INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 386–391

PROJECTMANAGEMENT

Successful management of strategic intentions throughmultiple projects – Reflections from empirical study

Perttu Dietrich *, Paivi Lehtonen 1

Helsinki University of Technology P.O.B. 9555, 02015 Helsinki, Finland

Abstract

This article focuses on how to implement strategies successfully through projects. Based on the literature we propose measures for

successful management of strategic intentions in a multi-project context. Empirical survey of 288 organizations is used to analyze

practices that organizations use in managing development projects. Correlations between management practices and success mea-

sures are examined and the success factors determined. Several success factors are found related to both single and multiple project

management. In addition, the linkage between strategy process and project management, as well as the availability of high-quality

information are identified as success factors.

� 2005 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Managing projects; Success and strategy; Multi-project environment

1. Introduction

Projects and project management serve as primary

capabilities of an organization to respond to change

and thereby maintain a competitive edge [1]. Projects

may be considered as building blocks in the designand execution of future strategies of the organization

[2]. Conventional efforts towards the effectiveness in

managing single projects, however, do not suffice in to-

day�s organizations. Therefore, the managerial focus of

firms has shifted towards the simultaneous management

of the whole collection of projects as one large entity,

and towards the effective linking of this set of projects

to the ultimate business purpose [3].Variety of models and frameworks issuing different

managerial approaches with multiple projects are pre-

sented in the literature under the terms of multi-project

0263-7863/$30.00 � 2005 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.03.002

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 50 385 3490.

E-mail addresses: perttu.dietrich@hut.fi (P. Dietrich), paivi.

lehtonen@hut.fi (P. Lehtonen).1 Tel.: +358 50 386 2763.

management, multiple project management and project

portfolio management [4–12]. The models and frame-

works vary depending on the purpose and focus of the

model. However, the common characteristic or objective

for all of the approaches is to deliver additional benefit

for the organization by introducing increased manage-ability and coordination over the entity formed by mul-

tiple projects and by ensuring better linkage between the

current efforts conducted by projects and the intended

strategic aims of the organization.

Most of the models and frameworks presented in the

literature are theoretical constructions to solve or de-

scribe managerial problems with multiple projects.

Excluding only a few studies [13,14], current literaturelacks empirical evidence on the functionality of different

management approaches, formal or informal. In addi-

tion, testing and verification of suggested approaches

are too often neglected or based on the results of single

case studies. Consequently, described models are often

context-related, present often relatively local solutions

to related problems and thus the generalizability of the

results can seldom be confirmed.

P. Dietrich, P. Lehtonen / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 386–391 387

The objective of this study is to identify the factors

correlating with success in managing strategic intentions

through multiple projects. In comparison to previous re-

search, we approach the phenomenon with a quantita-

tive approach and thus aim to provide more

generalizable results on how organizations can imple-ment strategies successfully through projects.

2. Successful management from the strategy perspective

The use of concepts related to success is relatively

ambiguous in the literature. Success is a broad concept

that in a most straightforward sense simply means meet-ing or exceeding expectations and goals. In the project

context, success is often conceptualized through success

criteria and success factors. Success criteria refer shortly

to the measures by which success or failure of a project

or business will be judged. Consequently, success factors

are defined as ‘‘those inputs to the management system

that lead directly or indirectly to the success of the pro-

ject or business’’ [15].Various approaches and factors affecting project suc-

cess and project business success have been presented in

the literature [16–19]. Success is often evaluated through

criteria that emphasize the effectiveness in the manage-

ment of single projects and thus the fact that projects

do have connections to organization�s strategy and other

projects as well is neglected. We argue that in these stud-

ies projects are conceived as closed systems and successfactors, respectively, refer to the enablers needed to real-

ize a closed system�s (or project�s) strategy. However, in

many cases effective management of single projects does

not suffice to guarantee success in organizational level.

Project success should be understood as a multifaceted

strategic concept that goes far beyond meeting the time

and budget constrains [20,21]. Thus, in addition to crite-

ria indicating effectiveness in the management of singleprojects, the success of projects should be evaluated

through their contribution to the organization�sstrategy.

From the strategy perspective success is ultimately

judged through the achievement of sustainable compet-

itive advantage [24]. Different theories and perspectives,

such as resource-based view of the organization [23,26],

organizational capabilities [25,27,28] and competenciesand learning in organization [29,30], are proposed to ex-

plain the sources of competitive advantage in organiza-

tions. These different perspectives argue that strategic

success is, in addition to environmental factors, also

dependent on intra-organizational variables [32], such

as organizational culture [22], organizational learning

[31] and knowledge [30]. In this respect success from

strategic perspective is dependent on the organization�sability to implement the desired courses of action. In this

study, we aim to examine how to enhance the effective

realization of strategic intention, and adopt the view

that organizational success in managing strategic inten-

tions refers to the organization�s ability to manage its

compliance to intended strategies. However, the exact

measurement of the organization�s ability to comply

with the intended strategy is rather complex as strategiesare dynamic in nature and change over time, and the

concept of strategy itself is ambiguous and rather ab-

stract in nature. Thus, we adopt the idea that strategy

can be broken down or seen to consist of specific goals

or objectives, which again can be reduced to sub-goals

[35], and that the goals and sub-goals rather precede

the actions than are formed as a result of those actions.

Based on these assumptions we conceptualize the suc-cessfulness in managing strategic intentions to refer to

how well the objectives of the efforts placed to achieve

changes are in line with the guidelines of the intended

strategy.

For many organizations, various forms of develop-

ment projects are central vehicles to implement the in-

tended strategies [34]. Based on the discussion above

we choose to measure the successfulness in managingstrategic intentions in a multi-project context through

examining how well: (1) the objectives of the projects

are aligned with the strategy of the organization; (2)

the resource allocation to different projects is aligned

with the strategy of the organization; (3) the current

portfolio of projects implements the strategy of the

organization.

3. Managing successfully in a multi-project context

A variety of managerial approaches are identified to

have an effect on how well an organization operating

in a multi-project environment succeeds. Single project

characteristics and management activities are closely re-

lated to the overall success of the organization [36]. Sin-gle projects need to be managed well in order to get the

most out of the group of projects [37]. Among others,

characteristics related to the decision-making activities

of single projects, and flexibility and formality of the

project management approach have been proposed as

variables partly explaining the differences in projects�outcomes [14,13,38]. The management approaches in a

multi-project environment generally distinguish betweenmanagement efforts directed to single projects and man-

agement activities that focus on group of projects

[13,39]. Systematic and purposeful evaluation and selec-

tion of projects has been observed to lead to better

results [13]. Moreover, literature proposes flexible man-

agement processes with explicitly defined rules and pro-

cedures as a source of success with multiple projects.

Some studies report that utilization of specific methodsand tools correlate with superior performance in

multi-project management [10].

388 P. Dietrich, P. Lehtonen / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 386–391

The role of projects has developed from a pure device

of delivery to an important vehicle in strategy realiza-

tion. Several authors have emphasized the importance

of linking projects and their management to strategy

and proposed different models describing how the man-

agement processes at project and multi-project levels canbe integrated with the organizational strategy manage-

ment process [4,9,11,12]. Finally, some authors have no-

ticed the importance of meaningful and reliable

information as a prerequisite of successful management

and high-quality decision-making [40]. Management in

multi-project environments involves many decisions,

and the quality of decisions is largely based on the qual-

ity of information the decision maker have.Based on the discussion above we propose that suc-

cess in managing strategic intentions through multiple

projects is dependent on: (1) single project level charac-

teristics and activities; (2) multi-project level characteris-

tics and activities; (3) the linkage between projects and

strategy process; (4) the availability and quality of pro-

ject information.

4. Data collection and analysis

In the empirical study, we used the four above men-

tioned issues as a framework, in which each issue is

operationalized to include several individual variables

that potentially correlate with the successfulness of the

organization in managing its strategic intentions. Thesepresent potential success factors and are presented in the

left-most column of Appendix A.

The data that was used to test the framework was

gathered with the help of a vast questionnaire survey

targeted to large and medium-sized Finnish organiza-

tions. The sample consists of organizations implement-

ing multiple simultaneous project-like development

activities, including product development and organiza-tions� internal development projects. The questionnaire

was sent to altogether 1102 private and public organiza-

tions employing more than 100 people. In organizations,

the respondents were persons responsible for develop-

ment activities. A total of 288 organizations returned

the questionnaire, thus making the response rate

26.1%. The responses were analyzed statistically with

the help of SPSS 11.5 (Statistical Package for the SocialSciences) program.

Organization�s successfulness in managing strategic

intentions in a multi-project context was mea-

sured through the following three statement-type

indicators:

� The objectives of the projects are aligned with the

strategy of the organization� Resource allocation to different projects is aligned

with the strategy of the organization

� The current portfolio of projects implements the

strategy of the organization

Each of the three variables was measured with a stan-

dard five-point Likert scale, value 5 referring to

‘‘strongly agree’’ and value 1 being ‘‘totally disagree’’.

In order to validate the use of the three variables as acommon sum variable factor analysis was conducted.

The analysis revealed that all three variables above cor-

relate with the single sum variable that was found. Fac-

tor scores were calculated to indicate the ability of

organizations to manage strategic intentions successfully

in multi-project contexts, and organizations were cate-

gorized to five hierarchical groups according to the fac-

tor scores.Analysis of variance was used to detect the variables

that correlate with the success of managing strategic ini-

tiatives in a multi-project environment. The categories

calculated based on the factor scores were used as a

dependent variable and each variable on Appendix A

was individually tested as an independent variable with

a one-way analysis of variance to determine, whether

the variables correlate with the organizations� successin managing strategic initiatives in a multi-project

environment.

5. Results of the empirical analysis: success factors

The results of the statistical tests are presented in

Appendix A. In the table, F values as well as the signif-icance levels are presented along with the results of

whether or not a correlation was found between each

variable and success.

5.1. Single project level characteristics and activities

The organizations that succeed best in managing stra-

tegic initiatives in a multi-project environment have acommon project management process or project model

and they also use it in as many projects as possible.

These organizations also employ formal decision-

making practices related to the initiation of the project�sexecution phase, project�s proceeding during the execu-

tion phase, and project�s close up. However, the formal-

ity of decision-making related to conducting a feasibility

study on a project idea and initiating the planning phaseof the project did not seem to correlate with success.

These findings suggest that successful management ap-

proaches are characterized by formal decision making

practices in project execution phase. However, in some

organizations, more informal and unstructured deci-

sion-making activities may be more suitable during the

fuzzy front end phase of the project, i.e., project idea

emergence and project initiation. In addition, the mostsuccessful organizations report that their management

P. Dietrich, P. Lehtonen / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 386–391 389

style is flexible enough to accommodate different types

of projects and also commonly understood and accepted

throughout the organization.

5.2. Multi-project level characteristics and activities

The most successful organizations tend to organize

at least most of their development projects into pro-

grams or other fixed entities. They also evaluate and

compare their project ideas consistently when selecting

new projects to be implemented. Statistically signifi-

cant correlations were also found in examining the

methods used in the evaluation of projects and project

ideas. Regular use of discounting-based financial meth-ods, structured discussion and group work methods

correlates positively with success. However, the corre-

lations detected could simply mean that some more

formal methods than just unstructured discussion is

needed. Our interpretation is supported by the notion

that structured discussion, e.g., with the help of a

check list, correlates positively with success. The use

of more sophisticated tools and methods, such as scor-ing models and option or scenario thinking, was very

rare among respondent organizations, and it did not

correlate with success.

Reviewing the set of projects as an entity correlates

strongly with success. In reviewing a group of projects,

formality of the process in terms of whether the review

is based on predetermined rules and procedures seems

to have no correlation with success. Results of the studysuggest that the level of formality required is organiza-

tion-specific; some organizations succeed with formal

practices and some with more informal ones. Instead

of formality, the flexibility of multi-project management

practices seems related to success. Also the regularity of

reviews correlates positively with success, so apparently

some order is needed in the process.

5.3. The linkage between projects and strategy process

The results reveal that organizations which are the

most successful in managing their strategic intentions

in a multi-project environment tend to review the objec-

tives of their ongoing projects in linkage with strategy

formulation. In addition, the most successful organiza-

tions review their project portfolio in linkage with thestrategy follow-up process. The results clearly indicate

that the management of projects and group of projects

such as portfolios and programs should be included as

a part of the strategy process for the organization to

be able to implement its strategies successfully.

5.4. The availability and quality of project information

The quality of information the decision makers have

on projects is strongly related to the successfulness of

management. The strong statistical correlations in all

dimensions of information included in the framework,

the availability, topicality and validity of information,

indicate the importance of high-quality information in

decision making as an enabler or even a prerequisite

for the organizations to successfully implement its strat-egies through projects.

6. Discussion

The objective of this article was to identify factors re-

lated to success in managing strategic intentions through

multiple projects. The framework consisting of potentialsuccess factors was tested empirically. The success fac-

tors found include management activities both at single

project and multi-project level, as well as issues related

to the availability and quality of project information

and managing the linkage between strategy process

and projects.

Most of the findings of this study are in line with

prior studies representing existing body of knowledgein managing multi-project contexts. However, some

differences were found. The literature has emphasized

the importance of formality in multi-project manage-

ment processes [41]. Still, the empirical study displayed

neither positive nor negative correlation between having

established rules and procedures for management in

multi-project environment and success. This indicates

that formal procedures are appropriate for some organi-zations, while the others may yield better results with an

informal approach. Thus, the need for formal proce-

dures is an organization-specific issue.

The results of this study provide novel insights into

project management knowledge and serve as grounds

for further academic research on implementing

strategies in a multi-project context. In addition, from a

pragmatic point of view the results of the study can beapplied to benchmarking and developing activities for

organizations operating in multi-project environments.

Several implications for further research can be rec-

ognized. This study focused mainly on formal manage-

ment processes. However, decision making usually

includes informal and invisible processes, and there

can be a variety of different and even complementary

processes for managing multiple projects in an organiza-tion. Thus, extending our framework to include these

informal practices can be considered as an interesting fu-

ture research agenda. In addition, in this study we have

made the daring assumption that the strategies are prop-

erly defined and lead to successful outcomes if imple-

mented as planned. Strategies also often include an

emergent component [33], which we have left out of con-

sideration. Further research could complete our studyby examining the role of projects as a source of strategy

renewal.

Appendix A

Success factors

Factors and determinants within main categories Observed correlation with success

(+/�/no correlation)

F-value Significance (F-test) Significance level

Single project level characteristics and activities

1. Use of project process/project model + 4.916 .008 **

2. Decision-making practices

2.1 Formal decision making related to conducting a feasibility study on a project idea No correlation 2.471 .117

2.2 Formal decision making related to project planning phase initiation No correlation .939 .333

2.3 Formal decision making related to project execution phase initiation + 9.636 .002 **

2.4 Formal decision making related to project�s proceeding during project execution + 12.874 .000 ***

2.5 Formal decision making related to project close up + 6.655 .010 *

3. Management style commonly understood and accepted + 20.427 .000 ***

Multi-project level characteristics and activities

1. Number of projects No correlation 1.865 .101

2. Structural linkages between project + 3.763 .003 *

3. Comparison and evaluation of project ideas + 19.169 .000 ***

4. Methods in project and project idea evaluation

4.1 Use of discounting-based financial methods + 4.764 .030 *

4.2 Use of scoring model No correlation 2.081 .151

4.3 Use of structured discussion + 6.097 .014 *

4.4 Use of informal discussion No correlation .000 1.000

4.5 Use of group work method(s) + 7.543 .006 **

4.6 Use of option or scenario thinking No correlation 0.685 .409

5. Reviewing set of projects

5.1 The set of projects is reviewed as a whole + 17.583 .000 ***

5.2 The review of the set of projects is based on predefined methods and rules No correlation .057 .812

5.4 The management approach is flexible with different types of projects + 7.646 .000 ***

5.5 The set of projects is reviewed on a regular basis + 4.275 .040 *

The linkage between projects and strategy process

1. Ongoing projects and strategy process

1.1 The objectives of ongoing projects are revised in linkage with strategy formulation + 4.894 .028 *

1.2 The objectives of ongoing projects are revised in linkage with strategy follow-up No correlation 1.363 .244

2. Multiple projects and strategy process

2.1 The set of projects is reviewed in linkage with strategy formulation No correlation 1.364 .244

2.2 The set of projects is reviewed in linkage with strategy follow-up + 7.868 .006 **

The availability and quality of project information

1. Information sufficiency and validity + 23.132 .000 ***

2. Information reliability + 8.092 .000 ***

3. Information topicality + 10.888 .000 ****Indicates that the result is significant at 0.05 probability level. **Indicates that the result is significant at 0.01 probability level. ***Indicates that the result is significant at 0.001 probability level.

390

P.Dietrich

,P.Lehtonen

/Intern

atio

nalJournalofProject

Managem

ent23(2005)386–391

P. Dietrich, P. Lehtonen / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 386–391 391

References

[1] Turner RJ. The handbook of project based management. 2nd

ed. London: McGraw-Hill; 1999.

[2] Cleland DI. The strategic context of projects. In: Dye LD,

Pennypacker JS, editors. Project portfolio management – selecting

and prioritizing projects for competitive advantage. West Ches-

ter, PA, USA: Center for Business Practices; 1999. p. 3–22.

[3] Artto K, Dietrich P. Strategic business management through

multiple projects. In: Artto Morris PWG, Dietrich Pinto JK,

editors. The Wiley guide to managing projects. New York: Wi-

ley; 2004.

[4] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmitdt EJ. Portfolio management

in new product development: lessons from the leaders – II. Res

Technol Manage 1997(November–December):43–52.

[5] Howell RA. Multiproject control. Harvard Bus Rev

1968(March–April):1–10.

[6] McFarlan FW. Portfolio approach to information systems.

Harvard Bus Rev 1981(September–October):142–50.

[7] Buss MDJ. How to rank computer projects. Harvard Bus Rev

1983(January–February):1–8.

[8] Wheelwright SC, Clark KB. Revolutionizing product develop-

ment-quantum leaps in speed, efficiency, and quality. USA: The

Free Press; 1992.

[9] Bridges DN. Project portfolio management: ideas and practices.

In: Dye LD, Pennypacker JS, editors. Project portfolio manage-

ment – selecting and prioritizing projects for competitive advan-

tage. West Chester, PA, USA: Center for Business Practices;

1999. p. 45–54.

[10] Archer NP, Ghasemzadeh F. Project portfolio selection tech-

niques: a reviesw and a suggested integrated approach. In: Dye

LD, Pennypacker JS, editors. Project portfolio management –

selecting and prioritizing projects for competitive advan-

tage. West Chester, PA, USA: Center for Business Practices;

1999. p. 207–38.

[11] Spradlin T, Kutolowski D. Action-orientated portfolio manage-

ment. Res Technol Manage 1999(March–April):26–32.

[12] Englund RL, Graham RJ. From experience: linking projects to

strategy. J Prod Innovat Manag 1999;16(1):52–64.

[13] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ. New product portfolio

management: practices and performance. J Prod Innovat Manag

1999;16(4):333–51.

[14] Loch C. Tailoring product development to strategy: case of a

European technology manufacturer. Eur Manage J

2000;18(3):146–258.

[15] Cooke-Davies T. The real success factors on projects. Int J Project

Manag 2002;20(3):185–90.

[16] Baker B, Murphy D, Fisher D. Factors affecting project

management success. In: Cleland D, King W, editors. Project

management handbook. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold;

1983. p. 669–85.

[17] Pinto JK, Slevin DP. Critical factors in successful project

implementation. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 1987;34(1):22–7.

[18] Mikkelsen H, Olsen W, Riis JO. Management of internal projects.

Int J Project Manag 1991;9(2):77–81.

[19] Salminen A. Implementing organizational and operational change

– critical success factors of change management. Dissertation for

the degree of doctor in science, Helsinki University of Technol-

ogy, Acta Polytechnica Scandinavia – Industrial Management

and Business Administration Series No 7; 2000.

[20] Shenhar AJ, Dvir D, Levy O, Maltz AC. Project success: a

multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Plann

2001;34(6):699–725.

[21] Shenhar AJ, Levy O, Dvir D. Mapping the dimensions of project

success. Project Manag J 1997;28(2):5–13.

[22] Coase RH. The nature of the firm. Economica

1937;4(16):386–405.

[23] Barney JB. Organizational culture – can it be a source of sustained

competitive advantage. Acad Manage Rev 1986;11(3):656–65.

[24] Porter ME. From competitive advantage to corporate-strategy.

Harvard Bus Rev 1987;65(3):43–59.

[25] Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic

management. Strategic Manage J 1997;18(7):509–33.

[26] Wernerfelt B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic

Manage J 1984;5(2):171–80.

[27] Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA. Dynamic capabilities: what are they.

Strategic Manage J 2000;21(10–11):1105–21.

[28] Winter SG. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Man-

age J 2003;24(10):991–5.

[29] Prahalad CK, Hamel G. The core competence of the corporation.

Harvard Bus Rev 1990;68(3):79–91.

[30] Levinthal DA, March JG. The myopia of learning. Strategic

Manage J 1993;14(Winter):95–112.

[31] Spender JC. Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic

theory of the firm. Strategic Manage J 1996;17(Winter special

):45–62.

[32] Burgelman RA. Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making

and organizational adaptation: theory and field research. Organ

Sci 1991;2(3):239–62.

[33] Mintzberg H, Waters JA. Of strategies, deliberate and emergent.

Strategic Manage J 1985;6(3):257–72.

[34] Grundy T. Strategic project management and strategic behaviour.

Int J Project Manage 2000;18(2):93–103.

[35] Andrews KR. The concept of corporate strategy. IL,

Irwin: Homewood; 1971.

[36] Saravirta A. Project success through effective decisions: case

studies on project goal setting, Success evaluation and managerial

decision making. Dissertation for the degree of doctor in science,

Lappeenranta University of Technology, Acta Universitatis

Lappeenrantaensis 121, Finland; 2001.

[37] Levine HA. Project portfolio management: a song without words.

In: Dye LD, Pennypacker JS, editors. Project portfolio manage-

ment – selecting and prioritizing projects for competitive advan-

tage. West Chester, PA, USA: Center for Business Practices;

1999. p. 39–44.

[38] Elonen S, Artto KA. Problems in managing internal development

projects in multi-project environments. Int J Project Manage

2003;21(6):395–402.

[39] McDonough III EF, Spital FC. Managing project portfolios. Res

Technol Manage 2003;46(3):40–6.

[40] Matheson J, Menke M. Using desicion quality principles to

balance your R&D portfolio. In: Dye LD, Pennypacker JS,

editors. Project portfolio management: selecting and prioritizing

projects for competitive advantage. West Chester, PA,

USA: Center for Business Practices; 1999. p. 61–9.

[41] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ. Portfolio management

for new product development: results of an industry practice

study. product development institute. Available from: http://

www.prod-dev.com/pdf/Working_Paper_13.pdf, referred to on 20

August, 2003; 2001.