This paper explores the nature of organizational settings, where a large extent of the operations is organized as simultaneous or successive projects. Anchored in qualitative case studies, the paper analyzes why the resource allocation syndrome is the number one issue for multi-project management and discusses the underlying mechanisms behind this phenomenon.
Multi-project contexts and temporary systems are extensively common in contemporary business [1], [2] and [3]. Even though influential thinkers [4] and [5] predicted this situation decades ago, research on these multi-project settings has traditionally been sparse. However, following the seminal work of Gareis [6], a number of articles have addressed issues such as multi-project scheduling [7], strategies for composing project portfolios [8], [9], [10] and [11], nature of program management [12], [13] and [14], resource allocation between simultaneous projects [15], [16] and [17], inter-project learning [18], and organizing mechanisms in projectified organizations [19], [20], [21] and [22].
So far however, theories on multi-project settings have a limited empirical foundation; most of the contributions are either based on the author's practical experience or on research findings from one specific industry, one type of project, or one type of organization. We have little knowledge concerning which factors are context-specific and which factors are universal. Consequently, there is a need for comparative studies of multi-project settings from different contexts, with different kind of project portfolios, and working under different environmental contingencies.
This paper gives a small contribution to such systematic, empirically based, cross-sectional analyses. Empirically anchored in comparative case study of multi-project management in two radically different organizations, it addresses the following two research questions;
(1)
On a project portfolio-level, are there any operational problems that are gen-eral to multi-project management?
(2)
If so, which underlying mechanisms of the multi-project setting cause these problems?
A multi-project organizational setting, as defined here, is constituted by an organizational unit that executes a substantial share of its operations as projects. Such a setting could be a result of an explicit strategy [23], [24] and [25], but it could also be an unintended result, where many different projects with independent existence and separate goals, happen to run simultaneously [8]. In a multi-project setting there are several projects that are accomplished side by side, while drawing, at least some, resources from a common resource pool. This means that the projects are integrated into the management control and reporting system of some common resource pool owner [25], e.g. a general manager.
In literature on multi-project management, the primary theme is the issue of allocation of resources between simultaneous projects [17], [25] and [26]. Multi-project settings is describe as highly political, with a constant competition going on between different managers and projects concerning priorities, personnel, attention, and resources [13], [27] and [28]. Most literature addresses multi-project resource allocation as a problem of a priori portfolio composition, planning, and scheduling [10], [13], [17], [25] and [29]. There are only a few studies reported on the dynamics of multi-project settings and how management tries to coordinate the portfolio in action.
This is one such study. In the next section, the research methodology and the empirical cases are outlined. In the following section the two cases are compared and a common pattern of management problems is identified. Thereafter, the underlying mechanisms to this “resource allocation syndrome” are analyzed. The paper concludes by outlining implications for research and practice.
This study explores management challenges that are general to multi-project management and discusses some plausible underlying mechanisms that cause these challenges. Obviously, the article has a limited empirical basis. However, since the two cases are taken from significantly different contexts, but still illustrated significant commonalities, we believe that the findings indicate something important.
The identified resource allocation syndrome validates the established theoretical picture. However, while past research has treated this syndrome primarily as a planning and scheduling issue, current findings illustrate that this explanation is too simplistic. As shown, the allocation of resources to (and between) simultaneous and successive projects is a process of politics, horse trading, interpretation, and sense making that is far more complex than traditionally has been discussed.
The implication is that research on multi-project management has to go beyond resource allocation and start addressing incentive structures, accounting systems, and other deeply embedded features of the organization. As shown, managing a business structured as multiple projects does not mean to superimpose an extra level of coordination on traditional business systems and structures. Instead of more scheduling, progress reports, or more time spent on review meetings, the whole system of managerial procedures has to be re-conceptualized from its roots. As current findings indicate: the resource allocation syndrome of multi-project management is not an issue in itself; it is rather an expression of many other, more profound, organizational problems of the multi-project setting.
