Strategic Project Management A Competitive Advantage
SEnuke: Ready for action
Recently, several the world's major project management organisations have taken important initiatives to show executive management about the strategic importance and benefits of project management. Mannatechscience.Org contains more concerning why to engage in it. The emphasis would be to move from specific project management to organisational project management, which these organizations keep is a strategic advantage in a competitive economy.
In this article, 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 (previously of the London Business School), about his views of strategic project management as a vehicle for competitive advantage.
Ed: What does one thing ideal Project Management is?
Prof. Green: Strategic project management is the management of those projects that are of critical importance to allow the business in general to have competitive advantage.
Ed: And what defines a competitive advantage, then?
Prof. Green: You can find three characteristics of getting a core competence. The three qualities are: it gives value to customers; it's maybe not easily imitated; it opens up new opportunities in the future.
Ed: But how can task management yield a competitive advantage?
Prof. Green: You can find two factors to project management. One element is the actual collection of the kind of projects that the company partcipates in, and secondly there is execution, the way the projects themselves are managed.
Ed: Competitive advantage - the value of choosing the projects - it is difficult to determine which projects ought to be selected!
Prof. Green: I do believe that the selection and prioritisation of tasks is something that's not been done well within-the project management literature because it is essentially been thought away through reducing it to financial analysis. The strategic imperative gives you a different way of prioritising projects as it is saying that some projects may not be as successful as others, but when they add to our expertise relative to others, then that's going to be important.
Therefore, to take an example, if a company's competitive advantage is introducing services more quickly than others, pharmaceuticals, let us say, getting product to market more quickly, then the projects that enable it to get the product more quickly to market are likely to function as the most important ones, even if in their own terms, they don't have higher success than various projects.
Ed: But when we're going to select our tasks, we have to determine what're the details or metrics we're going to select them against giving the competitive edge to us. Get further on an affiliated web page by clicking check this out.
Prof. Green: Absolutely. The organisation has to 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 aren't excellent at doing that and they could not even understand what these actions are. They'll believe it is anything they do because of the energy system.
Ed: If its strategy is formulated by a company, then what the project management group says is that project management may be the channel for delivering that strategy. Then, if the organisation is great at doing project management, does it have any strategic advantage?
Prof. Green: Well, I guess that comes home to this matter of the difference between the form of projects that are opted for and the way you manage the projects. Clearly selecting the sort of projects depends on being able to link and prioritise projects ac-cording to a knowledge of what the potential of an operation is in accordance with others. If you know anything at all, you will likely hate to compare about asea water chat.
Ed: Let us suppose the strategy is about. In order to deliver the strategy, it's to be separated, decomposed into a series of jobs. Therefore, you need to be good at doing project management to provide the strategy. Today, the literature says that for an operation to be good at doing tasks it's to: place in project management procedures, train people on how to apply/do project management and co-ordinate the efforts of the people trained to work to procedures in and built-in way using the notion of a project office. Does taking those three methods deliver a competitive advantage with this enterprise?
Prof. Green: Where project management, or how you handle jobs, becomes a source of competitive advantage is when you can do things a lot better than the others. The 'better than' is through the ability and judgement and the information that will be built-up with time of managing projects. There is an event curve effect here. Two enterprises will be at various points in the experience curve as to the knowledge they've built-up where the rule book is insufficient to manage these items of tasks. You-need knowledge and management judgement because however good the rule book is, it'll never deal entirely with all the complexity of life. You've to manage down the ability curve, you have to manage the learning and knowledge that you have of the three areas of project management because of it to become strategic.
Ed: Well, then, I do believe there's a niche there that's to be addressed as well, in that we've now produced a competency at doing project management to do projects, but we've not aligned that competency to the choice of projects which can help us to provide this competitive advantage. Is project management able to being imitated?
Prof. Green: Not the softer features and not the devel-opment of tacit knowledge of having run many, many jobs over time. Therefore, for instance, you, Ed, have significantly more knowledge of just how to work tasks than others. That's why people stumbled on you, since while you both may have a regular book such as the PMBoK or even the ICB, you have developed more experiential knowledge around it.
Essentially, it could be copied a specific amount of the way in which, but not whenever you arrange the softer tacit understanding of knowledge into it.
Ed: Organisational project management maturity types are a hot topic at this time and are directly from the 'experience curve' effect you mentioned earlier in the day - how should we view them?
Prof. Green: I believe in moving beyond painting by numbers, moving beyond the simplistic idea that an enterprise is totally plastic and you may demand this group of text book standards and capabilities and methods and that is all you have to do. In ways, just the same problem was experienced by the developers of the knowledge curve. It is almost like, for each doubling of size, cost reductions occur without you needing to do any such thing, if you show the knowledge curve to organizations on cost. What we know is however, that the experience curve is a potential of the possibility. Their' realisation is dependent upon the skill of administrators.
Ed: Are senior executives/chief executives in the mindset to appreciate the possible benefits of project management?
Prof. Green: Until lately, project management has promoted it self in technical terms. Then it'd become more attractive to senior executives, if it was offered in terms-of the integration at basic management, at the ability to manage over the characteristics lending approach techniques with sense. So, it's about the mixing of the difficult and the soft, the practices using the sense and the knowledge which makes project management so strong. This great dr chris brummer use with has specific riveting suggestions for the reason for it. If senior executives do not accept it at the moment, it is perhaps not because they are wrong. It's because project management hasn't promoted itself as effectively as it should've done.
Ed: Do we need to sell to chief executives and senior executives that it will deliver competitive advantage for them?
Prof. Green: No, I do believe we must demonstrate to them how it does it. We have to go inside and really show them how they are able to use it, not just with regards to offering tasks on time and within cost. We must show them how they can use it to over come resistance to change, how they can use it to enhance capabilities and activities that lead to competitive edge, how they can use it to enhance the tacit knowledge in the operation. There's a complete range of ways that they are able to utilize it. They have to see that the proof-of the results is better than the way in which they are currently doing it..