Recently, a number of the world's major project management organisations have taken important initiatives to show executive management in regards to the strategic value and benefits of project management. The focus is to move from specific project management to organisational project management, which these enterprises preserve is a strategic advantage in a competitive economy.
In this essay, Ed Naughton, Director General of the Institute of Project Management and recent IPMA Vice President, requires Professor Sebastian Green, Dean of the Faculty of Commerce and Professor of Management and Marketing at University College Cork (formerly of the London Business School), about his views of proper project management as a car for competitive advantage. Asea Water is a stately online database for extra information concerning the meaning behind this concept.
Ed: What do you issue proper Project Management is?
Prof. Green: Strategic project management is the management of these jobs that are of crucial importance to allow the company as a whole to get competitive advantage.
Ed: And what defines a competitive advantage, then?
Prof. Green: You will find three characteristics of getting a core competence. The three attributes are: it adds value to customers; it is perhaps not easily imitated; it opens up new opportunities in the future.
Ed: But how do project administration produce a competitive advantage?
Prof. Green: You can find two elements to project management. To research more, please check out: http://mannatechscience.org. One part is the actual choice of the kind of projects that the company engages in, and secondly there is execution, how a projects themselves are handled.
Ed: Competitive advantage - the significance of selecting the correct projects - it's difficult to establish which projects should be chosen!
Prof. Green: I think that the selection and prioritisation of tasks is something that's not been done well within the project management literature because it's generally been thought away through reducing it to economic analysis. If you think anything, you will likely require to discover about chrisbrummer.com. The strategic imperative gives another way to you of prioritising projects as it is saying that some projects might not be as profitable as others, but if they add to our proficiency relative to others, then that's going to be important.
So, to take an illustration, if a company's competitive advantage is introducing services more quickly than others, drugs, let us say, finding product to market more quickly, then a projects that allow it to get the product more quickly to market are going to function as the most critical types, even if within their own terms, they do not have higher success than some other projects.
Ed: But if we're going to select our tasks, we have to define what're the guidelines or metrics we're going to select them against that provide the competitive advantage to us.
Prof. Green: Completely. The organisation must know which actions it is involved in, which are the important ones for it then and competitive advantage, that drives the choice of projects. Organisations are not great at doing that and they might not even know what these activities are. Learn more about asea benefits by visiting our influential link. They will think it is every thing they do due to the power system.
Ed: If a company formulates its strategy, then what the project management group says is that project management may be the medium for delivering that strategy. So therefore, if the enterprise is good at doing project management, does it have any strategic advantage?
Prof. Green: Well, perhaps that returns to this problem of the difference between the sort of projects that are chosen and the way you manage the projects. Demonstrably selecting the sort of projects depends on having the ability to link and prioritise projects ac-cording to an understanding of what the capability of a business is relative to others.
Ed: Let's assume the approach is defined. In order to deliver the strategy, it has to be divided, decomposed into some tasks. Thus, you must be great at doing project management to supply the strategy. Today, the literature says that for an organisation to become proficient at doing projects it's to: put in project management procedures, train people on how best to apply/do project management and co-ordinate the efforts of the people trained to work to procedures in and integral way using the notion of a project office. Does taking these three steps produce a competitive advantage for this business?
Prof. Green: Where project management, or how you manage projects, becomes a source of competitive advantage is when you may do things a lot better than the others. The 'a lot better than' is through the experience and thinking and the knowledge which can be built-up over time of managing projects. There's an experience curve effect here. Two organizations will soon be at various points in the experience curve as to the knowledge they have accumulated where the rule book is limited to handle these bits of jobs. You'll need experience and management thinking since however good the rule book is, it'll never deal fully with all the complexity of life. You've to manage down the ability curve, you have to manage the learning and understanding that you have of these three aspects of project management for it to become ideal.
Ed: Well, then, I do believe there's a niche there that has to be addressed as well, in that we've now developed a competency at doing project management to do projects, but we have not aimed that competency to the selection of projects which may help us to offer this competitive edge. Is project management capable of being imitated?
Prof. Green: Not the softer aspects and not the devel-opment of tacit knowledge of having run many, many jobs over-time. So, as an example, you, Ed, do have more knowledge of how to work jobs than other people. That's why people found you, because while you both may have a standard book including the PMBoK or even the ICB, you have created more experiential knowledge around it.
Basically, it can be imitated a certain amount of the-way, although not if you arrange the softer tacit understanding of experience into it.
Ed: Organisational project management maturity styles are a hot topic right now and are directly linked to the 'experience curve' effect you mentioned earlier - how should we see them?
Prof. Green: in my opinion in moving beyond painting by numbers, moving beyond the simplistic idea that that is all you have to do and you may encourage this set of text book protocols and skills and procedures and an operation is wholly plastic. In a way, exactly the same problem was experienced by the builders of the experience curve. It's very nearly as though, for every single doubling of size, cost reductions occur without you being forced to do any such thing, if you show companies the knowledge curve o-n cost. What we realize is however, that the experience curve is a potential of the risk. Its' realisation depends on the ability of managers.
Ed: Are senior executives/chief executives in-the attitude to appreciate the potential benefits of project management?
Prof. Green: Until recently, project management has offered it self in technical terms. Then it'd become more attractive to senior executives, if it was promoted in terms of the integration at standard management, at the capability to manage across the characteristics lending method procedures with reasoning. So, it is about the ability which makes project management so strong, the strategies with the judgement and the blending of the soft and the difficult. If senior managers don't accept it at the moment, it's maybe not because they are wrong. It is because project management hasn't promoted it self as effectively as it should've done.
Ed: Do we must sell to chief executives and senior executives that it will provide competitive advantage for them?
Prof. Green: No, I do believe we need to demonstrate to them how it does it. We have to go in there and really show them how they can use it, not just in terms of delivering tasks on time and within cost. We must show them how they can use it to overcome resistance to change, how they can use it to enhance capabilities and activities that cause competitive advantage, how they can use it to enhance the tacit knowledge in the enterprise. There's an entire array of ways they are able to put it to use. They have to note that the proof-of the end result is better than the way they are currently doing it..