MOVING FROM CORPORATE STRATEGY

TO PROJECT STRATEGY
PETER W. G. MORRIS, Professor of Construction and Project Management
School of Construction and Project Management, The Bartlett School of
Graduate Studies, University College London
ASHLEY JAMIESON, Research Fellow, School of Construction and Project
Management, The Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London

ABSTRACT
Much of the management writing around
strategy tends to cover the practices at
the corporate and business level; there is
a dearth of writing about how corporate
strategy gets implemented by projects
and programs and translated into program or project strategies. This paper
reviews evidence from four case studies
together with questionnaire data from
PMI Europe members, which shows that
the processes, practices, and people
issues involved in moving from corporate
strategy to programs and projects is done
in a much more systematic way than is
generally recognized. The findings point
to areas that future revisions of the
PMBOK Guide should be looking at.
Keywords: corporate strategy; project strat-

egy; portfolio management; program

management; project management; value
management; risk management; leadership; competencies
2005 by the Project Management Institute
Vol. 36, No. 4, 5-18, ISSN 8756-9728/03

Introduction
orporate strategy is one of the most actively researched and taught subjects
in business today. Projects and project management are often quoted as
important means of implementing strategy, but there is some confusion in
the literature on how this happens and, in any case, the topic has not been the subject of detailed review.
This paper reports on research funded by PMI, industry, and academia that
addressed the way corporate strategy is developed and implemented via the management of portfolios, programs, and projects. It does so by detailing the key findings from four case studies, together with data from a survey of PMI members.

Developing Corporate Strategy

Corporate strategy is a means of thinking through and articulating how an organizations corporate goals and objectives will be achieved. This strategy is then typically
operationalized at a strategic business unit [SBU] level; strategic initiatives are then
often clustered into portfolios of programs and projects for implementation. (The
distinction between programs and projects and portfolios is defined shortly.)
Much of traditional management writing tends only to cover the strategic management processes that formulate and implement strategy at the corporate level (for
example, Thompson, 2001; Mintzberg & Quinn, 1996; Hill & Jones, 2001); there is
a dearth of writing about how corporate strategy gets translated into implementation, particularly at the program or project level. Yet, in practice, the two sets of activities are well connected; projects and programs are important ways for strategy to be
implemented in the enterprise and we ought to understand much better how this
occurs.
Strategic management is often ambiguous and complex, fundamental and
organization-wide, and generally has long-term implications (Johnson & Scholes,
1997). While the typical corporate planning process is generally ordered and analytical, strategy management is also a dynamic process. Mintzberg (1996) has distinguished deliberate strategy from that which is emergent that is, becomes
evident as it, and events, emerge with time (Mintzberg & Waters, 1994). This emergence suggests a more incremental approach to strategy formulation and implementation where results are regularly appraised against benefits and changes are
made and managed against the evolving picture of performance.

D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal

Similarly, the interaction between

projects or programs and the enterprises strategy may be both deliberate (as formal vehicles for strategy
implementation, as in capital expenditure projects, for example), and emergent (in that when they are
implemented, they create new conditions that, in turn, influence and shape
the intended strategy) (Grabher,
2002). Consequently projects and programs often have a two-way relationship with the corporate environment
in which they evolve. And though
there may be formal strategy planning
processes and practices, strategy may
not be realized in as rigid or formal a
manner as many planners assume. This
said, however, a formal strategy
process is important it brings clarity
and discipline.
But the role of project management in implementing such strategy is
often not clear. Crawford (2005), for
example, found that senior managers
believed project managers should not
be involved in strategy formulation.
Thomas, Delisle, Jugdev, and Buckle
(2002) found that project management is seen as strongly execution oriented and as such is not perceived as
strategically important by senior managers. Bourgeois and Brodwin (1984)
proposed that project managers
should be involved in strategy formulation but are not competent to carry
out implementation effectively since
they will not have been exposed to the
factors that initiate change in projects,
a view echoed by Englund and
Graham (1999). And there is a growing view, at least in the UK, that business and organizational change
projects are really managed best by
program management, as defined, for
example, by the Office of Government
Commerce (OGC, 2003), rather than
by project management (Bartlett,
1998; Partington, Pellegrinelli, &
Young, 2005; Reiss, 1996).
It is important that organizations
understand properly their business
management model and the position
of project, or program, management
within it; and hence for project management to see how they are sit alongside and are perceived by the

business management functions.

Research shows, for example, that one
of the reasons new product innovation
projects often fail is because they lack
wider
organizational
support
(Wheelwright & Clark, 1992). While
project management practitioners may
think their function is central to the
success of a company, it may have little
meaning within the enterprise unless it
is clearly established and embedded
within the enterprises structure and
business management models and
processes.
The involvement of some discipline explicitly concerned with the
management of projects in strategy
implementation seems a priori to be
sensible, if only because of the need of
senior management to have some control over expenditure and intended
action. McElroy (1996) emphasizes
the need for senior management
involvement if project management is
to be successful in strategy implementation, a view shared by Broner,
Ruekert, and Walker (2002). And good
governance practice now explicitly
requires, among several things, formal
alignment between business, portfolio,
program and project plans, and transparent reporting of status and risks to
the Board (Association for Project
Management [APM], 2004).
Senior management involvement
may also be needed for quite operational issues. Not all strategy implementation is just downwards from the
corporate level through portfolios to
programs and projects. Just as in strategic planning there is upward flow from
Strategic Business Units (SBUs), so in
implementation there is, as we have
seen, management information and
action bearing up from programs and
projects onto portfolio, business unit
and corporate strategy. For example, a
fundamental responsibility of project/
program management is to manage
the resources needed to define and
deliver its programs and projects effectively. We shall see that resource management becomes a critical factor in
moving from corporate strategy into
project implementation.
Hierarchy is usually important in
any discussion of implementing strate-

gy. A hierarchy of objectives and strategies can generally be formed as a result

of using a strategy planning process;
this can be a highly effective means of
structuring and managing strategy, and
communicating it to the organization.
One such model is Archibalds hierarchy of objectives, strategies and projects
(Cleland, 1990; Archibald, 2003). This
model proposes that objectives and
strategies are developed at the policy,
strategic, operational and project levels
and cascaded down, thereby ensuring
alignment and continuity of strategy.
Similarly, Kerzner (2000) shows a hierarchy where strategic plans are cascaded from corporate strategy to SBUs and
from SBUs to supporting plans.
Another model is the Stanford Research
Institutes
System
of
Plans
(Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel,
1998).
Partington (2000), in distinguishing the three levels of strategy as corporate, business and operational, suggests
that operational level strategies tend to
focus on programs and projects
(though Shenar and Dvir [2004] define
the levels slightly differently). However,
the implications of Archibalds work
(2003) and Kerzners (2000) is that the
linkage often starts or can start even
higher: something we shall, in fact, find
confirmed in the research reported
here.
Turner (1999) proposes a cascade
to show how organizations position
programs and projects to achieve their
development objectives. As a result of
our research we have adapted this
model to include business strategy and
portfolios, as shown in Figure 1. This
said, the model should be treated with
caution for it reflects the intended
deliberate sequencing of movement
from corporate strategy to projects and
fails to capture the iterative nature of
emergent information and strategy
modification described above.
Artto and Dietrich (2004) outline
a number of practices for managing
the strategic-portfolio-project linkage
in multiple project environments.
Grundy (1998) too has proposed a
number of techniques to move corporate strategy into portfolios, programs
(and projects), such as scenario plan-

D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal

Business
Strategy

Portfolio
Objectives

Context

Portfolio
Strategy

Program
Objectives
Program
Strategy

Project
Objectives
Project
Strategy

Phase
Objectives
Phase
Strategy

Team
Objectives
Team
Strategy

STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR PROJECTS

Individual
Objectives
Individual
Strategy

Source: The Handbook of Project-Based Management, 2nd ed.

J.R.Turner 1999 Reproduced by kind permission of the Open University Press / McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
Adapted by Morris and Jamieson (2004).

Figure 1: Linking corporate and project strategy

ning, force-field analysis, stakeholder

analysis, and attractiveness/implementation difficulty analysis. Indeed,
as the case studies reported below
show, many companies have, in fact,
developed structured approaches for
creating and managing strategy via
portfolios, programs, and projects in
ways which are integrated with business strategy.
Portfolios, programs, and projects
Turner (2000) points out that the
majority of projects take place as part of
a portfolio of several projects or programs. Project portfolio management is
the art and science of applying a set of
knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques
to a collection of projects or programs
to meet or exceed the needs and expectations of an organizations investment
strategy (Dye & Pennypacker, 1999).
According to Platje, Seidel, and
Wadman (1994), a project portfolio is
a set of projects that are managed in a
coordinated way to deliver benefits that
would not be possible if the projects
were managed independently, a view
shared by Artto, Martinsuo, and Aalto
(2001). A slightly different but widely accepted view is that a project portfolio is a collection of projects to be

managed concurrently under a single

management umbrella, where each
project may be related or independent
of the others (Thiry, 2004; Martinsuo &
Dietrich,
2002).
Archer
and
Ghasemzadeh (2004) stress that portfolio management is pre-eminently
about selecting or prioritizing the
best projects or programs to proceed
with. Project portfolio management,
then, is predominantly about choosing the right project, whereas project
management is about doing the project right (Cooke-Davies, 2002, 2004).
Archer and Ghasemzadeh (1999)
have provided a general framework for
project portfolio selection that demonstrates the need for strategy to be set at
the corporate level and then filtered
down
to
the
project
level.
Subsequently, they emphasized the
importance of aligning resource
demand with resource availability to
achieve a set of strategic goals (Archer &
Ghasemzadeh, 2004). Knutson (2001)
points out that the project portfolio
management process provides a means
of consistently and objectively evaluating each proposed project that is vying
for a limited pool of resources, thereby
aiding the process of making the most
effective strategic use of the resources.

Linking company strategy to portfolio development is critical, particularly when company strategy involves both
a high degree of innovation and a high
rate of growth (Wadlow, 1999).
Advances in portfolio selection and
management practice have been
notably strong in new product development (Archer & Ghasemzadeh, 2004;
Cooper, Edgett, & Kleinschmidt, 2001),
whereas there is evidence that the top
performing businesses display strong
management support for portfolio
selection and management, using formal portfolio management methods to
manage their portfolio strategy within
the context of the enterprise business
strategy
(Cooper,
Edgett,
&
Kleinschmidt, 1999). Other examples of
portfolio
management
practice
employed by a diversity of major companies are given in Cooper, Edgett, and
Kleinschmidt (1998). Artto and
Dietrich (2004) provide examples of
portfolios of different project types and
an outline of the major types of
methodologies used in portfolio selection. Shenhar and Dvir (2004) propose a
strategic portfolio classification framework that is based on the need to select
projects due to their strategic impact and
to form a policy for project selection.

D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal

Archer and Ghasemzadeh (2004)

identify risk and outsourcing as having
a particularly strong impact on portfolio selection and management. They
point out that a key criterion for successfully applying risk evaluation in
portfolio selection is that risk assessment and quantification be uniformly
applied across all projects and teams, a
requirement now mandated by good
governance (APM, 2004).
Programs
Program management is a powerful
way of coordinating projects that have
a shared business aim and, according
to Thiry (2004), is the most suitable
methodology for ensuring the successful implementation of strategies, since
it is subtler and more able to respond
to emerging data. Both portfolio management and program management
focus on prioritizing resources and
optimizing the business benefit
(Bartlett, 1998; Partington, 2004; Reiss,
1996). Program management is more
involved in day-to-day implementation
management than portfolio management, which is more periodic and is
strongly analytical. Pellegrinelli,
Partington and Young (2003) see
implementing strategy through program management as involving continuous re-formulation and adjustment.
There is some confusion in the literature and a variation in practice
over just what really is involved in program management. Most commentators define program management as
involving the management of a collection of interrelated projects. Several
perspectives exist on the optimal ways
to configure programs to achieve
strategic objectives and deal with
change (Murray-Webster & Thiry,
2000). Some emphasize the technology base, as in platform projects
(Wheelwright & Clark, 1992). Others,
particularly those coming from
Information Technology, also emphasize the importance of business benefit
(OGC, 2003). Pellegrinelli (1997) and
Murray-Webster and Thiry (2000) have
proposed a more generic portfolio and
program typologies.
Programs are often ongoing or
long-term and are subjected to both

uncertainty and ambiguity (Thiry,

2004). Programs and program management are frequently used in large
organizations to implement strategic
initiatives. The UK Office of
Government Commerce (OGC), for
example, considers the alignment
between strategy and projects to be
one of the main benefits of program
management (OGC, 2003) though
this seems rather dated in light of the
more recent guidance on good governance (APM, 2004): they require a
decision management paradigm which
takes into account the appropriate
strategic perspective. Programs often
have to strive for the achievement of a
number of conflicting aims whereas
projects aim to achieve single predetermined results (Wijen & Kor, 2000).
Projects on the other hand are more
typically seen as concentrating on
achieving one single particular result
within set time and cost constraints
(Grg & Smith, 1999). Many commentators position projects as more
appropriate for implementing deliberate (planned) strategies, while seeing programs for both deliberate and
emergent (unplanned) strategies.
(However, in the research to be reported here, we found this to be so for the
aerospace case, but not for the drug
development or construction cases.)
Projects
Projects, in distinction to programs,
have a unique objective and follow a
single development life cycle. PMIs
PMBOK Guide (2004) is cursory in its
treatment of the linkage between the
organizations business requirements
(there is no real discussion of business
strategy) and the project (via its charter
[4.1], project plan [4.3], and scope
[4.2; 5.1.1]). Turner (1999) is better,
by advocating the development of a
comprehensive definition of a project
at the start of the project, in which
business plans are aligned with project
plans containing key elements of project strategy. Simister (2000) shows the
development of business cases and
strategic briefs as part of the project
definition process. Gardiner (2005)
provides an authoritative text with several case studies on project strategy.

Morris (1997) summarizes the elements of

a project strategy based on an analysis of
many projects in his historical account of
the development of project management.
The Association for Project Management
Body of Knowledge (APM BOK) (Dixon,
2000) gives fuller recognition to the business context within which the project
resides, as well as recognizing portfolio and
program management, and requirements
management. (The business and operating
requirements of a project frequently affect
project strategy significantly and, for this
reason, the APM BOK identifies requirements as a key project management
process (Davis, Hickey, & Zweig, 2004;
Stevens, Brook, Jackson, & Arnold, 1997).
Work by the authors in integrating
what the PMBOK Guide and the APM
BOK have to say about the way strategy
shapes project definition shows the large
number of factors involved in creating
project strategy at the front-end of a project (Morris & Jamieson, 2004). This highlights the need for an effective way to
manage project strategy creation, covering
not only the front end of a project, but the
entire project life cycle.
As the case studies reported below
show, many companies have, in fact,
developed structured approaches for creating and managing project (and program)
strategy that cover the entire project life
cycle and are integrated with the business
strategy development processes.
Competencies, roles, responsibilities and
accountabilities for moving strategy
Corporate strategy is not translated into
project strategy by process alone. Moving
strategy through such processes and practices as we have just reviewed requires an
extensive range of personal competencies
and a clear definition of roles, responsibilities and accountabilities.
Following Boyatzis (1982), several
definitions of competence (and capability)
have been offered. Hornby & Thomas
(1989) for example defined competency
as the knowledge, skills and qualities of
effective managers, and pointed to the
ability to perform effectively in a specific
work situation.
The UK Institution of Civil Engineers
competency framework (2000) comprises
12 key management roles and approximately 140 associated competencies.

D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal

Elements of strategy management are

covered in both the corporate and
business management roles, and project management is shown as having
responsibility for project strategy.
Crawford (2000) reveals a number of
knowledge, skills and personal attributes of project managers, including
that of strategic direction although, as
we noted above, her later survey
(Crawford, 2005) found that senior
managers did not consider that project
managers should be involved in project strategy. Morris, Jamieson, and
Shepherd (2005) have suggested that
this might be a result of her having
used the PMBOK Guide (Project
Management Institute, 2004) for her
conceptual definition of project management: the PMBOK Guide, as we
have seen, assumes no real involvement of project management in frontend definition, including strategy
formulation (Morris, 2005).
Examples of core competences
related to project strategy are provided
in the case studies in Morris &
Jamieson (2004). We shall also see evidence in the case studies that project
leadership is increasingly being recognized as a key competence in shaping
and implementing project strategy.
(See the drug development and transportation case studies.)
Research methodology
The literature on how corporate strategy gets implemented via portfolios,
programs, and projects is thus diverse
and patchy. While that on portfolio
management is quite thorough, the
treatment is primarily from an analytic
viewpoint. There is little on implementation issues (although there is more in
the more recent material; for example,
Archer & Ghasemzadeh, 2004). The literature on program management, as
we have already seen, is often quite
confused, not least on what indeed
program management is. There is a lack
of detail in the APM BOK (Dixon,
2000) on how corporate strategy influences project strategy while the subject
is not addressed in the PMBOK Guide
(PMI, 2004). New guidelines on project and corporate governance, however,
stress the importance of clear align-

ment between corporate and project

strategy (APM, 2005).
This research project was, therefore, set up to explore and illustrate in
more rigorous detail how corporate
strategy is implemented by project,
program, and portfolio management.
Given the availability of funding
and time available, the research was
designed to be exploratory. That is, it
was recognized that only a limited
number of case studies and survey data
could be undertaken, and that the findings, therefore, could not be, and
should not be, taken as either exhaustive or conclusive. (There is much room
for additional research in this area.)
The case study method is particularly appropriate for exploratory
research since cases are descriptive and
explanatory. Case studies were selected
from four different but important
areas: the aerospace, financial, pharmaceutical and transportation (construction) sectors (though admittedly
all from the sponsoring organizations
perspective: that is, from the perspective of the company making a capital
investment).
Semi-structured interviews were
conducted with senior managers using
a questionnaire-based approach. Data
and information gathered from the
interviews, and documentation from
each company, were analyzed and synthesized to develop models of how
corporate strategy was formulated and
implemented through portfolios, programs, and projects. The results and
findings of each case study were validated by the appropriate company
before a cross analysis of all the results
and findings was carried out.
A full report on the research was
published by PMI in the fall of 2004
(Morris & Jamieson, 2004). This publication contains full details of the four
case studies, the highlights of which
are as follows.
Four case studies of moving from corporate to project strategy
We studied four companies to provide
evidence and insight into the way corporate strategy is created and moved
into programs and projects a global
aerospace company, a division of a

global pharmaceutical company, a

group within a global financial services company, and an international
transportation facility owner and operator for our purposes, a leading construction client [owner]. A summary of
some of the key findings are summarized below.
Aerospace company
The company is a Tier 2 supplier. It
requires all of its business activities to
be assigned to a program. Each program has to have a client. There is a
hierarchical cascade of objectives from
the corporate level, through SBUs, to
programs and projects. Orders are progressed through a stage-gated development process. Eleven key project
management topics are reviewed at
each gate, one of which is project strategy. Project strategy is managed, in
considerable detail, by project teams
throughout all the stages and all the
associated phases of the project management process, as illustrated
schematically by Figure 2.
The company also has a specific
process for managing a rapid response
to changes impacting strategy.
The companys highly integrated, structured approach used to
translate corporate and business
strategies into project strategy, and
then to manage it through the entire
project management process and
project life cycle, illustrates the
importance it gives to project strategy and its management, as well as
the level of priority which should be
given; it provides a good model of
how this can be done.
Global financial services company
The company has a highly structured
process of developing and approving
its corporate plan but the role of
project management in its implementation is not made explicit. The
program and project processes are
self-standing and begin with reference to the business units vision,
mission, strategies and objectives.
Once an initiating letter of intent
is authorized for the project, work
begins on defining the business case.
This defines, inter alia:

D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal

 The program operational vision

The relationship with the business
strategy plan
Program/project organization structure
Risk and resource plans
Delivery plan
Project briefs
WBS
Upon approval of the business
case, the project is prepared for execu-

tion using a Mobilize Program

process, which takes the results of the
previous planning processes and incorporates them into the project management plan. Project strategy as a term
and activity is not mentioned in the
project management process from this
point onward. However, the way in
which the project is to be managed is
covered in detail in the following sections of the project management plan:

Project objectives
Project schedule
Project budget
Resource plan
Risk management plan
A complete set of project briefs.
The strategy for the project is managed and maintained through the
operational vision within the business
case, and is in force until the close of

Business Process Model

Managing Major Projects Process

Project Management Process

Concept

Execute

Phases of
Each Process
Stage

Key Tasks of
Each Phase

Strategy

Strategy

Scope

Scope

Risk

Risk

Key Topics of
Each Key Task

Figure 2: A structured approach to creating and moving project strategy

10

D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal

In-Service

ly assumes a much more prominent

role in shaping project strategy, though
this is not always the case. The split is
reminiscent of Kotters distinction
between leadership and management
(Kotter, 1990; Morris, 2004).
Transportation (construction) company
The company is one of the largest and
most efficient airport operators in the
world. It applies the OGSM methodology developed in Procter and
Gamble for defining objectives, goals,
strategies, and measures in a sequential manner cascading these down
through business units to programs
and projects.
Figure 3 shows that the strategic
business units, capital investment plans
(CIPs), business governance, project
governance and major and minor projects are all set within the environment of the corporate OGSMs, and
that each level determines that of the
next in descending order.
The company does not use the
term portfolio but does use a process
for measuring the strategic contribution, uncertainty/complexity, and
value-for-money of its capital investments at the SBU levels and for evaluating, selecting and prioritizing its

Corporate CIP
SBUs & Other
Functions CIPs
(Inc AM)

Corp
SBU

ora te

OGSMs

er

OGSM

s/Oth
B

ss Go vernance
usin e

Pro

ject Governance

Proj

ect Board
jects P

Pro

ess

Minor
Projects
Process

AM
Process

oc

Global drug development company

Drug development involves the progression of chemical entities discovered in the laboratory through a highly
structured series of tests in animals and
humans for clinical efficacy and commercial attractiveness. In a big pharma like the one studied here there
will be several dozen chemical entities
(candidates) being progressed
through the pipeline at any one time.
The management of this development
activity involves a complex matrix of
functional lines and projects and
programs, clustered under therapeutic
areas (Foulkes & Morris, 2004).
Most compounds prove not to
work in the way hoped and the attrition rate is thus enormously high, certainly in the earlier stages of the
pipeline. However, large pharma companies typically have many more compounds in hand than they have
resources available to work on them.
Hence there is an on-going dialogue
between senior management working
at the therapeutic governance level on
portfolio prioritization and resource
allocation and project-level status and
outlook.
Portfolios are very important: they
essentially form the hand from
which the future of the company is
being played. The term programs is
less well embedded. Programs are seen
as constituting a technical platform a
particular type of drug of which there
may be various versions (slightly different indications, dosages or delivery
mechanisms, for example). Projects, in
effect, have two meanings. One is the
major project of developing a compound from discovery to regulatory
approval and into the marketplace.
The other is the activity of getting the
compound to the next milestone
review point in its development.
The company uses a very structured project management process to

manage projects. The process is geared

to each of the phases of the life cycle
and utilizes a plan, form team, monitor and replan structure. It is also
linked to a series of project management methodologies, which identify
the actions to be taken by the project
team at any point in the project or
phase of the development life cycle.
Project strategy is identified as one of
the topics that need to be implemented by the project team during the
plan phase and there is a standard
list of contents for the project strategy.
Because of the high rate of attrition, spending too much time detailing long-term project strategy is not
seen to be useful. However, it is still
considered essential to develop and
maintain a flexible strategy for the success of the project. Thus project strategy is aligned with the portfolio strategy
and is revised as the project progresses.
Most pharmaceutical project management organizations distinguish
between a Project Leader (or Director)
role and the Project Manager.
Typically, the former has a strong feeling for the science of the development;
the latter is more concerned with the
operational management of the project. The project leader/director typical-

M aj o

the project. The lack of a single coherent project strategy document, clearly
related to the business case, can lead to
loss of business rationale in some
cases. It is recognised that there could
be a tighter linkage between business
strategy and project implementation.

Project
Environment
SBU/Project
Environment

Figure 3: Corporate, business unit, and project environments

D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal

11

programs and projects. Program management is seen as the management of

a group of projects with similar aims.
Projects are managed via a stage
gate process with a project board
responsible to project governance for
the day-to-day running of the project.
The project is split into two stages:
development and project delivery. The
former is managed by a development
manager, the latter by a project leader
(not project manager this term is
deliberately avoided by the company,
since, to some, it seems too bureaucratic and does not sufficiently emphasize the required level of leadership: a
view reminiscent of the preceding
pharma case and Kotter).
The gated review process ensures
that projects are aligned to business
strategy (and corporate strategy) as they
are set up, authorized and executed. A
project management process is used to
develop the project definition and key
project management plans, a summary
of which is considered to encapsulate
project strategy. However, project strategy as a term and practice is not used
in the company. The performance of
the project team is not measured
against the objectives of the project,
expressed in terms of project strategy,
but only in terms of business strategy.
Cross-cutting findings
The following general findings can be
drawn from the case studies.
Business models
Some companies had project management clearly embedded in their business model; others did not. The
aerospace company had a very powerful business process model in which
program management (and project
strategy) played a prominent part. The
international transportation company/construction owner also had a
strong business process model, though
project management, as a formal discipline had a less visible role. The pharmaceutical company had a process
model that was dominated by the drug
development process this is not the
same as a business model per se, but is
common to all drug development
being driven by regulatory require-

12

ments and was clearly the major business process. Project and portfolio
management (and program management to a lesser extent) are important
aspects of this process. The financial
services company had a high-level
business process but this was less visible than the aerospace and transportation business models.
Cascading corporate strategies into projects and strategy plans
All the companies created corporate
objectives, goals and strategies using
processes like the strategic management processes described by Mintzberg
and others. As in Turners model, these
objectives, goals and strategies were
cascaded to the SBUs or equivalent
organizational entities, which, in turn,
and in conjunction with corporate
strategy planners, developed their own
objectives, goals, and strategies. The
SBUs subsequently developed objectives, goals, and strategies with and for
their respective program and project
teams, again in some instances using
fully interconnecting business and
project management processes. The
importance of project portfolio management was recognized by all the
companies.
In all four cases the program
and/or project teams developed project
strategies that aligned with the SBU and
corporate strategy using project strategy
or similar processes. The outputs of the
processes containing the objectives,
goals, and strategies included strategy
plans, business plans, deployment
plans and project plans, the hierarchy of
which, in most cases, was similar to
Archibalds hierarchy of objectives,
strategies and projects, as reflected in
the aerospace case in Figure 2.
The pharmaceutical development
company reviewed and rebalanced its
portfolios frequently formally, every
six months. The interaction of emerging
trial results data on the therapy area
portfolio strategy was strongly evident,
and project managers (and project
directors) took a leadership role in
shaping the next phase of implementation. This required new proposals for
project or program strategy and these
influenced portfolio strategy.

The aerospace company formally

reviewed project strategy as a p.m.
topic alongside a dozen or so other
prescribed aspects of project management at each phase gate review, very
much as good governance practice
now recommends. The drug development company did the same thing at
major gate reviews (going into
Exploratory Development and then
into Full Development).
Portfolio management
The importance of project portfolio
management was recognized by all the
companies. The pharmaceutical company had a dedicated project portfolio
management practice that played a very
important part in project development.
Within the companies, portfolio management was used primarily to select
and prioritize programs and projects,
not to manage programs or projects.
Corporate and business units assembled a strategic portfolio of programs
and projects, or measured the strategic
contribution of a program or project,
using a number of strategic and project
management processes, tools and techniques. Company management boards
or committees of senior managers
adopted or rejected projects based on
this information. (This was in almost
the identical manner described in Artto
& Dietrich, 2004.)
Program management
Program management was practiced
by all the companies primarily in the
sense of managing a group of high
value projects sharing a common aim
and/or of delivering regular benefits
over a protracted period of time.
In the aerospace company program management was positioned as
the management of a number of interrelated projects but critically also covering operations and maintenance.
This is crucial in this company since
much of the product margin is in operations and logistics support rather
than initial capital sales. In the financial services company there was much
more emphasis in program management on managing multiple, interrelated projects for business benefit. In
the pharmaceutical case the emphasis

D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal

was on asset management, in the

sense that the program represented a
basic chemical entity (a technology
platform in Wheelwright and Clarks
phrase [1990]), which can be promoted as a brand. Program management
in the transportation/construction case
was used to manage multiple, interrelated projects.
Program management and project
management activities were carried out
in all cases using the same set of common processes, variously called integrated program management, program
management, or even project management. The development of program
strategy and its alignment with corporate and business strategy was, as a
consequence, achieved in a similar way
to that for projects. (This aligns with a
finding by the authors from a later
piece of work, on updating the APM
BOK (Morris, Jamieson, & Shepherd,
2005), where we found program managers identified the same practices as
being needed as project managers,
though in some cases by a slightly
reduced amount.)
Project strategy
The business case was the key element
of the corporate and project management interface in all the companies. An
outline project strategy was developed
early in all the projects and was aligned
with corporate and business strategies.
Subsequently, business strategy, in
most of the companies, was turned into
a comprehensive project strategy following project management processes
and incorporating many of the usual
project management practices.
It is important to note that good
governance practice now clearly
requires that projects and programs
have an approved implementation
plan which is aligned with the overall
business strategy and that this be
reviewed at pre-defined authorization
points (APM, 2005). Many companies
now do this on a routine basis.
Two of the companies used a very
structured approach to create and
manage project strategy. The aerospace
company had institutionalized a project strategy management practice that
was equivalent to, for example, risk

management or technical management. The pharmaceutical company

had identified specific project strategyrelated issues for each phase and stage
of the project development life cycle.
Both companies assigned roles and
responsibilities for managing the execution of these processes. The other
two companies used a less structured
approach. Though they developed
management plans for their projects,
they tended to neither summarize the
plans nor develop a single project strategy statement from them. The companies also tended not to use the term
project strategy in their project management processes. (There is a research
issue left open here, namely whether it
would be beneficial to manage project
strategy as a more formal, single document and process.)
The aerospace and pharmaceutical
companies managed project strategy
for effectively the entire project life
cycle and not just at the front-end of a
project. The other two companies
managed the project strategy as part of
managing the business case for the
project.
Processes and procedures
The processes that were most consistently used were those in which the
structure and content were described
at a practical level (e.g., flowcharts
with inputs and outputs for key
processes) and those that identified
who was accountable and responsible
for carrying out the process activities.
Conversely, when the procedures were
described in too much detail staff
tended not to use them. The best
examples of the deployment of the
business models and associated
processes were those that were fully
documented and incorporated within
the companys Quality Management
System, and were web-based and
available online throughout the
organization (see also Artto &
Dietrich, 2004). Where this approach
was not used, companies, nevertheless, linked the activities of their business units and projects to ensure
alignment of strategy.
Strategy was consciously and systematically value managed in the

pharmaceutical company. The transportation/construction company had a

strong value-for-money (VM) orientation, but did not use VM as a special
practice.
All the companies integrated other
key project development practices into
their strategy development processes,
such as risk management, technical
and commercial management, and
safety management.
Roles, responsibilities and accountabilities
In the pharmaceutical and transportation/construction companies, project
strategy was developed and maintained by governance and project leadership teams through business related
processes and not exclusively through
project management processes. In the
pharmaceutical case this was driven by
the characteristics of the regulated
development process and by governance review of the emerging portfolio and individual project data. Project
managers focused more on the scheduling, follow-up and general control
activities in support of the project leaders strategy-shaping activities. In the
transportation/construction case, strategy was developed using the OGSM
method cascaded down through SBUs
in classical deliberate manner.
Competencies and frameworks
In general, project management resources
and capabilities figured highly in creating, deploying and maintaining enterprise, portfolio, program, and project
strategies. All the companies specified the
roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of those involved in the business
management and project management
processes, some using comprehensive
sets of tables and matrices for example,
RACI tables (Responsible, Accountable,
Coordination/Consultation,
Information) that were linked directly to
the processes. These covered in detail all
the phases and stages of the project management process and project life cycle,
including those for creating and maintaining project strategy or for implementing enterprise strategy within the context
of the project business case, these RACI
tables identifying who does what and
when at any point along the process.

D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal

13

Roles, responsibilities and accountabilities

The companies also employed a number of other methods to identify and
specify the skills, knowledge, behaviors
and experience required to develop
and manage project strategy. These
included competencies for senior project management staff, such as managing vision and strategy; and project
management functional competencies
covering knowledge and experience of
strategy-related areas like scope management.
Survey data on how companies move
strategy from the corporate level to
projects
The case studies provided a rich qualitative context in which to explore how
companies moved from the corporate
level to program and project strategy.
But the data sample was obviously
small. To provide more evidence we
carried out a survey of members in a
number of PMI Chapters in European
countries. A series of 32 multiplechoice questions were developed and
used to examine the processes, practices, and people issues involved in
moving strategy from the corporate
level to projects.
Seventy-five responses (about
50% from UK) were received from
people at various levels of seniority, in
small, medium, and large enterprises
in a diverse range of business sectors
such as aerospace, automotive, IT,
telecommunications, pharmaceuticals,
retail, transportation and publishing;
and academia and consultancy. The
response rate about 2% is too
small for the results to be considered
as statistically valid, but can be taken
as indicative: the research is, as we have
said, at best only exploratory. The
results are as follows.
How business management models are used
67% used a generic business model.
50% of those believed they had extensive processes for moving corporate
goals into project strategy; 90% had
adequate or better interconnection
between corporate, business and project management processes. Over 53%
recognized a hierarchy of objectives
and strategies.

14

BOX 1: Project Management and Project Strategy

POPULATION %
1. Organizations had extensive or partially integrated project
management processes to help manage project
strategy, which contained:
Project strategy management
Requirements management, project strategy, project
definition, and project scope management
Requirements management, project definition, and
project scope management
2. Organizations had specific strategy inputs to integrated project
management processes, which included:
Corporate strategy
Corporate strategy and business strategies
Corporate, business, and portfolio strategies
Corporate, business, portfolio, and program strategies
Portfolio and program strategies only
Program strategy
3. The integrated project management processes delivered
the following outputs:
A project or program plan and strategy plan
Other project management plans
A project or program plan, strategy plan and other plans
4. Organizations with integrated project management processes
managed project strategy dynamically

Almost all

85
75
85
Most
75
65
50
45
55
75

50
75
45
65

5. The roles and responsibilities for developing, implementing, and

updating project strategy were specified in:
Project management procedures
Project plans

60
55

6. Project plans were formally reviewed at project gates

Those who did not and thought they should

85
85

7. Peer groups formally reviewed project plans

Those who did not and thought it would be sensible to do

75
65

8. It was clear who approved and signed off project strategy

75

9. Strategy was expected to be upgraded and reviewed:

During the development of the project
Systematically as projects develop from concept to execution
Of which:
It was systematically undertaken at project review gates
Program management and portfolio
management
50% used some form of portfolio management, of which 95% used some
form of program management (with
75% having business benefit management as an explicit part of this).

65
55
85

Project management and project strategy

85% used extensive or partial project
management processes to manage project strategy; most (75%+) had specific
strategy inputs into project management, and 65% did this in an emergent manner; 85% used a gate review

D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal

BOX 2: Survey Findings Value Management

POPULATION %
1. A process was used for optimizing the value of proposed
project/program strategy.
Of which:
Value was expressed as a benefit over resources used
The process was formalized as value management
Value management workshops were held
at strategic stages in the life of the project
Those not using a process for optimizing the value of
project/program strategy, but believed they should

55

80
55
40
55

2. Value engineering was practiced on programs and projects.

Of which:
Value engineering (optimizing the value of the technical
configuration) was distinguished from value management
Those not practicing value engineering on programs and
projects thought they should

25

3. The value optimization process was integrated with risk management

Those that thought it should not be done

75
40

80
56

BOX 3: Survey Findings Project Management Competencies

POPULATION %
1. Project management skills and knowledge competencies
required to manage programs or projects were formally defined
Of which:
Those required to develop program and project strategy
Linking the competencies to personal appraisal
and development systems
Linking personal objectives to project objectives

80

2. Those that did not formally define the project management skills
and knowledge competencies incorporated the management of
project strategy in job descriptions or job specifications.

50

3. Organization-wide behavioral competency frameworks were used

Those that did not use them, but believed they should

60
45

4. Competency support programs for program and project managers

were provided.
Of which:
Covered support for project strategy development

70

process with clear sponsorship responsibilities, and 65% upgraded strategy as

the project progressed. (See Box 1.)
Project value management and its link to
project strategy.
55% had a process for optimizing the

75
80
65

66

value of the project, of which 75%

combined it with risk management.
Only 25% used Value Engineering.
(See Box 2.)
Project management competencies.
80% had project management compe-

tencies defined, of which 75% included those for managing the strategy
development process. (See Box 3.)
A combined analysis of the findings of the case studies and survey was
then carried out, the results of which
are reflected in the findings and conclusions below.
Overall findings and conclusions
Before reviewing the overall conclusions of the research, a number of
caveats and cautions should be made
regarding the reliability and generalizability of the research findings.
There is clearly a limitation on the
generalizability due to:
The size and scale of the investigation;
The sample of case studies;
The size of the survey;
The types of programs and projects; and
The effectiveness and performance of
the processes, practices and competencies surveyed.
All the companies were at different stages of developing, implementing or improving their business
models and the information therefore
was time-specific.
The scope of the survey was
broad and therefore the number of
questions per topic was relatively
small. Consequently the coverage
and depth of some topics such as
value management and competencies
were limited. A few respondents to
the questionnaire indicated that
some questions were ambiguous and
could be interpreted differently. Also,
some of the terms may not be well
known,
for
example
Value
Management. The survey analysis did
not take account of different business
sectors.
Overall, the response rate was
too small for the results to be statistically valid and to be treated as anything other than indicative.
Despite these caveats, we nevertheless feel a number of conclusions can
be drawn from the research.
Moving from corporate to project strategy
Project and program management is
widely used as a means of implementing corporate and business strategy

D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal

15

and is a key business process.

Normatively, we should expect strategies to be aligned and moved from the
corporate level through portfolios,
programs and projects in a systematic
and hierarchical manner that provides
cohesion, visibility and an effective
means of communication. Not all is
deliberate, however; there is emergence and iteration. Project strategy is
managed dynamically.
Business management and strategy
Enterprise-wide business models are
seen to play an important part in
effecting this transformation. Business
models are used widely by organizations and the business units within
many of these organizations apply
them collectively. The models may differ in size and complexity but most
appear to incorporate project/program
management processes as key business
management processes. Processes having a high interconnectivity between
corporate, business and project levels
are an important means of translating
corporate goals, objectives and strategy
into programs and projects; and of
ensuring that continuity of strategy is
achieved in a systematic and structured
way. Hierarchies of objectives and
strategies allow organizations to cascade strategy in a systematic way.
Project and program strategy is
not always managed as a formal
process. Often it is developed and
maintained by project or program
leadership teams and governance
through business case processes and
not exclusively through project management processes.
Portfolio management and program
management
Some form of portfolio management
is implemented by many organizations
but most survey respondents perceived
it to be about managing projects
around a common theme rather than
maintaining a balanced portfolio or
selecting the right project (contrary to
the literature). In contrast, three of the
case study companies implemented
portfolio management mainly as a
process for selecting and prioritizing
the right projects.

16

Programs are important vehicles

for implementing corporate strategy
and for implementing change. Most
companies considered that program
management emphasizes the management of business benefits (as well as
the ideas of product, brand or platform
management). There is broad agreement that program management
includes the management of a portfolio or groups of projects using integrated project teams, managing resources
in an integrated manner, together with
the management of benefits and of
aggregated risk. Some organizations
use a single fully integrated project
management process for managing
both programs and projects.
Project management and project strategy
Project strategy management is widely
recognized as an important project
management practice that systematically relates project definition and
development to corporate goals and
strategies.
Project
management
approaches are now being used by
organizations at all stages of the project life cycle with project strategy
development, review and optimization
occurring at specific points. A combination of program or project plans and
other management plans are most
commonly used to manage programs
and projects, parts of which describe
how the project is to be undertaken
in other words, its strategy. These parts
may not be summarized in a single
project strategy document. Value
Management is quite widely used in
optimizing the strategy, often in combination with Risk Management.
Project resources and capabilities
are key factors in creating, deploying
and maintaining program and project
strategies. The project management
roles, responsibilities and accountabilities required for this are generally well
defined. And, as the survey showed, a
high percentage of organizations
define the personal project management competencies required to develop project strategy.
Several organizations stressed the
leadership qualities that they expected
of their executives in shaping and
delivering strategy, at both the project

level as well as the corporate level.

It can be concluded, therefore,
that although project strategy management is an underexplored and insufficiently described subject in the
business and project literature, it is, in
fact, a relatively well-trodden area,
deserving of more recognition, formal
study, and discussion.
References
Archer, N. P., & Ghasemzadeh, F.
(1999). An integrated framework for
project portfolio selection. International
Journal of Project Management, 17,
207216.
Archer, N. P., & Ghasemzadeh, F.
(2004). Project portfolio selection and
management. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K.
Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley guide to managing projects. New York: John Wiley &
Sons Inc.
Archibald, R. (2003). Managing
high-technology programs and projects (3rd
ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Artto, K. A., Martinsuo, M., & Aalto,
T. (2001). Project portfolio management,
PMA Finland.
Artto, K. A., & Dietrich, P. H.
(2004). Strategic business management
through multiple projects. In P. W. G.
Morris & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley
guide to managing projects. New York:
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Association
for
Project
Management (2004). Directing change:
A guide to governance of project management. High Wycombe, UK: Association
for Project Management.
Bartlett, J. (1998). Managing programmes of business change. Wokingham,
UK:
Project
Manager
Today
Publications.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons
Inc.
Bourgeois, L. J., & Brodwin, D.
(1984). Strategic implementation: Five
approaches to an elusive phenomenon. Strategic Management Journal, 5,
241-264.
Broner, J. M., Ruekert, R. W., &
Walker, O. C. (2002). Upper management control of new product development
projects
and
project
performance. The Journal of Product

D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal

Innovation Management, 19, 233-245.

Cleland, D. I. (1990). Strategic
design and implementation. Blue Ridge
Summit, PA: TAB Books Inc.
Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2002). The
Real Success Factors on Projects.
International
Journal
of
Project
Management, 20(3), 185-90.
Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2004). Project
success. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto
(Eds.), The Wiley guide to managing projects. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., &
Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1998). Portfolio
management for new products. Reading,
MA: Perseus Books.
Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., &
Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1999). New product portfolio management: Practices
and performance. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 16, 333-351.
Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., &
Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2001). Portfolio
management
for
new
products.
Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
Crawford, L. (2000). Profiling the
competent project manager. In D. P.
Slevin, D. I. Cleland, & J. K. Pinto
(Eds.), The frontiers of project management research PMI, 2002: PMI research
conference, Paris, June 2000.
Crawford, L. (2005). Senior management perceptions of project management competence. International Journal
of Project Management, 23(1) 7-16.
Davis, A. M., Hickey, A. M., &
Zweig, A. S. (2004). Requirements
management in a project management
context. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto
(Eds.), The Wiley guide to managing projects. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Dixon, M. (2000). Project management body of knowledge (4th ed.). High
Wycombe, UK: Association of Project
Management.
Dye, L. D., & Pennypacker J. S.
(1999). An introduction to project
portfolio management. In L. D. Dye &
J. S. Pennypacker (Eds.), Project portfolio
management: Selecting and prioritizing
projects for competitive advantage. West
Chester, PA: Center for Business
Practices.
Englund, R. L., & Graham, R. J.
(1999). From experience: Linking projects to strategy. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 16, 52-64.

Foulkes, J., & Morris, P. W. G.

(2004). Pharmaceutical drug development project management. In P. W. G.
Morris & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley
guide to managing projects. New York:
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Grg, M., & Smith, N. (1999).
Project management for managers. Sylva,
NC: Project Management Institute.
Grabher, G. (2002). Cool projects,
boring institutions: Temporary collaboration in social context. Regional
Studies, 36(3), 205-214.
Grundy, T. (1998). Strategy implementation and project management.
International
Journal
of
Project
Management, 16(1), 43-50.
Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, G. R.
(2001). Strategic management: An integrated approach (5th ed.). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co.
Hornby, D., & Thomas, R. (1989).
Towards a better standard of management.
London: Pan Books
Institution of Civil Engineers
(2000). Management development in the
construction industry Guidelines for the
construction professional. London:
Institution of Civil Engineers.
Johnson, G., & Scholes, K. (1997).
Exploring Corporate Strategy (4th ed.).
Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall
Europe.
Kerzner, H. (2000). Applied project
management: Best practices on implementation. New York: J. Wiley & Sons Inc.
Kirkpatrick, D., McInally, S., &
Pridie-Sale, D. (2004). Integrated
logistic support and all that: A review
of through-life project management.
In P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto (Eds.),
The Wiley guide to managing projects.
New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Knutson, J. (2001). Succeeding in
project-driven organizations: People,
processes and politics. New York: John
Wiley & Sons Inc.
Martinsuo, M., & Dietrich, P.
(2002). Public sector requirements:
Towards project portfolio management. Proceedings of PMI Research
Conference 2002, July 2002, Seattle WA,
Newtown
Square,
PA:
Project
Management Institute.
McElroy, W. (1996). Implementing
strategic change through projects.
International
Journal
of
Project

Management, 14(6) 325-329.

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., &
Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari.
London: Pearson Education Ltd.
Mintzberg, H., & Quinn, J. B.
(1996). The strategy process: Concepts,
contexts and cases (3rd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Morris, P. W. G. (1994). The management of projects. London: Thomas
Telford.
Morris, P. W. G. (2004). Moving
corporate strategy to project strategy:
Processes, practices and leadership. In
D. P. Slevin, D. I. Cleland, & J. K. Pinto
(Eds.), Innovations: Project management
research 2004. Newtown Square, PA:
Project Management Institute.
Morris, P. W. G. (2005). Managing
the front-end: How project managers
shape business strategy and manage
project definition. In Proceedings of
the 2005 Project Management Institute
EMEA
Symposium,
Edinburgh.
Newtown
Square,
PA:
Project
Management Institute.
Morris, P. W. G., & Hough, G. H.
(1987). The anatomy of major projects.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Morris, P. W. G., & Jamieson, H. A.
(2004). Translating corporate strategy
into project strategy: Achieving corporate strategy through project management. Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Morris, P. W. G., Jamieson, H. A., &
Shepherd, M. M. (2005). Updating the
APM Body of Knowledge. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Morris, P. W. G., & Pinto, J. K.
(Eds.). (2004). Wiley guide to managing
projects. New York: John Wiley & Sons
Inc.
Murray-Webster, R., & Thiry, M.
(2000). Managing programmes of projects. In R. Turner & S. Simister (Eds.),
The Gower handbook of project management (3rd ed.). Aldershot, UK: Gower
Publishing.
Office of Government Commerce
(2003). Managing successful programmes.
Norwich, UK: The Stationery Office.
Partington, D. (2000). Implementing
strategy through programmes of projects.
In R. Turner & S. Simister (Eds.), The Gower
handbook of project management (3rd ed.).
Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing.

D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal

17

Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., &

Young, M. (2005). Attributes and levels
of programme management competence:
An
interpretive
study.
International Journal of Project
Management. 23, 87-95.
Pellegrinelli, S. (1997). Programme
management: organizing project-based
change. International Journal of Project
Management. 15(3), 141-150.
Pellegrinelli, S., Partington, D., &
Young, M. (2003). Understanding and
assessing programme management
competence. In Proceedings of the PMI
Europe Congress, The Hague.
Platje, A., Seidel, H., & Wadman,
S. (1994). Project and portfolio planning cycle: Project based management
for
multi-project
challenge.
International
Journal
of
Project
Management. 12(2), 100-106.
Project Management Institute
(2004). A Guide to the Project
Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOK Guide)Third Edition.
Newtown Square, PA: Author.

Reiss, G. (1996). Programme management demystified. London: E & F N Spon.

Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2004).
How projects differ, and what to do
about it. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto
(Eds.), The Wiley guide to managing projects. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Simister, S. J. (2000). Proposal,
initiation and feasibility. In R. J. Turner
& S. J. Simister (Eds.), The Gower handbook of project management (3rd ed.).
Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing.
Stevens, R., Brook, P., Jackson, K., &
Arnold, S. (1997). Systems engineering.
Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall.
Thiry, M. (2002). Combining
value and project management into an
effective programme management
model. International Journal of Project
Management, 20(3), 221-228.
Thiry, M. (2004). Program management: A strategic decision management process. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K.
Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley guide to managing projects. New York: John Wiley &
Sons Inc.

Thomas, J., Delisle, C., Jugdev, K.,

& Buckle, P. (2002). Selling project
management to senior executives: The
case for avoiding crisis sales. Project
Management Journal, 33(4), 9-28.
Thompson, J. L. (2001). Strategic
management (4th ed.). London:
Thomson Learning.
Turner, R. J. (1999). The handbook of
project-based management. Maidenhead,
UK: McGraw-Hill.
Turner, R. J., & Simister, S. J. (Eds.).
(2000). The Gower handbook of project
management (3rd ed.). Aldershot, UK:
Gower Publishing.
Ward, J., & Peppard, J. (1999).
Strategic planning for information systems.
London: John Wiley & Sons.
Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B.
(1992). Revolutionizing New Product
Development. New York: The Free Press.
Wijen, G., & Kor, R. (2000).
Managing unique assignments. Aldershot,
UK: Gower Publishing.

DR. PETER MORRIS is Professor of Construction and Project Management at University College London (UCL) and Visiting
Professor of Engineering Project Management at the University of Manchester. He is also Executive Director of INDECO, an
international projects-based management consultancy. He has written over 120 papers on project management as well
as the books The Anatomy of Major Projects (Wiley, 1987) and The Management of Projects (Thomas Telford, 1997); he is
the editor, with Jeffrey Pinto, of the Wiley Guide to Managing Projects (Wiley, 2004) and co-author with Ashley Jamieson
of Translating Corporate Strategy into Project Strategy: Achieving Corporate Strategy Through Project Management (PMI,
2004). In 2005, he received the PMI Research Achievement Award.

ASHLEY JAMIESON worked for many years as a business manager, senior program manager, and project manager with
global aerospace and defense companies. For the last few years, he has been working with Peter Morris on a variety of
research projects. At Manchester, he carried out research into design management in major construction projects, and
was a visiting lecturer in project management. At UCL, he recently completed the PMI-funded research project on how
corporate strategy is translated into project strategy, which forms the basis of this paper. He was recently Research Fellow
on a project updating the APM BOK. He holds an MSc in Engineering Business Management. In addition to this PMI
publication, he is a contributor to the Wiley Guide to Managing Projects (Wiley, 2004).

18

D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal