Welcome to the September 2017 PMWJ

Hurricane Harvey, Floods, Disaster Relief for Project Managers… and Welcome to the September edition of the PM World Journal

David Pells

Managing Editor

Addison, Texas, USA

Welcome to the September 2017 edition of the PM World Journal (PMWJ), the 62nd uninterrupted monthly edition.  This edition continues to reflect the international nature of this publication; 33 original articles, papers and other works by 44 different authors in 20 different countries.  News articles about projects and project management around the world are also included. Since the primary mission of this journal is to support the global sharing of knowledge, please share this month’s edition with others in your network, wherever in the world they may be.

Since last August, I have used this opportunity to mention important trends or issues that I see as journal editor.  This month, in light of the recent hurricane that hit the Texas coast, I want to discuss disaster relief and recovery for project managers and those in the project management profession. I want to discuss these issues from human, personal and professional perspectives.

But first some context.  Here it is the 8th of the month, the latest this journal has been published, and still I am just now getting to this editorial and welcome article.  The issue for me is that I took on a new initiative early last week, to help lead a disaster relief initiative for the PMI Dallas Chapter in response to the record breaking floods along the Texas coast resulting from Hurricane Harvey.  Three PMI chapters in the region with over 5,000 members where affected.  Many PMI members had homes flooded, lost cars and other possessions, and had their lives uprooted. PMI Dallas chapter leaders wanted to help and have launched an initiative to do so; some details are below.  So I apologize to our authors and readers for late publication this month, but…  there’s been a lot going on.

Hurricane Harvey devastates the Texas coast

Hurricane Harvey hit the south Texas coast near the town of Corpus Christi on Friday evening, 25 August 2017.  Just to set the stage, here is a short intro from Wikipedia.  Hurricane Harvey was the first major hurricane to make landfall in the United States since Wilma in 2005, ending a record 12-year drought in which no hurricanes of Category 3 intensity or higher made landfall in the country. In a four-day period, many areas received more than 40 inches (1,000 mm) of rain as the system meandered over eastern Texas and adjacent waters, causing catastrophic flooding. With peak accumulations of 51.88 in (1,318 mm), Harvey is the wettest tropical cyclone on record in the contiguous United States. The resulting floods inundated hundreds of thousands of homes, displaced more than 30,000 people, and prompted more than 17,000 rescues. [1]

Hurricane Harvey near Texas coast on 25 August 2017

According to ABC News in the United States on 1 September 2017, Harvey’s torrential rain, devastating winds and widespread flooding have so far cost at least 39 lives, driven over one million people to evacuate their homes in Texas and caused extensive destruction that will likely make it one of the costliest storms in U.S. history. Here is a look at the storm’s historic devastation, by the numbers:

More than 20 trillion gallons: That’s the total amount of rain that fell across Texas and Louisiana, a staggering deluge that represents enough water to supply New York City’s needs for over five decades.

$125 billion: Texas Gov. Greg Abbot said his state will need federal relief money “far in excess” of that total. Moody’s Analytics has estimated $97 billion in destruction alone and some $108 billion in total damages counting lost output.

51.88 inches: The amount of rain recorded at Cedar Bayou on the outskirts of Houston in just under five days, marking a new record for the heaviest rainfall for a storm in the continental U.S., according to the National Weather Service.

3: The number of times Harvey made landfall– twice as a hurricane in Texas and once more as a tropical storm in southwestern Louisiana.

185,149: Homes estimated to be damaged or destroyed by Harvey, according to Friday’s data from the Texas Division of Emergency Management.

364,000: People who have registered for assistance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as of Friday, August 31, according to FEMA.

42,399 : People in shelters as of Friday, according to the Texas governor.

10,000: People rescued by federal forces as of Thursday, 30 August, FEMA said, plus countless other Good Samaritan rescues.

200,000: Customers without power on Thursday, according to the Energy Department.

120,000: Residents without water in Beaumont, Texas, on Thursday.

10: Gulf Coast region refineries that remain shut down by Harvey. Together they account for over 3 million barrels per day of output, or nearly 17 percent of the total U.S. refining capacity, according to the Energy Department. [2]


To read entire article, click here

About the Author

David L. Pells

Managing Editor, PMWJ
Managing Director, PMWL



David L. Pells is Managing Editor of the PM World Journal (www.pmworldjournal.net) and Managing Director of the PM World Library (www.pmworldlibrary.net). David is an internationally recognized leader in the field of professional project management with more than 35 years of experience on a variety of programs and projects, including engineering, construction, energy, defense, transit, technology and nuclear security, and project sizes ranging from thousands to billions of dollars. He occasionally acts as project management advisor for U.S. national laboratories and international programs, and currently serves as an independent advisor for a major U.S. national nuclear security program.

David Pells has been an active professional leader in the United States since the 1980s, serving on the board of directors of the Project Management Institute (PMI®) twice.  He was founder and chair of the Global Project Management Forum (1995-2000), an annual meeting of leaders of PM associations from around the world. David was awarded PMI’s Person of the Year award in 1998 and Fellow Award, PMI’s highest honor, in 1999. He is also an Honorary Fellow of the Association for Project Management (APM) in the UK; Project Management Associates (PMA – India); and Russian Project Management Association.  Since 2010 he is an honorary member of the Project Management Association of Nepal.

Former managing editor of PM World Today, he is the creator, editor and publisher of the PM World Journal (since 2012).  David has a BA in Business Administration from the University of Washington and an MBA from Idaho State University in the USA.  He has published widely and spoken at conferences and events worldwide.  David lives near Dallas, Texas and can be contacted at [email protected].

To see other works by David Pells, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/david-l-pells/



Stakeholder-Led Project Management


Book Title:    Stakeholder-led Project Management: Changing the Way We Manage Projects
Author:  Louise M. Worsley
Publisher:  Business Expert Press
List Price:   $19.95
Format:  Paperback, 180 pages
Publication Date: Sep 2016         
ISBN: 978-1-63157-467-2
Reviewer:     Raghuveer Gadiraju, PMP
Review Date:   July 2017


This book addresses the emerging topic of stakeholder management and engagement. In PMI’s PMBOK V edition, project stakeholder management was introduced as a new knowledge area, separating it from project communication management.  This book elaborates this area beyond the classic stakeholder process from identification of stakeholders to control of stakeholder engagement by analyzing the entire cycle of process in the context of different project scenarios, while providing corresponding case studies and the lessons learnt.

Depending on the nature of project, stakeholders’ influence and impact varies on the project’s success. Stakeholders are classified as role based and agenda based and projects are categorized as stakeholder neutral, stakeholder sensitive and stakeholder-led.  The wide gamut of examples including complex socially sensitive projects help in understanding the influence of stakeholders in various contexts and book explains the extended process, the tools, techniques and tips which can be applied for engaging the stakeholders to the project’s benefit.

Overview of Book’s Structure

The book is structured as per the stakeholder management process of (1) identifying and documenting, (2) analyzing, (3) developing strategies, (4) planning the approach, (5) engaging and (6) watching, listening, reacting & reviewing.  Each process step is critically analyzed vis-à-vis the project continuum of stakeholder neutral to stakeholder-led with the help of relevant examples and appropriate content from other sources.

The initial chapter reflects on the various definitions of stakeholders and the likely confusion about who is a stakeholder and who is not and helps the reader understand the stakeholder groups to be engaged depending on the nature and the stage of the project. Further chapters are devoted to each step of the stakeholder management process, detailing the tools and practical techniques recommended to be used in various scenarios along with case studies. Final chapter summarizes the six principles of stakeholder engagement for successful projects. These principles have been validated from the discussions with project managers working on stakeholder sensitive projects.


This is a very timely publication on a very important knowledge area of project management, especially in the context of complex stakeholder sensitive or stakeholder led projects which involve working with a wide range of stakeholders at various stages of the project. The author addresses the myths such as “we manage our stakeholders”, “everybody is a stakeholder”, “we know our stakeholders”, “it’s all about communication and more communication is better”, and “some projects don’t need stakeholder engagement”.


To read entire Book Review, click here

About the Reviewer

Raguveer Gadiraju

Texas, USA


Raguveer Gadiraju, PMP
is a program manager with 17 years of experience in Information Technology including 12 years in project/program management of SAP ERP related projects and 5 years of SAP ERP consulting in Japan and Europe. Prior to entering the IT industry, he worked for 10 years as an engineer in Govt. of India’s Atomic Energy Department. Mr. Gadiraju moved to USA in 2016 and is currently working as an independent project management consultant and an active volunteer for PMI Dallas. He is a certified PMP, PRINCE2 Practitioner and ITIL Expert.

He can be contacted at R[email protected]   


Editor’s note:  This book review was the result of a partnership between the publisher, PM World and the PMI Dallas Chapter. Authors and publishers provide the books to PM World; books are delivered to the PMI Dallas Chapter, where they are offered free to PMI members to review; book reviews are published in the PM World Journal and PM World Library.  PMI Dallas Chapter members can keep the books as well as claim PDUs for PMP recertification when their reviews are published.  Chapter members are generally mid-career professionals, the audience for most project management books. 

If you are an author or publisher of a project management-related book, and would like the book reviewed through this program, please contact [email protected].





Book Title:  Upside – Profiting from the Profound Demographic Shifts Ahead
Author:  Kenneth W. Gronbach
Publisher:  AMACOM
List Price:   $27.95 USA
Format:  Hard Cover, 276 pages
Publication Date: 2017
ISBN: 978-0-81443-469-7
Reviewer: Jennifer Arroyo, PMP
Review Date: August 2017



The author, Kenneth W. Gronbach, is a terrific keynote speaker and nationally recognized writer, expert and futurist in the field of Demography and Generational Marketing.

Demographic trends are powerful forecasters. Demographic trends influence organizational business strategy dealing with stakeholders in HR, Health Care, Demands for Energy and Technology, Business development, Marketing Communications…, and other aspects of project management.

Gronbach provides insights about the science of Socio-Demographic changes and actionable information on how these changes can have a major impact on organizations and managers.

Overview of book’s structure

This book first summarizes the science of demographics as “Wherever people are, they are always making a demographic impact…and distinct population groups and shifts in population size significantly impact the world around them.”

Gronbach divided the book into two main sections and showed us how he interprets the demographic numbers from the demand side and the supply side of the equation.  He leads us through different generations, markets, and products and focuses on the impact of demographics.  He mines the demographic data to bring to the readers some revealing facts with graphs, charts, and case studies in every chapter. Based on the insights Gronbach takes the next step to provide actionable approaches for reader’s own needs. In the final section he provided current demographics & trends about some specific geo-regions in the world and a few select countries as a quick demographic assessment of the rest of the world (ROW).

The detailed key features delivered by this book in each chapter include:


To read entire Book Review, click here

About the Reviewer

Jennifer Arroyo, PMP 

Texas, USA


Jennifer Arroyo, MBA, PMP,
Realtor® received her M.B.A. degree in Marketing from State University of New York at Albany.  Jennifer joined PMI’s Dallas Chapter in 2015.

Ms. Arroyo has more than 10 years of project management experience in the Multi-unit retail business, Multi-unit residential investment, and Financial Services industries. She works as an Associate Broker, affiliated with Keller Williams Realty, specialized in Residential | Commercial & Investment entrepreneurship PPM in Dallas TX.  With her diverse international and industry-specific PM leadership experiences, Ms. Arroyo is passionate about helping entrepreneurs and business clients achieve branding goals and ROI Growth.

Keller Williams, the world’s largest real estate franchise by agent count, had the most firms on the REAL trends 500, according to the annual ranking and reporting published by REAL Trends, Inc.  Founded in 1983, it grew from a single office in Austin to approximately 700 offices and as of Nov. 2016 with over 150,000 associates worldwide. It’s an Inc.5000 company and has been recognized as one of the highest rated real estate companies by numerous publications, including Entrepreneur Magazine and Forbes.  The franchise, collectively, handled more than $178 billion in sales, up 27%, and 645,000 transactions, up 21% over year 2016.

Jennifer volunteered and served as supporting Book Review Coordinator of the professional development and social media marketing initiative. She also facilitates the Early Childhood Bilingual gogosmartmom e-Learning program designed for Homeschooling Moms originating in Taiwan, Republic of China.

Contact Jennifer Arroyo via [email protected]  or 972.372.4043


Editor’s note:  This book review was the result of a partnership between the publisher, PM World and the PMI Dallas Chapter. Authors and publishers provide the books to PM World; books are delivered to the PMI Dallas Chapter, where they are offered free to PMI members to review; book reviews are published in the PM World Journal and PM World Library.  PMI Dallas Chapter members can keep the books as well as claim PDUs for PMP recertification when their reviews are published.  Chapter members are generally mid-career professionals, the audience for most project management books. 

If you are an author or publisher of a project management-related book, and would like the book reviewed through this program, please contact [email protected].



Project Management Processes, Methodologies and Economics


Book Title:    Project Management: Processes, Methodologies, and Economics
Authors:  Avraham Shtub / Moshe Rosenwein
Publisher:  Pearson
List Price:   $244.05
Format:  Hard Cover, 706 pages
Publication Date: 2017      
ISBN: 978-0-13-447866-1
Reviewer: Manjit Aerry, PMP
Review Date: May 2017



The preface of this book itself is worth reading. In this third edition of the book, the authors have added the topic on Lean Project Management in Chapter 8. The authors have explained Lean Approach along with Lean Principles very well.

This edition has a good discussion on Simulation-based training and its significance. Besides, the importance of Project Team Builder (PTB) has also been clearly explained in Chapter 16 of this Book.

Overview of Book’s Structure

This is a very meaningful book well written by learned authors with vast experience. At the end of each chapter, there are discussion questions, exercises that can help the reader of the book figure out level of grasp attained on those chapters. Bibliography at the end of each chapter can be useful for those who want to dive deep – as it has references to related books written by other authors.

The characteristics of Effective Project Managers have been depicted in the form of a Pie Chart. This is really useful information that project managers can use to become successful project managers. The phases of a project (like Conceptual design, Advanced Development, Detailed design, Production and Termination) have been well presented as a function of time.

Overall, this is a great project management book that is generic in nature and thus can be beneficial to all the project managers irrespective of the type of industry they are involved with.


Chapter 4 of this book beautifully explains the definition of Life Cycle Cost (LLC) and tried to compare the LLC of a project with LLC of a product.

Chapter 5 of this book is a very useful chapter as it talks about dynamics of project selection. Various techniques (e.g. Checklist and Scoring Models, Cost-Benefit Analysis, risk-benefit analysis) used in project selection are discussed in depth in this chapter. The Decision tree concept and its benefits are well explained in this chapter.


To read entire Book Review, click here

About the Reviewer

Manjit Aerry

Texas, USA


Manjit Aerry, PMP
has worked for Oracle Corporation as an IT Consultant for 14 Years. He has worked on various Oracle Financials Implementation projects during his career. Besides PMP, he is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) as well.

Email address: [email protected]


Editor’s note:  This book review was the result of a partnership between the publisher, PM World and the PMI Dallas Chapter. Authors and publishers provide the books to PM World; books are delivered to the PMI Dallas Chapter, where they are offered free to PMI members to review; book reviews are published in the PM World Journal and PM World Library.  PMI Dallas Chapter members can keep the books as well as claim PDUs for PMP recertification when their reviews are published.  Chapter members are generally mid-career professionals, the audience for most project management books. 

If you are an author or publisher of a project management-related book, and would like the book reviewed through this program, please contact [email protected].



Finland Project Management Roundup for September 2017

Updates on Project Management Association Finland; PMI Finland Chapter; Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant; Hanhikivi 1 nuclear power plant; Helsinki’s Länsimetro extension; Raide-Jokeri light rail transit project


By Dr Jouko Vaskimo

International Correspondent & Senior Contributing Editor

Espoo, Finland


This roundup continues the coverage of Project Management Association Finland, PMI Finland Chapter, and the key projects currently going on in Finland.


Project Management Association Finland (PMAF), Projektiyhdistys ry in Finnish, is a not-for-profit organization, and the International Project Management Association (IPMA) Member Association (MA) in Finland. Founded in 1978, PMAF promotes the interaction, project-oriented thinking, and exchange and development of practical and theoretical knowledge among project management professionals with over 4000 individual and 600 organizational members.

PMAF promotes the development and dissemination of project and project management knowledge. PMAF members are able to enjoy information sharing, workgroups, development projects, project management forums, conferences and certification services PMAF provides. PMAF organizes two annual conferences: Project Days (Projektipäivät in Finnish) in early November, and 3PMO in early June. This year the Project Days event takes place on 31.10. – 1.11.2017 in the Helsinki Fair Center. Please navigate to www.pry.fi/en , www.3pmo.fi , and www.projektipaivat.fi for further information on PMAF and its main events.


PMI Finland Chapter is a not-for-profit organization providing project practitioners in Finland continuous learning, networking and community support. The Chapter was founded in 2005. Today, with more than 400 members, the chapter is increasingly recognized as place where its members can enhance their project management and leadership skills, as well as network with other project management professionals.

PMI Finland Chapter hosts a number of events such as Breakfast Round Tables, regular meetings taking place once a month in Helsinki and occasionally also in other locations. The chapter members have the opportunity to attend events for free or with a discount and the chapter sends its members a regular newsletter with localized content on project management. Additionally, the Chapter supports its members in their professional development and training.

PMI Chapter Finland has a tradition of organizing an annual conference in the spring. This year the conference took place on May 10th, in Helsinki, with an overarching theme “Change!”. Please navigate to www.pmifinland.org and www.conference.pmifinland.org for further information on the PMI Finland Chapter and its main events.


The 1 600 MW Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant, originally contracted to be built by consortium comprising of Areva and Siemens for Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) at Olkiluoto, is approaching the final stages of completion. Once completed – nine years behind original time schedule and over 5 500 M€ over budget – the Olkiluoto 3 unit will be the largest nuclear power plant in the world.

The third nuclear power unit to be constructed at Olkiluoto is expected to provide full power in commercial power production in late 2018 – assuming that the remaining works proceed as expected. Nuclear fuel is expected to be delivered to the plant in September 2017; the first fuel charge is expected to be loaded in the reactor in January 2018; the start-up is expected to be initiated in June 2018. At this moment TVO believes the plant will be ready for continuous commercial power generation at the end of 2018. If this is the case, the plant is delivered eight years behind schedule and 5 500 M€ over budget.


To read entire report, click here

About the Author

Dr Jouko Vaskimo

Espoo, Finland


Jouko Vaskimo
is an International Correspondent and Senior Contributing Editor for PM World in Finland. Jouko graduated M.Sc. (Tech.) from Helsinki University of Technology in 1992, and D.Sc. (Tech.) from Aalto University in 2016. He has held several project management related positions with increasing levels for responsibility. Jouko holds a number of professional certificates in the field of project management, such as the IPMA Level C (Project Manager), IPMA Level B (Senior Project Manager), PMP, PRINCE2 Foundation, and PRINCE2 Practitioner. Jouko is also a Certified Scrum Master and SAFe Agilist.

Jouko is a member of the Project Management Association Finland, a founding member of PMI Finland Chapter, and the immediate past chairman of the Finnish IPMA Certification Body operating IPMA certification in Finland. Since October 2007, he has been heading the Finnish delegation to ISO/TC 258.

Jouko resides in Espoo, Finland and can be best contacted at [email protected]. For more information please navigate to www.linkedin.com/in/jouko-vaskimo-6285b51.

To view other works by Jouko Vaskimo, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/jouko-vaskimo/



August 2017 UK Project Management Round Up

Rail Projects, New Queensferry Bridge, Other News from the Project World and Final Silly Season News


By Miles Shepherd

Executive Advisor & International Correspondent

Salisbury, England, UK


Well, the “Silly Season” is over for another year!  This means we can begin to get back to some serious happenings in the Project World but not before the final word on summer starting projects.  On a more serious note comes news of some major rail projects and the completion of a new bridge in Scotland.


Waterloo is not just a battlefield in Belgium (where Napoleon lost to Wellington) but a major rail terminus in London.  It provides more than half a million passenger journeys a day and 230 million a year making it one of the busiest railway stations in the UK.  Like most commuter stations, it suffers from overcrowding so the £800m (approximately $1.18bn) investment plan for station upgrades announced in March 2016 came as a great relief.  However, there was a sting in the tail – the station would partially close-down for most of August.

The upgrade is a part of the £1bn ($1.5bn approximately) Wessex Capacity programme that includes spending:

  • £274m ($406.1m) each on track renewals and signalling enhancements;
  • £182m ($269.8m) on bridges, tunnels, major structures, culverts, footbridges and earthworks;
  • £127m ($188.2m) on building improvements;
  • £88m ($130.4m) on electrification;
  • £33m ($49m) on telecommunications, and
  • £23m ($34.1m) on plant and machinery.

Site preparation works on the station upgrade began in October 2015 and construction works began in December 2015. The Waterloo International station was closed for all trains services in April 2016 for construction but came back into use while the main platform closures took place.  The International Station platforms are incredibly long and will be re-purposed next year as part of the overall Wessex Programme.

Network Rail said Waterloo had fully reopened following one of the “largest and most complex” upgrades in the station’s history.

A spokeswoman said a 1,000-strong team of engineers and trackside staff had been working 24 hours a day for nearly four weeks to complete the work, which would boost capacity at the station by 30% by December 2018, providing space for another 45,000 passengers at morning and evening peaks.

Day 1 – demolition of old platforms; Photo courtesy Network Rail

Work was carried out by a consortium consisting of Skanska, Colas Rail, Aecom and Mott MacDonald.  They were awarded a £400m ($592.08m) contract to upgrade the Waterloo station in January 2016.  The contractual scope includes bringing the international terminal at the station back into use for domestic train services and increasing the length of certain station platforms.  It also includes delivering track alterations, signalling, communications, buildings and civil infrastructure along the Wessex Route and at Waterloo, Vauxhall, Clapham Junction, Richmond, Wimbledon and Surbiton stations.

New Siemens-built Class 707 Desiro City trains equipped with free passenger Wi-Fi, air-conditioning, and improved on-board train information systems have already been introduced on some routes with full roll out planned to be complete by mid-2018. Some 150 new carriages will come into operation over the next year.

In the midst of the construction work, the operating company changed as South West Trains became South Western Railways.  SWR is part of the First Group, perhaps best known as the owners of the Hongkong MTR.  Shortly before the transfer, there were further delays to trains as a derailment and news came that same day that season ticket prices would rise by 3.6%! Interesting times for those involve in Stakeholder engagement (was management)!

As might be expected in such a complex project, handback was delayed due to signaling problems which did not endear the new operators to their public.


To read entire report, click here

About the Author


Salisbury, UK



Miles Shepherd is an executive editorial advisor and international correspondent for PM World Journal in the United Kingdom. He is also managing director for MS Projects Ltd, a consulting company supporting various UK and overseas Government agencies, nuclear industry organisations and other businesses.  Miles has over 30 years’ experience on a variety of projects in UK, Eastern Europe and Russia.  His PM experience includes defence, major IT projects, decommissioning of nuclear reactors, nuclear security, rail and business projects for the UK Government and EU.   Past Chair and Fellow of the Association for Project Management (APM), Miles is also past president and chair of the International Project Management Association (IPMA).  He is currently a Director for PMI’s Global Accreditation Centre and is immediate past Chair of the ISO committee developing new international standards for Project Management and for Program/Portfolio Management.  He was involved in setting up APM’s team developing guidelines for project management oversight and governance.  Miles is based in Salisbury, England and can be contacted at [email protected].

To view other works by Miles Shepherd, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/miles-shepherd/.


September 2017 Report from Spain

Summer in Spain, Looking towards Chicago


By Alfonso Bucero

International Correspondent & Editorial Advisor

Madrid, Spain

It is unbelievable, due to the huge number of projects to be managed worldwide, to see how Project management business in Spain is slow or even stopped from the middle of July to September. Most Spanish organizations, even some multinational firms stop or are business slow on project, program and portfolio management during summer time.

As a managing director of a Project management consulting and training firm in Spain, that is my observation during the last fifteen years. The truth is that I am very worried about Spanish business is being stopped or slow during summer time, even in this century of continuous changes where organizations survive if they make a difference. I am not only talking about productivity during summer time, I am talking about future plans, about preparation, reflecting upon today’s world and looking at the future. This situation gets me CRAZY.

Interviewing several Spanish professionals about that subject during this summer I obtained comments like: “we still have very low maturity level in Project management”, “many third parties stop their activities during August to take some vacations, perhaps that fact influences”, “economy is improving, or communications media says so, perhaps some organizations have preferred to take a break”, “all of us need to have more agile managing projects but, on the other hand our organization is not very agile when operating” “we are still looking at our stomach and waiting for a miracle…”.


To read entire report, click here for (English) or (Spanish)


About the Author

Alfonso Bucero

Contributing Editor
International Correspondent – Spain



Alfonso Bucero, MSc, PMP, PMI-RMP, PfMP, PMI Fellow, is an International Correspondent and Contributing Editor for the PM World Journal in Madrid, Spain. Mr. Bucero is also founder and Managing Partner of BUCERO PM Consulting.  Alfonso was the founder, sponsor and president of the PMI Barcelona Chapter until April 2005, and belongs to PMI’s LIAG (Leadership Institute Advisory Group).  He was the past President of the PMI Madrid Spain Chapter, and now nominated as a PMI EMEA Region 8 Component Mentor. Alfonso has a Computer Science Engineering degree from Universidad Politécnica in Madrid and is studying for his Ph.D. in Project Management. He has 29 years of practical experience and is actively engaged in advancing the PM profession in Spain and throughout Europe. He received the PMI Distinguished Contribution Award on October 9th, 2010 and the PMI Fellow Award on October 22nd 2011.  Mr. Bucero can be contacted at [email protected].

To see other works by Alfonso Bucero, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/alfonso-bucero/




August 2017 Update from Buenos Aires

Metrobus Solar Energy Project, PMI Tour Cono Sur 2017


By Cecilia Boggi, PMP

International Correspondent

Buenos Aires, Argentina


In June issue of this publication, I wrote about the Metrobus project of the City of Buenos Aires that has been awarded with international awards.

Now, the Metrobus is again in the news, but for a new project: photovoltaic panels have been installed on the roofs of two stations on the famous 9 de Julio Avenue, covering with them about 400 linear meters, which will produce 110,000 kW per year, energy equivalent to the consumption of 190 homes per year. This is the second largest solar installation of the City of Buenos Aires at the moment, after which it works in the Ministry of Science and Technology.

The photovoltaic panels, with an estimated useful life of 30 years, are imported from Italy, developed with double layers of glass and are intended to let sunlight pass to achieve an integration with the aesthetics of Metrobus stations and generate, at the same time, awareness in the users and neighbors awareness to the sustainability and the use of the renewable energies.

This first pilot will last three months, but in the future it is planned to extend the panels to the 17 Metrobus stations on 9 de Julio Avenue and, assuming that they are free of shadows of buildings and trees, would generate up to 805 MWh per year.

The government of the City of Buenos Aires will also analyze the possibility of incorporating this technology into the Metrobús of Cabildo Avenue, at the north of the city.

Although it is a small energy production compared to the consumption of the city, the tendency is that cities take advantage of this opportunity to generate clean and free energy, close to consumption points and Buenos Aires could not stay behind, being that it has been valued as the smartest city in Latin America, according to the IESE Business School’s “IESE Cities in Motion Strategies” study. The ranking analyzed 180 metropolis of 80 countries with data obtained from UNESCO, the World Bank and the consulting company Euromonitor, among others and determined that Buenos Aires, in position 83 is ahead of Santiago de Chile, Mexico City and all other metropolis of Latin America.

Photo: Solar panels installed on the roof of a Metrobus stations on 9 de Julio Avenue in the City of Buenos Aires

In the context of the PMI Chapters of Argentina, interesting activities are being developed for the continuous dissemination of the project management profession and professional development and growth, as well as the preparation and promotion of the PMI Tour Cono Sur 2017, the more important congress in project management in the region, which is already approaching.


To read entire report click here for (English) or (Spanish)


About the Author


International Correspondent
Buenos Aires, Argentina



Cecilia Boggi, PMP is founder and Executive Director of activePMO, giving consulting services and training in Project Management and Leadership skills in Argentina and Latin America.

After graduating with a degree in Computer Science Engineering from Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina, she has managed software development projects and PMO implementation projects for more than 20 years both in the government and private sector. Cecilia has an Executive Master in Business Administration from Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Spain and also has graduated from an Executive Program in Business Management at Universidad del CEMA. She holds the Project Management Professional (PMP®) credential since 2003, is certified as SDI Facilitator from Personal Strengths©, is a Professional Executive Coach accredited by Association for Coaching, UK, and alumni of the PMI Leadership Institute Master Class 2012. Ms. Boggi is Past President of the PMI Buenos Aires Argentina Chapter, and is a founding member of the PMI Nuevo Cuyo Chapter and PMI Santa Cruz Bolivia Chapter. She has been designated by PMI in the role of Mentor of Region 13, Latin America South, for the years 2014-2016. Cecilia has participated in the development of PMBOK® Guide 5th Edition, leading the Chapter 9, Human Resource Management, content team and she is professor of Project Management and Leadership in some Universities and Institutes in Latin America.

She can be contacted at mailto:[email protected] and http://www.activepmo.com/

To view other works by Cecilia Boggi, visit her author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/cecilia-boggi/.



Understanding Project Stakeholder Psychology

The Path to Effective Stakeholder Management and Engagement


by Aurangzeb Z. Khan
Department of Management Sciences,
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology,
Islamabad, Pakistan


Miroslaw J. Skibniewski and John H. Cable
Project Management Center for Excellence,
James A. Clark School of Engineering,
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland, USA



Effective stakeholder management and engagement is now universally acknowledged by project manage­ment practitioners and academics as a prime critical success factor for all projects. However, many pro­jects still encounter serious unaddressed problems, issues and challenges in dealing with their stake­holders, espe­cially external ones. These can have damaging consequences both for the projects and their stake­­holders. A major cause for this deficiency is the evident paucity of knowledge about the underlying psycho­logical factors which profoundly influence stakeholders to act as they do towards projects. On many projects, especially in construction and civil infrastructure development, external stakeholders collec­tively tend to constitute an exceedingly diverse, large and complex community and their actions may range from supportive to neutral to adversarial. These stances can change over time potentially increasing the danger level for the project if not handled properly.

Based on an in-depth analysis of available information on numerous large completed and on-going pro­jects across the globe, mainly in construction and civil infrastructure development, this research attempts to address this knowledge gap. It identifies and discusses six key psychological factors – motiva­tion and concern, expectation and perception, and attitude and behavior – which apply universally to all internal and external stakeholders (individual, organizational or otherwise) on every project. A thorough under­stand­ing of these factors and why they influence stakeholders to adopt positions pro or contra pro­jects is essential in order to assist project owners, planners and executors craft effective management and engage­ment strategies which enable the development of an amicable, ethical, mutually beneficial and sus­tainable relationship with their stakeholders throughout the project life-cycle. By doing so, they can maxi­mize the opportunities for their projects and concurrently and proactively reduce or minimize the threats to them, existential or lessor, which typically would ensue from stakeholder opposition to their projects.


Stakeholders are now acknowledged as the key driving force and most important critical success factor on every project. Even if a project is successful in the narrow conventional sense in that it achieves its goal within its cost, time, scope and quality constraints, modern interpretations of project success hold that the project cannot be considered truly successful if key stakeholders are dissatisfied with the way in which it was undertaken or if significant and unresolved stakeholder conflicts and issues emerged prior to project initiation, during the course of the project life-cycle or subsequent to project completion.

However, although the criticality of effective stakeholder management and engagement is undisputed by project management academics and practitioners, and in recent years has emerged as a major thematic area of research in which a voluminous body of literature now exists, major conflicts and issues relating to stakeholders are inevitable in most projects and are identified in several project performance surveys undertaken over time as constituting a prime reason for ‘project failure’. Long is the list of projects which experienced cost and schedule overruns, unwanted and unanticipated scope modifications, severe reputa­tional damage, or which were doomed to premature termination because of flawed stakeholder manage­ment and engage­ment by project decision-makers. Effective stakeholder management and engagement is hence an existential (and ethical) imperative for projects and is at least as important as effectively managing their cost, time, scope, quality and other ‘hard’ or ‘technical’ aspects. It is also a highly complex and challenging task because it invariably requires a good understanding of psychology and allied disciplines such as sociology which normally do not apply to the hard or technical aspects.

Very few contributions specifically highlighting stakeholder psychology have appeared in the project stake­­holder literature. This dearth of material on this increasingly important but surprisingly still neglect­ed research area encouraged the authors to closely explore the relationship between psychology and project stake­holders. The two fundamental questions this research addresses are which major psycho­logi­cal factors specifically influence project stakeholders on construction and civil infrastructure projects, and in what relationship do these identified psychological factors stand to each other.

The outcome of this research was the development of a psychological knowledge framework for projects. The authors are of the view that by applying this framework projects can, on the one hand, signi­ficantly reduce the level of opposition they encounter from their stakeholders and, on the other, simul­tan­eously identify and exploit oppor­tunities which present themselves in the course of their interaction with them. Doing so may increase the chance of project success and boost project effective­ness and efficiency. This psychological knowledge framework, which is based on simple logic and supported by extensive empirical analysis, provides detailed insight into the reasons why stakeholders adopt positive or negative stances and courses of action towards projects and shows how these stakehol­ders can be used as a force in favor of rather than against the project. It is hence of potentially immense benefit to project owners, managers, planners and executors.

For their research the authors conducted a detailed and systematic analysis of information from multiple sources available in the public domain on over fifty high-profile, well-documented and large and contro­ver­sial on-going and completed projects across the globe primarily in Construction and Civil Infrastruc­ture Development (CCID). CCID encompasses a broad category of projects which in the understanding of the authors include, inter alia, the creation of large residential and commercial buildings, major industrial facilities, dams, transportation systems (highways, rail, air- and seaports), energy systems (oil and gas pipelines, power generation stations and power transmission infrastructure), mine development, commu­ni­cation infrastruc­ture, and urban regeneration schemes. Their research resulted in the identification of six fundamental and inter-related stakeholder psychological ‘attributes’ grouped into three pairs: motivation and concern, expectation and perception, and attitude and behavior. The authors have also determined that these attributes are common to all project stakeholders regardless of whether the stakeholders are internal or primary, meaning, they have contractual relationship with and/or legal obligations to the project and are consequently actively involved in it and normally have a vested interest in its success, or whether they are external or secondary, meaning they lie outside the project’s formal direct control and who may or may not want the project to succeed depending on whether they are positively or negatively affected by the project during its life-cycle or subsequently when it enters its operational phase. Further­more, the attributes apply to stakeholders of any type – individuals, groups, communities, organizations and even countries – and to projects in all categories, regardless of duration, size, level of complexity and physical location. In other words, these six attributes have universal application.

Understanding these six psychological attributes and systematically collecting data and information on them is an integral part of the complex process of stakeholder analysis which constitutes the third step in the five step process of project stakeholder management and engagement which the authors proposed and discussed in their paper on a suggested project stakeholder governance frame­work which was presented at the University of Maryland’s first annual project management symposium in 2014. Sequentially the steps are contextualization, stakeholder identification, stakeholder analysis, and design and implementation of stakeholder management and engagement strategies. As the stakeholder analy­sis is dependent on the pre­ceding steps of stakeholder contextualization and identifi­cation, it is crucial that the latter are thoroughly undertaken. Stakeholders obviously must be comprehen­sively and accurately identified and categorized before they can be analyzed. All major project stakeholder identification methods were explored and discussed by the authors in their paper on the subject they presented at the University of Maryland’s second annual project management symposium in 2015. The identification of internal stake­holders is comparatively easier and quicker to undertake than for the external stakeholders. Internal stakeholders on a large CCID project for instance are typically the project owner, sponsor or client, project manager and team, financiers, consultants, contractors and sub-contractors, vendors, hired labor and various involved public agencies; important external stakeholders usually include the affected residents and business community, environmentalists, political entities, the media, academia, and other public agencies which are not involved in the project but have some interest professional interest in it. Failure by the project to identify some external stakeholders – and consequently not to engage them – can result in complications later.

Projects must be mindful of the practical hurdles and limitations associated with analyzing their stake­holders’ psychological attributes. Both the internal and especially the external stakeholder community can be very large and complex in terms of, inter alia, (for organizations) their respective missions, interests, goals, priorities and culture and (for individuals, groups, communities) their social and cultural diversity, economic background, objectives, awareness, education and intelligence, family upbringing, norms, values and personal or shared experiences and so forth. The stakeholder psychological attribute analysis is only as useful as the quality of information it is based on, meaning, in order for it to be useful the information must at least be accurate, precise, complete, relevant, specific, up-to-date, reliable and actionable. Finding information which satisfies this set of criteria on all stakeholders, especially external ones, can be very difficult, time-consuming, costly and sometimes simply impossible to do. Powerful or influential stakeholders must hereby be prioritized as these can significantly affect the project in either the positive or negative sense. Sentiments towards projects may change immensely and rapidly in response to project developments and such chan­ges must be reflected in a prompt corresponding change in the project’s stakeholder management/engage­­ment strategies. This implies that a situational or periodic repeat of the information collection task and stakeholder attributes analysis would be necessary, adding to the process complexity and cost.

Hence, attempting to devise and implement effective and customized stakeholder management/ engage­ment strategies on the basis of the stakeholder attributes analysis can be highly challenging, tedious and expensive and offers no guarantee of success. Without qualified support, for instance in the form of a team of highly skilled, competent, creative and experienced analysts or hired consultants, such activities would excessively burden project managers and teams already heavily burdened with the arduous technical and administrative tasks they typically encounter in the day to day operations of their projects.


To read entire paper, click here


Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 4th Annual University of Maryland PM Symposium in May 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the authors and conference organizers.

About the Authors        

Dr. Aurangzeb Z. Khan

COMSATS Institute of Information Technology
Islamabad, Pakistan


Dr. Aurangzeb Z. Khan
is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management Sciences at the COMSATS Institute of Information Technology in Islamabad, Pakistan. He introduced Pakistan’s first master degree program in project management at his university in the fall semester 2008. His prime areas of research are project stakeholder management, and project monitoring and evaluation, which he teaches to project management graduate-level students. He can be contacted at [email protected]


Dr. Miroslaw J. Skibniewski

University of Maryland
College Park, MD, USA


Dr. Miroslaw Skibniewski
is a Professor in the Center of Excellence in Project Management at the University of Maryland. He is also Editor-in-Chief of Automation in Construction, an international research journal published by Elsevier, and North American Editor of the Journal of Civil Engineering and Management published by Taylor & Francis. An author/coauthor of over 200 research publications, he lectures on information/automation technologies in construction, construction equipment management, and legal aspects of engineering. Miroslaw can be contacted at [email protected]


John Cable

Director, Project Management Center for Excellence
University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA


John Cable
is Director of the Project Management Center for Excellence in the A.J. Clark School of Engineering at the University of Maryland, where he is also a professor and teacher of several graduate courses in project management. His program at the University of Maryland offers masters and PhD level programs focused on project management. With more than 1,300 seats filled annually with students from many countries, including more than 40 PhD students, the program is the largest graduate program in project management at a major university in the United States.

John Cable served in the newly formed U.S. Department of Energy in 1980, where he was involved with developing energy standards for buildings, methods for measuring energy consumption, and managing primary research in energy conservation. As an architect and builder, Mr. Cable founded and led John Cable Associates in 1984, a design build firm. In 1999 he was recruited by the University of Maryland’s Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering to create and manage a graduate program in project management. In his role as founder and director of the Project Management Center for Excellence at Maryland, the program has grown to offer an undergraduate minor, master’s degrees, and a doctoral program. Information about the Project Management Center for Project Management at the University of Maryland can be found at http://www.pm.umd.edu/.

In 2002, PMI formed the Global Accreditation Center for Project Management Educational Programs (GAC). Mr. Cable was appointed to that inaugural board where he served as vice chair. In 2006, he was elected as chairman, a role he held through 2012. As Chair of the PMI GAC, John led the accreditation of 86 project management educational programs at 40 institutions in 15 countries in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and the Asia Pacific Region. John was awarded PMI’s 2012 Distinguished Contribution Award for his leadership at the GAC. He can be contacted at [email protected].



Culture Eats Strategy

Impact on Disruptive Change Programs


Darci Prado, PhD
Minas Gerais, Brazil

Renata Kalid
Minas Gerais, Brazil


Russell Archibald
San Miguel de Allende, Mexico



The above title was borrowed from Peter Drucker, but perfectly fits the project management environment. The purpose of this paper is to show the influence of culture on the evolution of an organization’s project management skills. The authors were awakened to the importance of the theme “culture” in their maturity research conducted in Brazil since 2005. The Prado-PMMM maturity model contains 5 levels. The vast majority of Brazilian organizations are at the initial levels of maturity (1 and 2). In this text, initially the authors analyze the difficulties to reach level 3 (“Standardized”) and also to go to level 4 (“Managed”). Then, analyzing in depth the difficulties to move to these two levels, it was discovered that the “organizational culture” aspect is present. This text addresses, in an introductory level, some concepts of culture and a case that shows how culture can impact the evolution of management. It also addresses critical aspects to be observed in project management to minimize such effects.


In the last 12 years we have worked with the Maturity Research in Project Management (http://www.maturityresearch.com/) and as consultants of FALCONI – Result Consultants(www.falconi.com), which enabled us to follow hundreds of Brazilian organizations. The Prado-PMMM model measures the maturity of a department of an organization on a scale of 1 to 5, with levels 4 and 5 being the so-called “threshold of excellence”. So it’s only natural that organizations want to reach this level. According to KERZNER (2006), an organization spends 7 years to reach the plateau of excellence (Figure 1).

Figure 1: According to Kerzner, 7 years have been spent to reach the level of excellence (levels 4 and 5)

One thing that stands out in the eyes of those who analyze the results of the research over the last 12 years is that only a small group of organizations has managed to reach this level. For example, in the 2014 survey, when 435 organizations participated, only 12.7% of them were at the level of excellence (Figure 2), as shown on www.maturityresearch.com.We still have a group of organizations that have not yet reached the level of excellence, but, by the pace of evolution, everything leads one to believe that they will succeed. Between 2010 and 2016 our attention was focused on these organizations, as they became a benchmark. We interviewed several of them.

Figure 2: In the 2014 survey, only 12.7% of the organizations were at the level of excellence (levels 4 and 5)

From 2014 our attention has turned also to those organizations that do not evolve. This group is somewhat heterogeneous. Here we have organizations that, for various reasons, know that they will not reach the level of excellence and accept it peacefully. There are even cases of regression at maturity. However, we note that some organizations would love to evolve and unfortunately can not. Many park in level 2 or, if they can reach level 3, they do not leave. For them, the obstacles to this walk are much more difficult than expected. Then a question arises naturally: what is the cause of this? Why a strong and sustained effort by high administration cannot overcome the difficulties and leads many organizations to accept, unwillingly, to live with a situation of poor performance?

An analysis of this question initially points out that the reasons vary greatly depending on the type of organization (private, governmental or third sector), the category of projects (construction, T.I., etc.) and the moment the organization is living. A conclusion that always seemed right to us is that something was missing. Parallel with the benchmark organizations, we believed that the effort should have been greater (including greater discipline, better tools), leadership should have been more proactive, senior management support should have been better, etc.

It was only when we started interacting with professionals from other disciplines in our consulting firm that we discovered that the above conclusion is superficial. We realize that the same problem exists in many areas of almost every organization. Or rather, it is not just with project management that this happens, but also with the management of routine operations. We have identified a common cause. And what is the name given to this common cause? Organizational culture.


To read entire paper, click here


Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 11th Annual UT Dallas Project Management Symposium in August 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the authors and conference organizers.

About the Authors

Darci Prado, PhD

Minas Gerais, Brazil



Darci Prado, PhD is a partner at FALCONI Consultores de Resultado, Brazil. Bachelor degree in Chemical Engineering from UFMG, postgraduate degree in Economic Engineering from FDC and PhD from UNICAMP. He participated in the establishment of the PMI chapter in Minas Gerais and Paraná, and was a Board member of PMI-MG between 1998-2002. He was the president of Clube IPMA-BH between 2006 and 2008. Author of 10 project management books. Conducts a maturity survey in Brazil and Italy with Russell Archibald since 2005 by the site http://www.maturityresearch.com/.


Renata Henrique Mendes Kalid

Minas Gerais, Brazil



Renata Henriques Mendes Kalid Graduated in Psychology from PUC-MG, Renata used to be with FALCONI Consultores de Resultado for 10 years, responsible for the creation and management of the Corporate University since 2014. Previously, People Development Manager covering Performance Evaluation, Career and Allocation Assessment.Graduated in Management with Emphasis on People by FDC, she worked for 7 years in companies in the beverage and food industries. She began his career at ABInbev, assuming leadership in HR Generalist. Later HR Manager in Andina – Coca-Cola and Danone. Participation in projects of Culture Diagnosis and Leadership Development, with Brazilian and American consultancies.


Russell D. Archibald

San Miguel de Allende, Mexico

Russell D. Archibald,
PhD (Hon), MScME, BSME, PMP, Fellow PMI and Honorary Fellow APM/IPMA (member of the Board of IPMA/INTERNET 1974-83), held engineering and executive positions in aerospace, petroleum, telecommunications, and automotive industries in the USA, France, Mexico and Venezuela. Since 1982 he has consulted to companies, agencies and development banks in 16 countries on 4 continents. He is the author of Managing High-Technology Programs and Projects, 3rd Edition 2003, also published in Russian, Italian, and Chinese, and has published other books (in English, Italian, Japanese, and Hungarian) and many papers on project management. Web site: http://www.russarchibald.com/



Disruptive Opportunity

How the U.S. Census Bureau Reimagined its Portfolio


by Susan Hostetter and John Walsh

U.S. Census Bureau

Washington, DC, USA


Executive Summary

This is the story of how one organization at the U.S. Census Bureau put in place portfolio management processes to reimagine and energize its core mission. The Demographic Statistical Methods Division (DSMD) at the Census Bureau relies heavily on work sponsored by other federal agencies and, in the disruptive reality of shrinking federal budgets, was facing increased competition from private sector and other federal service providers. This disruptive reality was a sink or swim opportunity for DSMD to improve how it competes for work and manages its resources.

To survive, DSMD had to enhance its portfolio by bringing in more research projects. To do this, it developed methods to elicit creative opportunities for research from staff, produced more accurate cost estimates and tracked the progress of the proposals as we presented them to our customers. Additionally, DSMD needed to do a better job managing its existing resources. It improved the WBS and project management methods to track cost expenditures, control project scope, and product delivery. It did this all under the constraints of the federal budget and federal hiring processes.

As a result, DSMD is now in a better place. The good news is that the creative proposal initiative has given DSMD increased stability in its operating budget across all programs. Additionally, DSMD is operating more efficiently. It has identified ongoing work, defined scope for each project, and has improved how it tracks costs, resources and deliverables.


The U.S. Census Bureau, like many federal agencies, has had to contend with the double reality of budget reductions and Congress expecting the same amount of work despite the lower funding levels. Due to this, DSMD was facing a serious challenge: how to succeed in a market where there were fewer dollars for the statistical products it produced. Historically, DSMD has provided statistical methodological support for current demographic surveys conducted by the Census Bureau, as well as by other government agencies, through ‘reimbursable’ agreements. This was an especially challenging situation since DSMD competes for shared program money among other areas within the Census Bureau.

DSMD is unique in that it is supported by funding from multiple sources. This includes appropriated funding where DSMD has control over the scope, schedule, and budget and reimbursable funding from other government agencies and nonprofit entities through reimbursable agreements where DSMD does not have control over the scope, schedule, and budget and must act in alignment with priorities and needs of the external stakeholders. Additionally, DSMD faces constraints from the federal budget and hiring regulations. First, DSMD is constrained by the Federal budget process in that its funding cannot be rolled from one year to the next. It must spend a predetermined amount each fiscal year. Second, DSMD is constrained by the federal hiring process. DSMD is required to have steady (multi-year) funding for all of its positions in order to hire and maintain employment and the process to hire new employees is a cumbersome 6-month process.

Due to its particularly diverse portfolio and federal budget and hiring constraints, DSMD encountered challenges in how it solicited, planned, prioritized, and performed work. DSMD elicited work from sponsors that were independent of each other and with little visibility across the whole portfolio of sponsors. This process failed to ensure that the proposed and agreed to work was the ‘right size’ for DSMD staffing level and it contributed to the DSMD challenge of not being able to efficiently align budget and staffing with the work performed. These problems in turn led to missed deadlines, work products of poor quality and, eventually, the loss work to other government entities and private contractors. This became the catalyst for reimagining DSMD’s portfolio process.

Before things continued out of hand, the PMO in DSMD, in cooperation with the leadership group, decided it was time to take a step back and look at DSMD’s portfolio from the top down and see where they could make changes and improvements.


To read entire paper, click here


Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 11th Annual UT Dallas Project Management Symposium in August 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the authors and conference organizers.

About the Authors

Susan Hostetter

U.S. Census Bureau
Washington, DC, USA

Susan Hostetter
, PMP, is a Project Manager in the Demographic Survey Methodology Division (DSMD) at the U.S. Census Bureau in Washington, DC, USA. She has spent twenty plus years at the U.S Census Bureau as a data analyst and project management professional. She has been instrumental in standing up and improving risk management, project management, portfolio management, strategic planning, and performance management processes for multiple Census and Survey programs. She received her undergraduate degree in Business Administration and Economics at Mary Baldwin College and her Master’s degree in Project Management from the University of Maryland’s University College. Susan can be contacted at [email protected]


John Walsh

U.S. Census Bureau
Washington, DC, USA



John Walsh, PMP, is Chief of the Management Operations Office in the Demographic Statistical Methods Division (DSMD) at the U.S. Census Bureau in Washington, DC, USA. As a project management professional over the last 10 years, he has been instrumental in introducing project management processes across large-scale programs across the Census Bureau, including the Economic Census, as well as the Current Demographic and Current Economic survey programs. He received undergraduate degrees in Economics and Criminology & Criminal Justice from the University of Maryland at College Park. John can be contacted at joh[email protected]



Be Bold or Be Beige



by Amanda Arriaga and Jessica Ballew

Texas Department of Public Safety                                 

Austin, Texas, USA                                            



Chaos can be defined as a state of confusion in which chance is extreme, while disruption is typically considered to be an interruption of unity.   Chaos and disruption are typically considered to be related adjectives that typically describe a negative situation, but they do not have the same meeting. In fact, when it comes to the leadership domain, disruption does not necessarily equate to a negative circumstance. While chaos is almost always harmful, disruption can be considered quite the opposite.

Disruptive Leadership is on the rise and is causing organizations to think beyond how they have always done it. New perspectives are sometimes considered bold and scary.

Traditional managers do what is expected of them, but their style is considered beige, rather than bold.

Typically, we identify executives as those most likely to be disruptive leaders, particularly if they are new to the organization and have not yet been incorporated into the culture.

But if a project team is comprised of all disruptive leaders, with their own disruptive ideas, would that be a benefit, or would it cause chaos? Conversely, what would happen if the team consisted only of traditionalists?

What is a Disruptive Leader?

A traditional leader is one who understands the charge ahead and seeks to meet that charge exactly. You may also think of this leader as “beige”. This leader gets the job done adequately, but is more likely to support maintaining the status quo or to look for ways to minimize deviation from “the way we’ve always done it” when change does become necessary. You may think of this person as a “manager” more than as a leader.

A disruptive leader on the other hand, not only meets their objectives, but they also challenge convention when it comes to those objectives. The disruptive leader will likely ask “why” before beginning their role, and then will look for new and innovative ways to accomplish the goal. They must also seek out ways to expand or modify services to adapt to an ever changing environment as opposed to focusing primarily on changes to the methods of development or delivery of existing services.

Disruptive leaders may initially scare a traditional organization with their new ideas. Examples of disruptive leaders include Steve Jobs and Gordon Ramsay. Both are known to ask “why” in harsh tones, but they ultimately receive the results they are seeking. In the context of a commercial kitchen, it may be important to ensure your staff knows, in no uncertain terms, why the chicken cannot be raw.

How does this translate to your organization? If you are a steward of public or private funds, you would likely want to ensure that your staff also knows what the consequences are of their actions (or inactions).


To read entire paper, click here


Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 11th Annual UT Dallas Project Management Symposium in August 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the authors and conference organizers.

About the Authors

Amanda Arriaga, JD

Austin, TX, USA



Amanda Arriaga
is the Chief Administrative Officer at the Texas Department of Public Safety, overseeing the functions of Human Resources, Facilities, Procurement & Contracts and Enterprise Projects. She is also the co-chair of the Texas Association of State Systems for Computing and Communication (TASSCC) Special Interest Group in Project Management, and Immediate Past President of the Austin Young Lawyer’s Association. Amanda earned her BBA in Management from Texas A&M University and a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law. She has served as Governor Rick Perry’s Special Assistant for Homeland Security and Border Affairs and DPS Chief of Government and Media Relations. Amanda can be contacted at [email protected]

To view more works by Amanda Arriaga, visit her author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/amanda-arriaga/


Jessica Ballew

Austin, TX, USA


Jessica Iselt Ballew
is the Deputy Assistant Director for Policy and Planning at the Texas Department of Public Safety, overseeing enterprise projects, procurements, and contracts.  She is co-chair of the Texas Association of State Systems for Computing and Communication (TASSCC) Special Interest Group in Project Management. Jessica has a B.S. in Communications through Arizona State University.  In addition, she has over 18 years of experience in the planning, development, and delivery of information technology solutions and conducting business and process analysis to achieve operational improvement. Email: [email protected]

To view more works by Jessica Iselt Ballew, visit her author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/jessica-iselt-ballew/



Managing an Agile Developed IT Project Portfolio



by Rosenberger Philipp
FH Campus Wien


Struzl Katharina
A1 Telekom Austria AG

Vienna, Austria



This article clarifies the challenges in using classical portfolio management tools and methods on agile developed IT projects. Based on a short introduction on agile development according SCRUM and a description of classical portfolio management, standard key performance indicators of such are collected grouped according project phases and briefly analysed. After creating such a basic understanding of that matter, each and every single key performance indicator is investigated about suitability regarding the use in agile developed IT projects.

This investigation will show a large gap. Meaning, that nearly half of the identified key performance indicators are not really suitable for agile IT projects, due to many different reasons like lack of budget, timing and resource information. Therefore new solutions are needed and postulated to close this described gap.

A brief qualified expert interview is used as scientific method to proof the effectiveness of the created new solutions and key performance indicators (short: KPIs). Also showing that needs of KPIs in project management can differ from those in portfolio management.

Keywords: Agile Project Management, Agile Project Portfolio Management, Key Performance Indicators

JEL Codes: M15, H43, O22


Agile development is getting increasingly popular and more technology projects are getting developed with an agile approach (Komus and Kuberg, 2015). Reporting and measurability for top management of those projects is often not as traceable as with a classic approach because some important classical portfolio management KPI’s cannot be used.

Predictability and reliability are key factors for project- and portfolio managers, but those are completely subordinated topics in agile development methods, approaches and culture.

There are still some old mind sets deep-seated. Such as “widget engineering” – it is possible to analyze everything before starting to develop – or “order taker” – the IT has to do what they are told, saying no is not an option. (Thomas and Baker, 2008)

Those mind sets include the opposite of what agile development stands for. (Thomas and Baker, 2008)

Agile developed projects work from one sub-product or increment to the next and accept no detail planning beforehand at all. (Gloger, 2009)

This area of conflict brings up the question, whether agile developed projects are suitable for prioritization and monitoring within a portfolio of such. Other questions that will be answered in this article are: Which KPI’s are needed in classical portfolio management and can they be used with an agile approach? Why can some not be used? And what has to be changed to close the gap?

To answer those questions each KPI has been individually analyzed and solutions to close the gap have been elaborated. Those results have been discussed with experts to substantiate the developed KPIs.


To read entire paper, click here


Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 6th Scientific Conference on Project Management in the Baltic States, University of Latvia, April 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the author and conference organizers

About the Authors

Philipp Rosenberger

Vienna, Austria


Philipp Rosenberger
is a lecturer at FH Campus Vienna at master program technical management focusing on IT project management in an agile development context. After many years in aftersales and business consulting as well as project management and especially IT project management development in Europe and China, he got into the financial sector, managing the implementation of a current account financial product implementation project at ING DiBa Online bank in Vienna and in parallel starting his consulting company ROSCON.at. Philipp now focuses on scientific research of hybrid IT project management models, fulfilling the both needs of a tightly managed classical project regarding budget, cost, quality, predictability and reliability, as well as the needs of an agile culture in the development part of the project. Philipp can be contacted at mailto:[email protected]


Katharina Struzl

Vienna, Austria



Katharina Struzl
is an IT project manager and business analyst for planning systems in the telecommunication company A1 Telekom Austria AG in Vienna. Before that she was working as a portfolio manager for the same company, managing the IT project portfolio. She has gained a BSc in internet technology and is currently finishing her Master of Science in technical management at the FH Campus Wien. She has managed the IT part on a number of different projects.




Project Management Uncertainty

The Impact of Project Management Uncertainty on Project Management Practices in Family Firms


Joanna Sadkowska

University of Gdansk

Gdansk, Poland



The growing role of family businesses, independently of the economic and cultural context of these enterprises, has been widely confirmed in literature. Important finding from the aforementioned studies is that family firms have to tackle many, dynamically changing obstacles of different character which strongly determine their growth opportunities. The primary objective of this research is to study how Polish family firms, as representatives of Eastern-European emerging economy, evaluate the influence of project environment uncertainty on their project management practices. The results of this study provide broader and better understanding of the impact of project environment over project management success from a family firm perspective.

Keywords: project environment uncertainty, project management, family firms, emerging economy.

JEL code: L21, M21, O22


There is a common consensus in literature on the importance of family firms in every economy, independent of the development stage. The significance of businesses founded and managed by families results among other from the fact that these entities generate the majority of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). At the same time however family firms have to look for solutions which enable them to overcome many obstacles they encounter in their business activities. For the above reason many family companies have started to employ project management practices. Employing project management facilitates performing business activities by these firms by offering them different methods and tools they can use to support their decisions and activities. As every project is implemented in a specific environment, family firms constantly have to pay attention and react to changes taking place in their environment. To the best knowledge of the author of this paper, there have been little, if any research dedicated to the problem of how Eastern European family firms evaluate the influence project environment has on projects they manage. This paper tries to fill in this gap by asking the research question: how do family enterprises evaluate the impact of project environment uncertainty on management and success of their projects. For the purpose of the paper, family businesses in the emerging economy of Poland have been investigated. This paper provides better understanding of project management practices in family-owned companies in the context of the impact of project environment uncertainty.

Theoretical framework

Project management success in light of the uncertainty of the project environment

Project management success is perceived in literature in many ways. The authors emphasize different aspects which influence project failure or success. An interesting approach can be observed while studying project management methodologies authored by: Project Management Institute, International Project Management Association and Office of Government Commerce (Project Management Institute 2013; International Project Management Association 2006; OGC 2005).

Project Management Institute in the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) discusses the concept of project success in relation to both project knowledge areas and project processes (Project Management Institute, 2013, pp. 71-344). Successful completion of a project is seen among others as a consequence of project scope-, human resource-, quality-, cost-, time-, communications-, risk-, integration-, and procurement management. The aforementioned approach, by integrating project processes with particular management areas, builds a stable knowledge platform for a project manager and a project team.

International Project Management Association in the International Competence Baseline (ICB) approaches project success as a result of the proper and optimum application of three groups of competences: technical, contextual and behavioural ones (IPMA 2015). Such an approach underlines an important aspect of: the people, the project team and other project stakeholders- as a foundation for establishing processes and procedures in a particular project and further on building the basis for project management. It also underlines the necessity of a project manager to identify and work successfully with project context: organisational, economic and social one (International Project Management Association 2006; IPMA 2015). At the same time however, project is seen as successful when its outcomes finally gain the appreciation of different project stakeholders (International Project Management Association, 2006, p. 16). The idea of relating project success to the satisfaction of its stakeholders brings however certain risks (Compare Sadkowska J., 2016). The aforementioned are related mainly to the fact that, in most cases, projects ‘are unable’ to satisfy all stakeholder groups. This happens mainly for the reason that particular stakeholders have different expectations and requirements- which are in conflict. While managing projects in such an ‘environment’- project managers have to base their choices and decisions on the priorities – agreed according to the defined project objectives. Key project management success factors have been presented in figure number 1.


To read entire paper, click here


Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 6th Scientific Conference on Project Management in the Baltic States, University of Latvia, April 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the author and conference organizers

About the Author

Joanna Sadkowska

Gdansk, Poland



Joanna Sadkowsk
a has been a Researcher and academic teacher at the University of Gdansk- Management Faculty. She is a Project Management Associate (IPMA-D) certified by the International Project Management Association and PRINCE2 Foundation Certified. She specializes in project management with special attention to family-owned enterprises. She has participated in many projects including: Poland- Heat Supply Restructuring and Conservation Project by GPEC and the Worldbank – Modernization of Gdansk Matarnia HOB – CHP plant by GPEC and Global Environmental Fund. She has authored more than 40 publications dedicated to managing projects, innovations and functioning of family firms.

Joanna can be contacted at [email protected].



Productivity & Innovation as a Support in Project Management

A Study through Construction Industry in Brazil


Adriano A. R. Barbosa

Consultant and Professor
Federal Institute of Sao Paulo

Sao Paulo, Brazil



Construction in Brazil occupies an important role in the economy, with direct participation in the GDP and acting on an extensive productive chain of suppliers, commercialization services and maintenance. The sector has undergone major changes in recent years, facilitated by factors such as the resumption of public investments, the creation of laws that facilitate the construction of real estate, investments and funding of external resources. However, the sector faces problems of productivity that can meet the growth needs of the sector. The aspects of lack of skilled labour, nonconformity, low quality, high tax burden, outsourcing and informality of the workforce were not yet adequately addressed and resolved. This article illustrated the economics Brazilian construction scenario. Through the use of indicators of innovation, productivity, economic growth and project management actions, the main challenges of construction in Brazil industry are reported. A proposal for implanting productivity and innovation steps in construction sites is presented, searching for possible paths for the sector allow their improvement, in times of increasing productivity and competitiveness in the global economy.

Key words: Productivity; Innovation; Construction; Developing Countries Economics; Management;

JEL code: O1; O2.


Brazilian Construction Scenario of the Last Decade: Economic growth of the sector

Civil construction in Brazil, starting in 2000, once again plays a leading role in the national economy and is on the road to a new and important virtuous cycle of growth. Construction as a development lever has important socio-economic standpoints, helping to cope with the housing shortage, as well as contributing to infrastructure solutions, which constrain the country’s rapid growth. The industry continues to be one of the leaders of the current pattern of economic growth in the country (Sinduscon, 2015).

The construction sector has a significant socio-economic role in Brazil, with a formal participation of 5.6% of total salaries paid to workers in the Brazilian economy and 9% of employed persons. The building industry needs more growth. In 2010, the Brazilian housing shortage was estimated at 6,273 million households, of which 82.6% are concentrated in urban areas (IBGE, 2015).

Data on the expansion of construction indicates that there is robust growth in the sector. Between 2006 and 2013, construction investments totalled more than 39.3% of the country’s gross fixed capital formation (FGV, 2011). Fig. 1 shows the evolution of cement consumption in construction in Brazil in the last years. However, in comparison with the growth of the country, it can be seen that Brazilian construction has not been following the real growth of its GDP in relation to National GDP (Fig. 2). Although improving compared to the previous period, the proportion of growth in relation to national growth is small, to the detriment of achieving better results and proportional development.


To read entire paper, click here


Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 6th Scientific Conference on Project Management in the Baltic States, University of Latvia, April 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the author and conference organizers

About the Author

Adriano Barbosa

Sao Paulo, Brazil



Adriano Barbosa
has a degree and PhD in civil engineering, and master’s degree in production management. Consultant in construction management, quality and work safety. Fixed in Brazil, has solid knowledge in public resources management and has directed a number of domestic and foreign financial and planning projects. Acting in Latin America and Europe. Researcher professor at the Federal Institute of Sao Paulo. Author of technical books and published papers in periodicals, highligting the topic “Exploring your self-awareness”, and the tool for building management based on value added, productivity and innovation – API Tool.

Adriano can be contacted at mailto:[email protected]



Projectizing an Organization: 8 Dos and 7 Don’ts



By Paul C. Dinsmore

DinsmoreCompass Consulting

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil


Is your organization projectized? In other words, is project management a vital component of your company’s culture? Is it an integral part of the organization’s DNA, occupying a prominent role along with other organizational pillars like operations, quality and sales management?

If not projectized, or to the degree desired, then how can you articulate the transformation? What are the key elements? The following questions set the scene for identifying the dos and don’ts for projectizing an organization.

Q1: What is a projectized organization?

A: A projetized organization has a project management culture and uses project concepts throughout to make sure the right combination of the right projects are done right. The organization may be project-driven, where projects are the final product as in the construction or systems industries. Or, it may simply use project management as a way to produce products effectively (oil companies, consumer product manufacturers and such). This project management mind set co-exists with the operational processes necessary to support repetitive activities and administrative functions. Projectizing means fully incorporating project management into the organization’s DNA.

Q2: Why make the effort to projectize an organization?

A: Project management is vital for transforming company strategies into bottom-line results. It helps secure organizational survival and bolsters future prosperity. Companies that aspire to obtain greater organizational agility, for instance, are more likely to achieve that desired competency as projectizing creates a culture for getting things done expediently and effectively.

So, how to go about projectizing an organization?  Here are the dos and don’ts:


  • …take a helicopter view of the scenario. Size up the situation.  Does it make sense to create a projectized culture now? If not, what preparations are lacking? What are the organization’s SWOTs (strengths weaknesses, opportunities and threats)? What is the level of project management maturity? How can those factors lay the groundwork for planning?
  • … utilize a high-level champion. A high-level champion as sponsor for the program greatly boosts the odds for success. If this sponsor already exists (perhaps the originator of the program), then great! If not, identify and cultivate the likely candidate, spotlighting the benefits for the organization and the chosen champion. Then involve that champion in the program’s strategies.
  • …make change behave. Change happens naturally, but often not the way we want it to. So, structured change management is required for projectizing an organization. Change has to be harnessed and directed through a program that focuses on the four components of projectization: governance, processes, competency and culture.
  • …plan, plan, plan. Pinpoint the issues, raise the “what ifs”, ferret out hidden agendas and lay out the game plan. Discover the stakeholders’ expected outcomes for the projectizing program. Dedicate time, say, up to three months, to put together a Master Plan, and remember to involve key stakeholders in the planning.
  • …tackle governance concerns head-on.       A successful projectizing program puts project management governance and corporate governance in synch with one another. Policies are fixed for managing the 3 Ps – portfolio, programs and projects, as well as the interfaces with operational matters.
  • …map out a competency program. Project management competency calls for a multi-faceted plan of attack, starting with competency assessments. The development stage follows with knowledge-based training programs, practical workshops and on-the-job field experiences. Job design completes the cycle which then leads to improved performance.
  • …provide a suitable toolbox. This sizeable tool kit includes processes such as project management methodologies, operational and support systems, and basic procedures. Legacy hardware and software may require upgrades or replacement to meet the needs of a projectized organization.
  • …keep the stakeholders tuned in. Ways to do this include: informative workshops, house organs, virtual networking, and wide-sweeping endo-marketing programs. Internal forums, frequent mention in meetings by high-profile managers, and visual campaigns also keep stakeholders in the loop.

If you do the dos, the projectizing programs will likely achieve extraordinary success — provided of course, that you don’t do the don’ts, as listed below:




To read entire paper, click here


About the Author

Paul C. Dinsmore

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Paul C. Dinsmore
is an international speaker, executive coach and consultant on project management and organizational issues. He has authored or co-authored 20 management books, and has written more than one hundred professional papers and articles. Mr. Dinsmore is Board President of DinsmoreCompass, a training and consulting group focused on consulting, outsourcing, training, coaching and IT support. Prior to establishing his consulting practice in 1985, he worked for twenty years as a project manager and executive in the construction and engineering industry.

Mr. Dinsmore has performed consulting and training services for major companies including IBM, ENI-Italy, Petrobrás, General Electric, Mercedes Benz, Shell, Morrison Knudsen, the World Trade Institute, Westinghouse, Ford, Caterpillar, and Alcoa. His speaking and consulting practice has taken him to Europe, South America, South Africa, Japan, China, and Australia. The range of projects where Mr. Dinsmore has provided consulting services include company reorganization, project start-up, and training programs, as well as advisory and coaching functions for the presidents of major organizations.

He participates actively in the Project Management Institute, which awarded him its Distinguished Contributions Award as well as the prestigious title of Fellow of the Institute. As Executive Coach, he has extensively coached Company Owners and C-level executives in the fields of Oil & Gas, Construction, Engineereing, Organizational Consulting as well as Health Care and Services. Mr. Dinsmore graduated from Texas Tech University and completed the Advanced Management Program at Harvard Business School. He can be reached at [email protected], or [email protected].

To view other works by Paul Dinsmore, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/paul-dinsmore/



Balance between Introspection & Retrospection

A key factor for improved project performance


by Eng. Abeer Al Nuaimi

Abu Dhabi, UAE


The importance of delivering effective projects is a lifelong challenge faced by the project manager and his team. The key to deliver successful projects in a sustainable manner is learning the lessons from past and applying them in future. When it comes to implementation, lessons learnt process is easier said than done. The most mature project teams face challenges when applying lessons learnt. Two of the keys in the arsenal that the project manager and his team can use are introspection and retrospection. As we all know retrospection has been in use in agile environments in learning from the past. In this article let us explore the differences between introspection and retrospection and why a fine balance is required in applying both techniques to improve project performance.

Why are introspection and retrospection important to improve the lessons learnt process?

Working on projects with multiple constraints like time, cost, scope, quality and various other constraints keeps the team on the edge most of the time. It is very common for the team to get stuck in a repetitive cycle and keep doing the same things everyday which may not be producing the right results. The definition for insanity would be “do the same things and expect different results”! The key to project success is to develop commitment among the team members in what they do. Introspection and retrospection are great tools which can empower the team members to learn, apply and improve from their past experiences and projects and create a better future. Now let us explore some differences and characteristics between the two methods.

Some Key difference and Characteristics of Introspection and Retrospection

Both Introspection and retrospection refer to two different processes that should be done consciously by the team.

The focus while doing Introspection: The team member has to look at his feelings, thoughts, and emotions.

The focus while doing Retrospection: The team member looks at past events.

Examination and Analysis:

Introspection: In introspection, self-examination and self-analysis is important.

Retrospection: It is usually limited to a mere recollection of events


Introspection: In introspection, the focus is in the present.

Retrospection: In retrospection, the focus is in the past.

Now let us elaborate further on the above -Retrospection is to look at one’s past actions and deeds. It is to reflect on something already done and examine one’s actions carefully and deduce conclusions based on the observation. One can say that retrospection is a subset of introspection as one’s past shapes one’s future. Usually it is done at the end of each phase or iteration in projects.

During the retrospective, the team reflects on what happened in the iteration and identifies actions for improvement going forward. Each member of the team members answers the following questions:


To read entire article, click here


About the Author

Eng. Abeer Al Nuaimi

United Arab Emirates


Abeer Al Nuaimi
has a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering and Master’s Degree in Engineering Management. She is a Professional Certified International Consultant in Project Management and International Certified Consultant in Training.   She is a certified Six Sigma Green Belt, and holds International Certificates in Leadership Skills and Strategic Planning. A Professional Certified Trainer (PCT), she is also an EFQM Certified Assessor. She lives and works in Al Ain, Abu Dhabi and can be contacted at [email protected]



Managing Portfolios and Programs in Project Business Management

Project Business Management


By Oliver F. Lehmann

Munich, Germany


“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”

Charles Dickens – “David Copperfield”



Portfolio management and program management are two implementations of multi-project management. Their description commonly ignores commercial aspects that sit at the core of project business management (PBM). The inclusion of these aspects can help multi-project management gain more relevance for the practice in complex project supply networks (PSNs) working for paying customers.

Case Story: A Project Portfolio Needs to be Better Managed

Lucky Tapeworm, Inc. [1] is a prime contractor working mostly for corporations, doing projects at the crossing points of production hardware, production management software, and organizational development on customer side. When the author first made contact with the company, it was working on nine projects concurrently for different customers, and each of them had subcontractors, the smallest project five, the largest almost 100. Many of these subcontractors are involved in more than one of Lucky Tapeworm’s projects, which makes the business relations in the company’s entire supply network quite confusing. In addition, the company had a portfolio of seven internal projects, performed to resolve organizational problems that had accumulated over many years, and to make their business future-proof. Roughly half of the work inside these internal projects was also outsourced; the other work was done by own people. Figure 1 shows the two project portfolios and their relationship to other companies.

Figure 1: The two project portfolios of Lucky Tapeworm, Inc. The arrows point in the drection of payments.

The author’s contact with the company as a trainer and consultant began, when Lucky Tapeworm’s management asked for support to increase their hit-rates in business development for customer projects. As many other companies also do, Lucky Tapeworm, Inc., had fostered a habit of responding to all customer inquiries it received with a bid or a proposal. Less than every tenth offer finally led to a contract with a customer, which means that 90% of the offers were futile work that bound human resources but did not succeed in bringing business to the customer. To make things worse, the lucrative business commonly went to the company’s competitors, while the tedious and poorly paid customer projects that made unpredictable use of the company’s assets were too often won instead.

Another problem was the input the company needed for developing the offers from its suppliers. Second-tier sellers were given the chance to support business development and become subcontractors when the business would be won by Lucky Tapeworm, but the information from them generally came late and not with the depth and quality of material required to win the business. These sellers had made the experience too often that Lucky Tapeworm would not win the contracts for which it had quoted and that they would therefore also not get the business. Their lack of motivation to support their direct customer in its strive to become prime contractor was among the reasons that the hit rate was so low.

Lucky Tapeworm, Inc., was a classical JAM company in project business management: It was “just about managing”, and the low-value business did not enable the company to build the reserves potentially needed to cope with negative risks from a customer project turning into crisis.

Lucky Tapeworm had developed a process using templates and standardized text blocks for their offers. These helped the company to reduce the workload for the development of bids and proposals and made it possible for its proposal managers to respond to a higher number of enquiries. The disadvantage of the approach was that many enquiring buyers did not see their questions answered and their needs reflected in the offers. This was the cause of both, the low hit rate and the failure to win the worthy business. The first step to improve the business therefore was to replace the standardized offer development process with a customer-centric one. This began with a deliberate offer/no-offer decision, reducing the number of responses to enquiries and leaving more time for the development of a specific argumentation. The customers could see that their requirements were understood and gain insights as to how the contractor would meet them.

As a second step, meetings were held with the company’s suppliers to discuss the low hit-rates and how everyone could work together to improve them.

Based on these discussions, a strong “Mission Success First” culture was agreed upon, inside both the company and its supply network. On this, the company and its partners would focus the resources needed to win the contract once a decision had been made to submit a bid or proposal. Figure 2 shows the main criteria used for the offer/no-offer decision.

To read entire article, click here


About the Author

Oliver F. Lehmann

Munich, Germany


Oliver F. Lehmann
, MSc., PMP, is a project management author, consultant, speaker and teacher. He studied Linguistics, Literature and History at the University of Stuttgart and Project Management at the University of Liverpool, UK, where he holds a Master of Science Degree. Oliver has trained thousands of project managers in Europe, USA and Asia in methodological project management with a focus on certification preparation. In addition, he is a visiting lecturer at the Technical University of Munich

He has been a member and volunteer at PMI, the Project Management Institute, since 1998, and serves currently as the President of the PMI Munich Chapter. Between 2004 and 2006, he contributed to PMI’s PM Network magazine, for which he provided a monthly editorial on page 1 called “Launch”, analyzing troubled projects around the world.

Oliver believes in three driving forces for personal improvement in project management: formal learning, experience and observations. He resides in Munich, Bavaria, Germany and can be contacted at [email protected].

Oliver Lehmann is the author of the book “Situational Project Management: The Dynamics of Success and Failure” (ISBN 9781498722612), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2016.

To view other works by Oliver Lehmann, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/oliver-f-lehmann/



Making it real! Ask, answer, write it down!

Life is a Project


By Neil Robinson

London, UK


One of the primary objectives of the “Life is a Project” workshops was to test the feasibility of the concept that a logical, practical, set of life-based project management skills and techniques could be imparted to a non-technical, non-project-management audience. In effect, “demystifying” project management for the masses.

As professional Project Managers we have learned through experience that the process of articulating in writing a clear and concise description of our project’s purpose, scope, justification and high-level approach is a crucial element of every successful project initiation. In a formal project management context this may take the form of a Project Charter (PMBOK) or a Project Initiation Document (PRINCE2).

Figure 1: Develop Project Charter (Source: PMI, 2008, p. 74)

Just as critically, in the domain of life projects, through the process of documenting our bright idea, we make it real! As we ask ourselves the very same questions of what, why, when, how, who and what if, we bring focus and intent to our life goals, developing them from vague concepts into targeted plans, or projects.

Keep it simple

A project statement, in the context of everyday life, does not need to be a formal charter. It just needs to ask and answer those same key questions, in simple, everyday terms. During the LIAP workshops, participants brainstormed their ideas, selected a life project, analysed the key project questions and used a simplified template to document their own life project.

From fiction to fact

In the specific case of the LIAP London pilot, all participants were engaged in the navigation of a common life project – the process of cross-cultural transition as migrants in the UK. As noted during that initiative (Robinson, 2017) and more formal academic studies (Ward and Kennedy, 2009), the very act of engaging in “task-oriented planning” and documenting the project was observed as a very positive and active coping strategy, a critical step forward in taking a vague concept and making it real!

“A goal without a plan is just a wish.”

– Antoine de Saint-Exupéry


Who’s doing what? Make it clear




To read entire article, click here


Editor’s note: This is the second in a series of articles by Neil Robinson, author of the award winning paper “Life is a Project: Enabling Life Skills in Cross-Cultural Transitions”, first presented at the 6th Scientific Conference on Project Management in the Baltic States, University of Latvia, April 2017. The paper was selected by the Project Management Institute (PMI®) for the 2017 James R. Snyder International Student Paper of the Year Award for the EMEA Region. The paper and this article are inspired by the outcomes of the Life is a Project (LIAP) education initiative launched by the author to teach project management life skills to a group of ESL (English as a Second Language) adults in London.


About the Author

Neil C. Robinson

London, United Kingdom


Neil C. Robinson
is an experienced Business and Technology Project Manager, consultant and trainer with global experience delivering complex projects, transformation programmes, and business solutions in diverse geographic locations. His experience as a practitioner includes Senior Programme/Project Management, IT Services, and Operational roles in the private and public sectors. His domain experience includes IT Management and Project Delivery roles in the Aviation, Technology, Oil & Energy, Health, Government, Insurance, and Education sectors. His regional Project Management experience includes on-ground delivery in 20+ countries across the UK, Europe, the Middle East, Australasia, the Americas and Asia.

Neil is PMP and PRINCE2 accredited and is currently undertaking research and academic studies in a Masters (Project Management) programme at Salford Business School. He has a special interest in social project management and initiated the “Life is a Project” concept in London, teaching project management life skills to ‘at-risk’ community groups. His further research interests include the roles of motivation and cultural intelligence in international project success.

Neil can be contacted at [email protected] and welcomes global collaboration from practitioners, academics and students in his field of interest.

To View other works by Neil Robinson, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/neil-c-robinson/



Headline Risks: Seeing the Big Picture

Risk Doctor Briefing


Dr Dale Cooper

The Risk Doctor Partnership



Risk assessments are often undertaken in detail, or several assessments are conducted in different parts of an organisation, project or program. Detail may be appropriate for tactical decisions and specific treatment planning, but there is often too much detail to support high-level decision-making.

A headline risk makes sense of a large amount of detail by providing a summary of what might happen and what the consequences might be. It can either be developed bottom-up from a set of detailed risks that have common features, or by taking a top-down perspective to find risks that are caused by organisational-level sources or external sources that are not apparent from lower levels.

The benefits of using headline risks include:

  • The summary leads to a high-level understanding of the important risks for the organisation, supporting strategic decisions and allowing corporate risk treatment to be dealt with confidently.
  • ‘De-cluttering’ a large and sometimes messy set of risks generates a list that is more manageable, highlighting common themes that affect several parts of the organisation and facilitating clearer decisions.
  • Consolidation can detect systemic or common-cause risks that might otherwise remain hidden because individually they have moderate or low levels of risk, allowing them to be addressed coherently.
  • The high-level view of risks, and the understanding that is generated, provides managers with greater confidence as they approach and make decisions.

Developing headline risks can be particularly useful in the following circumstances:

  • Risk assessments are often undertaken for individual business units in an organisation, or individual projects in a program or portfolio. An organisation also needs to understand how uncertainty affects it as a whole, but individual risk registers are not always best suited for this.


To read entire article, click here


About the Author

Dr. Dale Cooper

New South Wales, Australia


Dr Dale Cooper is a highly skilled practitioner in the field of enterprise, strategic and project risk management, with over 35 years’ experience as a senior line manager and an international consultant. He has been a Director of Broadleaf Capital International since 1991.

Dale Cooper is a member of the Standards Australia Joint Technical Committee OB-007 that developed the risk management standard AS/NZS 4360, used as the basis for the international standard ISO 31000, Risk management –- Principles and guidelines. He is a Nominated Expert for Australia on IEC Technical Committee 56, Dependability. He was the lead author of the international standard IEC 62198, Managing risk in projects — Application guidelines.

He has been the independent Chairman of two Audit and Risk Committees and an independent member of two others. He is currently an independent member of the Audit and Risk Committee for the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.

From 1984 he worked as an international consultant in the finance sector in London, as Joint Managing Director of a stockbroker in Sydney, and then as National Manager International Services at Standard Chartered Bank Australia, where he ran trade finance and priority banking and was a member of the Bank’s Executive Committee.

Previously he was a Research Fellow at the University of London and later on the academic staff at the University of Southampton. He received his PhD in operational research from the University of Adelaide. Dale Cooper is a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, a Fellow of the Financial Services Institute of Australasia, a member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers and a member of the Society for Risk Analysis.

Dale Cooper has written many professional papers and several books on risk management. His most recent book, Project Risk Management Guidelines: Managing Risk with ISO 31000 and IEC 62198, written with colleagues from Broadleaf, was published by John Wiley & Sons in March 2014. He can be contacted at [email protected]