eskerod and riis 2009

PA

PE

RS

4 March 2009 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

INTRODUCTION

An often-mentioned property of projects is their uniqueness (Davies & Brady, 2000; Eskerod & stergren, 2000; Lundin, Sderholm, &Wilson, 2001). Therefore, a situational approach to project manage-ment is recommended so that the project is managed according toits specific needs and circumstances. At the same time, companies arebecoming more and more project-oriented and run growing numbers ofconcurrent projects (Blichfeldt & Eskerod, 2008). Often, the projects arequite similar, implying that it may make good sense to apply common waysof managing them. The common approach that is used could be based onwhat has been found to be good practice for that particular type of project.Mikkelsen and Riis write: The art [when dealing with more projects] is, onthe one hand, to use a situational guided understanding, with basis in aspecific project situationand on the other hand, to identify a small num-ber of general elements which are present in every project (1996, p. 22, ourtranslation).

When such general or repetitive elements can be identified in a multi-project environment, it may be desirable to introduce a project managementmodel. A project management model shows and specifies the managementbreakdown structure, the management processes, and the roles in projectmanagement (Associations of Danish Project Management, NorwegianAssociation of Project Management, and Swedish Project ManagementSociety, 2005).

An early user of the project management model approach was theSwedish company, LM Ericsson AB (hereafter referred to as Ericsson), whichin 1989 introduced a common methodology for handling projects, especial-ly product development projects. The methodology was called PROPS. Atthat time, Ericsson was the worlds largest telecom supplier, with more than90,000 employees in over 100 countries. Several cross-functional and cross-national projects were running simultaneously in the company (Mulder,1997). By implementing PROPS Ericsson aimed at

. . .a shared view on how we allocate scarce (human) resources, the roles thatneed to be played by all those involved in the project and the supporting linefunctions, the criteria to be used for decisions to be taken inside the projectand in relation to other projects, and many more issues that require a com-mon view. A shared view on project management is also a prerequisite forhandling conflicts within an organization in which the project, as a workingform, is predominant. (Mulder, 1997, p. 189)

In addition to a common terminology, PROPS consisted of several toolsthat included a well-defined phase model and a uniform reporting structure.Phases were separated by decision points called tollgates (for decisions

Project Management Models as ValueCreatorsPernille Eskerod, University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg, DenmarkEva Riis, University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg, Denmark

ABSTRACT

Based on findings from five case studies, wediscuss benefits obtained by using a commonproject management model. The case studiesare part of an international research projectaimed at determining the value of project man-agement. All five companies applied a cus-tomized project management model. The fivemodels are presented, and their characteristics,similarities, and differences are discussed.Based on interviews and comparisons with liter-ature, the values obtained are identified. Thevalues relate to efficiency, legitimacy, powerand control, and stakeholder satisfaction.Further, the article points to necessary precon-ditions (both technical and human factors) inorder to harvest the values.

KEYWORDS: project management model;value; stakeholder; efficiency; legitimacy;power; control

Project Management Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1, 418

2009 by the Project Management Institute

Published online in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com)

DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20098

March 2009 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj 5

made outside the project) and mile-stones (for decisions made within the project). PROPS differentiated thesteering function (management con-trol), the project management func-tion, and the execution function (thework model) in three different parts.The project steering model was genericand, therefore, it was suitable forEricsson companies all over the world.The project management function andthe execution function were moreclosely related to the characteristics ofthe individual projects.

Ericssons PROPS model becamevery popular, and other companieswanted to adapt the methodology.Ericsson was willing to share experi-ences and knowledge. The companyeven made this into a new businessarea, building up a project managementsupport group with some 50 consult-ants, which was the launch pad for anindependent business area under theEricsson umbrella. The PROPS onlineversion (1999) contained approximately900 files, many of which were continu-ously updated (Risanen & Linde,2004).

Since the time that Ericsson intro-duced PROPS, many other companieshave developed and implemented acommon PM model (Eskerod & Riis,2008) in which the findings of fourcase studies are presented. All four casecompanies had recently introduced aPM model.

Our article as well as Eskerod andRiiss paper (2008) form part of an inter-national research project aimed atdetermining the value for an organiza-tion of implementing project manage-ment (Thomas & Mullaly, 2004, 2007).The research project was funded by theProject Management Institute and co-led by Dr. Janice Thomas, AthabascaUniversity, and Mark Mullaly, presidentof Interthink Consulting Incorporated.The project included in-depth casestudies in 65 companies all over theworld, carried out by a network of 48experienced researchers in the field ofproject management.

Eskerod and Riis (2008) state thatthe key informants in their case studiessaw the existence of a common frameof reference for project management as one of the most important value-creating factors in project manage-ment. Like Ericsson, the informantsemphasized the need to have a uniformapproach to the processes, methods,instruments, attitudes, and behaviorfor managing the projects in their com-panies. In particular, the informantspointed to values in the form of bettercommunication, more efficient use ofresources, higher customer satisfac-tion, easier knowledge sharing, andimproved future possibilities.

Across all cases, Eskerod and Riis(2008) identified the following ele-ments for enhancing the creation of acommon frame of reference: (1) aninternal, common project manage-ment model; (2) common project man-agement training; (3) common projectmanagement exams or certifications;and (4) activities enhancing knowledgesharing between project managers. Theproject management model was sin-gled out by the informants as the mostsignificant element in bringing value tothe company.

Our article builds on the findings ofEskerod and Riis (2008) and discussesfindings in the same four case compa-nies, with the addition of one more casecompany. Its purpose is to get a deeperunderstanding of the values that arecreated in a company through theintroduction of a common projectmanagement model. Based on a cross-case analysis of the five companies, wediscuss in which ways project manage-ment models act as value creators. Ourresearch questions are: What are the characteristics of the

project management models? Which values do the project manage-

ment models bring? Which preconditions must exist in

order to harvest these values?

In the next section, we briefly intro-duce the five case companies and the

research method applied. Thereafter,we summarize our findings concerningthe first two research questions, whilewe relate the findings to relevant con-cepts in the literature. In the last sec-tion, we discuss the findings and thecases in order to determine the answerto the third research question.

MethodThe CasesFive companies were selected for theresearch. From the media and projectmanagement networks, all were knownas having been actively developingtheir project management skills overthe past couple of years.

In all five companies, a specificdepartment was chosen as unit ofanalysis for the research project. Keydata of the five case companies and theunits of analysis are summarized inTable 1.

Research ApproachConcerning data collection, a broadrange of research approaches havebeen applied (Thomas & Mullaly, 2004),including desk research about theorganization and its record in projectmanagement implementation. Further-more, the research team reviewed allrelevant company documentationissued during the last ten years. Finally,one completed project file was ana-lyzed in detail to understand actualproject management practices, assessthe evidence of compliance with statedpolicies and processes, and check onthe results of both for the project per-formance.

Against this background, a mini-mum of seven interviews were con-ducted in each case company. Theinformants included key stakeholderssuch as senior management, projectsponsors, project management officeor project management support staff,project managers, and human resourcerepresentatives. Finally, the researchteam participated as observers in oneproject status meeting.


Project Management Models as Value CreatorsP

AP

ER

S

The interviews were recorded andtranscribed. Afterwards, meta-matricesfor each company were developed forcomparisons across the informants.Findings from the interviews werecompared with data from the surveysand other collected data.

Value statements related to the PM models were identified. Afterward,the identified values were classifiedaccording to a conceptual frameworkprovided by Eskerod and stergren(2000), in which the implementationof a common project managementmodel is seen as a way of standardiz-ing project management within thecompany. Eskerod and stergrenidentified three driving forces behindimplementing a common projectmanagement model: a striving for efficiency, a striving for legitimacy,and a striving for power and control.These three categories were used tocategorize all values identified in thecase studies. Further, sensitivity toother possible categories than thosepresented by Eskerod and stergren(2000) was presented. By analyzing the data, it became clear that stake-holder satisfaction was an often-mentioned value. Therefore, this wasapplied as a fourth category. In sum,each value from the case studies wascategorized as Efficiency, Legitimacy,Power and Control, or StakeholderSatisfaction.

ResultsFindings From Each of the CaseStudies

Company A

Company A is one of Denmarks mostimportant players in the informationtechnology industry. It is the principalsupplier of IT systems to the Danishmunicipalities and to the public sectorin general. It has about 3,000 employ-ees. The unit of analysis was the salesdepartment of the company.

A few years ago, the Danish munic-ipalities were undergoing a majorreform with far-reaching consequencesfor their IT systems. Company A sup-ported the reform with a program thatconsisted of more than 60 complexprojects for more than 60 customers.The program involved about one-thirdof Company As workforce and a largenumber of employees in the customersorganizations.

For the program, the companydeveloped and implemented a com-mon project management model,called the Municipality Reform Model.With the help of this model, all project

results were delivered on time. Thequality of the project results was so highthat rework was not necessary, eventhough a three-month period had beenallocated for this in the project plan.

For Company A, selling projectmanagement knowledge has become anew field of business. Since the successof the municipality program, cus-tomers and independent companieshave contacted Company A to get helpto develop project management skillsor even hire one of Company As projectmanagers on a temporary basis.

Project Management Model

The Municipality Reform Model (Figure 1)was developed and implemented instages, and this took the companysnewly established project managementoffice (PMO) more than a year. All proj-ect managers were asked to participatein the work: some as members of adevelopment team, others as reviewers.All were asked to deliver best practiceexamples from their respective areas ofoperating the model. Furthermore,questions and answers about the use ofthe project management model were

Table 1: Case companies.

Unit of Analysis

Type of # of # of Project # of ProjectsCase Company Employees Unit # of Staff Managers Annually

A IT 3,000 Sales department 150 43 130

B Financial services 30,000 Corporate IT 1,000 126 200

C Manufacturing 20,000 Corporate IT 400 16 50

D Consulting engineers 5,000 Regional office 100 42 500

E Pharmaceutical 5,300 Supply, operations, 1,000 30 30IT, and engineering

Preparation Startup Harmonization Conversion Closeout

Figure 1: Project management model of Company A.


posted on the corporate intranet.Feedback and suggestions were system-atically used for revisions of the model.

Eventually, the model included: Standard milestones and deliverables,

and a set of templates. Project organizations in the 60 cus-

tomers institutions that mirrored theorganization in the case-study com-pany. Further, the company providedthe customers project managers witha free course in project management.

A common steering committee foreach customer project.

To supplement the organizationalsolution and improve the decision-making capability, the PMO developeda formal escalation procedure so thateverybody knew what to do if some-thing went wrong. In addition, the PMOestablished a detailed follow-up systemwith green, yellow, and red symbols(mimicking a traffic light) in order totrack progress and identify issues thatneeded to be resolved. The trafficlights were shown on the companysintranet and on electronic posters sothat everybody would get a commonunderstanding of the status of the vari-ous projects. Finally, the PMO ensuredthat its own project organization wasstrongly linked to the customer organi-zations, and that the members of thesteering committees possessed suffi-cient formal authority to make all rele-vant decisions.

Use of the project managementmodel was mandatory because the topmanagement found that the companywould profit from the common approachonly if everybody complied. After somehesitation, the project managers acceptedthis strict requirement since the interde-pendence between the various programcomponents was high and the deadlineswere tight. Furthermore it helped that the project managers had been closelyinvolved in the development of themodel. However, in the interviews for thepresent study, the project managerspointed out that they would have pre-ferred a less rigid approach.

To supplement the project manage-ment model, the company investedheavily in project management knowl-edge sharing, training, and certification.Staff were assigned to knowledge-sharingteams on a mandatory basis wherevideo-supported meetings could bearranged. Every new project managerwas assigned a mentor for a period. Allproject managers received specificmandatory training. In the unit ofanalysis, all project managers had par-ticipated in a certification program inproject management (InternationalProject Management Association[IPMA] Levels C and D). At the timewhen the research project was fin-ished, all of the project managers start-ed on a mandatory PRINCE2 trainingcourse.

Perceived Value of the ProjectManagement Model of Company A

In the interviews, project managersexpressed a multifaceted view of theproject management model and itsvalue-creating potential. They had awell-developed understanding of toolsand methods, and of the roles of theproject organization. The concept ofknowledge sharing was widely accept-ed. The common frame of referencehad been fully adopted and hadbecome the project managers own.Management support was found tofocus on leadership more than on proj-ect control. A major initial challengewas to get the nonproject parts of thecompany to work with the projects andnot against them. For the municipalityreform project, this was achieved with avery high degree of top managementinvolvement and an efficient escalationprocedure. Informants agreed that themunicipality reform model, especiallythe project organizing, and the follow-up and escalation procedure had been very useful. All agreed that theseelements had helped the company toexercise a thorough coordination andcontrol, while allowing everybody tofocus on progress and on resolvingconflicts and problems whenever they

arose. A high rate of customer satisfac-tion was also reported.

Finally, the project managers statedthat they had developed a higher self-esteem due to the fact that they hadbeen successful in delivering the projectobjectives and that this was recognizedinside and outside the company. Thesuccessful application of the municipal-ity reform model and the extensivetraining/certification made the salesdepartment very attractive in the eyes ofother stakeholders. Company staff fromoutside had shown interest in a projectmanager job in the sales department.

A summary of value statementsbased on our observations and inter-views about the implementation of acommon project management modelin Company A is presented in Table 2.

Company B

Company B is a Nordic financial serv-ices group. It is the result of mergersand acquisitions of a number of banksin Sweden, Denmark, Norway, andFinland that took place between 1997and 2000.

The company is headquartered in Sweden but is well represented inDenmark and the other Nordic coun-tries, as well as in Poland and the Baltic countries. In total, it has about 10 million customers, approximately1,300 branch offices, and a strong net-banking position with some 4.9 million e-customers.

Project Management ModelAt the time of the merger, it was foundthat each of the merging banks had itsown way of dealing with projects, andthat these different ways were incom-patible. Carrying out cross-nationalprojects that would involve the groupas a whole was next to impossible. Thesolution was to implement a commonNordic project model. Its main goal wasto ensure that a project was on time, onspecification, and within budget. Thus,it had to be strong on control, with veryrigid reporting requirements. On theother hand, it did not promote properproject leadership.



AP

ER

S

In parallel with the control model,another model was developed (Figure 2).This model built on A Guide to the Project Management Body ofKnowledge (PMBOK Guide) (ProjectManagement Institute [PMI], 2004)but was customized to meet specificcorporate requirements. Adaptationwas achieved by internal workinggroups and with experienced projectmanagers as reviewers. The core teamwas led by an external project man-ager. By February 2007, it was fullyimplemented. Its use was mademandatory for all cross-national proj-ects and for projects with a budgetexceeding 1 million.

The introduction of both corporateproject models was combined with somemajor organizational changes to ease theintegration of cross-organizational proj-ects. For instance, a central project

management unit was established in2003. In the past, the project managerfor a given project had reported to aline manager in the business area inwhich the project was situated. Oncethe project was completed, the projectmanager was transferred to anotherbusiness area. Thus, the project man-agers appeared not to belong any-where, and nobody really knew orunderstood their competencies. The goalof the common unit, called the ProjectManagement Centre (PMC), was toovercome this problem. Since 2003, all full-time project managers across allbusiness areas have been attached tothis unit.

The company established a company-wide generic project management train-ing programproviding a commonterminology and understanding of concepts and project management

methods and tools. A career path forproject managers has been implement-ed. External certification of projectmanagers, as part of their career devel-opment, has been introduced. Otherintegrative functions were also intro-duced, including, for instance, usingEnglish as the language for projects. Tobuild up and maintain the commonframe of reference, PMC is holding two-day conferences for all project man-agers once every year.

Perceived Value of Company Bs ProjectManagement ModelThe interviews described a very widerange of benefits that were achievedwith the introduction of the projectmanagement model. Examples includ-ed the ease of setting up a projectsstructure, ease of reporting and assess-ing project reports, and ease of transferof project responsibility from one proj-ect manager to another.

Previously, project managers feltthat they had to introduce new toolsand techniques on their own, which inturn led to numerous misunderstand-ings. With the implementation of thecommon model, the problem haslargely been resolved and communica-tion has become much easier, allowinga much smoother implementation ofcross-national projects.

The communicative value of theproject model has been boosted by pro-viding the appropriate project manage-ment training. Using the same terminol-ogy was frequently mentioned as a majorsuccess factor of the common model. Inthis context, the companys experience-sharing efforts were found to be particu-larly useful. The two-day conferencesand other integrative efforts have madeit much easier for project managers toshare knowledge across projects andcountries.

A summary of value statementsbased on our observations and inter-views about the implementation of acommon project management modelin Company B is shown in Table 3.

Preparation Run Close

D2D1 D3 D4

Figure 2: Project management model of Company B.

Table 2: Company As value statements regarding its project management model.

Value Statements Value Types

The organization gets paid earlier Efficiency

Cost reductions due to delivery on time and Efficiencyearlier payment

Applying project management model avoids Efficiencyfailing projects

Knowledge sharing is easier due to a common Efficiencyproject management model

Efficient resource usage Efficiency

Securing uniformity in treating customers Legitimacy (seen as professional)

Improved top management involvement Power and control

Application of the project management Stakeholder satisfactionmodel brings satisfied customers


Company C

Company C is the Danish leader of anindustrial group that develops andmanufactures mechanical and elec-tronic products. It employs about22,000 people worldwide.

The group, which is one of thelargest industrial concerns in Denmark,comprises 53 factories in 21 countries.It has 110 sales companies and 110agents and distributors all over theworld. Over the past few years, annualnet sales have been in the range of 2.6billion. The case study essentially dealtwith the companys IT department.


Before 1996, the IT department hadbeen in charge of a single software plat-form that supported all corporate activ-ities. New activities needed to bealigned with the characteristics of thecentral platform, and a great many peo-ple in the company needed to agreebefore any change would be accepted.As the company was facing an increas-ingly dynamic business environment,the centralistic arrangement with itsheavy organizational demands wasfound to be less and less practical.

Thus, it was decided to decentralizethe IT activities. As a consequence, theIT department had to turn itself into aninformation solution department. In the

past, it had carried out one or two largeprojects per year at one central site, butnow it had to show that it was capable ofimplementing many small projects atmany different locations. Among otherthings, this required the ability of apply-ing full project management instead oftechnical project management.

As a response to these challenges, aproject management model, calledEPMT, was introduced in 1997, and theentire IT department was trained inusing the model (Figure 3). The modelwas made mandatory if a given pro-ject was of strategic importance or if itexceeded a certain size, (e.g., in the caseof an IT project if it required more than100 workdays).

Furthermore, the department decid-ed to develop an IT strategy that includeda project function. Corporate manage-ment endorsed the strategy, the projectfunction was established, and a coupleof project managers were positioned inthe function. Today it is the organiza-tional unit for 15 full-time EPMT projectmanagers. Both the project manage-ment model and the project function arebeing continuously improved.

In each project, the client also hasto appoint a project manager. Thus, theproject has both an EPMT project man-ager and project manager of the clientunit. Together they manage the full

project cycle from project preparationto a follow-up stage three months afterfinishing implementation. During follow-up, project results are evaluated togetherby the IT department and the clientbefore they are handed over to the clientunit for operation.

An organizational perspective onproject management (see Andersen,2008) is predominant. Management ismainly provided for the interaction withcustomers and clarification of needs oftheir respective business units, ensur-ing that the business processes are opti-mized and that project outcomes aremanageable for the business unit.

Project management training in thecompany includes, in particular, instruc-tions on the use of the corporate proj-ect management model. Terminologyand management concepts are thesame for all training efforts. To becomean EPMT project manager, the personin question must have participated inan internal project management train-ing course that is equivalent to therequirements of IPMA Level D. Whenthey are assigned to the project man-agement function, project managersare expected to participate in anotherinternal project management trainingcourse equivalent to the requirementsfor IPMA Level C.

For each project manager in the ITdepartment, a mandatory personalleadership program is carried out.Project managers are coached by a psy-chologist. The training modules endwith an in-company examination.External certification is not offered.

Project managers meet every sec-ond week to share lessons learned. Inaddition, an annual experience-sharingconference for all project managers isheld. Furthermore, a tutoring activitytakes place in which each project man-ager is being evaluated and given feed-back by his or her tutor.

Perceived Value of Company Cs ProjectManagement Model

Due to the common project manage-ment approach, it has become very

Table 3: Company Bs value statements regarding its project management model.


Projects launched and accomplished Efficiencyaccording to schedule and specifications

Common frame of reference gives easy Efficiencycommunication internally and externally

Easier task solving Efficiency

Clear roles and responsibilities Efficiency stakeholder satisfaction

A structured, well-defined, and accepted Legitimacyprocess

Customer experiences professionalism Legitimacy stakeholder satisfaction

Higher resilience to illness or quitting Power and control

Greater transparency in the projects Power and control



AP

ER

S

easy for the IT department to helpestablish a new business within thegroup. As the model has proved itsworth, project managers do not have tosell the model every time a new projectis started in one of the companys busi-ness units. The business units haverealized that the model is helpful. Thissaves a great deal of time.

Top management found the com-mon frame of reference to be quitehelpful because progress can be easilymonitored.

The interviewed project managersfound that the greatest value of theproject management model and itsunderlying common training could befound in the clarification phase. Themodel ensures that clarification is car-ried out in such a way that customerexpectations and the expectations of theproject team are aligned as early as pos-sible. The structured way of discussing

ideas and scope is perceived to be espe-cially helpful. The result of a good clar-ification phase is that project aims areachieved within time and budget, andthat the stakeholders are satisfied withthe deliverables.

A summary of value statementsbased on our observations and inter-views about the implementation of acommon project management modelin Company C is presented in Table 4.

Company D

Company D is one of the largest andoldest consulting firms of Denmark.With roots in civil engineering and amainly Danish client base, the firm hasbeen changing itself into a global playerwith a workforce of more than 7,500. In 2007, turnover reached about 640million.

The firm is providing a wide array ofengineering, consultancy, and product

development services. While maintainingits home market presence in the Nordiccountries and the United Kingdom, itsmarket shares have been increasing inthe Russian Federation, the Baltic region,and in Asia.

Project Management ModelThe case company launched work on acommon project management modelwith the intention of helping the firmin its transformation from a mainlytechnical orientation to customer ori-entation. The modus operandi of asample of successful project managersat two of the firms regional offices wasstudied to determine the reasons fortheir success. With the help of internalconsultants, they developed a set ofseven principles they found essentialfor good project management. In theirview, project management should: create the settings for a dynamic proj-

ect implementation processandallow insights into the entire process;

act as an integrative force; apply knowledge the right way and at

the right time; keep opportunities for development

openand avoid restrictions as longas possible;

support the customer in his or herown organization;

transform tacit knowledge into sharedlearning; and

create ownership and give responsi-bility.

The statements point to the factthat the firms successful project managers did not see project manage-ment as something mechanical andtools-oriented (i.e., requiring tools tomanage quality, tools to manage the budget, and tools to manage theschedule and staffing). Instead, theyperceived project management ashuman processes that involved coop-eration with partners and the cus-tomer. Central to their view of projectmanagement is the concept of under-standing the customer in his or herown context.

Idea

Init

iati

on

Cla

rific

atio

n

Pro

ject

Ag

reem

ent

Pre

par

atio

n

Kic

k-O

ff

Des

ign

Acc

epta

nce

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n

Go

-Liv

e

Follo

w-U

p

Han

d-O

ver

Business Case Initiation

Preparation

D1

Prepare

Pre-Qualification

and OfferContracting Planning Imple-mentation Closeout

Run Close

D3 D4D2

Start-Up Harmonization Conversion

Planning

Supporting Activities

Imple-mentation Closeout

Closeout

BenefitRealization

Figure 3: Project management model of Company C.


The project management model wasdeveloped based on these principles(Figure 4). However, it was not intro-duced as an independent projectmanagement model, but as part of thequality management in the company.Nevertheless, project managers werealso offered training in leadership andcontext management.

Although the company has a sub-stantial in-house training program inproject management, it still has nomandatory training in the use of thecorporate project management model.Participants in the project manage-ment training are organized into actionlearning groups. Certification is offeredto project managers who have com-pleted ten days of basic or advancedproject management training.

Perceived Value of Company Ds ProjectManagement Model

Use of the corporate project manage-ment model had been optional at first(although at the time of the interviews,a few elements of a common referenceframe had become mandatory). Appar-ently, top management initially failedto see the benefits that could be gainedfrom a more systematic use of themodel and its affiliated tools, methods,and templates.

This has changed, as a series ofexperience-sharing events opened theeyes of both top management and the project managers. Together theyfound that having a common frame ofreference made them appear more pro-fessional to their customers, and thecompany is now fully convinced that

they can boost their competitive advan-tages with a fully developed projectmanagement model. The value state-ments are summarized in Table 5.

Company E

The company is an international phar-maceutical group with headquarters inDenmark. In 1937, it launched its firstself-developed medicinal drug. Over thepast 20 years, the firm has been increas-ing its turnover substantially year afteryear. An antidepressant that the compa-ny had developed in the 1980s has beenthe keystone to their success. Turnoverreached nearly 1.5 billion in 2007 withthe antidepressant accounting foralmost two-thirds of the total.

The company is spending approxi-mately 20% of its earnings on researchand development of new drugs. Con-sequently, its corporate culture isstrongly focused on scientific achieve-ments. The workforce is highly educat-ed, with most researchers holding aPhD degree. As a drawback often foundin a silo culture environment, profes-sionals find projects outside their areasof competence not particularly inter-esting. In 2007, the company employeda workforce of more than 5,300 in 54countries. Production was located inDenmark, Italy, and the UnitedKingdom, and research facilities werein Denmark and the United States.

The case study was conducted inthe corporate division of Supply, Opera-tions, IT, and Engineering (SOE), whichhas a staff of about 1,000. At the time ofthe study, the division employed 30project managers. All of them wereexperienced in carrying out projects intheir respective parts of the organiza-tion. Corporate management perceivesits project managers as essential to thefuture development for the company. Acareer path for project managers hasbeen established and international cer-tification (i.e., by the Project Manage-ment Institute) to project managers isbeing offered. Yet no plans were madeto set up a central department for proj-ect management.

Table 4: Company Cs value statements regarding its project management model.


Projects are delivered on time and within Efficiencybudget

Reducing number of repeated problem Efficiency

Better alignment of expectations with Efficiency stakeholder satisfactioncustomers

The team members know their tasks and Efficiency stakeholder satisfactionresponsibilities in good time

PM model creates high credibility Legitimacy

Customer experiences professionalism Legitimacy

Better foundation for achieving what the Power and controlcompany wants

Greater transparency in the projects Power and control

PM ensures meeting clients expectations Stakeholder satisfaction

Pre-qualification

and offerContracting Planning Implementation Closeout

Supporting Processess

Figure 4: Project management model of Company D.



AP

ER

S

A formal project model called EPMhas been in use since 2005 (see Figure 5).According to corporate management,EPM made SOE better in ensuring thatthe right projects are selected, and that there are enough resources forachieving the intended benefits. At thetime of the study in autumn 2007, virtu-ally no project backlog was found.Projects in the portfolio were generallyon track and showed no indications ofserious complications or delays. Projectstaff and key project stakeholdersappeared to be capable of resolving all

emerging difficulties, thereby consider-ably shortening the time requirementsof problem resolution.


The introduction of the project man-agement model was caused by therapid growth of the company, whichfrom 1990 onward created a need forlarger and more modern constructionsand facilities. Arrangements for carry-ing out these and other undertakingswere found increasingly inadequate.No systems were in place to cope with

change requests, and the quality man-agement system was insufficient.Various resource management systemscoexisted with a bespoke productionmanagement system.

Thus in 2000, a newly appointedSOE director introduced a commonresource management system. The ini-tial aim was to create an integrated sys-tem to gauge how many resources wereused for projects and for the depart-ments carrying out the projects. Thiswas followed in 2002 by the establish-ment of a project management office anda project management governancegroup (PMG group) that brought togeth-er divisional directors and functionalmanagers with a special interest in proj-ects. The PMG groups prime task was to ensure that project decisions cuttingacross departmental boundaries werecorrectly and readily carried out. The group also was given authority todecide in matters of project documenta-tion, and it was to assess project chartersand closeout reports. Nonetheless, by2005 most SOE activities still concernedproduction and operations. Only in theengineering department had thinkingand working in projects becomeincreasingly common.

From 2005 onward, however, moreand more tasks were defined as proj-ects, and more and more resourceswere channeled into projects. Sincethat time, the PMO has been producinga quarterly status report on the SOEproject portfolio, including a road mapof future projects. The status reportuses traffic lights (as described earlierin this article) to categorize projects.

For its part, the PMG group beganformalizing the SOE approach towardproject management. It started bydefining what a project is from the per-spective of the company. In addition,roles in the project organization weredefined. Finally, and following thestrong advice of the head of the PMO,EPM as a corporate project methodolo-gy was developed.

EPM is based on the PMBOK

Guide (PMI, 2004) and contains 15

Table 5: Company Ds value statements regarding its project management model.


Preventing losing money on projects Efficiency

Project managers more conscious in their management Efficiency

Customer experiences professionalism Legitimacy

High credibility and good reputation Legitimacy

More holistic thinking Stakeholder satisfaction

Project manager ensures meeting clients expectations Stakeholder satisfaction

Customer experiences a better process Stakeholder satisfaction

Business Case Initiation Planning Imple-mentation CloseoutBenefitRealization


Business Case Initiation

Preparation Start-up Harmonization Conversion

Planning


Supporting Processes

Imple-mentation Closeout

Closeout

BenefitRealization

D1

Prepare Run Close

D3 D4D2

Pre-Qualification

and OfferContracting Planning Imple-mentation Closeout

Figure 5: Project management model of Company E.


tools, including the necessary tem-plates. Four of the toolsnamely, busi-ness case, project charter, project plan,and project evaluationare mandato-ry for all SOE projects. In addition, forall major projects and for all IT proj-ects, a risk management plan isrequired.

Twice per year, the PMO arrangesnetworking days for all project man-agers. The intention is to support theuse of EPM and to enhance the compe-tence of the project managers. In 2007,their networking days dealt with busi-ness benefit and benefit realization andleadership development. In addition,the PMO offers individual coaching ofproject managers and advertises the offer on the intranet. The head ofthe PMO maintains frequent contactwith the project managers to assistthem in formulating project chartersand to handle specific EPM challenges.

Finally, a handbook and a long listof templates have been prepared incooperation between R&D, IT, HR, andthe SOE to support the EPM methodol-ogy. It is presented in the companysintranet in a very precise way. Its intro-duction emphasizes that the methodol-ogy is not meant to be mandatory, butthat it is hoped that project managerswill find the methodology sufficient andattractive to use.

This quote is a good illustration of the user-friendly managementapproach that can be found in the com-pany. In an organization where scienceis the dominant field, it is a longprocess to get project managementacknowledged as a skill that is in thesame league as the application of scien-tific knowledge. Management methods,rules, and techniques must makeimmediate sense and be sensible, sothat project managers are happy to usethem. When this is not the case, theyare dropped. For instance, when it wasfound that lessons learned at closeoutevaluations, which the PMO posted onthe intranet, met with next-to-no-inter-est, this form of communication wassimply given up.

In line with this approach, projectmanagement leadership is not fullyincorporated in EPM. Although a gener-al course on management is offered toproject managers, no courses on leader-ship behavior from a project managementperspective are given. The perception ofproject management focuses on theproject triangle and control.

In summary, for parts of the organi-zation SOE has put into place a uniformapproach to the processes, methods,instruments, attitudes, and behaviorfor managing its projects. Tools havebeen developed in cross-functionalcooperation, and training and certifica-tion are offered. Corporate leaders, inparticular the SOE director and thehead of the PMO, are open and orient-ed toward learning from other compa-nies. Their reasons for participating inthe research project were to be bench-marked against other firms and toreceive an outside opinion on theirproject management implementation.

Perceived Value of the ProjectManagement Model of Company E

From the interviews, it is clear that SOEis very strong on project portfolio man-agement and that the PMO functionsvery well. EPM receives good backingfrom the management group and thePMG group.

EPM has the whole project life cyclein view. Recently, special emphasis hasbeen placed on benefit realization. Thishas helped to achieve a high degree ofsenior management attention to proj-ect work. Consequently, scope creep inthe projects could be largely avoided.Still, project managers found it desir-able to continue with the developmentof EPMin particular, benefit trackingand competence development.

However, these positive results andattitudes have not yet made projectmanagers ready to engage in a system-atic exchange of experience. The les-sons-learned database never took off,and the face-to-face exchange of expe-rience appears not to be working well.Only in the IT department, exchange of

experience is a well-established activi-ty. Here it is included in the IT projectmanagers regular meetings, and theexchange is kept focused on importantpoints.

The user-friendly approach of theproject management model appears tohave been well received by the SOEproject managers. In the interviews,there was a clear willingness to alignapproaches and operation with EPM,even if actual behavior sometimesappears to be lagging behind. Mandatoryelements of the EPM methodology areapplied. Other tools and methods areused, but not to a full extent.

A summary of value statements isshown in Table 6.

DiscussionCharacteristics of ProjectManagement Models in the CaseCompaniesThe main features of the project man-agement models of the case companiesare summarized in Table 7. From thetable, the following characteristics canbe identified: The project management models

(with one exception) cover only theproject life cycleall ignore the post-project phase.

The models are developed from well-known phase models such as thatdescribed in the PMBOK Guide (PMI,2004) but are customized.

There is a high involvement of projectmanagers in the implementation ofthe models.

An intraorganizational commonframe of reference is in place.

The models contain a substantialnumber of templates but a moderatenumber of mandatory ones.

Companies A, B, and C indicated inthe interviews that they ought to dobetter in measuring and following upon benefits, but there is no formalprocess in place yet. Company C has aspart of its model a follow-up phase ofthree months ending with the official



AP

ER

S

hand-over of project result to the lineorganization. Only the project manage-ment model of company E concernsitself with life after project completion.The last part of the model is called ben-efit realization. All other project man-agement models deal only with theproject life cycle and stop at projectcloseout.

Where project management modelshave been implemented as successorsto a project model, the integration ofthe two approaches is still laggingbehind. Project models are firmly rootedin the technical specialist environ-ments, and the links to the projectmanagement models are still to be putin place.

Although four of the five models arebased on well-known project manage-ment models or phase models, the casecompanies have spent resources onadapting the models to the companycontext. This customization has mainlycovered the terminology concerningphases and methods, but not the basicstructure. Now, all perceive their mod-els as highly adapted and fully alignedwith their corporate cultures. Thisincludes the interviewed project man-agers, who without exception felt asense of ownership toward the projectmanagement models. This strong feel-ing of ownership may be due to the factthat the case companies involved their

own project management staff veryintensively in the adaptation processes.

Four of the case companies hadprovided their project managers with asubstantial number of templates, butleft it to the managers to develop projectdocuments in line with the require-ments of a specific project. Only alimited number of documents aremandatory in each of the five compa-nies.

Three main differences among theproject management models and theirimplementation in the case companieswere identified: time spent on developing and imple-

menting the project managementmodel;

degree of integration with other busi-ness systems;

number of procedures; and required project management model

alignment for project categories.

In three of the case companies,project models were used for a numberof years before work on a project man-agement model was begun. For themost part, these were highly extensiveIT project models. The move to theproject management models wasaccomplished in stages. The first stagewas a move from a simple projectmodel to one that was more detailed,covering project processes and indicat-

ing how to structure, approach, andorganize the execution of project workfor a specific type of project. The finalstage was a move to a higher-levelmodel valid for all types of projects inthe organization, covering projectmanagement processes. In four of thefive cases, the project governance rolesand structure were also included, butproject execution was not.

The time spent on moving from aproject model to a project managementmodel or implementing a project man-agement model varied from three yearsin Company B to ten years in CompanyE. The integration with other businesssystems varies too, yet deepening theintegration is a top priority in none of thecompanies. At the time of the interviews,the focus was more on decisions andstrategic direction than on integration.

Alignment with the project man-agement model is required for all proj-ects in two of the companies and onlyfor larger projects in the other threecompanies. But observations show thatalignment with the procedures, meth-ods, and tools in all of the companies ismuch higher for the larger projectsthan for the small projects. The challengeseems to be to draw more attention tothe smaller projectsboth manage-ment attention and conscious projectmanagement appliedin order to cre-ate value from these projects. Somehow,the smaller projects seem to be forgot-ten in the attempt to benefit from aproject management approach. This isin line with the findings of Blichfeldtand Eskerod (2008).

The cost of implementation of a proj-ect management model was an area thathad yet to be researched, but the lack ofavailable historical data on project costsand internal accounting rules has made itdifficult for this study to determine whatwas invested in implementation andsubsequent maintenance.

Reasons for Implementing a ProjectManagement ModelWhy do companies choose to introducea common project management model

Table 6: Company Es value statements regarding its project management model.


Better project presentation, time, budget, Efficiencyand quality

Avoiding beginners mistakes Efficiency

Project teams do not spend time on Efficiencyunnecessary things

Greater empowerment of team members Efficiency stakeholder satisfaction

Clear roles and responsibilities Efficiency stakeholder satisfaction

Demand for the project management model Legitimacyapproach in other parts of the organization

Improved control and follow-up Power and control


when it is well known that the strengthof projects and project management isthat projects are efficient for handling anontypified task on a situational basis?The three forces (efficiency, legitimacy,and power and control) identified byEskerod and stergren (2000) as under-lying the trend of increased standardi-zation within project managementwere all found in statements and obser-

vations in the present study. This is inline with the observations of Engwall,Kling, and Werr (2005), who point to thefact that models may be interpreteddifferently by different users. Almosthalf of the statements concerning thevalues created by the use of projectmanagement models relate to efficien-cy aspects. Another 17% relate to legiti-macy, and 13% to power and control.

When large companies have standard-ized their project work, they feel thatthey have increased efficiency and thatthis, in their view, is the dominant valueachieved.

In addition, the five cases indicatethat other real benefits can be created by moving to the project manage-ment model approach. The number ofvalue statements made by each company

Table 7: Characteristics of the project management models of the case companies.

Characteristics Company A Company B Company C Company D Company E

Year that model implementation 2004 2003 1997 2000 2005was started

Project model in use before project Yes Yes Yes No Yesmanagement model

Degree of customization 5 5 4 5 5

Degree of integration with other 3 4 1 1 4business systems

Degree of integration with internal 3 3 N/A N/A 2project models

Project management model covers Project life Project life Project life cycle Project life Product lifecycle cycle follow-up phase cycle cycle

Project categories covered by the All Budget above 100 man days All Cross-project management model $34,000 and/or strategic departmental

attention projects, budgetabove $195,000

Based on model Own PMBOK Guide SAP Quality PMBOK GuideAssurance Model

Number of procedures 16 5 21 3 15i.e., written methods and tools

Number of templates 50 30 11 50 30

Number of mandatory documents 6 3 5 0 4

Contains governance structure Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Implementation approach 5 5 3 5 5participation by internal project managers

Supportive efforts on top of the Competence Strategic PM Leadership Statements Networking PM models development initiatives, development of on internal for PMs days

of PMs, annual PM PMs, biweekly best practices, twice per yearcertification, conferences exchange of knowledge-mentor scheme, experience, sharing groupsknowledge- annual PM sharing groups workshop

Note. 1: not at all; 5: very high.



AP

ER

S

for each type of value is presented in Table 8.

Half of the efficiency value state-ments refer to cost reductions, better uti-lization of resources, easier task solving,and avoidance of beginners mistakesclosely related to the project triangle. Butthe other half of the efficiency state-ments refer to the projects environment,including better exchange of knowledgebetween the project managers, easiercommunication internally and exter-nally, and that the project managers aremore conscious in their project manage-ment. This demonstrates that the effi-ciency gained is reaching further thanthe individual projects.

The study points to a fourth valuecreatedstakeholder satisfaction,which accounts for 24% of the valuestatements. These statements cover thecustomers experience of professional-ism, a better process during the projectlife cycle, and being ensured of meetingclient expectations, but also team per-formance with clear roles and responsi-bilities and greater empowerment ofteam members.

The value statements referring tothe value-type legitimacy cover the cus-tomer experiencing professionalism,high credibility and good reputation ofthe company, and recognition of theproject management approach in otherparts of the company. These values fol-low the explanation of legitimacy inEskerod and stergren (2000).

Finally, the value statements relat-ing to power and control concern the

strong top management involvement,higher resilience to fluctuation amongproject managers, greater transparency,a better foundation for achieving whatthe company wants, and improved con-trol and follow-up.

Conditions Supporting ObtainingValuesEvery aspect of project managementhas two dimensions: a technical dim-ension and a human dimension(Cooke-Davies & Arzymanow, 2003).The technical dimension encompassesthose groups of practices or processesthat are integral to project manage-ment, while the human dimensionincludes not only the people who areoperating these processes, but also theirexpertise. All of the case companieshave encompassed both dimensions,not only implementing procedures andprocesses, but also implementing activ-ities in the human dimension. The tech-nical dimension has had no greaterweight than the human dimension; thenumber of procedures and mandatorydocuments is moderate, and a higher-level project management model hasbeen implemented.

Our observations indicate that if thetechnical dimension is compared withthe alignment, the simpler the projectmanagement model (relatively low num-ber of procedures and mandatory docu-ments), the higher the use of the definedprocedures, methods, and tools. Thedata collected does not specify whethercertain areas of procedures and methods

are preferred to others, but treats proce-dures, methods, and tools as a whole.

In addition to the project manage-ment model, time and resources arecontinuously invested in the humandimension. Activities related to thisdimension take place not only whenthe model is introduced, but are con-tinued in the following ways: training and certification (in Com-

pany A), knowledge-sharing meetings,and mentor scheme;

each year a new strategic initiative isintroduced in PMC to improve projectmanagement skills (in Company B),and annual project management con-ferences are held;

personal development of the projectmanagerse.g., leadership develop-ment program (in Company C) andbiweekly exchange of experience;

situated learning (in Company D)knowledge sharing groups; and

project managers networking daystwice a year, and a governance groupthat provides feedback on the qualityof project documents (in Company E).

In all companies, the implementa-tion has started with the emphasis onthe human dimension by heavily involv-ing the companies project managers inthe customization or development ofthe model.

ConclusionBased on the findings from the five case studies, some conclusions can be drawn.

Table 8: Obtained values in the case companies according to the informants.

Percent of Number of Value Statements in Interviews Total Number of

Value Type Company A Company B Company C Company D Company E Value Statements

Efficiency 5 5 4 2 5 46%

Legitimacy 1 2 2 2 1 17%

Power and control 1 2 2 0 1 13%

Stakeholder satisfaction 1 2 3 3 2 24%


The characteristics of the five proj-ect management models are as follows:1. The project management models

(with one exception) cover only theproject life cycle and ignore the post-project phase (even though thisphase is reported as very importantby many key informants).

2. The models build on well-knownphase models such as that describedby the PMBOK Guide (PMI, 2004)(but are customized).

3. Project managers have a high level ofinvolvement in the implementationof the models.

4. The models are combined with otherinitiatives to support a commonframe of reference (e.g., commonproject management training, acommon terminology).

5. The models contain a substantialnumber of templates, but only a mod-erate number of them are mandatory.

In the analysis, the values created bythe PM models were identified to be effi-ciency, legitimacy, and power and con-trol, as well as stakeholder satisfaction.

The analysis showed that, in orderto harvest the values, a precondition (inother words, an implication of thestudy for practice) is substantial invest-ment in both the human and technicaldimensions of a project managementmodel. An effective involvement of the companys project managers in thedevelopmental process is a sine quanon. This will lead to a strong presenceof the human dimension.

Another implication for practice isthe finding that value is best created if the organization makes sure that theproject management model has only rel-atively few mandatory requirements buta well-developed governance structure.

An implication of the study for theo-ry is that further research on implemen-tation of project management modelsmust focus on both the human dimen-sion and the technical dimension.

Three limitations of the study canbe identified: first, it was not possiblefor the case companies to determine the

costs (direct and indirect) and the ben-efits of implementing a project man-agement model in financial terms.Therefore, we are not able to point tothe monetary investments necessary inorder to guarantee values gained fromimplementing a project managementmodel. Second, because the case stud-ies took place in Denmark, the resultsmay not be representative of those thatmay be experienced by all companiesworldwide. Third, the project manage-ment models in the case companieswere mainly suited for large projects. Itwould be interesting to study how aproject management model can createvalue even for the smaller projects in anorganization.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors wish to acknowledge thefinancial support of the Project Man-agement Institute, the donation in kindsupport of the organizations that partic-ipated, and the intellectual stimulationof all of the Value Project team membersin the preparation of this article.

An earlier version of this paper waspresented at the PMI Biannual ResearchConference in Warsaw in July 2008.

ReferencesAndersen, E. (2008). Rethinking projectmanagement: An organizational per-spective. Harlow, UK: PearsonEducation Limited.

Associations of Danish ProjectManagement, Norwegian Associationof Project Management, and SwedishProject Management Society. (2005).Competencies in project managementNational competence baseline forScandinavia. Hillerod, Denmark:Association of Danish ProjectManagement.

Blichfeldt, B. S., & Eskerod, P. (2008).Project portfolio management: Theresmore to it than what managementenacts. International Journal of ProjectManagement, 26, 357365.

Cooke-Davies, T. J., & Arzymanow, A.A. (2003). The maturity of project man-agement in different industries: An

investigation into variations betweenproject management models.International Journal of ProjectManagement, 21, 471478.

Davies, A., & Brady, T. (2000).Organisational capabilities and learn-ing in complex product systems:Towards repeatable solutions. ResearchPolicy, 29, 931953.

Engwall, M., Kling, R., & Werr, A.(2005). Models in action: How man-agement models are interpreted innew product development. R&DManagement, 35, 427439.

Eskerod, P., & stergren, K. (2000).Why do companies standardize projectwork? Project Management, 6(2), 3439.

Eskerod, P., & Riis, E. (2008, July).Creating value by building an intra-organizational common frame of refer-ence for project management.Presented at the PMI ResearchConference, Warsaw, Poland.

Lundin, R. A., Sderholm, A., &Wilson, T. (2001, August). On the conceptualization of time in projects.Paper presented at the 16th NordicConference (16:e NordiskaFretagsekonomiska mneskonfer-ensenProjekt, tid och organisering),Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Mikkelsen, H., & Riis, J. O. (1996).Grundbog i Projektledelse. Rungsted,Denmark: Prodevo.

Mulder, L. (1997). The importance of acommon project management methodin the corporate environment. R&DManagement, 27(3), 189196.

Project Management Institute. (2004).A guide to the project managementbody of knowledgeThird edition.Newtown Square, PA: Author.

Risanen, C., & Linde, A. (2004).Technologizing discourse to stan-dardize projects in multi-projectorganizations: Hegemony by consen-sus? Organization, 11(1), 101121.

Thomas, J., & Mullaly, M. (2004).Understanding the value of projectmanagement. Research proposal sub-mitted to the Project Management



AP

ER

S

Institute in answer to the 2004 RFPQuantifying the Value of ProjectManagement.

Thomas, J., & Mullaly, M. (2007).Understanding the value of projectmanagement: First steps on an inter-national investigation in search ofvalue. Project Management Journal,38(3), 7489.

Pernille Eskerod holds a position as professor atthe Project Management Unit, University ofSouthern Denmark. She has been teaching at theuniversity since 1992. She has an MSc (BA) and aPhD in business administration. She teaches andconducts research within the fields of project management, the project-oriented organization, human resource management, and

organizational behavior. She has a large interna-tional network and participates frequently in inter-national conferences and activities. She is anactive member of a recently established interna-tional network, PMUni, the aim of which is to pro-mote research and teaching in project manage-ment. In 20062008, she participated in the inter-national research project, Understanding the Valueof Project Management. She is especially interest-ed in aspects related to project stakeholder man-agement and competence development within theproject-oriented organization. Further, togetherwith a colleague, Eva Riis, she has started a newresearch initiative on managing research projects.

Eva Riis is an external lecturer and research fel-low of the Project Management Unit at theUniversity of Southern Denmark. In 20062008,

she participated in an international research proj-ect, Understanding the Value of ProjectManagement, together with 48 researchersaround the world. She is especially interested inaspects related to implementation of projectmanagement models and management ofresearch projects. Her past research has includeda major study about the use of virtual projectrooms in Denmark. She holds an MSc in engineer-ing. She is a certified project manager (IPMA levelC) and is an assessor for IPMA certification. Inaddition, she is the managing partner of ACIS Ltd.,a Copenhagen-based consulting firm. For morethan 15 years, she has prepared and managedreform projects in connection with the enlarge-ment of the European Union. Since 2000, she hasbeen project manager for the development andimplementation of national portfolio managementsystems in Hungary, Slovakia, and Bulgaria.

eskerod and riis 2009

Documents