工程管理外文文献

外文文献：

Project portfolio management –There’s more to it than

what management enacts

Abstract

Although companies manage project portfolios concordantly with project portfolio theory, they may experience problems in the form of delayed projects, resource struggles, stress, and a lack of overview. Based on a research project compromised of 128 in-depth interviews in 30 companies, we propose that a key reason why companies do not do well in relation to project portfolio management (PPM) is that PPM often only covers a subset of on-going projects, while projects that are not subject to PPM tie up resources that initially were dedicated to PPM projects. We address and discuss the dilemma of wanting to include all projects in PPM, and aiming at keeping the resource and cognitive burden of doing PPM at a reasonable level.

Keywords：

Managing programmes，Managing projects，Organisation resources，Strategy

1.Introduction

At any given point in time, most companies engage in many projects. Some of these projects may relate to product development and marketing, others relate to changes in work processes and production flows, while yet others relate to competency development, strategic turns, the implementation of new IT systems, environmental issues etc.

A key managerial task is to dedicate resources across all of these projects (as well as do daily work) and consequently,management across projects (project portfolio management (PPM)) is critical to company performance.This paper is based on a large-scale qualitative study,which shows that many project-oriented companies do not perform well when it comes to PPM. This relates to the inability to accomplish projects that are initiated. In particular, we identify the following problems:

(1) Projects are not completed according to plan (or they even peter out during their project life cycle);

(2) Management and employees feel they lack a broad overview of on-going projects (especially when the number of on-going projects increases as more and more projects are not completed

according to plan);

(3)People experience stress as resources are continuously reallocated across projects in order to make ends meet.

These observations are especially interesting because the companies were included in the research project because they were supposed to be especially,experienced in PPM, and because they actually engage in PPM according to the extant body of literature on PPM. For example, part of the companies‘ PPM included an effort to pick the best projects on the basis of explicit or implicit criteria, and an effort to allocate sufficient resources to these projects.

However, despite efforts,to practice ?good‘ PPM, these companies experience severe problems in relation to PPM – especially in letting enough resources go into the ?right‘ pr ojects. The purpose of this paper is to confront PPM as advocated by normative theories with actual PPM practices. Hence, the purpose is to confront PPM theories with PPM as perceived by managers and other employees for whom PPM is part of, or affects, their work conditions.

However, in this paper, we are more interested in PPM as enacted by companies than in universally true perceptions. Hence, we adhere to Weick‘s [1–3] notion of enactment as the preconceptions that are used to set aside a portion of the field of experience for further attention. In regard to PPM, enacted projects are thus the ones management sets aside for further attention (i.e. PPM). As such, we focus especially on ways actors define or enact projects [4] and make sense of how to manage the sum of the projects. Drawing on this perspective, we account for findings that suggest why companies that do engage in PPM still experience problems.

2. Project portfolio theory

This paper draws on Archer and Ghasemzadeh‘s [5, p.208] definition of p roject portfolios as ??a group of projects that are carried out under the sponsorship and/or management of a particular organization‘‘. Henceforth, we define PPM as the managerial activities that relate to

(1) the initial screening, selection and prioritisation of project proposals,

(2) the concurrent reprioritisation of projects in the portfolio,

(3) the allocation and reallocation of resources to projects according to priority.

For quite some time researchers have suggested that low completion rates for new product development (NPD) projects and new product failure relate to resource deficiencies in key areas [6,7]. Furthermore, while a host of researchers [8–10] have focused on the dimension of PPM that concerns

processes relating to selection of projects to be included in the portfolio, research e.g. [11] also increasingly focuses on the day-today management of the project portfolio.

3. Methodology

Over a period of two years, we did empirical research on how companies manage their entire range of projects, e.g. renewal projects, strategic projects, IT projects, departmentally specific projects, and production based projects. In relation to the selection of companies to be included in the empirical study, a key criterion was that the study should cover a wide variety of industries. As a result, the empirical study covers 30 companies from industries as diverse as, e.g. mobile telephone communications, finances, energy, pharmaceuticals, toys, software, and foods.

However, due to the fact that we were looking for companies, where the amount of on-going projects suggested they were engaged in PPM, the study is biased towards larger companies as well as companies that define at least a substantial part of their activities as projects. The degree to which the companies participated in the study varies. Hence, half of the companies are labelled ?inner circle‘ companies due to the fact that we drew extensively on these 15 companies. For example, in these companies more interviews were conducted at various points in time and at various organizational levels. Hence, a longitudinal perspective characterizes the involvement of these companies.

The remaining half of the companies are labelled ?outer circle‘ companies because their participation in the study has included fewer top-management interviews, the purpose of which was to gain insight into ways in which (top) management defines the content of their project portfolios and manages them.

4. Managerial implications

A key finding is that the gap between required and available resources is very much attributable to the existence of a host of smaller projects that never become part of enacted project portfolios. Thus, at an aggregated level, the empirical study suggests smaller, un-enacted projects qualify as resources crunchers in so far they are not considered to be a part of enacted project portfolios. In order to overcome this crunch in resources, two solutions seem obvious:

(1) Enacting more, i.e. having PPM embrace all projects.

(2) Allocating more resources to a pool of loosely-controlled resources for the un-enacted projects to draw on.

5. Research implications

The empirical study elaborates on the ??significant shortage of resources devoted to NPD‘‘ that Cooper and Edgett argue is the fundamental problem ??that p lagues most firms‘ product development efforts‘‘.

Our work especially suggests that the shortage of resources devoted to enacted projects is not a problem that primarily arises in relation to top management‘s PPM. On the contrary, in-good-faith top management dedicates resources to enacted projects on the basis of sound PPM. However, what top managers do not do is take into account the host of smaller projects that individuals initiate and – more importantly – top managers ignore (or at least heavily under-estimate) the amount of resources that these smaller projects tie up. Hence, we argue that especially the crunch in resources may be attributable to the un-enacted competition for resources that smaller projects subject enacted projects to.

Consequently, the key contribution of our empirical work to research is that it emphasises that if we wish to study PPM (and especially if we wish to relate PPM to project performance), we might be better off taking into account the entire range of projects that actual (not enacted) portfolios are comprised of. Thus, if we as researchers only enact the projects that are neatly listed by top management, then our research will neglect the host of projects that are not subject to PPM, projects that nonetheless take up valuable, and scarce, resources.

The fact that the empirical study includes interviews with managers, i.e. those who do PPM, and interviews with personnel at lower organisational levels, i.e. those whose work is subject to PPM, is the reason why we were able to identify un-enacted projects. Thus, researchers interested in PPM should be careful not to rely too heavily on a management perspective.

6. Conclusion and limitations

The main conclusion is that as long as some projects are un-enacted, companies may experience a drain on resources that reduces the time and resources actually devoted to projects subject to PPM. Hence, each individual company should decide whether or not all projects should be part of PPM and if the end result of such a decision is not to make comprehensive project lists (i.e. lists that include all minor projects), then management should decide how many resources should be set aside for the plethora of small projects that do not appear on the project list.

One way in which the crunch in resources can be reduced is by ensuring that smaller projects do not take up a critical portion of the resources that are – officially – set aside for the completion of

projects subject to PPM. However, due to the exploratory nature of the study accounted for in this paper, our findings relate far more to what companies actually do (positive theory in Hunt‘s terms), rather than to what they ought to do (normative theory in Hunt‘s terms). Although generating positive theory is indeed a crucial first step – especially in relation to the future of PPM theory –positive theory cannot, and should not, stand alone. Hence, the key challenges for PPM theory in the future are to produce normative theory that offers sound suggestions as to how companies can improve their PPM.

Another limitation of our study is that the empirical part was carried out in a Danish context as the 30 companies involved are located in Denmark, which may not be sufficiently representative for companies worldwide because Denmark has, to a larger extent, a bottom-up culture. Therefore, the portion of smaller un-enacted projects may be bigger here than in companies in other countries. We hope that our study will inspire other researchers to carry our similar studies in other countries.

References

[1] Aboloafia MY, Killduff D. Enacting market crisis: the social construction of a speculative bubble.

Admin Sci Quart 1988;33(1): 177–93.

[2] Archer NP, Ghasemzadeh F. An integrated framework for project portfolio selection.

Int J Project Manage 1999;17(4):207–16.

[3] Cooper RG. Benchmarking new product performance: results of the best practices study.

Eur Manage J 1998;16(1):1–7.

[4] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ. Overcoming the crunch in resources for new product development.

Res Technol Manage 2003;46:48–58.

[5] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ. Best practices for managing

R&D portfolios. Res Technol Manage 1998;41:20–33.

[6] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ. New product portfolio management: practices and performance.

J Prod Innovat Manage

[7] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ. New problems, new solutions: making portfolio management more effective. Res Technol Manage 2000;43:18–33. 1999;16(3):333–51.

[8] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ. Portfolio management for new products.

Cambridge MA: Perseus Publishing; 2001.

[9] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ. Portfolio management in new product development: lessons from the leaders – I. Res Technol Manage 1997;40:16–28.

[10] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ. Portfolio management in new product development: lessons from the leaders – II. Res Technol Manage 1997;40:43–52.

[11] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ. Portfolio management for new product development: results of an industry practices study. R&D Manage 2001;31(4):361–80.

中文译文：

项目组合管理——远非现今管理所制定的方案

摘要

尽管公司一向致力于处理项目股份单与项目股份单理论，他们也许会经历在工程延迟，资源短缺，压力，缺乏整体概要的形式上遇到问题。基于本次研究对于30个公司的128次的详细采访，我们对于公司为什么关于项目组合管理(PPM)不能做的提出了建议。因为PPM经常只报道持续的项目的一个子集，而不是对PPM所支配的原始资源项目。我们演示并且谈论了想要在PPM 包括所有项目的困境，旨在保留资源，为了在一个合理的水平做到PPM而感知问题。

关键词

项目处理；工程处理；资源组织；战略

1.介绍

在所有特定此刻，多数公司致力于多数项目。其中一些项目也许与产品开发和市场营销有关连，其他与在工作过程和生产流程中的变化有关。其他则是和能力发展，策略转变，新IT系统的实施，环境问题等相关的。

一个关键的管理任务就是通过所有这些工程项目（和日常工作）对资源进行管理。由此通过工程（工程投资组合管理（PPM））管理对公司的发展是至关重要的。本文根据一项大规模定性研究表明，当碰到PPM的时候，许多公司不能很好的做到。由此无力完成最初的项目工程。我们特地辨别以下问题：

（1）项目没有按计划完成的在他们的工程生命周期中甚至是逐渐消失)

（2）管理阶层和员工感觉他们对正在进行的项目缺乏一个整体的概要(特别是当越来越多的进行的项目不能按计划完成的时候); 并且

（3）为了做到按预算行事，当资源在工程中不断的进行重新分配的时候人会感受到很大的压力。

这些现象特别有趣因为在本次调查工程中的企业预料到会经历PPM,并且根据现有的资料表明他们也正致力研究PPM。例如，一部分公司的PPM包括在明确或者不明确的标准的基础上努力找出最佳的项目，并且向这些项目分配充足的资源。

然而，尽管努力实践做好PPM，这些公司在PPM方面仍然遭遇严重的问题，特别是让充足的资源进入到―最佳的‖工程。本文通过PPM相关的理论基础并且结合PPM的实践来解决PPM

中遇到的问题。由此为PPM影响一些经理或者工作条件的员工用PPM理论解决一些问题。

然而，在本文，我们对PPM更感兴趣，由于他们是由公司制定出来的而不是普遍性的感知。因此，我们遵守制定的Weick‘s [1–3]概念作为预想，用于留出经验的领域的部分引起注意。关于PPM而制定的项目受到近一步关注。同样地，我们特别集中于演示方式或者制定工程，并且使如何管理工程总数变得有意义。从这个角度来讲，我们想找到并提议为什么有些公司致力于PPM仍然会遇到问题。

2.项目组合理论

本文引用Archer 和Ghasemzadeh的关于项目组合的定义―一组在赞助和或者由一个特殊组织进行管理的项目‖由此，我们把PPM 作为管理活动而定义为和以下方面相关：（1）最初的筛选，挑选，项目小结报告的优先权，

（2）在组合中同时存在的优先权

（3）根据优先权对项目的资源分派和再分配。

相当一段时间内调查者发现新产品的开发项目的低成功率和新产品的失败主要是由于在关键领域资源缺乏。此外，许多研究员聚焦了在组合调查中包含的项目过程,并且提升对每天的工程项目的管理进行关注。

3.方法论

在两年内，我们做了实证研究,关于公司处理他们的项目的整个范围，即更新工程，策略工程，IT工程，部门特色工程和以生产为基础的工程。在实地研究中挑选的公司中，一个主要的标准就是这项研究必须覆盖各种各样的产业。这样一来，这项研究覆盖了各行业的30家公司。即包括移动通信，财务，能源，制药，玩具，软件和食品。

然而，基于我们寻找公司的事实，有相当数量的正在进行项目表明他们在从事PPM.此项研究偏向于更大的并且把他们相当一部分的活动至少定义为工程的公司。参与此项研究的公司的规模大小不一。因此，我们广泛地挑出15家公司，这些公司被标记为―核心‖公司。例如，这些公司将会及时的在不同的时刻和不同的组织水平接受到更多的采访。由此，从纵向角度描绘这些介入的公司。

剩余的一半公司被标记为―外圈‖公司，因为他们在此项研究中参与很少的高层次管理访谈。这么做的目的是对高层次管理定义他们的工程组合的内容以及如何管理增强洞察力。

4. 管理涵义

关键的发现是，必须和可利用的资源之间的空隙大大助长了众多本不属于工程投资管理的

小项目的存在。因此，在广泛意义上，实证研究建议，更小的未被执行的工程在资源摩擦中取得资格，因此，它们并不被认为是工程投资管理的一部分。为了克服这种资源的摩擦，两种解答似乎很明显：

（1）制定更多，即使工程项目投资包含所有项目。

（2）增拨资源给控制松散的资源库，以利用未被执行的项目。

5. 研究涵义

实证研究阐述了“重要资源用于新产品开发”的库伯和埃奇特[21]认为最根本的问题是困扰大多数企业短缺产品的开发力度。

我们的工作尤其表明，致力于工程项目投资的资源短缺并不是与高级管理的PPM相关联的问题。相反，善意的高级管理致力于以良好的PPM为基础的资源以制定项目。然而，高级管理者并未考虑到企业正在执行的众多小项目，更重要的是，高层管理者忽视了（或者说低估了）这些小项目所耗费的资源量。因此，我们认为，特别是在资源危机时期，可能是联合国指定的对资源的竞争使规模较小的项目受到限制。

因此，我们实证研究的主要贡献是，它强调，如果我们想研究PPM（尤其是我们想将PPM 和项目执行结合起来），我们可能会更好地考虑到实际（不通过）组成的投资组合项目的整个范围。因此，如果作为研究者的我们只是制定由高层主管列的清单，我们的研究就会忽略众多不属于PPM的项目，尽管这些项目如此占用宝贵的稀缺的资源。

实证研究，包括与经理面谈，即那些做PPM的人，包括在较低的水平与工作人员组织的面试，即他们的工作是受PPM制约的，这一事实就是为什么我们能够确定联合国制定的项目。因此，对PPM的感兴趣的研究人员应该小心，不要过分依赖于一个管理的角度。

6.结论和局限

主要结论是，只要是有些项目未被施行，公司就面临着资源流失的危险，而这些资源正是公司致力于减少时间和物力财力而实施的项目组合管理所需要的。因此，每一个公司都应该判断出所有项目是否应该隶属于项目组合管理，如果这样决定最终的结果不做全面的项目的列表（即包括所有大小项目的名单）的话，管理者就应该决定留出多少资源放在那些不在列表之上的过多的小项目上。

可以降低资源摩擦的一种方式是保证小项目不会过多的占用为完成项目组合管理而实施的项目的资源。然而，在本篇论文中，由于研究的探索性质，我们的研究结果更多地关注于公司实际上做了什么（Hunt的正面理论第23期），而非他们应该做什么（Hunt 的基准理论23期），

尽管产生正面理论确实是关键的第一步—尤其是有关于与项目组合管理理论的未来—正面理论不能也不应该单独成立。因此，项目管理理论未来的主要挑战就是产生基准理论---为公司如何完善项目组合管理提供良好的建议。

我们研究的另一个局限是，实证部分已在位于丹麦的30个公司的丹麦语境中执行，而它不能作为公司界的典型代表，因为，从广泛意义上讲，丹麦是一个拥有自下而上文化的国家。因此，未被执行的更小的项目的比例在此将比其他国家更大。我们希望我们的研究给其他国家的研究者一些启示，从而更好地展开他们的研究。

参考文献

[1] Aboloafia MY, Killduff D. Enacting market crisis: the social construction of a speculative bubble.

Admin Sci Quart 1988;33(1): 177–93.

[2] Archer NP, Ghasemzadeh F. An integrated framework for project portfolio selection.

Int J Project Manage 1999;17(4):207–16.

[3] Cooper RG. Benchmarking new product performance: results of the best practices study.

Eur Manage J 1998;16(1):1–7.

[4] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ. Overcoming the crunch in resources for new product development.

Res Technol Manage 2003;46:48–58.

[5] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ. Best practices for managing

R&D portfolios. Res Technol Manage 1998;41:20–33.

[6] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ. New product portfolio management: practices and performance.

J Prod Innovat Manage

[7] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ. New problems, new solutions: making portfolio management more effective. Res Technol Manage 2000;43:18–33. 1999;16(3):333–51.

[8] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ. Portfolio management for new products.

Cambridge MA: Perseus Publishing; 2001.

[9] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ. Portfolio management in new product development: lessons from the leaders – I. Res Technol Manage 1997;40:16–28.

[10] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ. Portfolio management in new product development: lessons from the leaders – II. Res Technol Manage 1997;40:43–52.

[11] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ. Portfolio management for new product development: results of an industry practices study. R&D Manage 2001;31(4):361–80.