Strategic Project Management A Competitive Edge
SEnuke: Ready for action
Recently, numerous the world's top project management companies have taken important initiatives to enlighten government management concerning the strategic importance and advantages of project management. The emphasis is always to move from individual project management to organisational project management, which these companies keep is a strategic advantage in a competitive economy.
In this essay, Ed Naughton, Director General of the Institute of Project Management and current IPMA Vice President, asks 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 an automobile for competitive advantage.
Ed: What do you issue ideal Project Management is?
Prof. Green: Strategic project management is the management of those tasks that are of critical importance to help the organisation in general to have competitive advantage.
Ed: And what defines a competitive advantage, then?
Prof. Get additional info on this affiliated use with by clicking asea supplement. Green: You can find three features of experiencing a core competence. The three qualities are: it gives value to customers; it's maybe not simply imitated; it opens up new possibilities in the future.
Ed: But how do project administration yield a competitive advantage?
Prof. Green: There are two factors to project management. One factor is the actual collection of the type of projects that the enterprise engages in, and subsequently there's implementation, how a projects themselves are maintained.
Ed: Competitive advantage - the importance of choosing the projects - it's challenging to define which projects should be selected!
Prof. Green: I think that the selection and prioritisation of projects is something that's not been done well within-the project management literature because it's generally been assumed away through reducing it to economic analysis. The strategic imperative gives you an alternative way of prioritising projects since it is saying that some projects may not be as profitable as others, but if they add to our expertise relative to others, then that's going to be important.
Therefore, to just take an illustration, if a company's competitive advantage is introducing services more quickly than others, pharmaceuticals, let's say, getting product to market more quickly, then your projects that allow it to obtain the product more quickly to market are likely to function as the most significant types, even if in their own terms, they do not have higher productivity than some other projects.
Ed: But if we're going to select our tasks, we have to define what're the parameters or measurements we are going to select them against that give us the competitive edge.
Prof. Green: Absolutely. The company has to know which activities it is involved in, which are the critical ones for it then and competitive advantage, that drives the choice of projects. Enterprises aren't very good at doing that and they may not even know what these actions are. They will think it is anything they do because of the energy system.
Ed: If an organization formulates its strategy, then what the project management community says is that project management is the method for giving that strategy. Dig up additional information about mannatech com by navigating to our tasteful portfolio. Therefore, when the company is good at doing project management, are there any strategic advantage?
Prof. Green: Well, I guess that returns to this problem of the difference between the form of projects that are chosen and the way you manage the projects. Certainly selecting the sort of projects depends on being able to link and prioritise projects ac-cording to an understanding of what the potential of an enterprise is relative to others.
Ed: Let us suppose that the strategy is about. In order to deliver the strategy, it's to be divided, decomposed into a number of jobs. Therefore, you must be good at doing project management to provide the strategy. Today, the literature says that for an organisation to become good at doing jobs it's to: put 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 idea of a project office. Does getting those three methods provide a competitive advantage for this enterprise?
Prof. Green: Where project management, or how you handle tasks, becomes a source of competitive advantage is when you may do things a lot better than others. Dig up new resources on an affiliated website by clicking sponsor. The 'better-than' is through the ability and thinking and the information which is accumulated over time of managing projects. There's an experience curve effect here. For different ways to look at this, please consider checking out: mannatach. Regarding knowledge they've built-up where the rule book is inadequate to control these items of tasks two firms will be at various points in the experience curve. You'll need management judgement and experience because however good the rule book is, it'll never deal completely with the complexity of life. You have to manage down the experience curve, you have to manage the learning and knowledge that you've of these three facets of project management for this to become ideal.
Ed: Well, then, I think there's a gap there that has to be addressed as well, in that we have now created a competency at doing project management to do projects, but we've not aligned that competency to the selection of projects which will help us to give this competitive advantage. Is project management capable of being copied?
Prof. Green: Not the softer elements and not the develop-ment of tacit knowledge of having run many, many projects over time. So, for instance, you, Ed, have more familiarity with how-to run jobs than others. That's why people came to you, because while you both may have a standard book including the PMBoK or even the ICB, you have produced more experiential knowledge around it.
Basically, it can be imitated a specific amount of just how, although not when you align the smoother tacit understanding of knowledge into it.
Ed: Organisational project management maturity models are a hot topic at this time and are directly from the 'experience curve' effect you mentioned earlier - how should we see them?
Prof. Green: I believe in moving beyond painting by figures, moving beyond the basic idea that an enterprise is completely plastic and you may demand this group of skills and procedures and text book methods and that's all you need to do. In ways, exactly the same problem was experienced by the developers of the ability curve. If you show the ability curve to companies on cost, it is nearly as though, for every single doubling of size, cost savings occur without you having to do any such thing. What we all know is nevertheless, the experience curve is a potential of the risk. Its' realisation depends on the skill of managers.
Ed: Are senior executives/chief executives within the attitude to appreciate the possible benefits of project management?
Prof. Green: Until recently, project management has promoted it self in technical terms. Then it'd be much more appealing to senior executives, if it was promoted in terms-of the integration at general management, at the power to manage over the functions financing technique processes with judgement. So, it is about the knowledge that produces project management so effective, the techniques with the reasoning and the mixing of the soft and the hard. If senior managers do not grasp it right now, it's perhaps not since they are wrong. It's because project management has not sold it self as efficiently as it should've done.
Ed: Do we need to offer to chief executives and senior executives that it will provide competitive advantage to them?
Prof. Green: No, I do believe we have to demonstrate to them how it does it. We have to get in there and really show them how they are able to put it to use, not only in terms of offering assignments on time and within cost. We have to show them how they can use it to over come organisational resistance to change, how they can use it to enhance capabilities and actions that lead to competitive edge, how they can use it to enhance the tacit knowledge in the operation. There's a whole range of ways in which they are able to put it to use. They must see that the proof of the end result is better than just how they are currently doing it..