toward a project portfolio management ......2019/06/13  · evaluation framework a conference paper...

21 JUN 2018 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

LARS KRISTIAN HANSEN

AARHUS UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT

TOWARD A PROJECT PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

A CONFERENCE PAPER ACCEPTED AT THE

EURAM 2019

2

PLOT

• How we developed the first version of a project

portfolio management evaluation framework.

• How this evaluation framework can be useful

for you…

3

TOWARD A PROJECT PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

The research team

• Anna Le Gerstrøm Rode

• Anita Friis Sommer

• Per Svejvig

• Lars-Kristian Hansen

LARS KRISTIAN HANSEN

21 JUN 2018 ASSISTANT PROFESSORAARHUS UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT

PROJECT PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT IS KEY

• Projects constitute a major part of

organizational budgets and strategic

development, project portfolio management

(PPM) becomes key

4

LARS KRISTIAN HANSEN

21 JUN 2018 ASSISTANT PROFESSORAARHUS UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT

HOWEVER, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT WE ARE DOING PPM IN A GOOD WAY?

5

MATURITY MODELS – MAYBE THE BEST AVAILABLE OPTION

6

• Allows organizations to evaluate various

aspects of their procedures against

benchmarks (Nikkhou et al., 2016)

• P3M3 (OGC, 2006) (now Axelos), OPM3 (PMI,

2008) PPM maturity model (Gartner, 2014)

• Understanding maturity as a state where the

organization is in a perfect condition to to

achieve its objectives (Andersen and Jessen

2003)

MATURITY MODELS – GARTNER’S

7

Score in five dimensions,

Relationship

People

Practices and process

Value and financial management

Technology

HOWEVER…FROM A RESEARCH POINT OF VIEW

8

• The empirical support behind maturity

models are rather weak (Hansen and

Kræmmergard 2016)

• It is dubious that one universal and static

maturity model fits all organizational

settings across time and space (Drazin

and Van de Ven, 1985).

• Why five dimension…

• ….the theoretical and empirical

grounding could be more convincing

LARS KRISTIAN HANSEN

21 JUN 2018 ASSISTANT PROFESSORAARHUS UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT

OUR RESEARCH QUESTION…

• How can we evaluate the performance of PPM

using a theoretical and empirically grounded

framework?

9

Theoretical

grounding

Empirical

grounding 1 2

EVALUATION THEORY

10

(Rode and Svejvig 2018)

Theoretical

grounding 1

EVALUATION THEORY

11

(Rode and Svejvig 2018)

MAKING EVALUATION THEORY CONCRETE

12

• Descending the ladder

of abstraction:

translating abstract

theory on evaluation to

useful statements on

PPM

BUILDING A PROTOTYPE BASED ON THEORY

PPM litterateur Prototype of PPM evaluation

framework

based on theory

Prototype

TOGETHER WITH A LARGE COMPANY, WE DEVELOP, APPLY, AND REFINE OUR FRAMEWORK

Building, intervention,

and evaluation

Reflection and learning

Formalization of learning

Problem formulation

Company Alfa

Research team

Prototype Conference

paper

Building, intervention,

and evaluation

Reflection and learning

Formalization of learning

Problem formulation

Building, intervention,

and evaluation

Reflection and learning

Formalization of learning

Problem formulation

Empirical

grounding2

TOGETHER WITH A LARGE COMPANY, WE DEVELOP, APPLY, AND REFINE OUR FRAMEWORK

Building, intervention,

and evaluation

Reflection and learning

Formalization of learning

Problem formulation

Company Alfa

Research team

Prototype Conference

paper

Building, intervention,

and evaluation

Reflection and learning

Formalization of learning

Problem formulation

Building, intervention,

and evaluation

Reflection and learning

Formalization of learning

Problem formulation

FRAMEWORK: 20 QUESTIONS

What is the real

state…..?

What is the

ideal state…..?

GRAPHICAL ILLUSTRATION OF EVALUATION RESULTS

17

Process

Benchmarking

Learning

Outcome

18

PLOT

• How we developed the first version of a project

portfolio management evaluation framework.

• How this evaluation framework can be useful

for you…

The potential of practitioners

and academics working

close together in fast

iterations

Evaluate against what is

important for the particular

organization – not the

“universal” standard proposed

by maturity models

LARS KRISTIAN HANSEN

21 JUN 2018 ASSISTANT PROFESSORAARHUS UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT

NEXT STEP…

19

• 10 organization from different sectors and of

different size have agreed to participate in the

next step

• We hope you will participate as well as your

type of organization is particular interesting for

our research

21

QUESTION AND COMMENTS

LARS KRISTIAN HANSEN

21 JUN 2018 ASSISTANT PROFESSORAARHUS UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT

REFERENCES

• Drazin, R. and A. H. Van de Ven (1985). "Alternative forms of fit in contingency

theory." Administrative science quarterly: 514-539.

• Eccles, R. G. and S. Klimenko (2019). "The Investor Revolution Shareholders are

getting serious about sustainability." Harvard Business Review 97(3): 106-116.

• Gartner (2014) https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/2837917

• Gupta, S. (2018). Driving Digital Strategy: A Guide to Reimagining Your Business.

Boston, MA, USA.

• Hansen, L. K., et al. (2019 ). Toward a project portfolio management evaluation

framework. European Academy of Management (EURAM)

• Hansen, L. K. and P. Kræmmergard (2016). Discourses and theoretical assumptions

in IT project portfolio management: A review of the literature. Project Management:

Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools,

and Applications. I. M. Association. United States of America IGI Global: 34.

• Rode, A. L. G. and P. Svejvig (2018). "Project evaluation: one framework - four

approaches." Dansk Projekt Ledelse.

22

THE END

23

AARHUS UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT