managers, and pointed to t

ability to perform effectively in a spec

work situation.

The UK Institution of Civil Enginee

competency framework (2000) compri

12 key management roles and appro

mately 140 associated competenci


5/15

Elements of strategy management are

covered in both the corporate and

business management roles, and proj-

ect management is shown as having

responsibility for project strategy.

Crawford (2000) reveals a number of

knowledge, skills and personal attrib-

utes of project managers, includingthat of strategic direction although, as

we noted above, her later survey

(Crawford, 2005) found that senior

managers did not consider that project

managers should be involved in proj-

ect strategy. Morris, Jamieson, and

Shepherd (2005) have suggested that

this might be a result of her having

used the PMBOK Guide (Project

Management Institute, 2004) for her

conceptual definition of project man-

agement: the PMBOK Guide, as we

have seen, assumes no real involve-

ment of project management in front-

end definition, including strategy

formulation (Morris, 2005).

Examples of core competences

related to project strategy are provided

in the case studies in Morris &

Jamieson (2004). We shall also see evi-

dence in the case studies that project

leadership is increasingly being recog-

nized as a key competence in shaping

and implementing project strategy.

(See the drug development and trans-portation case studies.)

Research methodology

The literature on how corporate strate-

gy gets implemented via portfolios,

programs, and projects is thus diverse

and patchy. While that on portfolio

management is quite thorough, the

treatment is primarily from an analytic

viewpoint. There is little on implemen-

tation issues (although there is more in

the more recent material; for example,Archer & Ghasemzadeh, 2004). The lit-

erature on program management, as

we have already seen, is often quite

confused, not least on what indeed

program management is. There is a lack

of detail in the APM BOK (Dixon,

2000) on how corporate strategy influ-

ences project strategy while the subject

is not addressed in the PMBOK Guide

(PMI, 2004). New guidelines on proj-

ect and corporate governance, however,

stress the importance of clear align-

ment between corporate and project

strategy (APM, 2005).

This research project was, there-

fore, set up to explore and illustrate in

more rigorous detail how corporate

strategy is implemented by project,

program, and portfolio management.

Given the availability of fundingand time available, the research was

designed to be exploratory. That is, it

was recognized that only a limited

number of case studies and survey data

could be undertaken, and that the find-

ings, therefore, could not be, and

should not be, taken as either exhaus-

tive or conclusive. (There is much room

for additional research in this area.)

The case study method is particu-

larly appropriate for exploratory

research since cases are descriptive and

explanatory. Case studies were selected

from four different but important

areas: the aerospace, financial, phar-

maceutical and transportation (con-

struction) sectors (though admittedly

all from the sponsoring organizations

perspective: that is, from the perspec-

tive of the company making a capital

investment).

Semi-structured interviews were

conducted with senior managers using

a questionnaire-based approach. Data

and information gathered from theinterviews, and documentation from

each company, were analyzed and syn-

thesized to develop models of how

corporate strategy was formulated and

implemented through portfolios, pro-

grams, and projects. The results and

findings of each case study were vali-

dated by the appropriate company

before a cross analysis of all the results

and findings was carried out.

A full report on the research was

published by PMI in the fall of 2004(Morris & Jamieson, 2004). This publi-

cation contains full details of the four

case studies, the highlights of which

are as follows.

Four case studies of moving from corpo-

rate to project strategy

We studied four companies to provide

evidence and insight into the way cor-

porate strategy is created and moved

into programs and projects a global

aerospace company, a division of a

global pharmaceutical company, a

group within a global financial servic-

es company, and an international

transportation facility owner and oper-

ator for our purposes, a leading con-

struction client [owner]. A summary of

some of the key findings are summa-

rized below.

Aerospace company

The company is a Tier 2 supplier. It

requires all of its business activities to

be assigned to a program. Each pro-

gram has to have a client. There is a

hierarchical cascade of objectives from

the corporate level, through SBUs, to

programs and projects. Orders are pro-

gressed through a stage-gated develop-

ment process. Eleven key project

management topics are reviewed at

each gate, one of which is project strat-

egy. Project strategy is managed, in

considerable detail, by project teams

throughout all the stages and all the

associated phases of the project man-

agement process, as illustrated

schematically by Figure 2.

The company also has a specific

process for managing a rapid response

to changes impacting strategy.

The companys highly integrat-

ed, structured approach used to

translate corporate and businessstrategies into project strategy, and

then to manage it through the entire

project management process and

project life cycle, illustrates the

importance it gives to project strate-

gy and its management, as well as

the level of priority which should be

given; it provides a good model of

how this can be done.

Global financial services company

The company has a highly structuredprocess of developing and approving

its corporate plan but the role of

project management in its imple-

mentation is not made explicit. The

program and project processes are

self-standing and begin with refer-

ence to the business units vision,

mission, strategies and objectives.

Once an initiating letter of intent

is authorized for the project, work

begins on defining the business case.

This defines, inter alia:


6/15

The program operational vision

The relationship with the business

strategy plan

Program/project organization structure

Risk and resource plans

Delivery plan

Project briefs

WBS

Upon approval of the business

case, the project is prepared for execu-

tion using a Mobilize Program

process, which takes the results of the

previous planning processes and incor-

porates them into the project manage-

ment plan. Project strategy as a term

and activity is not mentioned in the

project management process from this

point onward. However, the way inwhich the project is to be managed is

covered in detail in the following sec-

tions of the project management plan:

Project objectives

Project schedule

Project budget

Resource plan

Risk management plan

A complete set of project briefs.

The strategy for the project is man-aged and maintained through the

operational vision within the business

case, and is in force until the close of

Phases of

Each Process

Stage

Key Tasks of

Each Phase

Key Topics of

Each Key Task

Strategy Strategy

Scope

Risk

Scope

Risk

Concept Execute

Project Management Process

Managing Major Projects Process

Business Process Model

In-Service

Figure 2: A structured approach to creating and moving project strategy


7/15

the project. The lack of a single coher-

ent project strategy document, clearly

related to the business case, can lead to

loss of business rationale in some

cases. It is recognised that there could

be a tighter linkage between business

strategy and project implementation.

Global drug development company

Drug development involves the pro-

gression of chemical entities discov-

ered in the laboratory through a highly

structured series of tests in animals and

humans for clinical efficacy and com-

mercial attractiveness. In a big phar-

ma like the one studied here there

will be several dozen chemical entities

(candidates) being progressed

through the pipeline at any one time.

The management of this development

activity involves a complex matrix of

functional lines and projects and

programs, clustered under therapeutic

areas (Foulkes & Morris, 2004).

Most compounds prove not to

work in the way hoped and the attri-

tion rate is thus enormously high, cer-

tainly in the earlier stages of the

pipeline. However, large pharma com-

panies typically have many more com-

pounds in hand than they have

resources available to work on them.

Hence there is an on-going dialoguebetween senior management working

at the therapeutic governance level on

portfolio prioritization and resource

allocation and project-level status and

outlook.

Portfolios are very important: they

essentially form the hand from

which the future of the company is

being played. The term programs is

less well embedded. Programs are seen

as constituting a technical platform a

particular type of drug of which theremay be various versions (slightly dif-

ferent indications, dosages or delivery

mechanisms, for example). Projects, in

effect, have two meanings. One is the

major project of developing a com-

pound from discovery to regulatory

approval and into the marketplace.

The other is the activity of getting the

compound to the next milestone

review point in its development.

The company uses a very struc-

tured project management process to

manage projects. The process is geared

to each of the phases of the life cycle

and utilizes a plan, form team, moni-

tor and replan structure. It is also

linked to a series of project manage-

ment methodologies, which identify

the actions to be taken by the project

team at any point in the project orphase of the development life cycle.

Project strategy is identified as one of

the topics that need to be implement-

ed by the project team during the

plan phase and there is a standard

list of contents for the project strategy.

Because of the high rate of attri-

tion, spending too much time detail-

ing long-term project strategy is not

seen to be useful. However, it is still

considered essential to develop and

maintain a flexible strategy for the suc-

cess of the project. Thus project strate-

gy is aligned with the portfolio strategy

and is revised as the project progresses.

Most pharmaceutical project man-

agement organizations distinguish

between a Project Leader (or Director)

role and the Project Manager.

Typically, the former has a strong feel-

ing for the science of the development;

the latter is more concerned with the

operational management of the proj-

ect. The project leader/director typical-

ly assumes a much more prominent

role in shaping project strategy, though

this is not always the case. The split is

reminiscent of Kotters distinction

between leadership and management

(Kotter, 1990; Morris, 2004).

Transportation (construction) companyThe company is one of the largest and

most efficient airport operators in the

world. It applies the OGSM method-

ology developed in Procter and

Gamble for defining objectives, goals,

strategies, and measures in a sequen-

tial manner cascading these down

through business units to programs

and projects.

Figure 3 shows that the strategic

business units, capital investment plans

(CIPs), business governance, project

governance and major and minor proj-

ects are all set within the environ-

ment of the corporate OGSMs, and

that each level determines that of the

next in descending order.

The company does not use the

term portfolio but does use a process

for measuring the strategic contribu-

tion, uncertainty/complexity, and

value-for-money of its capital invest-

ments at the SBU levels and for evalu-

ating, selecting and prioritizing its

M

ajo

rPr

ojectsPro

ces

s

ProjectBoard

ProjectGovernance

BusinessGovernance

SBUs/O

ther OGSMs

Corporate

OGSMs

AMProcess

ProjectEnvironment

SBU/ProjectEnvironment

MinorProjectsProcess

SBUs & OtherFunctions CIPs(Inc AM)

Corporate CIP

Figure 3: Corporate, business unit, and project environments


8/15

programs and projects. Program man-

agement is seen as the management of

a group of projects with similar aims.

Projects are managed via a stage

gate process with a project board

responsible to project governance for

the day-to-day running of the project.

The project is split into two stages:development and project delivery. The

former is managed by a development

manager, the latter by a project leader

(not project manager this term is

deliberately avoided by the company,

since, to some, it seems too bureau-

cratic and does not sufficiently empha-

size the required level of leadership: a

view reminiscent of the preceding

pharma case and Kotter).

The gated review process ensures

that projects are aligned to business

strategy (and corporate strategy) as they

are set up, authorized and executed. A

project management process is used to

develop the project definition and key

project management plans, a summary

of which is considered to encapsulate

project strategy. However, project strat-

egy as a term and practice is not used

in the company. The performance of

the project team is not measured

against the objectives of the project,

expressed in terms of project strategy,

but only in terms of business strategy.

Cross-cutting findings

The following general findings can be

drawn from the case studies.

Business models

Some companies had project manage-

ment clearly embedded in their busi-

ness model; others did not. The

aerospace company had a very power-

ful business process model in which

program management (and projectstrategy) played a prominent part. The

international transportation compa-

ny/construction owner also had a

strong business process model, though

project management, as a formal disci-

pline had a less visible role. The phar-

maceutical company had a process

model that was dominated by the drug

development process this is not the

same as a business model per se, but is

common to all drug development

being driven by regulatory require-

ments and was clearly the major busi-

ness process. Project and portfolio

management (and program manage-

ment to a lesser extent) are important

aspects of this process. The financial

services company had a high-level

business process but this was less visi-

ble than the aerospace and transporta-tion business models.

Cascading corporate strategies into proj-

ects and strategy plans

All the companies created corporate

objectives, goals and strategies using

processes like the strategic manage-

ment processes described by Mintzberg

and others. As in Turners model, these

objectives, goals and strategies were

cascaded to the SBUs or equivalent

organizational entities, which, in turn,

and in conjunction with corporate

strategy planners, developed their own

objectives, goals, and strategies. The

SBUs subsequently developed objec-

tives, goals, and strategies with and for

their respective program and project

teams, again in some instances using

fully interconnecting business and

project management processes. The

importance of project portfolio man-

agement was recognized by all the

companies.

In all four cases the programand/or project teams developed project

strategies that aligned with the SBU and

corporate strategy using project strategy

or similar processes. The outputs of the

processes containing the objectives,

goals, and strategies included strategy

plans, business plans, deployment

plans and project plans, the hierarchy of

which, in most cases, was similar to

Archibalds hierarchy of objectives,

strategies and projects, as reflected in

the aerospace case in Figure 2.The pharmaceutical development

company reviewed and rebalanced its

portfolios frequently formally, every

six months. The interaction of emerging

trial results data on the therapy area

portfolio strategy was strongly evident,

and project managers (and project

directors) took a leadership role in

shaping the next phase of implementa-

tion. This required new proposals for

project or program strategy and these

influenced portfolio strategy.

The aerospace company formally

reviewed project strategy as a p.m.

topic alongside a dozen or so other

prescribed aspects of project manage-

ment at each phase gate review, very

much as good governance practice

now recommends. The drug develop-

ment company did the same thing atmajor gate reviews (going into

Exploratory Development and then

into Full Development).

Portfolio management

The importance of project portfolio

management was recognized by all the

companies. The pharmaceutical com-

pany had a dedicated project portfolio

management practice that played a very

important part in project development.

Within the companies, portfolio man-

agement was used primarily to select

and prioritize programs and projects,

not to manage programs or projects.

Corporate and business units assem-

bled a strategic portfolio of programs

and projects, or measured the strategic

contribution of a program or project,

using a number of strategic and project

management processes, tools and tech-

niques. Company management boards

or committees of senior managers

adopted or rejected projects based on

this information. (This was in almostthe identical manner described in Artto

& Dietrich, 2004.)

Program management

Program management was practiced

by all the companies primarily in the

sense of managing a group of high

value projects sharing a common aim

and/or of delivering regular benefits

over a protracted period of time.

In the aerospace company pro-

gram management was positioned asthe management of a number of inter-

related projects but critically also cov-

ering operations and maintenance.

This is crucial in this company since

much of the product margin is in oper-

ations and logistics support rather

than initial capital sales. In the finan-

cial services company there was much

more emphasis in program manage-

ment on managing multiple, interre-

lated projects for business benefit. In

the pharmaceutical case the emphasis


9/15

was on asset management, in the

sense that the program represented a

basic chemical entity (a technology

platform in Wheelwright and Clarks

phrase [1990]), which can be promot-

ed as a brand. Program management

in the transportation/construction case

was used to manage multiple, interre-lated projects.

Program management and project

management activities were carried out

in all cases using the same set of com-

mon processes, variously called inte-

grated program management, program

management, or even project manage-

ment. The development of program

strategy and its alignment with corpo-

rate and business strategy was, as a

consequence, achieved in a similar way

to that for projects. (This aligns with a

finding by the authors from a later

piece of work, on updating the APM

BOK (Morris, Jamieson, & Shepherd,

2005), where we found program man-

agers identified the same practices as

being needed as project managers,

though in some cases by a slightly

reduced amount.)

Project strategy

The business case was the key element

of the corporate and project manage-

ment interface in all the companies. Anoutline project strategy was developed

early in all the projects and was aligned

with corporate and business strategies.

Subsequently, business strategy, in

most of the companies, was turned into

a comprehensive project strategy fol-

lowing project management processes

and incorporating many of the usual

project management practices.

It is important to note that good

governance practice now clearly

requires that projects and programshave an approved implementation

plan which is aligned with the overall

business strategy and that this be

reviewed at pre-defined authorization

points (APM, 2005). Many companies

now do this on a routine basis.

Two of the companies used a very

structured approach to create and

manage project strategy. The aerospace

company had institutionalized a proj-

ect strategy management practice that

was equivalent to, for example, risk

management or technical manage-

ment. The pharmaceutical company

had identified specific project strategy-

related issues for each phase and stage

of the project development life cycle.

Both companies assigned roles and

responsibilities for managing the exe-

cution of these processes. The othertwo companies used a less structured

approach. Though they developed

management plans for their projects,

they tended to neither summarize the

plans nor develop a single project strat-

egy statement from them. The compa-

nies also tended not to use the term

project strategy in their project man-

agement processes. (There is a research

issue left open here, namely whether it

would be beneficial to manage project

strategy as a more formal, single docu-

ment and process.)

The aerospace and pharmaceutical

companies managed project strategy

for effectively the entire project life

cycle and not just at the front-end of a

project. The other two companies

managed the project strategy as part of

managing the business case for the

project.

Processes and procedures

The processes that were most consis-

tently used were those in which thestructure and content were described

at a practical level (e.g., flowcharts

with inputs and outputs for key

processes) and those that identified

who was accountable and responsible

for carrying out the process activities.

Conversely, when the procedures were

described in too much detail staff

tended not to use them. The best

examples of the deployment of the

business models and associated

processes were those that were fullydocumented and incorporated within

the companys Quality Management

System, and were web-based and

available online throughout the

organization (see also Artto &

Dietrich, 2004). Where this approach

was not used, companies, neverthe-

less, linked the activities of their busi-

ness units and projects to ensure

alignment of strategy.

Strategy was consciously and sys-

tematically value managed in the

pharmaceutical company. The trans-

portation/construction company had a

strong value-for-money (VM) orien-

tation, but did not use VM as a special

practice.

All the companies integrated other

key project development practices into

their strategy development processes,such as risk management, technical

and commercial management, and

safety management.

Roles, responsibilities and accountabilities

In the pharmaceutical and transporta-

tion/construction companies, project

strategy was developed and main-

tained by governance and project lead-

ership teams through business related

processes and not exclusively through

project management processes. In the

pharmaceutical case this was driven by

the characteristics of the regulated

development process and by gover-

nance review of the emerging portfo-

lio and individual project data. Project

managers focused more on the sched-

uling, follow-up and general control

activities in support of the project lead-

ers strategy-shaping activities. In the

transportation/construction case, strat-

egy was developed using the OGSM

method cascaded down through SBUs

in classical deliberate manner.

Competencies and frameworks

In general, project management resources

and capabilities figured highly in creat-

ing, deploying and maintaining enter-

prise, portfolio, program, and project

strategies. All the companies specified the

roles, responsibilities and accountabili-

ties of those involved in the business

management and project management

processes, some using comprehensive

sets of tables and matrices for example,RACI tables (Responsible, Accountable,

C o o r d i n a t i o n / C o n s u l t a t i o n ,

Information) that were linked directly to

the processes. These covered in detail all

the phases and stages of the project man-

agement process and project life cycle,

including those for creating and main-

taining project strategy or for implement-

ing enterprise strategy within the context

of the project business case, these RACI

tables identifying who does what and

when at any point along the process.


10/15

Roles, responsibilities and accountabilities

The companies also employed a num-

ber of other methods to identify and

specify the skills, knowledge, behaviors

and experience required to develop

and manage project strategy. These

included competencies for senior proj-

ect management staff, such as manag-ing vision and strategy; and project

management functional competencies

covering knowledge and experience of

strategy-related areas like scope man-

agement.

Survey data on how companies move

strategy from the corporate level to

projects

The case studies provided a rich quali-

tative context in which to explore how

companies moved from the corporate

level to program and project strategy.

But the data sample was obviously

small. To provide more evidence we

carried out a survey of members in a

number of PMI Chapters in European

countries. A series of 32 multiple-

choice questions were developed and

used to examine the processes, prac-

tices, and people issues involved in

moving strategy from the corporate

level to projects.

Seventy-five responses (about

50% from UK) were received frompeople at various levels of seniority, in

small, medium, and large enterprises

in a diverse range of business sectors

such as aerospace, automotive, IT,

telecommunications, pharmaceuticals,

retail, transportation and publishing;

and academia and consultancy. The

response rate about 2% is too

small for the results to be considered

as statistically valid, but can be taken

as indicative: the research is, as we have

said, at best only exploratory. Theresults are as follows.

How business management models are used

67% used a generic business model.

50% of those believed they had exten-

sive processes for moving corporate

goals into project strategy; 90% had

adequate or better interconnection

between corporate, business and proj-

ect management processes. Over 53%

recognized a hierarchy of objectives

and strategies.

Program management and portfolio

management50% used some form of portfolio man-

agement, of which 95% used some

form of program management (with

75% having business benefit manage-

ment as an explicit part of this).

Project management and project strategy

85% used extensive or partial project

management processes to manage proj-

ect strategy; most (75%+) had specific

strategy inputs into project manage-

ment, and 65% did this in an emer-

gent manner; 85% used a gate review

POPULATION %

BOX 1: Project Management and Project Strategy

1.Organizations had extensive or partially integrated project Almost all management processes to help manage project strategy, which contained:

Project strategy management 85

Requirements management, project strategy, project 75 definition, and project scope management

Requirements management, project definition, and 85 project scope management

2.Organizations had specific strategy inputs to integrated project Most management processes, which included:

Corporate strategy 75

Corporate strategy and business strategies 65

Corporate, business, and portfolio strategies 50

Corporate, business, portfolio, and program strategies 45

Portfolio and program strategies only 55

Program strategy 75

3.The integrated project management processes delivered the following outputs:

A project or program plan and strategy plan 50

Other project management plans 75

A project or program plan, strategy plan and other plans 45

4.Organizations with integrated project management processes 65 managed project strategy dynamically

5.The roles and responsibilities for developing, implementing, andupdating project strategy were specified in:

Project management procedures 60

Project plans 55

6.Project plans were formally reviewed at project gates 85

Those who did not and thought they should 85

7.Peer groups formally reviewed project plans 75

Those who did not and thought it would be sensible to do 65

8.It was clear who approved and signed off project strategy 75

9.Strategy was expected to be upgraded and reviewed:

During the development of the project 65 Systematically as projects develop from concept to execution 55

Of which:

It was systematically undertaken at project review gates 85


11/15

process with clear sponsorship respon-

sibilities, and 65% upgraded strategy as

the project progressed. (See Box 1.)

Project value management and its link to

project strategy.

55% had a process for optimizing the

value of the project, of which 75%

combined it with risk management.

Only 25% used Value Engineering.

(See Box 2.)

Project management competencies.

80% had project management compe-

tencies defined, of which 75% includ-

ed those for managing the strategy

development process. (See Box 3.)

A combined analysis of the find-

ings of the case studies and survey was

then carried out, the results of which

are reflected in the findings and con-

clusions below.

Overall findings and conclusions

Before reviewing the overall conclu-

sions of the research, a number of

caveats and cautions should be made

regarding the reliability and generaliz-

ability of the research findings.

There is clearly a limitation on the

generalizability due to:

The size and scale of the investigation;

The sample of case studies;

The size of the survey;

The types of programs and projects; and

The effectiveness and performance of

the processes, practices and compe-

tencies surveyed.

All the companies were at differ-

ent stages of developing, implement-

ing or improving their business

models and the information therefore

was time-specific.

The scope of the survey was

broad and therefore the number of

questions per topic was relativelysmall. Consequently the coverage

and depth of some topics such as

value management and competencies

were limited. A few respondents to

the questionnaire indicated that

some questions were ambiguous and

could be interpreted differently. Also,

some of the terms may not be well

known, for example Value

Management. The survey analysis did

not take account of different business

sectors.Overall, the response rate was

too small for the results to be statisti-

cally valid and to be treated as any-

thing other than indicative.

Despite these caveats, we neverthe-

less feel a number of conclusions can

be drawn from the research.

Moving from corporate to project strategy

Project and program management is

widely used as a means of implement-

ing corporate and business strategy

POPULATION %

BOX 2: Survey Findings Value Management

1.A process was used for optimizing the value of proposed 55 project/program strategy. Of which:

Value was expressed as a benefit over resources used 80

The process was formalized as value management 55

Value management workshops were held 40 at strategic stages in the life of the project

Those not using a process for optimizing the value of 55 project/program strategy, but believed they should

2.Value engineering was practiced on programs and projects. 25 Of which:

Value engineering (optimizing the value of the technical 80 configuration) was distinguished from value management

Those not practicing value engineering on programs and 56 projects thought they should

3.The value optimization process was integrated with risk management 75

Those that thought it should not be done 40

POPULATION %

BOX 3: Survey Findings Project Management Competencies

1.Project management skills and knowledge competencies 80required to manage programs or projects were formally defined

Of which:

Those required to develop program and project strategy 75

Linking the competencies to personal appraisal 80 and development systems

Linking personal objectives to project objectives 65

2.Those that did not formally define the project management skills 50 and knowledge competencies incorporated the management of

project strategy in job descriptions or job specifications.

3.Organization-wide behavioral competency frameworks were used 60

Those that did not use them, but believed they should 45

4.Competency support programs for program and project managers 70 were provided.

Of which:

Covered support for project strategy development 66


12/15

and is a key business process.

Normatively, we should expect strate-

gies to be aligned and moved from the

corporate level through portfolios,

programs and projects in a systematic

and hierarchical manner that provides

cohesion, visibility and an effective

means of communication. Not all isdeliberate, however; there is emer-

gence and iteration. Project strategy is

managed dynamically.

Business management and strategy

Enterprise-wide business models are

seen to play an important part in

effecting this transformation. Business

models are used widely by organiza-

tions and the business units within

many of these organizations apply

them collectively. The models may dif-

fer in size and complexity but most

appear to incorporate project/program

management processes as key business

management processes. Processes hav-

ing a high interconnectivity between

corporate, business and project levels

are an important means of translating

corporate goals, objectives and strategy

into programs and projects; and of

ensuring that continuity of strategy is

achieved in a systematic and structured

way. Hierarchies of objectives and

strategies allow organizations to cas-cade strategy in a systematic way.

Project and program strategy is

not always managed as a formal

process. Often it is developed and

maintained by project or program

leadership teams and governance

through business case processes and

not exclusively through project man-

agement processes.

Portfolio management and program

managementSome form of portfolio management

is implemented by many organizations

but most survey respondents perceived

it to be about managing projects

around a common theme rather than

maintaining a balanced portfolio or

selecting the right project (contrary to

the literature). In contrast, three of the

case study companies implemented

portfolio management mainly as a

process for selecting and prioritizing

the right projects.

Programs are important vehicles

for implementing corporate strategy

and for implementing change. Most

companies considered that program

management emphasizes the manage-

ment of business benefits (as well as

the ideas of product, brand or platform

management). There is broad agree-ment that program management

includes the management of a portfo-

lio or groups of projects using integrat-

ed project teams, managing resources

in an integrated manner, together with

the management of benefits and of

aggregated risk. Some organizations

use a single fully integrated project

management process for managing

both programs and projects.

Project management and project strategy

Project strategy management is widely

recognized as an important project

management practice that systemati-

cally relates project definition and

development to corporate goals and

strategies. Project management

approaches are now being used by

organizations at all stages of the proj-

ect life cycle with project strategy

development, review and optimization

occurring at specific points. A combi-

nation of program or project plans and

other management plans are mostcommonly used to manage programs

and projects, parts of which describe

how the project is to be undertaken

in other words, its strategy. These parts

may not be summarized in a single

project strategy document. Value

Management is quite widely used in

optimizing the strategy, often in com-

bination with Risk Management.

Project resources and capabilities

are key factors in creating, deploying

and maintaining program and projectstrategies. The project management

roles, responsibilities and accountabil-

ities required for this are generally well

defined. And, as the survey showed, a

high percentage of organizations

define the personal project manage-

ment competencies required to devel-

op project strategy.

Several organizations stressed the

leadership qualities that they expected

of their executives in shaping and

delivering strategy, at both the project

level as well as the corporate level.

It can be concluded, therefore,

that although project strategy manage-

ment is an underexplored and insuffi-

ciently described subject in the

business and project literature, it is, in

fact, a relatively well-trodden area,

deserving of more recognition, formalstudy, and discussion.

References

Archer, N. P., & Ghasemzadeh, F.

(1999). An integrated framework for

project portfolio selection. International

Journal of Project Management, 17,

207216.

Archer, N. P., & Ghasemzadeh, F.

(2004). Project portfolio selection and

management. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K.

Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley guide to manag-

ing projects. New York: John Wiley &

Sons Inc.

Archibald, R. (2003). Managing

high-technology programs and projects (3rd

ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Artto, K. A., Martinsuo, M., & Aalto,

T. (2001). Project portfolio management,

PMA Finland.

Artto, K. A., & Dietrich, P. H.

(2004). Strategic business management

through multiple projects. In P. W. G.

Morris & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley

guide to managing projects. New York:John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Association for Project

Management (2004). Directing change:

A guide to governance of project manage-

ment. High Wycombe, UK: Association

for Project Management.

Bartlett, J. (1998). Managing pro-

grammes of business change. Wokingham,

UK: Project Manager Today

Publications.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The compe-

tent manager: A model for effective per-formance. New York: John Wiley & Sons

Inc.

Bourgeois, L. J., & Brodwin, D.

(1984). Strategic implementation: Five

approaches to an elusive phenome-

non. Strategic Management Journal, 5,

241-264.

Broner, J. M., Ruekert, R. W., &

Walker, O. C. (2002). Upper manage-

ment control of new product develop-

ment projects and project

performance. The Journal of Product


13/15

Innovation Management, 19, 233-245.

Cleland, D. I. (1990). Strategic

design and implementation. Blue Ridge

Summit, PA: TAB Books Inc.

Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2002). The

Real Success Factors on Projects.

International Journal of Project

Management, 20(3), 185-90.Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2004). Project

success. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto

(Eds.), The Wiley guide to managing proj-

ects. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., &

Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1998). Portfolio

management for new products. Reading,

MA: Perseus Books.


Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1999). New prod-

uct portfolio management: Practices

and performance. Journal of Product



Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2001). Portfolio

management for new products.

Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.

Crawford, L. (2000). Profiling the

competent project manager. In D. P.

Slevin, D. I. Cleland, & J. K. Pinto

(Eds.), The frontiers of project manage-

ment research PMI, 2002: PMI research

conference, Paris, June 2000.

Crawford, L. (2005). Senior man-

agement perceptions of project manage-ment competence. International Journal

of Project Management, 23(1) 7-16.

Davis, A. M., Hickey, A. M., &

Zweig, A. S. (2004). Requirements

management in a project management

context. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto



Dixon, M. (2000). Project manage-

ment body of knowledge (4th ed.). High

Wycombe, UK: Association of Project

Management.Dye, L. D., & Pennypacker J. S.

(1999). An introduction to project

portfolio management. In L. D. Dye &

J. S. Pennypacker (Eds.), Project portfolio

management: Selecting and prioritizing

projects for competitive advantage. West

Chester, PA: Center for Business

Practices.

Englund, R. L., & Graham, R. J.

(1999). From experience: Linking proj-

ects to strategy. Journal of Product


Foulkes, J., & Morris, P. W. G.

(2004). Pharmaceutical drug develop-

ment project management. In P. W. G.

Morris & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley

guide to managing projects. New York:

John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Grg, M., & Smith, N. (1999).

Project management for managers. Sylva,NC: Project Management Institute.

Grabher, G. (2002). Cool projects,

boring institutions: Temporary collab-

oration in social context. Regional

Studies, 36(3), 205-214.

Grundy, T. (1998). Strategy imple-

mentation and project management.


Management, 16(1), 43-50.

Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, G. R.

(2001). Strategic management: An inte-

grated approach (5th ed.). Boston:

Houghton Mifflin Co.

Hornby, D., & Thomas, R. (1989).

Towards a better standard of management.

London: Pan Books

Institution of Civil Engineers

(2000).Management development in the

construction industry Guidelines for the

construction professional. London:

Institution of Civil Engineers.

Johnson, G., & Scholes, K. (1997).

Exploring Corporate Strategy (4th ed.).

Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall

Europe.Kerzner, H. (2000). Applied project

management: Best practices on implemen-

tation. New York: J. Wiley & Sons Inc.

Kirkpatrick, D., McInally, S., &

Pridie-Sale, D. (2004). Integrated

logistic support and all that: A review

of through-life project management.

In P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto (Eds.),

The Wiley guide to managing projects.

New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Knutson, J. (2001). Succeeding in

project-driven organizations: People,processes and politics. New York: John

Wiley & Sons Inc.

Martinsuo, M., & Dietrich, P.

(2002). Public sector requirements:

Towards project portfolio manage-

ment. Proceedings of PMI Research

Conference 2002, July 2002, Seattle WA,

Newtown Square, PA: Project

Management Institute.

McElroy, W. (1996). Implementing

strategic change through projects.


Management, 14(6) 325-329.

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., &

Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari.

London: Pearson Education Ltd.

Mintzberg, H., & Quinn, J. B.

(1996). The strategy process: Concepts,

contexts and cases (3rd ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Morris, P. W. G. (1994). The man-

agement of projects. London: Thomas

Telford.

Morris, P. W. G. (2004). Moving

corporate strategy to project strategy:

Processes, practices and leadership. In

D. P. Slevin, D. I. Cleland, & J. K. Pinto

(Eds.), Innovations: Project management

research 2004. Newtown Square, PA:

Project Management Institute.

Morris, P. W. G. (2005). Managing

the front-end: How project managers

shape business strategy and manage

project definition. In Proceedings of

the 2005 Project Management Institute

EMEA Symposium, Edinburgh.

Newtown Square, PA: Project


Morris, P. W. G., & Hough, G. H.

(1987). The anatomy of major projects.

Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Morris, P. W. G., & Jamieson, H. A.

(2004). Translating corporate strategy

into project strategy: Achieving corpo-

rate strategy through project manage-ment. Newtown Square, PA: Project


Morris, P. W. G., Jamieson, H. A., &

Shepherd, M. M. (2005). Updating the

APM Body of Knowledge. Manuscript

submitted for publication.

Morris, P. W. G., & Pinto, J. K.

(Eds.). (2004). Wiley guide to managing

projects. New York: John Wiley & Sons

Inc.

Murray-Webster, R., & Thiry, M.

(2000). Managing programmes of proj-ects. In R. Turner & S. Simister (Eds.),

The Gower handbook of project manage-

ment (3rd ed.). Aldershot, UK: Gower

Publishing.

Office of Government Commerce

(2003).Managing successful programmes.

Norwich, UK: The Stationery Office.

Partington, D. (2000). Implementing

strategy through programmes of projects.

In R. Turner & S. Simister (Eds.), The Gower

handbook of project management (3rd ed.).

Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing.


14/15

Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., &

Young, M. (2005). Attributes and levels

of programme management compe-

tence: An interpretive study.


Management. 23, 87-95.

Pellegrinelli, S. (1997). Programme

management: organizing project-basedchange. International Journal of Project

Management. 15(3), 141-150.

Pellegrinelli, S., Partington, D., &

Young, M. (2003). Understanding and

assessing programme management

competence. In Proceedings of the PMI

Europe Congress, The Hague.

Platje, A., Seidel, H., & Wadman,

S. (1994). Project and portfolio plan-

ning cycle: Project based management

for multi-project challenge.

International Journal of ProjectManagement. 12(2), 100-106.

Project Management Institute

(2004). A Guide to the Project

Management Body of Knowledge

(PMBOK Guide)Third Edition.

Newtown Square, PA: Author.

Reiss, G. (1996). Programme manage-

ment demystified. London: E & F N Spon.

Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2004).

How projects differ, and what to do

about it. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto



Simister, S. J. (2000). Proposal,initiation and feasibility. In R. J. Turner

& S. J. Simister (Eds.), The Gower hand-

book of project management (3rd ed.).

Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing.

Stevens, R., Brook, P., Jackson, K., &

Arnold, S. (1997). Systems engineering.

Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall.

Thiry, M. (2002). Combining

value and project management into an

effective programme management

model. International Journal of Project

Management, 20(3), 221-228.Thiry, M. (2004). Program man-

agement: A strategic decision manage-

ment process. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K.

Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley guide to manag-

ing projects. New York: John Wiley &

Sons Inc.

Thomas, J., Delisle, C., Jugdev, K.,

& Buckle, P. (2002). Selling project

management to senior executives: The

case for avoiding crisis sales. Project

Management Journal, 33(4), 9-28.

Thompson, J. L. (2001). Strategic

management (4th ed.). London:

Thomson Learning.

Turner, R. J. (1999).The handbook of

project-based management. Maidenhead,

UK: McGraw-Hill.

Turner, R. J., & Simister, S. J. (Eds.).

(2000). The Gower handbook of project

management (3rd ed.). Aldershot, UK:

Gower Publishing.

Ward, J., & Peppard, J. (1999).

Strategic planning for information systems.

London: John Wiley & Sons.

Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B.

(1992). Revolutionizing New Product

Development. New York: The Free Press.

Wijen, G., & Kor, R. (2000).

Managing unique assignments.Aldershot,

UK: Gower Publishing.

DR. PETER MORRIS is Professor of Construction and Project Management at University College London (UCL) and Visiting

Professor of Engineering Project Managementat the Universityof Manchester. He is also Executive Director of INDECO, an

international projects-based management consultancy. He has written over 120 papers on project management as well

as the books The Anatomy of Major Projects (Wiley, 1987) and The Management of Projects (ThomasTelford, 1997); he is

the editor, with Jeffrey Pinto, of the Wiley Guide to Managing Projects (Wiley, 2004) and co-author with Ashley Jamieson

ofTranslating Corporate Strategy into Project Strategy: Achieving Corporate Strategy Through Project Management (PMI,

2004). In 2005, he received the PMI Research Achievement Award.

ASHLEY JAMIESON worked for many years as a business manager, senior program manager, and project manager withglobal aerospace and defense companies. For the last few years, he has been working with Peter Morris on a variety of

research projects. At Manchester, he carried out research into design management in major construction projects, and

was a visiting lecturer in project management. At UCL, he recently completed the PMI-funded research project on how

corporate strategy is translated into projectstrategy, which forms the basis of thispaper. He was recently Research Fellow

on a project updating theAPM BOK. He holds an MSc in Engineering Business Management. In addition to this PMI

publication, he is a contributor to the Wiley Guide to Managing Projects (Wiley, 2004).


15/15

moving from corporate strategy to project strategy

Documents