Managing project portfolios: balancing flexibility and structure by improvising

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to situate project portfolio management practice and explore its improvisational nature. The overall aim is to deepen the knowledge of what project portfolio managers do when they manage portfolios based on an organizational theory perspective.Design/methodology/approachThis research explores the situated actions of project portfolio managers managing project portfolios and is based on two different case studies. The approach is qualitative and interpretative, with the aim of gradually developing an understanding.FindingsThe primary contributions in this paper are insights that enhance the understanding of project portfolio management practice, and the differences in practice between portfolio managers and project managers when creating “action space” and improvising. This knowledge is important for both project theory and project practice, for example when developing managerial competences and sense making structures as well as organizational design in order to increase competitiveness. The findings also contribute to project theory in relation to research on the “Practice Turn” and the literature on re‐situating projects.Research limitations/implicationsThe research implications emphasize the need for a better understanding of project portfolio management in practice, and an awareness of the need of uncertainty management executed by the portfolio managers situated actions (i.e. fulfilled by walk‐tour and circle communication).Practical implicationsThe practical implications are an awareness of the fact that project‐based organizational settings have to emphasize a holistic approach and acknowledge the need for situated leadership (in particular for their project portfolio managers).Originality/valueThis paper fulfills an identified need to study situated project portfolio management practice.

The role of project portfolio management in fostering both deliberate and emergent strategy

“…Moreover, based on two case studies Jerbrant and Gustavsson (2013) report that project portfolio managers are moving away from formal procedures and are improvising in order to increase their 'action space'. Kester et al (2011) provide further evidence that politics and intuition also play a role in project portfolio decision-making processes.…”

A maturation model for project-based organisations – with uncertainty management as an always remaining multi-project management focus

“…Further, the time-based process in the different projects was frequently interrupted by unexpected events that created distortions and jerkiness within the project portfolio as a whole. The result was continual negation between the portfolio managers and the project managers, departmental managers and PMO managers, focusing on matters like ways of increasing the information available for decision making on both human and technical issues (for a more detailed discussion of this, see Jerbrant & Gustavsson, 2013). And this meant that in practice the PMO managers' working days were filled with different kinds of informal communicative actions such as phone calls, e-mails, personal and informal one-toone conversations, and formal one-to-many presentations.…”

“…The organisational design of project-based organisations (PBOs), where a large number of operations are organised as simultaneous or successive projects, is often complex and challenging to manage (Hobday, 2000;Engwall & Jerbrant, 2003;Elonen & Artto, 2003;Sydow, Lindkvist & DeFillipi, 2004;Söderlund & Tell, 2009;Arvidsson, 2009;Jerbrant, 2013;Jerbrant & Gustavsson, 2013). And once the complexity involved in managing, controlling and organising a project-based organisation is revealed, there is increased focus on time and activity planning in order to facilitate the coordination of scarce resources within tight time limits.…”

Shedding New Light on Project Portfolio Risk Management

“…The sixth construct (P6) described irregularities in the portfolio balance that resulted from improperly defined priorities for particular portfolio elements, improper portfolio balance, and a lack of developed methodical standards within the scope of portfolio element management. This variable included the risks suggested in the literature, resulting in serious problems with portfolio balance [39,41,56,59,62,66]. Confirmation of the existence of these constructs will provide the answer to the second research question (RQ2).…”

“…Guidelines regulating project portfolio management issues have been included in global studies [12,36]. Enterprises then adopt guidelines cited in the standards, e.g., taking into account the effectiveness of the decision-making process [37] and applied organisational solutions [38,39].…”