تأثیر استراتژی کسب و کار در مدیریت پروژه نمونه کارها و موفقیت آن — یک چارچوب مفهومی

Firms are facing more difficulties with the implementation of strategies than with its formulation. Therefore, this paper examines the linkage between business strategy, project portfolio management, and business success to close the gap between strategy formulation and implementation. Earlier research has found some supporting evidence of a positive relationship between isolated concepts, but so far there is no coherent and integral framework covering the whole cycle from strategy to success. Therefore, the existing research on project portfolio management is extended by the concept of strategic orientation. Based on a literature review, a comprehensive conceptual model considering strategic orientation, project portfolio structuring, project portfolio success, and business success is developed. This model can be used for future empirical research on the influence of strategy on project portfolio management and its success. Furthermore, it can easily be extended e.g. by contextual factors.

According to Mankins and Steele (2005), firms realize only 63% of their strategies' potential value and Johnson (2004) reports that 66% of corporate strategy is never implemented. While strategy implementation – frequently considered as the graveyard of strategy (Grundy, 1998) – was neglected, the main emphasis in strategy research has been on the formulation side of strategies (Grundy, 1998 and Morris and Jamieson, 2005). But as Hrebiniak (2006) states, it is more difficult to make strategy work than to make strategy. This is where project portfolio management comes into play. Shenhar et al. (2001) emphasize that projects and especially project portfolios are “powerful strategic weapons” as they can be considered as a central building block in implementing the intended strategy (Cleland, 1999, Dietrich and Lehtonen, 2005 and Grundy, 2000). Project portfolio management – defined as the simultaneous management of the whole collection of projects as one large entity – is therefore gaining more and more importance in theory and practice (Artto and Dietrich, 2004, Dietrich and Lehtonen, 2005 and Patanakul and Milosevic, 2009). A project portfolio is a set of projects that share and compete for scarce resources and are carried out under the sponsorship and management of a particular organisation (Archer and Ghasemzadeh, 1999). The coordinated management of a portfolio delivers increased benefits to the organisation (Platje et al., 1994). Current literature highlights the importance of project portfolio management in evaluating, prioritizing, and selecting projects in line with strategy (e.g. Archer and Ghasemzadeh, 2004, Cooper et al., 2001 and Englund and Graham, 1999). It is pre-eminent in choosing the “right projects” and therefore an important part of strategic management in organisations (Morris and Jamieson, 2005 and Shenhar et al., 2001). So far, there are a few studies exploring single aspects of the linkage between strategy, project portfolio management, and business success. Müller et al. (2008) show the positive relation between strategy conform portfolio selection and project portfolio performance. A few other studies found project prioritization as part of the portfolio management process to be a key success factor (e.g. Cooper et al., 1999, Elonen and Artto, 2003 and Fricke et al., 2000). Again, other studies observed a positive influence of project portfolio performance on business-level results (e.g. Cooper et al., 2000, Cooper et al., 2004a, Cooper et al., 2004b and Killen et al., 2008). However, there exists no study on an overall framework covering the whole cycle from strategic planning via project portfolio management to business success. Consequently, I suggest a general framework consisting of strategic orientation, project portfolio structuring, project portfolio success, and business success. Here, the object of analysis is the project portfolios with a focus on internally sponsored projects, e.g. R&D or IT projects (Archer and Ghasemzadeh, 1999). Project portfolios under external sponsorship like customer delivery projects are out of the scope of this article as their management has different characteristics and limitations. Business strategy describes the way in which a firm decides to compete in the market compared to its competitors (Varadarajan and Clark, 1994 and Walker and Ruekert, 1987). This paper builds on the strategic orientation concept originally proposed by Venkatraman (1989) to evaluate business strategy. The strategic orientation describes a firm's general posture towards corporate behaviour and performance (Talke, 2007). The concept overcomes the empirical limitations of the widely applied classificatory approaches (e.g. Miles and Snow, 1978, Porter, 1980 and Wright et al., 1995) as it assesses strategy along multiple traits or dimensions general to all firms (Morgan and Strong, 2003). Project portfolio structuring is the periodical process of evaluation and selection of new project proposals and ongoing projects under strategic and other given restrictions (Archer and Ghasemzadeh, 1999). To assess project portfolio management and its effects the results have to be made measureable and have to cover a wider perspective than the isolated project (Dietrich and Lehtonen, 2005 and Martinsuo and Lehtonen, 2007). Consequently, project portfolio success is evaluated based on the widely agreed multi-dimensional objectives suggested by Cooper et al. (2002). As it is no end on itself, successful project portfolio management needs to contribute to the overall business objectives. Therefore the business success is considered on the basis of the concept from Shenhar et al. (2001) regarding immediate and long-term results from project portfolio management. Fig. 1 shows the general framework of this paper. It suggests that the effect of strategic orientation on business success is mediated by portfolio structuring and project portfolio success. At the same time, a moderating effect of strategic orientation on the relationship between project portfolio structuring and project portfolio success is suggested. Addressing the call for more and extended research in project portfolio management to understand modern firms (e.g. Söderlund, 2004) as well as to close the gap between strategy formulation and strategy implementation (Morris and Jamieson, 2005) this paper makes two contributions to the literature. First, I apply the concept of strategic orientation to the context of project portfolio management and its success. Secondly, I develop a comprehensive conceptual model on the relationship between strategic orientation, project portfolio management, and business success. In the following, the general framework is described in detail. Starting from right side, the relation between project portfolio success and business success is analysed in Section 2 and the conceptual model is introduced. Further, the influence of project portfolio structuring on project portfolio success is described in Section 3. In Section 4, the influence of strategic orientation on project portfolio structuring as well as the moderating effect of strategic orientation on the relationship between project-portfolio structuring and project portfolio success is explored. The paper closes with a discussion of the results and an avenue for further research.

This paper explores the influence of business strategy on project portfolio management and its success. Hence, the strategic orientation concept was applied to the project portfolio management literature and merged in a general framework. Based on this, the three dimensions strategic orientation, project portfolio structuring, project portfolio success, as well as business success and their direct relationships and the moderating effect of strategic orientation on the project portfolio structuring-project portfolio success relation were analysed and outlined in four propositions. An overall comprehensive conceptual model on the relationship between strategic orientation, project portfolio management, and business success was introduced. The study has certain implications for research and practice of project portfolio management. The developed conceptual model expands existing theories in project portfolio management and contributes to close the gap between strategy formulation and strategy implementation. The strategic orientation approach, originally suggested by Venkatraman (1989), was adapted to the project portfolio perspective. The theoretical factors for project portfolio structuring were derived from the existing project management literature and extended by findings from contiguous disciplines. Furthermore, the objectives of project portfolio management proposed by Cooper et al. (2002) were extended and combined to an overall project portfolio success factor covering average single project success, portfolio balance, strategic fit, and use of synergies. Finally, a business success construct to evaluate the immediate and long-term impact of project portfolio success on the business level was developed by adopting the concept of Shenhar et al. (2001) to the portfolio level. These well-elaborated theoretical factors can be used and further refined by future research in this area. Although the managerial implications are limited as long as the conceptual model is not empirically validated, some conclusion affecting practice can be drawn. Based on the propositions, firms can apply the suggested factors of the model to design a strategy conform project portfolio selection process. The proposed success factors can be used to evaluate and benchmark their project portfolio management. The findings further support firm's acceptance of project portfolio management as a holistic approach with strong strategic impact. This study has some strength and limitations that need to be considered. It presents a comprehensive model covering the whole cycle from strategic planning to project portfolio management and business success. Therefore, not only extracts are taken into account but also the effects of project portfolio management on the business level. Additionally, the model's design is not limited to a specific project type or industry and consequently allows the broad application to any project portfolio with internal project sponsors. This is also a limitation of the study as portfolios with external – customer sponsored and contracted – projects have different characteristics and can scarcely be captured by this model. Furthermore, the process of project portfolios steering beyond the periodical structuring activities is not subject to the study. Two tracks for future research based on this paper are the empirical validation and the further development of the conceptual model. The propositions should be tested by a quantitative empirical study. To ensure an understanding of the research topic, analysed firms should have a project portfolio with several simultaneous internally sponsored projects. Furthermore, a multiple informant design for project management and success measures from different management levels should be considered to get a broad picture of strategic orientation, portfolio management activities, and business success as well as to avoid biased results. Additionally, further research could extent the model to the project portfolio steering perspective as well as to various contingencies. Moreover, the conceptual model could be adapted to project portfolios with external sponsorship.