• Home   /  
  • Archive by category "1"

Program Management Research Paper

The author published his research paper at 26th International Project Management Association World Congress in which he argued that the monodukuri industry, or broadly hard systems project industry, is being affected either positively or negatively by a variety of complexity categorized by P.E.S.T.L.E. (political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental) factors and proposed a conceptual model of an enterprise viability system reinforced by meta program management. This paper is based on the author's continuing meta program management research and contextual analysis of the project industry, traces how the typical events discussed under each of the PESTLE factor categories have behaved thereafter to confirm the validity of impact descriptions, and presents a case analysis of current mega oil and gas development and complex infrastructure projects for dominant characteristics of project operations. Then new thoughts of project and program management in the space of complexity of the project industry are proposed as the first step to build a new management paradigm, which has been qualitatively induced by the cases under study and are deriving from existing research results on complex projects.

The new thoughts include meta program management to balance multi objectives; knowledge and stakeholder integration to create complex projects; finance planning and structuring as an essential ingredient of materializing complex projects; management of extreme projects; and contingent risk management.

  • [1]

    agilemanifesto.org. (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software Development. Available via DIALOG. http://agilemanifesto.org/

  • [2]

    Amram, M. & Kulatilaka, N. (1999). Real Options: Managing Strategic Investment in an Uncertain World. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar

  • [3]

    Aumann, R. & Serrano, R. (2008). An economic index of riskiness. Journal of Political Economy, 116: 810–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • [4]

    Bertsimas, D. & Sim, M. (2004). The price of robustness. Operations Research, 52: 35–53MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • [5]

    Brânzei, R., Ferrari, G., Fragnelli, V. & Tijs, S. (2002). Two approaches to the problem of sharing delay costs in joint projects. Annals of Operations Research, 109: 359–374MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • [6]

    Brown, D.B. & Sim, M. (2009). Satisficing measures for analysis of risky positions. Management Science, 55: 71–84MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • [7]

    Cai, X., Hall, N.G. & Zhang, F. (2012). Cooperation and contract design in project management. Working paper, Department of Systems Engineering and Engineering Management, Chinese University of Hong KongGoogle Scholar

  • [8]

    Castro, J., Gómez, D. & Tejada, J. (2008). A polynomial rule for the problem of sharing delay costs in PERT networks. Computers & Operations Research, 35: 2376–2387MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • [9]

    Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J. & Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2000). New problems, new solutions: making portfolio management more effective. Research-Technology Management, 43: 18–33Google Scholar

  • [10]

    Corbett, C. & Muthulingam, S. (2007). Adoption of voluntary environmental standards: the role of signaling and intrinsic benets in the diffusion of the LEED green building standards. Working paper, Anderson Graduate School of Management, UCLAGoogle Scholar

  • [11]

    Dickinson, M.W., Thornton, A.C. & Graves, S. (2001). Technology portfolio management: optimizing interdependent projects over multiple time periods. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 48: 518–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • [12]

    Fox, G.E., Baker, N.R. & Bryant, L.J. (1984). Economic models for R&D project selection in the presence of project interactions. Management Science, 30: 890–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • [13]

    Goh, J. & Hall, N.G. (2012). Total cost control in project management via satisficing. Working paper, revised for publication, Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar

  • [14]

    Goh, J. & Sim, M. (2010). Distributionally robust optimization and its tractable approximations. Operations Research, 58: 902–917MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • [15]

    Goldratt, E.M. (1997). The Critical Chain. North River Press, Great Barrington, MAGoogle Scholar

  • [16]

    Hall, N.G., Long, Z., Qi, J. & Sim, M. (2011). Managing underperformance risk in project portfolio selection. Working paper, Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar

  • [17]

    Huchzermeier, A. & Loch, C.H. (2001). Project management under risk: using the real options approach to evaluate exibility in R&D. Management Science, 47: 85–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • [18]

    Hurwicz, L. (1972). On informationally decentralized systems. In: McGuire, C.B., Radner, R. (eds.), Decisions and Organization. North-Holland, Amsterdam, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar

  • [19]

    Kellerer, H., Pferschy, U. & Pisinger, D. (2004). Knapsack Problems. Springer, Berlin, GermanyMATHGoogle Scholar

  • [20]

    Kerzner, H. (2009). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling, 10th edition. Wiley, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar

  • [21]

    Kim, Y.W. & Ballard, G. (2000). Is the earned-value method an enemy of work flow? Working paper, Department of Civil and Environmental Enginering, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar

  • [22]

    Klastorin, T.D. (2004). Project Management: Tools and Trade-Offs, 1st edition. Wiley, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar

  • [23]

    Kotnour, T. (2000). Organizational learning practices in the project management environment. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17: 393–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • [24]

    Lukas, J.A. (2008). Earned value analysis — Why it doesn’t work. AACE International Transactions, EVM.01.1-EVM.01.10Google Scholar

  • [25]

    Markowitz, H.M. (1959). Portfolio Selection: Efficient Diversification of Investments. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar

  • [26]

    Myerson, R. (1979). Incentive compatibility and the bargaining problem. Econometrica, 47: 61–73MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • [27]

    MSDN Blogs. (2009). Architecture makes agile processes scalable. Available via DIALOG. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/nickmalik/archive/2009/05/19/architecture-makes-agile-processesscalable.aspx. Cited May 19, 2012

  • [28]

    objectmentor.com. (2012). Agile/XP object mentor success stories. Available via DIALOG. http://www.objectmentor.com/omSolutions/agile_customers.html

  • [29]

    Parkinson, C.N. (1955). Parkinson’s law. Economist, November 19Google Scholar

  • [30]

    Parkinson, C.N. (1958). Parkinson’s Law: The Pursuit of Progress. John Murray, London, UKGoogle Scholar

  • [31]

    Patrick, F.S. (1998). Critical chain scheduling and buffer management: getting out from between Parkinson’s rock and Murphy’s hard place. Available via DIALOG. http://www.focusedperformance.com

  • [32]

    Peleg, B. & Sudhölter, P. (2003). Introduction to the Theory of Cooperative Games. Kluwer, Boston, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • [33]

    Pich, M.T., Loch, C.H. & De Meyer, A. (2002). On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management. Management Science, 48: 1008–1023MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • [34]

    Project Management Institute. (2008). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 4th editionGoogle Scholar

  • [35]

    Raz, T., Barnes, R. & Dvir, D. (2003). A critical look at critical chain project management. Project Management Journal, 36: 24–32Google Scholar

  • [36]

    Roy, A.D. (1952). Safety-first and the holding of assets. Econometrica, 20: 431–449MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • [37]

    Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. (2007). The urban environment. Available via DIALOG http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm70/7009/7009.pdf

  • [38]

    Schindler, M. & Eppler, M.J. (2003). Harvesting project knowledge: a review of project learning methods and success factors. International Journal of Project Management, 21: 219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • [39]

    Schonberger, R.J. (1981). Why projects are always late: a rationale based on manual simulation of a PERT/CPM network. Interfaces, 11: 66–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • [40]

    Smith, P.G. (2007). Flexible Product Development: Building Agility for Changing Markets. John Wiley, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar

  • [41]

    White, D. & Fortune, J. (2002). Current practice in project management: an empirical study. International Journal of Project Management, 20: 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • [42]

    Wikipedia. (2011). Parkinson’s law. Available via DIALOG. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson’s_Law

  • [43]

    Wikipedia. (2012). Earned value management. Available via DIALOG. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_value_management

  • [44]

    wwwF. (2010). Living planet report. Available via DIALOG. http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report

  • One thought on “Program Management Research Paper

    Leave a comment

    L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *