Recently, several the world's top project management organizations took important initiatives to enlighten executive management concerning the strategic importance and benefits of project management. The focus is always to move from individual project management to organisational project management, which these organisations maintain is a strategic advantage in a competitive economy. In this essay, Ed Naughton, Director General of the Institute of Project Management and present 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 a car for competitive advantage. Ed: What do you thing ideal Project Management is? Prof. Green: Strategic project management is the management of these jobs that are of critical importance to allow the enterprise as a whole to have competitive advantage. Ed: And what defines a competitive advantage, then? Prof. Green: You will find three attributes of having a core competence. The three qualities are: it adds value to customers; it's not simply imitated; it opens up new opportunities in the future. Ed: But how do challenge administration deliver a competitive advantage? Prof. Green: You will find two factors to project management. One part is the actual selection of the sort of projects that the enterprise partcipates in, and secondly there's execution, how a projects themselves are maintained. Ed: Competitive advantage - the importance of choosing the correct projects - it is not easy to determine which projects ought to be chosen! Prof. Green: I think that the choice and prioritisation of tasks is something that has not been done well within the project management literature because it's basically been thought away through reducing it to economic analysis. The strategic imperative gives you an alternative way of prioritising projects because it is saying that some projects might not be as successful as others, but when they add to our competency relative to others, then that's going to be important. Therefore, to simply take an illustration, if a company's competitive advantage is introducing new services more quickly than the others, drugs, let us say, getting product to market more quickly, then a projects that allow it to get the product more quickly to market will be the most important types, even if in their own terms, they don't have higher productivity than other sorts of projects. Ed: But if we are going to select our tasks, we've to define what're the boundaries or measurements we're going to select them against that provide us the competitive edge. Prof. Green: Positively. The company must know which activities it's engaged in, which are the important ones for it then and competitive advantage, that drives the choice of projects. Companies aren't great at doing that and they may not even understand what these actions are. They'll think it is everything they do due to the energy system. Ed: If a company formulates its strategy, then what the project management group says is that project management could be the method for giving that strategy. Global Usa is a stirring database for further concerning the reason for this activity. Browsing To official site seemingly provides suggestions you could tell your aunt. Then, when the company is great at doing project management, does it have any strategic advantage? Prof. Green: Well, perhaps that returns to this problem of the difference between the kind of projects that are chosen and the way you manage the projects. Certainly choosing the kind of projects depends upon having the ability to link and prioritise projects according to a knowledge of what the ability of an enterprise is in accordance with others. Ed: Let's suppose that the approach is defined. So that you can produce the strategy, it has to be separated, decomposed into some projects. For that reason, you should be good at doing project management to provide the strategy. Now, the literature says that for a company to become good at doing jobs it has to: place in project management procedures, train people on how best to apply/do project management and co-ordinate the efforts of the people qualified to work to procedures in and built-in way using the idea of a project office. Does using these three measures offer a competitive advantage with this enterprise? Prof. Green: Where project management, or how you control projects, becomes a source of competitive advantage is when you may do things better than the others. The 'better than' is through the ability and reasoning and the information which will be accumulated with time of managing projects. There is an experience curve effect here. Regarding the information they have developed where the rule book is limited to control these items of tasks two companies will be at various points in the experience curve. You'll need experience and management sense since however good the rule book is, it'll never deal entirely using the complexity of life. You have to manage down the experience curve, you have to manage the learning and knowledge that you've of those three aspects of project management for it to become ideal. Ed: Well, then, I think there is a gap there that has to be addressed as well, in that we've now created a competency at doing project management to do projects, but we have not arranged that competency to the selection of projects which can help us to provide this competitive advantage. Is project management effective at being imitated? Prof. Green: Not the softer elements and not the develop-ment of tacit knowledge of having run many, many jobs with time. Therefore, for instance, you, Ed, do have more understanding of how to work jobs than other people. That is why people came to you, since while you both might have a standard book such as the PMBoK or the ICB, you have created more experiential knowledge around it. Essentially, it could be copied a specific amount of just how, but not whenever you align the smoother tacit understanding of experience into it. Ed: Organisational project management maturity models are a hot topic at the moment and are directly for this 'experience curve' effect you mentioned ear-lier - how should we view them? Prof. Green: I believe in moving beyond painting by numbers, moving beyond the simplistic idea that that is all you have to do and you may enforce this pair of capabilities and techniques and text book methods and an enterprise is wholly plastic. You might say, exactly the same problem was experienced by the designers of the knowledge curve. It's almost like, for every single doubling of size, cost savings occur without you needing to do any such thing, if you show organizations the knowledge curve o-n cost. What we know is however, that the experience curve is a potential of a risk. Its' realisation depends upon the ability of professionals. Ed: Are senior executives/chief executives within the attitude to understand the potential advantages of project management? Prof. Green: Until recently, project management has promoted it-self in technical terms. If it was promoted in terms of the integration at common management, at the ability to manage across the features financing strategy techniques with sense, then it'd be much more attractive to senior executives. So, it's about the blending of the difficult and the smooth, the methods together with the sense and the ability that produces project management so strong. If senior executives do not accept it at this time, it's perhaps not since they're wrong. It's because project management hasn't promoted it-self as efficiently as it should've done. Ed: Do we need to sell to senior executives and chief executives that it will provide competitive advantage to them? Prof. To study more, people are encouraged to check out: asea health products on-line. Green: No, I think we have to demonstrate to them how it does it. We must get inside and actually show them how they could use it, not only with regards to providing assignments on time and within cost. We need to demonstrate to them how they can use it to over come organisational resistance to change, how they can use it to enhance capabilities and actions that cause competitive edge, how they can use it to enhance the tacit knowledge in the enterprise. To research additional information, consider taking a gander at: read about prof brummer. There is a complete array of ways they could put it to use. They need to note that the evidence of the outcome is preferable to the way they're currently doing it..
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
|