Exploring the Dynamics of Value and Fit: Insights from Project Management

Abstract

The strategic management literature has struggled with how to recognize, measure, and even understand the concept of “fit” between strategy, structure, and environment. Nevertheless, the concept of fit was fundamentally important from the beginning of the Value of Project Management project. In this article, we compare the “fit” construct defined by Miles and Snow (1984) with our concerns with value direction (Thomas & Mullaly, 2008). A comparative analysis of these two constructs provides insights into how both dimensions improve overall organizational understanding. We demonstrate that while each of these dimensions independently provides useful information, it is their intersection that provides a means of interpreting not just current realities but appropriate future actions.

From Every Direction–-How Personality Traits and Dimensions of Project Managers Can Conceptually Affect Project Success

“…We also recognize that managers with their cache of personality dimensions labor within organizations that may have systems that affect project outcomes. The systems we contend that are critical for project success are structure (Mullaly & Thomas, 2009), organizational maturity (Zqikael, Levin, & Rad, 2008), and incentive systems (Yang & Chen, 2009). These systems have the potential to moderate (Strang, 2011) the theoretical relationships between the independent variables of personality dimensions and dependent variable of project success.…”

“…Organizational structures, beginning with the purely functional organization to the projectized organization, have been presented in A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK ® Guide) —Fifth Edition (PMI, 2013). The importance of organizational structures and their effects on project management has received attention (Mullaly & Thomas, 2009; Procca, 2008; Laslo & Goldberg, 2008; Wellman, 2007).…”

“…Organizational structures were presented as one of three success factors (Hyvari, 2006; Belassi & Tukel, 1996) and as one of the five factors (Kendra & Taplin, 2004) for ultimate project success. Mullaly and Thomas (2009) reported “Successful organizations … support their strategies with appropriately designed structures and management processes” (p. 125). Procca (2008) posited that: “At the tactical level, the organization's structure, management processes … need to be optimized for project‐focused activities” (p. 54).…”

Evolution of project based organization: A case study

“…This is at odds with extant research in project management as(Cooke-Davies, Crawford, and Lechler, 2009)suggest that project management capabilities need to be aligned with overall organizational strategic intent in order to generate value. This implies that project capabilities developed by organizations may vary even within a given industry as organizational approach will determine the capabilities developed, not the maturity models adopted (Mullaly and Thomas, 2009). Further, comparative research (Graham, 1999) demonstrates differing project approaches by industry based on systems for allocating value and managing delivery.…”

The impact of project risk management maturity on performance: Complexity as a moderating variable

“…The contingency approach suggests that performance of organizations is attributable to the fit between a set of contingencies. 12,36 In a similar vein, the introduction of new, contextual variable(s) is required in PRM research. Many studies had identified various "project characteristics" as a possible contextual factor.…”