Project Portfolio Management in Philanthropic Organizations

Project Portfolio Management
In
Philanthropic Organizations

By
Nojoud Hassan El Hassan
Student ID80100

Dissertation submitted in partial IulIillment oI
MSc Proiect Management

Faculty oI Business

Dissertation Supervisor
ProIessor Ashly H. Pinnington

May-2011

PortIolio Proiect Management in Philanthropic Organizations

2
Abstract in Arabic

.-- -' '-- ` --' -' -=' .-'' -` .- --' --'' =- - -'-'-- -' -=' '=-'
=- -' . =' - -'- '-=--' =- --=' .-- .- -=----` ===' --' =`
--'--' =-- .-- -' -'-=-' -'--' = -'--' '--= . ' = =' ' '- ===
-=----` ' --- '-' - == ' = ' ' - - '--=` --= -= ' --'--' -'-- . -
'= ' -= '+- -'--' -- =--- --=- -`'-' '= - ='--=` '=-' '+-- . - - -=-'
-' --=' -'--' = ` -+- -'- '= . -- --' -- -=`=-- '+=- .-'-' -=- - --=
-- .- -=' '=-' - '--' . ---=-- - -=-' -'-= ` -=-' --' --''- ' ' --=- --'--
-+---' . -=- .---- -=-' '--'' =- -''=' ` = -= --=---' '-'--' : -
-'--- `=- '---- . -- - ----' --'--' ' -'--' = = -''=' - -'=-- ` --=
'=-' '--=` ---- --'-- -+- = -' =- -=' ' --=' -'-- . =' ' '- - -=-' ' --
'--- =''- ` -'--' '=-' .'-- -=' '--=-' '=-` = =--- '=-` .
Abstract

It may be said that we are now in a golden age oI philanthropy; due to the unprecedented
amount oI money received by the non-proIit sector. However. most philanthropic
organizations are lacking in strong strategic plans and established procedures that can
support sound proiect or portIolio selection decisions. Moreover. the combination oI
weak strategic plans and increased scale oI giving is likely to cause unwise selection oI
proiects and portIolios. These proiects would not be able to achieve the maximum social
impact desired by their organizations. The purpose oI this research is to identiIy the most
appropriate portIolio management approach Ior philanthropic settings. The study is
exploratory in nature; since direct literature on the topic was almost non-existent. The
research process uses mixed qualitative and quantitative methods to attain comprehensive
results. It includes a review oI the current literature. Iollowed by the data collection
methods used: exploratory study and survey method. The maior Iindings indicate that the
current portIolio management approaches do not match the nature oI the philanthropic
sector; there is need Ior development oI a revised approach capable oI selecting portIolios
oI maximum social impact. Moreover. recommendations Ior eIIective portIolio
management in philanthropic organizations are provided. Iuture challenges identiIied and
suggestions made Ior Iuture research.

3
Dedication

Id like to dedicate this humble work to the best role model. to the teacher oI true liIe. to
the beloved Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him).

During this long iourney the beloved Prophet Muhammad wisdom shined through all the
way; one oI his sayings was and is still an inspiration to me:

The Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) said:

"II anyone travels on a road in search oI knowledge. God will cause him to travel on one
oI the roads oI Paradise. The angels will lower their wings in their great pleasure with one
who seeks knowledge. The inhabitants oI the heavens and the Earth and (even) the Iish in
the deep waters will ask Iorgiveness Ior the learned man. The superiority oI the learned
over the devout is like that oI the moon. on the night when it is Iull. over the rest oI the
stars. The learned are the heirs oI the Prophets. and the Prophets leave (no monetary
inheritance). they leave only knowledge. and he who takes it takes an abundant portion.
- Sunan of Abu-Dawood, Hadith 1631


4
Acknowledgement

First I praise Allah the Most Merciful Ior blessing me with this education
opportunity
A special thank you to the light in my liIe and closest companion: my Mother,
who has guided me through all the time and who has earned her right to
graduation more than I.
A special thank you to my mountain and strongest shield: my Father, may you
always be proud oI us.
To my sisters and brothers: Thanks Ior your support and heartIelt wishes.
A special appreciation to my extended Iamily in Sudan especially the trio:
Aunt Sayda, Nafeesa & Salma.
A special appreciation of my dissertation supervisor Professor Ashly H.
Pinnington for his constant guidance, valuable suggestions and unending
patience, which were provided throughout the dissertation.
To my colleagues oI Dowel team and Sanid: Thank you Ior your patience &
support
I also wish to convey my sincere appreciation to all The British University in
Dubai staff: Thank you Ior providing students with scholarship opportunities to
IulIill their higher education ambitions. The knowledge learned and amazing
experience will be cherished Iorever.
Last but not least: to a special university colleague: Sundis: Thank you Ior
sharing this iourney with me to the end; we can Iinally say: We made it!
I was advised and assisted. by many people during the course oI this proiect work.
I am Iorever in debt to all oI them Ior supporting me.


5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Topic Page

List oI Figures... 8

List oI Tables.... 9

List oI abbreviations 10

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction.11

1.2 Background InIormation.11

1.3 Problem Statement and Synopsis11

1.4. Aim. obiectives and research questions.12

1.5. Structure oI the Research...13

1.6. Research Limitations.14

Chapter 2 Understanding Proiect PortIolio Management

2.1 Related DeIinitions16

2.2 Need Ior PortIolio Management23

2.3 Alignment with Organization Strategy..26

2.4 PPM Goals.27

2.5 History oI PPM.......28

2.6 PPM Process...29

2.7 Factors aIIecting the PPM Process ..32

2.8 Proiect PortIolio Selection approaches...34

2.9. Proiect PortIolio Selection Models ...36

2.10 Challenges Iaced by the PPM process .43.


6

Chapter 3

Towards eIIective Philanthropy

3.1 Related DeIinitions.46
3.2 Origin and Golden age oI philanthropy...49
3.3 Comparison between sector: proIit & non-proIit...49
3.4 Factors that aIIect Philanthropic goals or decisions...51
3.5 Challenges to Philanthropic work..53
3.6 General Characteristics oI successIul philanthropy...57

Chapter 4 Research Methodology

4.1 Introduction to Research Methodology...58

4.2 Research Approach..58

4.3. Research Purpose and Process....58

4.4. Data Analysis Tool..69

4.5. Limitations oI the Research Design 69

4.6 Alternative Approaches to the Research Problem70

Chapter 5 Data Collection

5.1. Exploratory study 72

5.2. Survey Results......83

Chapter 6 Data Analysis

6.1. Exploratory Study Analysis...96
6.2. Survey Analysis.98

Chapter 7

Chapter 8
Discussion

Discussion oI the research Iindings...110

Recommendations and Conclusion


7

8.1. Recommendations.116
8.2. Suggestions Ior Iuture research.118
8.3. Conclusion.118

ReIerences............120
Bibliography.........125
Appendix A..130
Appendix B..138
Appendix C..141


8
Figure 2.1 Relationships between PortIolios. Programs and Proiects 18
Figure 2.2 PortIolio. programme and proiect domains 19
Figure 2.3 The constraint view oI proiect management 22
Figure 2.4 Consequences oI not having PPM 26
Figure 2.5 PortIolio Management Cycle 29
Figure 2.6 PortIolio Management Process pg 30
Figure 2.7 FAP Model 37
Figure 2.8 ECV Method as a Decision Tree 38
Figure 2.9 The BCG Matrix 40
Figure 2.10 Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram example 42
Figure 5.1 Question 1 Survey results 83
Figure 6.1 Organizations size results 102


9
List of Tables

Number Title Page

Table 2.1 Summary oI comparison between portIolio approaches 35
Table 2.2 Popularity oI Bubble diagram 41
Table 4.1 Interview Question 4 60
Table 5.1 Number oI targeted & received respondents 74
Table 5.2 Answers to Question 1 75
Table 5.13 Answers to Questions 12-16 (All interviewees) 79
Table 5.14 Answers oI Question 17 80
Table 6.1 Correlation Analysis 103
Table 6.2 Correlation Analysis 104
Table 6.3A. Correlation Analysis 105
Table 6.3 B Correlation Analysis 106
Table 6.4A. General Factor aIIecting PPM implementation 107
Table 6.4B. General Factor aIIecting PPM implementation 109


10

List of Abbreviations

AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process
BCG Boston Consulting Group Matrix
CSO Civil Society Organisation
ECV Expected Commercial Value Method
FAP Financial Appraisal ProIile
INGO International Non-Governmental Organisation
NGO Non-Governmental Organizations
NPO Non-ProIit Organizations
PM Proiect Management
PMI Proiect Management Institutes
PMO Proiect Management OIIice
PPM Proiect PortIolio Management
R&D Research and Development


11
Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction
Chapter 1 is an introductory chapter oI this exploratory research. It aims to present the
research topic. describes the research drivers and selected methodology to carry out the
research. At the beginning. a background oI the topic is given. during which some oI the
main problems are presented. Following this the aims. obiectives and research questions
are identiIied. noting that the methodology is described in detail in Chapter Iour. The
main limitations oI the research are listed aIter an outline oI the included chapters is
presented.

1.2 Background Information
Notions oI solidarity. mutuality. and voluntary altruism constitute prime rationales oI
nonproIit activity (Toepeler 2003). Philanthropic organizations nature oI work is based on
conducting speciIic proiects with a deIinite start and end. Their selection oI proiects and
portIolios are usually attributed to two strategic determinants: Charitable motivations and
Pragmatic or organizational concerns (Fruttero and Gaurin 2005). However. one oI the
most importance and critical management issues lies in determining the best proiect
portIolio out oI a given set oI proposals (Doerner et al. 2006).

1.3 Problem Statement and Synopsis
Problem statement
Unwise selection oI proiect/programme portIolios can lead to conducting oI low-value
proiects or the taking oI high risk proiects that are not in the best interest oI those
organizations. The literature estimates that such problems cause organizations to obtain
only 60 oI their proiects value. Thus. research to identiIy appropriate portIolio
management approaches Ior philanthropic organizations would be oI signiIicant value.

Synopsis
The research aims to identiIy Iindings that would enable philanthropic organizations
decision makers to enhance their proiect portIolio management process and identiIy the

12
optimal portIolio oI proiects required to achieve maximum social value. Through the
exploratory study. the research aims to extend the general beneIits that PPM oIIers such
as: maximum portIolio value and strategy alignment to the philanthropic sector.

1.4. Aim. Objectives and Research questions
Overall aim: The aim oI this research is to identiIy the appropriate portIolio management
approach Ior philanthropic organizations

Research objectives
In order to achieve this. the Iollowing obiectives have to be IulIilled:
To research the nature oI philanthropic work in the literature and identiIy its
special attributes.
To research the aspects oI proiect portIolio management in literature and identiIy
its aspects.
To identiIy the most appropriate portIolio approach and provide recommendations
Ior its successIul implementation.
Research Questions
The research aims to address the Iollowing research questions:
RQ1: What is the current status oI proiect portIolio management in philanthropic
settings?
RQ2: What are the general recommended portIolio approaches Ior philanthropic
organizations?
RQ3: What are the challenges and recommendations to successIul portIolio
management in the philanthropic sector?
To answer these research questions. the exploratory research used a mixed-methods
approach oI qualitative and quantitative research tools to undertake this study. More
details on the research methodology is available in Chapter 4: Research Methodology


13

1.5. Structure of the Research

The structure oI this research is to start with a review oI the available literature on the
topic. Iollowed by collecting data using exploratory studies and survey method in order to
answer the research questions and meet the obiectives oI the research.
The complete dissertation is represented in eight chapters. The chapters have a logical
setting as the topics progress. These chapters are:

Chapter 1. This chapter Introduction gives a background on the research topic. It
describes the research drivers. aims and obiectives. It Iurther discusses the research
limitations encountered during the research.

Chapter 2. This chapter Understanding Proiect PortIolio Management discusses
mainly theoretical concepts oI PPM. presents Irom literature problems Iaced or general
challenges in the Iield oI proiect portIolio management. history on past & contemporary
approaches Ior proiect or portIolio selection.

Chapter 3. This chapter Towards eIIective Philanthropy represents the literature
review conducted about the main aspects oI philanthropy such as Iactors considered by
philanthropic organizations Ior proiect or portIolios selection. proiect portIolio issues
Iaced by such organizations and general recommendations Ior improving philanthropy

Chapter 4. This chapter Research Methodology elaborates on methodology used Ior
research Ior the dissertation. The researchers approaches and strategies are discussed in
detail.

Chapter 5. This chapter: Data Collection provides the general inIormation gathered
during the data collection process; it presents the main Ieedback gathered Irom the
exploratory study and surveys results.


14
Chapter 6: This chapter Data Analysis provides detailed analysis oI the data gathered
by the research methods while reIerring to the research questions and using SPSS
soItware Ior analysis.

Chapter 7: This chapter Discussion contains the discussion on the main research
Iindings in reIerence to the research questions.

Chapter 8: This chapter Recommendations and Conclusions contains
recommendations Ior addressing the identiIied challenges. suggested areas oI research.
The chapter also contains the overall conclusion arrived at the end oI the research.

1.6. Research Limitations

Despite the researchers best eIIorts. this research. as the case with many other researches.
had been associated with certain limitations.

First. the research Iaced data access diIIiculties during data collection: respondents were
very sensitive to disclosing inIormation; which lead to a moderate sample size: 71
respondents Irom 15 diIIerent philanthropic organizations. In reality. an inclusion oI an
increased number oI respondents Irom organizations will enhance the reliability and
integrity oI the result.

The second limitation is also related to data collection. The research topic was Iound to be
poorly researched; inIormation on similar research was almost not available. ThereIore.
much oI the Iindings were based on collective analysis Irom the literature review and data
collected through the exploratory study and survey method. However. no comparisons to
previous research could be made.

The third limitation is the utilization oI Iorced-choice questions in the survey; which
generally introduces certain inaccuracies in results; since the answers are likely to
represent respondents closest point oI view. This limitation also doesnot allow the
respondents to express their own opinion. However. this was incorporated to address the

15
concern oI data control and quality which the survey Iaced due to being conducted
without the direct presence oI the researcher.

Finally. time consideration was one oI the main limitations. since additional time could
have assisted in mitigating several oI the above-mentioned limitations.


16
Chapter 2

Understanding Project Portfolio Management

This chapter represents the literature review conducted about the theoretical subiect oI
Proiect PortIolio management (PPM). It discusses the core concepts oI the subiect topic:
need Ior PPM. how PPM resolved ProiectiIied organizations. history oI PPM. PPM
Process and PPM Process challenges.

2.1 Related Definitions
2.1.1 Project
The literature provides a variety oI deIinitions Ior this term:
- A proiect is a temporary endeavor with a deIined start and Iinish undertaken to
create or deliver a unique product or service (MoustaIev 2011).
- A temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product or service. (PMI
2000:6)
- Proiects are a series oI planned activities with clearly deIined start and end points
and clearly deIined deliverables (Raiegopal. McGuin and Waller 2007).
Not all proiects are equal. Literature has provided diIIerent classiIications oI proiects
according to the researchers various perspectives (Levine 2005. Atlantic Global 2007).
Levine (2005) provided three classiIications oI proiects as Iollows:

Utility or Maintenance proiect: proiects that generally support ongoing proiects
and services. When prioritized. these proiects might not register as high on the
beneIits-value scale as some other proiect types. For this prequaliIication criteria
consist more oI need and iustiIication data as opposed to cash-based beneIits and
alignment to strategies
Growth or enhancement proiect: Proiects that support strategic initiatives and
represent increasing value. Such proiects are needed to keep the Iirm in a solid
competitive position. Theyre likely to Iall into the medium-to-high beneIit and
high-alignment segments oI the raking criteria. For most oI the organizations. the
growth or enhancement proiects will comprise the bulk oI the proiect


17
TransIormation proiect: a proiect which oIIers the opportunities to move the Iirm
to a new level or to introduce new products or services that will dominate the
market place. The goal is to capture a new market or leap ahead in technology; it
has the potential oI yielding beneIits but must require special handling.
Under this category. there exists Gorilla projects, Levine (2005)
describes them as proiects that lead to strong products that
dominate a market and Iorce any potential competitor to search Ior
a niche market instead.
Atlantic Global (2007) provided the Iollowing categories based on competitive
advantage:
Tactical: delivering competitive advantage today
Administrative: delivering concurrently promised service levels and supporting
existing strategic proiects
Strategic: delivering competitive advantage in the Iuture
Innovation: smaller and experimental proiects delivering possible competitive
advantage tomorrow
Future vision: contingent upon strategic and innovation proiects

2.1.2 Program
Although programs are not directly related to the subiect research. understanding its
deIinition will help in distinguishing between proiects and programs.
MoustaIev (2011) provided the below deIinition:

Programs are closely related to the concept oI proiects. A program is a grouping
oI interdependent proiects united by the same theme or topic. Gardiner (2005)
Iurther elaborates that proiects Iorm only a part oI an overall programme and that
they have a deIinite beginning and end. In contrast. programs are ongoing
concerns that may continue Ior an indeIinite period oI time.
- A Program is a group oI proiects managed in a coordinated way to obtain beneIits
not available Irom managing them individually (Turner 1992: 345 cited by
Gardiner 2005).

2.1.3 Project Portfolio

18
Proiect PortIolios are a group oI proiects that are carried out under the sponsorship and/or
management oI a particular organization (Archer and Ghasemzadeh 1999).

Another deIinition by MoustaIev (2011) is:
Proiect portIolios are a collection oI proiects and programs in an organization that are
oIten classiIied by the type. obiective or goal that they are expected to achieve.

2.1.4 Relationship between portfolios. programs and projects
PortIolios represents the collection oI programs and proiects. the process oI PPM includes
oversight. management and control oI those components (Raiegopal. McGuin and Waller
2007). Figure 2.1 illustrates this relationship.

Figure 2.1 Relationships between Portfolios. Programs and Projects (Adapted from Rajegopal.
McGuin and Waller 2007 p.12)

PortIolios
Programmes
Proiects

19
Strategic
objectives

1---------------------------

2---------------------------

3---------------------------

4---------------------------

5---------------------------

6---------------------------

7---------------------------

Figure 2.2 Portfolio. programme and project domains
(Adapted from Rajegopal. McGuin and Waller 2007 p.14)

As seen Irom Figure 2.2.. program management involves the managing oI multiple.
ongoing and interdependent proiects. while proiect management Iocuses on speciIic
deliverables.

2.1.5 Strategy
The literature provides various deIinitions oI strategy; in practice strategy exits in every
organization (Yelin 2005).
However. the below deIinition is relevant to the dissertation discussion:
Johnson et al. (2006. 9) deIined strategy as:
Programmes
Projects
Development
Benefits &
ROI
Tracking
Sales &
Marketing
..
.. Portfolio
Domains
IT
..
..
The corporate bottom line

20
The direction and scope oI an organization over the long term. which achieves
advantages in a changing environment through its conIiguration oI resources with
the aim oI IulIilling stakeholder expectations

2.1.6 Project Portfolio Management:
Many deIinitions are provided by the literature Ior proiect portIolio management:
- Proiect PortIolio Management is deIined as the managerial activities that relate to
(1) the initial screening. selection and prioritization oI proiect proposals. (2) the
concurrent reprioritization oI proiects in the portIolio. and (3) the allocation and
reallocation oI resources to proiects according to priority ( BlichIeld and Eskerod
2008).

MoustaIev (2011) provided two related deIinitions:
- A grouping oI methods Ior analyzing and collectively managing a group oI current
or proposed proiects based on numerous key characteristics.
- A methodology Ior analyzing. selecting and collectively managing a group oI
current or proposed proiects based on numerous key characteristics while
honouring constraints imposed by management or external real-world Iactors

Levine (2005) provided the below deIinitions:
o PPM is a set oI processes. supported by people and tools. in selecting the
right proiects and the right number oI proiects. and in maintaining a
portIolio oI proiects that will maximize the enterprises strategic goals.
eIIicient use oI resources. stakeholder satisIaction and the bottom line.

o PPM is a set oI business practices that brings the world oI proiects into
tight integration with other business operations. It brings proiects into
harmony with the strategies. resources and executive oversight oI the
enterprise and provides the structure and process Ior proiect portIolio
governance.


21
o Proiect PortIolio Mgmt is the management iI the proiect portIolio so as to
maximize the contribution oI proiects to the overall welIare and success oI
the enterprise
2.1.7 Project Management:
Two popular deIinitions were provided by MoustaIev (2011):
- Proiect Management: the application oI knowledge. skills. tools and techniques to
proiect activities to meet proiect requirements.
- Proiect management is the science and the art oI delivering a proiect by
maintaining cost. schedule and technical perIormance that satisIies stakeholder
expectations while honoring internal and external constraints.

2.1.8 Distinction between Project Management and Portfolio Management
The distinction between proiect management and portIolio management has been
discussed in the literature. Calderini (2005) pointed out that proiect management tacked
the aspect oI doing proiects right while proiect portIolio management Iocused on doing
the right proiects. Moreover. he explained that Proiect Management Iocuses on a single
proiect while in contrary PortIolio Management was concerned about managing a set oI
proiects:

Contrary to Proiect Management. which Iocuses on single proiect. and Programme
Management. which concerns the management oI a set oI proiects that are related by
sharing a common obiective or client. or that are related through interdependencies or
common resources. PPM considers the entire portIolio oI proiects a company is engaged
in. in order to make decisions in terms oI which proiects are to be given priority. and
which proiects are to be added to or removed Irom the portIolio (Calderini 2005).

Proiect management tends to Iocus on the traditional constraints oI a proiect being on-
time. on-budget and on-quality as represented in the below Iigure reproduced Irom Norrie
and Walker (2004):


22

Figure 2.3 The constraint view of project management

2.1.9 Programme Management
Programme management is the process oI managing multiple. ongoing. interdependent
proiects. Programme management is comprised both oI operational initiatives that enable
realization oI business value. and oI grouping oI activities and proiects that enable the
implementation oI a strategy and seek its outcome (Raiegopal. McGuin and Waller 2007).

2.1.10 Distinction between Programme Management. Portfolio Management and
Project Management
The main diIIerence between program management and portIolio management is that the
Iormer involves management oI related proiects. while the latter concerns unrelated
proiects (Gardiner 2005). However. when considering program and proiect management
both aim to achieve change in a controlled manner. but the diIIerence lies in the level at
which the change is controlled (Gardiner 2005). Proiect deliverables Iorm only part oI an
overall program and has a deIinite start and end. In comparison a programme is an
ongoing concern which may continue Ior an indeIinite time with new proiects ioining and
existing ones Iinishing (Gardiner 2005).

Proiect
On-
time
On-
quality
On-
budget

23
2.1.11 Projectified organizations or Project-based organization or Project-oriented
organisation:
ProiectiIied organizations also reIerred to as proiect-based organization. or the proiect-
oriented organisation can be described as: An organisational unit that executes a
substantial share oI its operations as proiects (Engwall 2003).

Research has highlighted various organizations reIerred to as proiectiIied organization.
proiect-based organisation. or multi-proiect setting organisations. All oI these concepts
reIer to an organization in which the substantial share oI the organisations operations is
run as proiects (Matti 2008). The importance oI proiect based organizations has increased
lately. since multi-proiect settings have become more or less a de Iacto standard Ior
organizing complex work (Matti 2008).

2.2 Need for Portfolio Management
Organizations dealing with proiects in their daily routines are increasing (Levine 2005.
Raiegopal. McGuin and Waller 2007. Matti 2008). Top management departments are
spending much time and resources balancing the needs oI the various proiects running in
their organizations (BlichIeld and Eskerod 2008).

Levine (2005) believes that organizations oIten do well when managing individual
proiects or a reasonable number oI proiects. However as proiect numbers increase.
challenges arise due to mainly two points: complexity oI management and constrained
resources. Since an additional problem is competition on resources among several
proiects. that are drawing Irom a common pool (Matti 2008).

Matti (2008) provided the managerial and employee perspectives on resources
competition:
- Managerial perspective: There is a competition Ior resources among proiects (Matti
2008).
- Employee perspective: Work is seen to be disruptive and Iragmented. since employees
Iace time pressure and Iew opportunities Ior recuperation between periods oI intense
work (Zika and Sundstro 2003 cited in Matti 2008).


24
Moreover. because oI the general increase in proiect size and scope. proiects are
becoming naturally becoming more mission critical than in the past. The recent economic
crisis in 2008-2010 have deIinitely added to the pressure on top management to decrease
proiect-related cost and to drastically improve quality (MoustaIev 2011).

Due to the importance oI this arising need. researchers have increased their attention in
Proiect Management and in particular in studying multi-proiect settings (Engwall and
Siogren 2003. Elonen and Artto . Matti 2008. Zika-Viktorsson and Sundstro 2003).

Matti (2008) emphasized the importance oI this:
While the proiect challenge oI yesterday was to plan and execute a large proiect.
the challenge oI today is managing a proiect in an environment where several
parallel proiects are all competing Ior a limited resource base.

Levine (2005) recognized the below challenges Iaced by multi-proiect organizations:
Increasingly numbers oI potential proiects in which to invest
DiIIiculty aligning proiects and portIolios with organizational obiectives
DiIIiculty achieving consensus among competing stakeholders regarding proiect
priorities
Inadequate measurement and methodologies to determine proiect beneIits. costs
and risks
An overemphasis on proiect execution management. without due diligence on
proiect portIolio selection and alignment
More complex and challenging proiect constraints. including budgets. personnel.
risk. time and compliance
Matti (2008) identiIied the Iollowing Irequent issues Iaced by proiect managers in multi-
proiect settings: dyadic leadership. group dynamics. as well as external relations to
consultant. client and peer relations. The importance oI managing portIolios has
heightened since recent estimates indicate that $2.3 trillion is spent on proiects in the
United States alone (Levine 2005). Clearly. alignment oI proiect portIolios with
organizational strategy is oI paramount importance. Sharing this opinion. Wheelwright
and Clark (1992) highlighted the importance oI the right set oI proiects in proiect
portIolio Ior a companys progress.

25

However. the Iollowing points serve as alarming indicators
- 89 percent oI companies are Ilying blind. with virtually no metrics in place Ior
Iinance (Levine 2005).
- 84 percent oI companies are unable to adiust and realign their budgets with
business needs more than once or twice a year (Levine 2005).

- Close to $1 trillion is spent in underperIorming investments. as mentioned by
Levine(2005) not only is the spending huge but it is poorly managed in a
Iragmented manner. using proiect-Iocused rather than portIolio Iocused methods.

- Businesses that Iace lack oI resources combined with many suIIering proiects is
not an uncommon Iinding (Eskerod 1996 cited in BlichIeld and Eskerod 2008).

- Standish group reported success rate to be 35 rate Ior IT proiect in its (Chaos
2009 report). Although the report Iocused on IT proiects. this provides an
indicator oI general proiect perIormance (MoustaIev 2011).

MoustaIev (2011) identiIied unpleasant consequences due to lack oI portIolio
management. Figure 2.4 below displays this:


26

Figure 2.4 Consequences oI not having PPM (Adapted Irom MoustaIaev 2011 p.222)

Yet literature states that many organizations in both the private and public sectors. either
have an under-developed PPM process or treat it as a simple extension oI their program
management or a centralized PMO capability (Archer and Ghasemzadeh 1999).

2.3 Project Portfolio Alignment with Organization Strategy
Since the key managerial task Ior businesses is to dedicate resources across all oI these
proiects (as well as do daily work) and consequently. management across proiects is
critical to company perIormance (BlichIeld and Eskerod 2008).

PPM brings about the right selection oI proiects that is tightly integrated with other
business operations (Levine 2005). Hence PPM bridges between the proiects Iunction
and the organizations strategy (Levine 2005). Ensuring strategic alignment is oI
importance to any proiect type success. PPM centers on linking proiect portIolios to their
organizations strategy (Levine 2005).

No PPM implies...
No strategy criteria Ior
proiect selection
Unwillingness to cancel
proiects. many proiects
end up on the to do list
Weak go/kill decisions
Lack oI rigorous selection
oI process and proiects
selected on emotion.
politics
Short-term effect
Proiects are not aligned
with the company strategy
Too many proiects.
resources thinly spread and
quality declines
Excessi ve numbers oI
low-value proiects and
good proiects are starved
Ior resourcess
Bad proiects are selected
Long-term effect
Resources are wasted
on wrong ventures
Increased time to
market and commercial
Iailure rates increase
Too Iew stellar proiects
Commercial and
technical Iailures

27
2.4 Project Portfolio Management Objective and Goals

Project Portfolio Management Objective:
The PPM process obiective is to determine the optimal mix and sequencing oI proposed
proiects to best achieve the organizations overall goals. aligned with the preIerred
strategies and within the organizations resource (people and Iunding) constraints (Dye
and Pennypacker 1999. Levine 2005 and MoustaIev 2011).

Project Portfolio Management goals
Proiect PortIolio Management aims to achieve three main goals. all literature pointed to
the same common requirements (Ghasemazadeh et al 1999. Sommer 1999. Rdulescu1
and Rdulescu 2001. Cooper et al. 2001b. Yelin 2005. MoustaIev 2011):

1- Maximizing the value oI the portIolio: Due to limitation in organizations
resources; each proiect as well as the portIolio oI proiects should selected to
maximize the portIolio value in respect to contribution oI short-term and long-
term development. scope and resources (Cooper et al.. 1997a. Cooper et al..
1997b. Archer and Ghasemzadeh 1999.Chien 2002 and PMI 2006).

2- Balancing the portIolio against available resources: The candidate proiect should
preserve the desired balance in the portIolio mix in aspects such as: risk and
return. long and short term beneIit like in any Iinancial investment (Cooper et al.
2000).

3- Linking proiects with strategy: The Iinal portIolio oI proiects should be
strategically aligned and should reIlect the businesss strategy. Cooper et al.
(2000) argued that corporate strategy must be reIlected in the proiect portIolio and
resource allocation to proiects.
Furthermore. Levine (2005) mentioned additional portIolio requirements such as:
Proiects appropriate Ior organizations value and culture;
Proiects directly or indirectly contribute to cash Ilow;
Proiects eIIiciently utilize the various resources (capital. human resource.
physical)

28
Proiects not only contribute to short term business but also long-term
development.

As discussed in MoustaIev (2011). the above balance requirement ensures that the
Iollowing situations are successIully avoided:
Too many small proiects and not enough breakthrough; too many
visionary proiects
Too many short-term and not enough long-term strategic proiects
A disproportionate amount oI resources devoted to a Iew business areas
while other important areas are in need
Poor risk management

2.5. History of Project Portfolio Management

Background on PPM
Modern PortIolio Theory owes its origin to the Nobel-prize winning economist Harry
Markowitz (1959) work on developing a Iinancial portIolio selection and capital
allocation theory (Levine 2005).

The application oI this Iinancial portIolio selection and capital allocation theory to the
proiect management domain has also been previously explored (Souder 1984. Martino
1995. Archer and Ghasemzadeh 1999. Benko and McFarlan 2003). However. portIolio
theory was Iirst adapted to IT proiects. paving the way Ior modern proiect portIolio
management. (Levine 2005. Raiegopal. McGuin and Waller 2007). Its important to note
that not all researchers view PPM as a new deIined discipline. Levine (2005)
acknowledged the work oI Markowitz but elaborated that the basic elements oI PPM and
the environment in which it is applied is not new. Levine (2005) emphasized that the
PPM elements were available but in the responsibility oI two distinct groups: operations
management and proiects management.

In Iact. it is argued in the literature that PPM serves as a bridge between strategy and
operation. Ultimately. PPM enables organizations to transIorm the organizations vision
into reality (Morris and Jamieson 2004. Dey 2006).

29

2.6 Project Portfolio Management Process

2.6.1 Project Portfolio Management Process Overview
The PortIolio management process is viewed to be constantly ongoing and iterative
(Levine 2005). The process serves as a continuous mechanism to ensure that proiects
remain aligned with their strategic intent (Raiegopal. McGuin and Waller 2007).
At a general level the PPM process can be divided into two primary stages (Levine 2005
and MoustaIev 2011):

I. Prioritization and selection of candidate projects for the portfolio:
The Iirst stage Iocuses on the prioritization and selection oI proiects Ior the portIolio
(Levine 2005). Levine Iurther discussed that during this stage the process starts with a
rational prioritization and selection procedure. in which a proposed is evaluated against a
set oI selection criteria. bad proiects get weeded out (or modiIied to meet the criteria). II a
proposed proiect cant pass the minimal criteria there is no need to rank it Ior selection.

II. Maintaining the pipeline
The second stage deals with managing the proiects within the portIolio approved proiects
through continuing. delaying or terminating approved proiects (Levine 2005). The proiect
pipeline is maintained by traditional proiect initiation. execution and control techniques as
Figure 2.5 PortIolio Management Cycle (Levine 2005)

30
well as by periodic reviews oI each proiect to ensure that each proiect still supports the
initial selection requirements (MoustaIev 2011).
At a more detailed level. the proiect portIolio management process normally. involves
Iive distinctive phases.

Levine (2005) described the Iive processes to be:
1. IdentiIication oI needs and opportunities
2. Selection oI best combination oI proiects (the portIolios)q
3. Planning and execution oI the proiects (proiect management)
4. Product launch (acceptance and use oI deliverables)
5. Realization oI beneIits

2.6.2 Project Portfolio Management Process Details

1- Strategic consideration and orientation:
Phase in which the organization needs and opportunities are identiIied and the
strategy is reviewed. This leads towards the selection oI the proiects with better
strategic alignment (Levine 2005).

1. PortIolio
Inventory
2. PortIolio
Analysis
3. PortIolio
Planning
4. PortIolio
Tracking
5. Review
and
replanning
The Portfolio Management Process is
Ongoing and Iterative
Figure 2.6 PortIolio Management Process (Levine 2005. pg 500)

31
2- Project evaluation phase:
Phase in which proiects are evaluated through analyzing the beneIits derived. as
well as the individual contribution oI each proiect to the portIolio obiectives.

3-Portfolio selection:
Phase involving a continuous comparison oI proiects. which compete between
each other. with the Iinal intension oI ranking in the top positions to achieve the
entrance to the organisational portIolio. The (Proiect evaluation) and (PortIolio
selections) phases could be considered as one ioint phase. which is (PortIolio
Selection).

In this stage the Iit oI the proiects to the strategic goals requirement make certain
that company Iinances and other resources are not wasted on ventures outside the
organizations sphere oI strategic interests (MoustaIaev 2011). Ultimately the best
combination oI proiects i.e. the portIolios are selected (Levine 2005).

4- The organisational resources assignment:
This phase is also known as the planning and proiects execution phase (Levine
2005). During this phase the organizational assets are assigned to the selected
proiects. However. since the organisational assets are limited and are constantly
requested Ior diIIerent proiects. this can cause an extremely complex managerial
problem.

4- Monitoring and control phase:
Phase in which management is responsible Ior assessing. recurrently. the portIolio
perIormance and all that is related to the portIolio range.

Implementation oI the PPM process involved three people groups (Levine 2005):
Senior management: Responsible Ior providing leadership and direction

PPM Governance Council: Members responsible Ior managing the selection
oI proiects Ior the portIolio and review proiects Ior possible deselection. Team
composed oI key leaders oI high levels such as ChieI Executive OIIice and

32
other senior staII. The council role is to bridge the gap between operation
management and proiect management and to ensure successIul communication
Ior making sound portIolio related decisions (Levine 2005).

Project Management Office or PMO: Centralized oIIice which monitors
approved proiects and advises the governance council where proiects are
deviating Irom planned beneIits and value. The oIIice is responsible Ior
getting Iinancial and work progress perspective updates Irom proiect leaders.
This inIormation goes into a database and is reported to executives via a
Proiect PortIolio Management Team (PPMT). giving the proiect inventory and
its status (Raiegopal. McGuin and Waller 2007).

2.7 Factors affecting the Project Portfolio Management Process
The Literature review concludes that certain Iactors play a signiIicant role in the success
oI the PPM process:

Organisational Strategy: Organizations should have clear strategic imperatives
in place. properly communicated across all departments. to which the PPM goals
are to be aligned to. The PortIolio Process cannot be eIIective iI the organization
was lacking a business strategy in the Iirst place (Calderini et al 2005).

Top level commitment: Any implementation oI PPM capability needs strong and
visible sponsorship oI the deIined processes by the senior executives. The role oI
executives is paramount to achieving eIIective proiect portIolio management; thus
they always need to be aligned with their organizations portIolio management
strategy by continuously enrolling them in the PPM process (Calderini et al 2005.
Levine 2005).

Mature and cooperative environment or culture: The availability oI a
supportive environment or culture that supports eIIective PPM. Developing a
culture that supports selection oI right proiects is not easy. Since as mentioned by
Levine (2005) many staII may consider responsible portIolio management a big
change. due to being previously less accountable Ior proiects execution.

33
Moreover. staII may complain that PPM is too diIIicult in order to avoid
accountability or out oI Iear that critical work will not get done in a timely
Iashion. The solution to this lies in simpliIying the process as best as possible.
Since as mentioned by Levine (2005) employees oIten avoid change and
implementation oI responsible portIolio management would be a big change Ior
many staII.

Level of interest of the stakeholders involved: Most oI the people involved in
the process have their speciIic terriorities to oversee and might not be motivated to
spend their time on PPM or they might not have the skills. tools. or practices to
participate Iully in this important Iunction (Levine 2005).

Monitoring of projects progress:
The importance oI constantly revising the active proiects by management was
highlighted by Cooper et al. (1998) since the decision making process is
characterized by uncertain and changing inIormation; whereby a list oI active
proiects being constantly updated is required.

Levine (2005) notes that the proiect progress needs to be evaluated based on two
dimensions:
a) Measuring oI proiect perIormance against previously set targets using
various tools:

CPM (Critical Path Method) soItware was discussed as a means oI
tracking proiect progress. however it was mentioned that it will assist
in indicating that there is slippage in the schedule. however without
speciIying how much work oI the work is slipping by.

EVA (Earned Value Analysis) was suggested as a key perIormance
measurement technique. it was considered to be a better option at
looking at perIormance since EVA can generate the value oI cost
variance and schedule variance at more detailed levels.


34
Levine (2005) explained that EVA capabilities are available in almost
all conventional proiect management soItwares. The goal is that
schedule and cost overruns can be discovered at an early stage and then
be communicated to the portIolio governance council by the PMO.

b) Evaluation oI the critical parameters that were used to select the proiect in
the Iirst place. In addition to tracking proiect progress. there are critical
parameters that constantly need to be considered to evaluate all proiects
Ior continuation or termination. Levine (2005) identiIied the below
parameters that need to be considered:

o Change in the need Ior proiect
o Is the proiect still aligned with the strategies?
o Are the proiect deliverables still needed?
o Are the cost beneIits or time Irame still acceptable?
o Window oI opportunity still open
o Change in critical technology making the proiect obsolete?
o Change in Iirms strategies

Project Management Office or PMO:
The role oI the PMO is important since the PMO primary role is to monitor the
proiect perIormance and consider the critical parameters through using the tools
above mentioned and alert the governance council iI the proiect needs to be
reexamined. depending on the inIormation gathered.

2.8 Project Portfolio Selection approaches
The literature presented various approaches to portIolio selection; there are more than
one hundred tools and techniques Ior proiect portIolio selection (Archer and
Ghasemzadeh 1999). Hence it is not diIIicult Ior organizations to select suitable tools.

Selection oI an appropriate proiect portIolio approach depends on considering many
relevant Iactors. (LeIley and Morgan 1998. Rad and Levin 2006) claimed that utilization
oI proiect selection tools and techniques should collaboratively take into consideration oI

35
important aspects oI strategy. resources. and risk Another critical Iactor that should be
considered when adapting tools. techniques. methods and models is the availability.
accuracy. reliability and up-to-datedness oI data input Ior analysis. This is more
challenging Ior new organizations or organizations moving to new business industry
where there are lacks oI database. inIormation and experiences (Rdulescu1 and
Rdulescu 2001).

Cooper et al (2001b) discussed the various tools. techniques and models Ior proiect
portIolio selection. Their results concluded that organizations tend to use diIIerent
combinations oI techniques instead oI relying on a single method or technique.

In addition. their results showed that Iinancial methods were popularly used. although
they produced poorly perIorming portIolios. In Iact their research showed that best
perIorming portIolios were Iound to be chosen based on strategic approach. rather than on
Iinancial methods. The table below presents a summary oI their survey results:

Table 2.1 Summary oI comparison between portIolio approaches (Adapted Irom Cooper et al.
2001b)
Methods / Models

Popularity
()

Dominance
()

Use
Financial Methods
such as NPV. ECV.
ROI. EV
77.3 40.4

- to rank proiects
against
each other.
- to compare the
Iinancial result
against a
hurdle rate to make
Go/Kill decisions on
individual proiects
Strategic approach
such as strategic
buckets. product road
map
64.8

26.6 to allocate resources
based on business
strategy and strategic
priority

36
Bubble diagrams or
portIolio maps
40.0

8.3

- to support the
decision
process
Weighted scoring
model e.g. scale
ratings. attractiveness
score
37.9

18.3 - to rank and compare
a
number oI proiects
against each other
Checklist 20.9 2.7

- to make go/kill
decisions on
individual
proiects

As evident Irom Table 2.1 results. Iinancial methods seem to be highest in popularity and
dominance Iollowed by the strategic approach then by the bubble diagrams or portIolio
maps. The least popular methods were Iound to be the weighted scoring model and
checklist method. Thus it seems that organizations rely mostly on Iinancial and strategic
viewpoints when making portIolio iudgment.

2.9. Project Portfolio Selection Models

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) 1980
In their research. Le and Nguyen (2007) discussed that the AHP model was developed by
Saaty (1980). and that it was used to support decision makers to rationally select the best
alternative based on the qualitative and quantitative approach (subiective and pair-wise
comparisons).

In their research they identiIied that the goal. evaluation criteria and sub-criteria were set
in the hierarchical structure Ior order ranking. alternatives or options comparison in pairs.
and selection oI the best alternative. The analytical hierarchy can be structured inclusive
oI strategy. Iinance. and risk aspects oI proiects.

However Martino (2003) identiIied that too many criteria with diIIerent level oI
importance may make the decision making process challenging and complicated. Archer
and Ghasemzadeh (1999) viewed this model suitable Ior screening among portIolios.

37

Financial Appraisal Profile (FAP) 1997
Le and Nguyen (2007) discussed that the FAP model was Iirst introduced and developed
by LeIley in 1997. The author adopted the management appraisal team approach. the
FAP model consists oI three sub-models: the net present value proIile (NPVP). the proiect
risk proIile (PRP). and the strategic index (SI).

As discussed by Le and Nguyen (2007) the model is capable oI evaluating three main
attributes oI capital proiects: Iinance. risk and strategic beneIits.

Figure 2.7 FAP Model (LeIley and Sarkis. 2007)

Expected Commercial Value Method (ECV)
ECV is known as a decision tree method that is utilized to maximize the expected value
oI the portIolio. and added that it prevails over the weakness oI the net present value and
bang-Ior buck-methods which Iail to consider risks. probability oI technical and
commercial success (Cooper et al. 1997a. Cooper et al 2001a).


38
In their discussion Le and Nguyen (2007) mentioned that English China Clay Company
had added one more Ieature which is the Strategic Importance Index (SI) to adiust the net
present value oI the proiect.

According to their discussion the SI had three levels representing high (3). medium (2).
and low (1). The net present value would be adiusted by multiplying it by an SI. However
Cooper et al. (2001a) identiIied that this model has certain drawbacks. Ior example. the
model heavily relied on Iinancial and other quantitative data. and possible errors in
probability estimates. Below is an ECV decision tree Irom Cooper et al(1997a):

Figure 2.8 ECV Method as a Decision Tree (Cooper et al. 1997a)

Benefit / Cost Ratio and Profitability Index 1994
Le and Nguyen (2007) identiIied that this approach was discussed by Frame (1994).
Frame (1994) discussed the analysis oI weighting beneIits oI an option against its costs.
which is known as BeneIit / Cost (B/C) Analysis. The ratio is calculated by dividing the
estimates oI beneIits by the estimates oI costs as illustrated in the Iormula below:

B / C Estimated Sales x Estimated ProIit Rate x Probability oI Success

39
Estimated Costs

The strategic Iactor (e.g. proIit rate) and risk Iactor (e.g. success probability) are taken
into consideration in this Iormula oI Iinancial analysis. Le and Nguyen (2007) identiIied
the below points:

The beneIit/cost ratio becomes the proIitability index when the cash Ilows oI
beneIits and cost are discounted.
The beneIit/cost ratio or proIitability index is a quantitative tool which is very
useIul Ior ranking or prioritizing proiects. When the ratio is greater than 1.0 a
proiect is proIitable and accepted; when it is less than 1.0. the proiect is
unproIitable and reiected; and when it is equal to 0. the proiect is accepted or
reiected depending on consideration oI other strategic Iactors as beneIits oIIset
costs.

However Le and Nguyen (2007) highlighted that this ratio and index have certain
drawbacks that need be aware oI such as reliability oI or bias toward estimates oI beneIits
and costs; availability oI data Ior estimates; some beneIits are not measurable (e.g.
competence improvement oI proiect team.

ThereIore. it was recommended that this ratio or index should be used together with other
tools in order to make better decisions on proiect selection (Frame 1994. Smith and
Barker 1999. Le and Nguyen 2007).

Boston Consulting Group (BCG) Matrix 1970
Le and Nguyen (2007) discussed that the BCG Matrix was introduced in 1970 by the
Boston Consulting Group (BCG) as a portIolio management tool. Figure 2.9 illustrates
the BCG Matrix. Below are the main points that they mentioned:

- In the matrix. a portIolio oI products is managed based on two dimensions: market
share and market growth

40
- There are Iour segments: stars (high growth. high market share); cash cows (low
growth. high market share); dogs (low growth. high market share); and question marks
(high growth market share)
- The Iour segments represent the liIe cycle oI a product.

BCG (1970) stated that with a balanced portIolio consisting oI stars to assure the Iuture;
cash cows to supply Iunds Ior that Iuture growth; and question marks to be converted into
stars with the added Iunds. a diversiIied company can use its strengths to truly capitalize
on its growth opportunities.

However Le and Nguyen (2007) identiIied that there were some limitations oI the BCG
matrix. such as considering high market share as the only
success Iactor.

Figure 2.9 The BCG Matrix (12manage. 2011).

Bubble Diagrams for Project Mapping
Cooper et al (2001a. 2001b) discussed that bubble diagrams were mainly based on the
concepts oI BCG matrix portIolio management and GE/McKinsey matrix as portIolio
analysis. and theyre used to present proiect portIolio Ior resource allocation.

As discussed by Le and Nguyen (2007) a typical diagram has two dimensions oI interests
and Iour segments / areas to visually locate proiects Ior creation oI a balance
portIolio. There are various types oI bubble diagrams. Cooper et al (2001b) conducted a
survey that illustrated the popularity ranking oI those types. below is a table that shows
their results ranked Irom highest to the lowest:


41

Table 2.2 Popularity of Bubble diagram (Adapted from Cooper et al.. 2001b)

Rank Chart type Dimensions
Axis 1 Axis 2
1 Risk vs. Reward Reward: NPV. IRR.
beneIits aIter years oI
launch; market value
Probability oI Success
(technical. commercial)
2 Newness Newness Market Newness
3 Ease Vs.
Attractiveness
Technical Feasibility Market Attractiveness
(growth potential.
consumer
appeal. overall
attractiveness.
liIe cycle potential)
4 Our Strengths Vs.
Proiect
Attractiveness
Competitive Position
(our relative strengths)
Proiect Attractiveness
(market
growth. technical
maturity.
years to implementation)
5 Cost Vs. Timing Cost to Implement Time to Impact
6 Strategic Vs.
BeneIit
Strategic Focus or Fit Business intent. NPV.
Iinancial Iit.
attractiveness
7 Cost Vs. BeneIit Cumulative Reward ($) Cumulative Development
Costs ($)

As evident Irom Table 2.2. risk-reward bubble diagrams were Iound to be the most
popular type. in contrast to the cost-beneIit bubble diagrams which were Iound to be the
least popular type. Figure 2.10 illustrates a bubble diagram example.


42

Figure 2.10 Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram example (Cooper et al.. 2001a)

Le and Nguyen (2007) discussed the Iollowing main points about the Risk-Reward
Bubble diagrams:
- Within the two dimensions. there are Iour quadrants Ior allocation oI proiects.
namely:
pearls - upper leIt quadrant (i.e. potential start products. proiects with high
chance oI success and high rewards

oysters - lower leIt quadrant (i.e. proiects with high expected payoII. but low
probability oI technical success)

bread and butter - upper right quadrant (i.e. small. simple proiects with a high
success probability but low reward)

white elephant- low right quadrant (i.e. low success and low reward proiects).
- The bubble or circle represents proiects. The size oI the bubble or circle
denotes the resource allocated to each proiect.

- When adding or deleting the new proiects. resources strategically considered
to share among proiects make the size oI the bubble or circle change as the
total sum oI the areas oI the circles must be a constant.

43

2.10 Challenges faced by the PPM process:
The literature review discussed various challenges to selecting right proiect portIolios.
below is a listing oI the main challenges and the proposed courses oI action to tackle them

High number of proposed projects:
Levine (2005) indicated that one oI the problems with selection oI proiects Ior the
portIolio lies in that too many proiects are proposed that shouldnt be. Since most
proposals are instigated Ior various reasons without prior thought to costs.
schedules. alignment with strategies or any oI the important business requirements
or Iactors.

UnIortunately this puts demand on the proiect management oIIice and the
government council. since it requires them to evaluate all those proposed proiects
prior to reiecting them Ior any deIiciencies Iound.

Levine (2005) proposed a process Ior proiect prequaliIication. which would
help reduce the submittal oI proposals Ior bad proiects. Moreover. proiect
sponsors will seek to improve their proposed proiects value and alignment
with company strategy short beIore submitting the proposed proiect. once they
recognize that the proposal does not support the selection criteria.

Selection and implementation of too many projects beyond the organizations
capability:
Studies show that one oI the critical Iactors leading to the Iailure oI proiects to
deliver business strategies is the selection and implementation oI too many
proiects beyond the organizations capability and capacity (Wheelwright and
Clark 1992. Archer and Ghasemzadeh 1999. Englund and Graham 1999. Cooper
et al 2000. Yelin 2005. CrawIord et al. 2006. BlichIeldt and Eskerod 2007).

The limitation in the organizations capacity and capability should be
considered when deciding to implement the portIolio proiects.


44
Unreliable or unavailable data:
Rdulescu1 and Rdulescu (2001) and Cooper et al. (2001a) argued that in the
PPM process. organizations Iace many problems such as lack oI inIormation.
unreliable data oI cost. time to completion. availabilities oI resource. and beneIits
oI proiects.

Emphasis should be placed on collecting accurate and updated data. due to its
importance to sound decision making

Effect of reviewing the strategic plans on an annual basis
Organizations oIten review their strategic plans on annual basis; however proiects
usually arrive randomly. not at one time.

This requires the model or process to be Ilexible so that organizations can select
proiects without waiting until annual planning meetings (Lu. Chiu and Cox 1999.
Englund and Graham 1999 and Kendall and Rollins 2003).

Project Portfolio Selection may not always be systematic:
Proiect portIolio selection is not always rational but it is biased by human being
Iactors such as lobbying (Englund and Graham 1999 and Yelin 2005).

ThereIore as recommended by Le and Nguyen (2007) the bias reduction should be
Iactored in adapting or developing systemic approach to proiect portIolio
selection.

Existence of projects not subjected to PPM due to management unawareness
BlichIeldt and Eskerod (2008) discussed that some proiects exist that more or less
are unknown to top management and thus not subiect to PPM. This leads to
smaller un-enacted proiects taking-up a lot oI the resources necessary Ior the
completion oI ongoing enacted proiects.


45
In addition. BlichIeldt and Eskerod (2008) highlighted that these proiects will not
be screened against the evaluation criteria put-up by management and thus they
will neither receive top managements attention or be tracked by them.

They suggest that businesses should embrace all proiects by trying to make all
unenacted proiects an integral part oI PPM. The article suggests there are severe
problems regarding this solution due to limited time and capacity. Thus the
setting-up oI a loosely controlled resources pool dedicated to the smaller un-
enacted proiects was proposed as a better solution.

Impact of Uncertainty/Risk on projects or portfolios:
Every proiect aims to bring something entirely new into the environment.
Moreover. every proiect operates in a variable environment. where not all
conditions are in the control oI the proiect team. PortIolios are also not stagnant.
they are dynamic and ever changing.

Thus PPM requires eIIective risk management. Change management and
organizational behaviour management can also be applied to deal with these
challenges as suggested by Le and Nguyen (2007).


46
Chapter 3

Towards effective Philanthropy

This chapter represents the literature review that includes the main philanthropy
concepts: related Iield deIinitions. origin oI philanthropy. Iactors that aIIect philanthropic
decisions. challenges Iaced. comparison between the social sector to other sectors and
general characteristics to successIul philanthropic organizations.

3.1 Related Definitions
Below are the related deIinitions to the subiect oI philanthropy:

Social value:
An enduring. normative belieI that describes a preIerred mode oI social conduct or end-
state in society and iustiIies action to attain or sustain a preIerred social order (Whitman
2009).

Non-profit sector:
Sector that includes all organizations that continually shape and reshape the social order.
create both the intellectual and social space Ior space to organize and inIluence every
aspect oI the human condition (Ciconte and Gerda 2009).

Other names oIten used are: independent sector. not-Ior-proIit sector. third sector.
philanthropic sector. voluntary sector. social sector. Non-governmental Organization
(NGO) sector (Ciconte and Gerda 2009).

Philanthropy:
The word Philanthropy is Greek and means love oI mankind (Ciconte and
Gerda 2009).

Levy (2006) described philanthropy as:
- Any eIIort to relieve human misery or suIIering. improve the
quality oI liIe. encourage aid or assistance. or Ioster the
preservation oI values through giIts. service. or other voluntary

47
activity. any and all oI which are external to government
involvement or marketplace exchange.

Frumkin (2006) perceived philanthropy to be more than eIIicient provision oI
human resources:
...Philanthropy is about pluralism. expression and innovation iust as much
as it is about redistribution and change

Philanthropic foundation:
Fremkin (2006) provided the below deIinition:
o A private or independent Ioundation. an endowed institution that makes
grants to nonproIit organizations using the interest and appreciation Irom
its investments. Constituted by a board and sometimes a staII. a Ioundation
reviews grant applications and disburses Iunds to those applicants deemed
most deserving.

Projects and Initiatives:
Braverman. Constantine and Slater (2004) provided the below deIinitions oI proiects and
initiatives Irom the perspective oI philanthropy:

o Project: Most Ioundation grantmaking supports projects, that is. single
grants to single organizations to carry out activities to achieve a set oI
outcomes

o Initiative: An initiative is a collection oI grant activities involving more
than one grantee organization and aimed at achieving a common set oI
outcomes. Initiatives are also called clusters oI proiects. lines oI work. and
subprograms.

o Initiatives may involve multiple strategies. span multiple years. involve
multiple geographic regions. engage multiple grantees. operate at multiple
levels oI organizational entities. and involve millions oI dollars in grants.
As the term implies. initiatives are Irequently driven by the Ioundation and
reIlect Ioundation interests in becoming strategic investors.

48

Some philanthropic initiatives speciIy programmatic outcomes at the
beginning and also articulate. at the outset. the interventions and activities
to be employed to achieve those outcomes

Outcomes:
Braverman. Constantine and Slater (2004) provided the below deIinition:

o Outcomes: Changes in the status or condition oI an entity such as an
individual. organization. system. or geographic region. Outcomes Ior these
proiects may be identiIied and proposed by the grantee organization. or
they may be identiIied by the Ioundation. Foundations desired outcomes
are oIten outlined in grantmaking guidelines or broadly deIined in their
mission or historical character.

In other cases. grantee organizations and Ioundation staII may work in
partnership to develop and agree on a set oI outcomes which can then
serve as the basis Ior evaluation activities

Evaluation:
Braverman. Constantine and Slater (2004) provided the two below deIinitions:
o Evaluation: using systematically collected inIormation to help Ioundation
and grantee eIIorts achieve meaningIul public beneIits or as:

o Evaluation: can be deIined broadly as the systematic collection and use oI
inIormation to answer questions about programs

Strategy:
The general approach oI activities employed to achieve program outcomes. Strategies are
the how. and program outcomes are the what oI grants (Braverman. Constantine and
Slater 2004).


49
3.2 Origin and Golden age of philanthropy
The origins oI philanthropy go back a long way. This could be traced back to Iamily and
kinship obligations to protect ones own and oIIer hospitality to strangers. Moreover.
religion has long been an important source oI philanthropy: The Quran instructs the
Muslims to give Ior the common good. the Hebrew and Christian scriptures are Iilled
with praise about caring Ior the poor (Lindsay and Wuthnow 2010).

Philanthropy is a worldwide phenomenon that has emerged in its many Iorms as a central
and distinctive Ieature oI societies around the world (Frumkin 2006). The idea oI civil
society Iirst emerged in the later seventeenth and eighteenth century (Seligman 1992).
However. the scale oI giving has grown largely in our current times. It has become
something oI a cliche that we are now in a golden age oI philanthropy in terms oI the
unprecedented amount oI money the nonproIit sector is receiving (Goldberg 2009).

However. the unprecedented growth in both the aggregate amount oI donations and the
burgeoning number oI NPOs clamoring Ior their share has only attenuated Iurther the
relationship between Iunding and perIormance (Goldberg 2009).

3.3 Comparison on the non-profit sector to others sectors
We make a living by what we get. but we make a liIe by what we give - Winston
Churchill. This quote represents the spirit oI the non-proIit sector and very much the
inspiring sense oI mission so prevalent among those who work within it (Ciconte and
Gerda 2009). Notions oI solidarity. mutuality. and voluntary altruism constitute prime
rationales oI the nonproIit sector activity (Toepeler 2003).

By looking closely at this sector. we Iind out that it comprises various diverse
organizations that can cover a breadth oI causes Irom building shelters Ior the home-less.
campaigning Iundraising events Ior the poor to managing large NGOs that oIIer social
international support programs. Below is a discussion oI the main strengths and
weaknesses oI this sector to other sectors.


50
3.3.1 Strengths of non-profit/philanthropic sector to other sectors
Independence and Flexibility:
Organizations in the non-proIit sector enioy independence and Ilexibility that
enable them to engage in cutting edge research. move quickly to capitalize on
development opportunities. test innovative ideas. and take risks (Braverman.
Constantine and Slater 2004. Eleanor. Fink and Katrinka 2005).

Although the organizations independence can hinder communication. SandIort
(2008) points out that this enables them to invest without regard to public
deliberations or market restrictions.

Ability to take risks and attempt innovative practices:
Many agree in the literature that another advantage the philanthropic sector
possesses over the government is its ability to take risks and test innovative
practices (Fink and Ebbe 2005. KauImann and Searle 2007. William and Flora
Hewlett Foundation 2008).

This characteristic is related to the ability oI philanthropic organizations to
independently engage in various initiatives without considering complicated
political processes as compared to the public sector.

Foundations can decide more liberally on their processes and approaches. They
have the time to careIully research initiatives beIore Iunding them. draw on world-
class expertise. Iund unpopular causes. or think about the long term by sustaining
their programs Ior decades (Braverman. Constantine and Slater 2004).

Philanthropic processes more responsive
Philanthropy is still an intensely personal activity. so the relationships among
stakeholders matter a great deal in deIining what is valued. The personal Iactor
helps make the process more Ilexible and responsive. in contrast to the public
sector (Braverman. Constantine and Slater 2004).


51

3.3.2 Weaknesses of non-profit sector to others sectors
Capability of funding of large-scale initiatives:
There is no comparison between the magnitudes oI private Ioundation Iunding
that is dwarIed by the governments signiIicant investments (SandIort 2008).
Furthermore the public sector is more able to commit to an initiative over the long
term. due to its reliable Iinancial resources and strong power or inIluence that
supports initiatives success.

Strong accountability structures: Public sector accountability structures are
typically more strong than in the philanthropic sector (Desai and Kharas 2008.
Guidice and Bolduc 2004). This perhaps could be positive compensation Ior the
relative lack oI independence Iaced in this sector. Indeed the public sector. has put
great eIIorts in development oI its accountability structures. since it is directly
answerable to the public demands.

Social markets weakness in encouraging & rewarding performance
In the Ior-proIit sector. companies produced standardized data that independent
analysts use to publish report about corporate perIormance. As a result the
Iinancial market encourages and rewards superior perIormance. However. the
social sector is behind business in applying rigorous thinking to the use oI money.
Thus while the Iinancial markets encourage and reward perIormance. social
markets encourage and reward Iundraising (Goldberg 2009).

3.4 Factors that play role in Philanthropic goals or decisions
Organization culture:
Braverman. Constantine and Slater (2004) discussed that an organization culture plays
a roles in guiding the organization in its chosen initiatives. They Iurther emphasized
that the organization culture consists oI the two main points: Stakeholders values and
expectations and the organizations mission and vision:


52

Stakeholders personal values and expectations:
A Ioundations culture is deIined by what its stakeholders value and expect. A
Ioundations internal stakeholders include the board oI directors. senior management.
grant oIIicers. and. to a surprising extent. its grantees (Braverman. Constantine and
Slater 2004).

Frumkin (2006) also highlighted that philanthropy is not always about meeting the
most urgent human needs. since the donors bring in their own personal interest and
private vision oI the public good. The author states that donning could be due to
personal reasons such as organizations that have played an important role in a donors
liIe.

Mission and Vision.
The Ioundations mission and the staII members vision are central to conducting
eIIective philanthropy. The Ioundation can oIten value both positive and negative
Iindings. as long as they are constructive and in line with a shared deIinition oI the
mission and vision (Braverman. Constantine and Slater 2004).

Organizations size
An organizations size reIers to its assets. payout (dollar amount oI grants issued each
year). and staIIing (Braverman. Constantine and Slater 2004). The organization size
will aIIect the organization goals. content. Iocus and structure (Braverman.
Constantine and Slater 2004).

As discussed by those authors. the largest organizations will oIten aspire to achieve
societal impact beyond their actual payout and their staII may include national or
international experts. Other smaller organizations may have a local or regional
mission. they would Iund worthy causes but would have local inIluence behind the
scenes. Ior these organizations longstanding relationships with other organizations is
important (Braverman. Constantine and Slater 2004).


53

3.5 Challenges to Philanthropic work

Challenging Nature oI philanthropy:
As stated by Frumkin (2006): One oI the challenges in exploring the nature oI
philanthropic strategy is that giving has so many diIIerent Iorms. ambitions. and ideals.
Frumkin (2006) also noted that this Iield largely operates without a settled doctrine or a
set oI accepted practices; the reason behind this could be attributed to the various people
involved in philanthropy that doesnot involve only a homogeneous group. but rather
people Irom all walks oI liIe.

Absence oI strong strategic plan:
Most philanthropic organizations are tempted to proceed with giving without reIerring to
a strong strategic plan (Frumkin 2006). InIact. rarely do donors Iace any criticism Irom
the world oI philanthropic sector on poorly made decisions. since there is always a long
line oI organizations anxious to help donors dispose oI what Andrew Carniege. the
leading American Philanthropist. once termed surplus wealth (Frumkin 2006). The
resulting problem is unwise selection decisions. Moreover the hope oI developing a
vision and strategy through experimentation rarely occurs (Frumkin 2006).

Inadequate Measurement and DiIIiculty in quantiIying social goals:
The non-proIit sector suIIers Irom primitive and imprecise perIormance measurement
(Frumkin 2006). The diIIicult lies in: Iirst deciding what to measure. since measurement
is not as straightIorward as it seems. Foundations tend to Iocus on measuring outputs: the
products oI program activities. rather than outcomes: changes in participants or program
targets that Iollow Irom outputs (HELP Commission 2007. Porter and Kramer 1999).

Moreover. metrics Ior measurement may be unavailable (SandIort 2008) and there is
diIIiculty in making comparisons between social values across programs due to their
inconsistency (Braverman. Constantine and Slater 2004. Goldberg 2009. W.K. Kellogg
Foundation 2003). Furthermore. philanthropic missions are Iocused primarily on
impacting whole social systems. rather than inIluencing discrete individuals or

54
communities. However. as discussed by KauImann and Searle (2007) metrics Ior
measuring the later impact are currently only in a Iormative stage.
Lack oI Reliable Funding
Reliable Funding is critical Ior the success oI philanthropic initiatives. Since
inconsistency in Iunding can cause organizations to Iocus on budgeting and management
concerns. rather than paying attention to quality program implementation or service
delivery (Balin 2003. Benedict 2003a. Desai and Kharas 2008).

Moreover. inconsistency oI resources can put unnecessary strain on the organizations that
actually implement Iunded programs. diverting their attention Irom quality program
implementation or service delivery to budgeting and management concerns (Balin 2003.
Benedict 2003a. Desai and Kharas 2008).
Fragmentation oI philanthropic work
Various scholars discussed the problem oI Iragmenting oI philanthropic work as a
continuing problem (HELP 2007. Kharas 2008. Porter and Kramer 1999. SandIort 2008).
These scholars pointed out many resulting issues oI this such as: Hindering oI
development oI best practices and lack oI communication and sharing oI lessons learnt
among the various Ioundations.
Transparency and Accountability:
Philanthropic Ioundations have oIten been criticized Ior their lack oI transparency and
accountability. The literature discusses that Ioundation decisions are oIten sensed to
be opaque and lacking in eIIective internal and external accountability measures
(Frumkin 2006. Guidice and Bolduc 2004. Porter and Kramer 1999).
Frumkin (2006) explained that accountability concerns stem in part Irom the tax
deductions that philanthropic organizations receive Ior their giving and it is also
related to inIluence such organizations may have to use resources to enact agendas.
Accountability issues Ior large Ioundations are Iar more pressing; these donors Iace
several watch dogs that monitor and critique Ioundations practices (Frumkin 2006).

55
However. the Iact that this Iield almost delivers billions oI dollars a year makes it
diIIicult to create a accountability system (Frumkin 2006).
EIIectiveness oI philanthropy
In the Iield oI Philanthropy. eIIectiveness is considered one oI the central problems Iaced
(Frumkin 2006). There is still no deIinite agreement on the philanthropic obiectives.
standard measurements oI assessing impact. Most importantly. it is still not clear how to
use the knowledge and experience gained to improve eIIectiveness oI work over time
(Frumkin 2006).

As discussed by Frumkin (2006). another issue related to improving eIIectiveness is lack
oI consensus on the meaning oI eIIectiveness itselI. There are many angles to
eIIectiveness in the Iield oI philanthropy. which causes Iurther conIusion such as:

- Program effectiveness which is deIined in terms oI the work done by those who receive
philanthropic support and thus Iocuses on the programmatic work oI the recipient
organizations. Frumkin (2006) highlights that the philanthropic Iield is very much
Iocused on this deIinition oI eIIectiveness.

- Mission effectiveness which is deIined in terms oI the achievements oI a philanthropic
organizations goal or missions. It is related to the quality oI strategy and level oI
execution achieved by the organization. This deIinition is very problematic when it comes
to measurement which is the reason behind Iocus the philanthropic organization Iocus on
the above deIinition.


56
Lack oI evaluation oI Philanthropic work:
Evaluation has Iallen short oI philanthropys expectations (Braverman. Constantine
and Slater 2004). Part oI the shortcoming on this comes Irom the Ireedom that
philanthropic organizations possess.

However. this very Ireedom presents signiIicant challenges. Without having to satisIy
customers. investors. voters. or any other empowered stakeholders. Ioundations lack
any consistent external Ieedback about their perIormance (Braverman. Constantine
and Slater 2004).

Furthermore. Braverman. Constantine and Slater (2004) criticized the current program
evaluation reports used. below is a listing oI the key identiIied Iaults:
o Many evaluation reports are not useIul. are completed too late to be
relevant. or are too costly in comparison to the modest insights they provide.

o Evaluation designs oIten neglect important questions and Iail to identiIy
lessons or insights oI interest

o Evaluations sometimes Iail to take account oI key Ieatures oI the proiect
approach or the context in which the proiect is conducted. greatly limiting
their value.

o Failures to obtain necessary data (such as outcome data) sometimes greatly
reduce evaluations useIulness and validity.

o Evaluations are oIten initiated at wrong timing. thereby missing the
opportunity to gather crucial baseline data

o Evaluations may sometimes Iocus on short-term outcomes. that cause
organizations staII to obiect that large purposes have been neglected; which
also raises the point that larger purposes cannot be accurately assessed at an
aIIordable cost.


57
3.6 General Characteristics of successful philanthropy
SuccessIul philanthropic organizations should be capable oI meeting the above-
mentioned challenges oI the Iield. Moreover. there are general characteristics that
successIul philanthropic organizations need to attain:
1. Ownership oI initiatives and proiects: One oI the main characteristics oI successIul
philanthropic organizations is: Ownership oI programs and initiatives. This is not only
critical to their successIul implementation. but as well to their eIIectiveness and
sustainability (HELP Commission 2007. Hudson Institute 2008).
2. Appropriate Technology: Another characteristic important Ior successIul
philanthropy is the utilization oI the appropriate technology by the organization. The
literature highlighted that using a certain technology must meet the requirements oI it
being important to an initiative and simple enough to be put in place.
The literature also warned that technology is oIten perceived to be the silver bullet Ior
assisting many areas such as philanthropy; however it must be noted that technological
solutions cannot overcome complex social problems (Desai and Kharas 2008. HELP
2007. Hudson Institute 2008. Kramer 2007. SandIort 2008. WHO 2008).
3. Consideration oI Scale: Philanthropic Ioundations have been Iollowing the historical
pattern oI Iocusing on small-scale innovative initiatives with the intention oI scaling up
later under local or national government leadership (Benedict 2003a. Kramer 2007.
SandIort 2008).
However. the organizational consultant: Kramer (2007) points out that Iew initiated
proiects have actually been scaled-up by governments. Moreover. although governments
can assist by providing incentives; there is no guarantee that the government adoption oI
an initiative will guarantee its successIul deployment at a larger scale (HELP 2007).
Thus. considering the scale oI initiatives or proiects is important Ior successIul
philanthropy.


58
Chapter 4

Research Methodology

4.1. Introduction to research methodology
This chapter describes the research methodology selected to achieve the aims oI this
investigative research. A detailed explanation oI the research methodology is provided in
this chapter.

Proiect Management scholars do not consider a speciIic research methodology superior to
others; thus the researcher had to consider the relevant study conditions and select the
appropriate research methodology.

4.2 Research Approach
In order to address the research goals identiIied in the introductory chapter. the inductive
approach was selected. The reason was to collect data that would enable development oI a
theory on the research topic. The approach employed mixed-methods that included both
qualitative and quantitative methods.

This mixed-method approach aimed to attain the descriptive results provided by the
qualitative method and obiective Iacts provided by the quantitative methods (Eisenhardt
1989). A variety oI evidence was collected using semi-structured interviews and surveys
were examined.

4.3. Research Purpose and Process

The purpose oI the research is exploratory in nature; since it aims to investigate the
relevance oI proiect portIolio management in a poorly researched setting: philanthropic
organizations. To achieve this he research methodology employed two main processes:
Initial exploratory study and survey method to answer the research questions:
- RQ1: What is the current status oI proiect portIolio management in philanthropic
settings?
- RQ2: What are the general recommended portIolio approaches Ior philanthropic
organizations?

59
- RQ3: What are the challenges and recommendations to eIIective proiect portIolio
management in philanthropic settings?
Below is a detailed description oI the methodology process.

4.3.1. Exploratory study
Introduction
An initial exploratory study was perIormed in which semi-structured interviews were
conducted among selected philanthropic organizations in the United Arab Emirates.
The purpose oI the exploratory study was to gain understanding on the level oI awareness
on PPM and its practices within the UAE context.

In addition. to identiIying challenges and issues Iaced by philanthropic organizations and
how diIIerent organizations tackle their issues. Furthermore. the study was aimed to test
ambiguity oI the questions and identiIy any weaknesses that could be overcome prior to
initiating the survey method. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using a list oI
open and close questions. Fellows and Liu (2003) argue that semi-structured interviews
bridge the gap between the structured and the unstructured extremes.

Five organizations were targeted in the study. Four oI the organizations were based in
UAE- Abu Dhabi; while one organization was based in UAE- Dubai. The interview
questions were structured to answer the research questions.

The exploratory study identiIied obstacles to conducting research in the United Arab
Emirates due to diIIiculty in accessing inIormation and obtaining approval Ior support;
more details are provided in Chapter 5. Thereby. the targeted organizations Ior the survey
were chosen to be in Sudan rather in UAE. Moreover. some questions that the pilot study
respondents were concerned about were changed and replaced by other questions.

Description of interview questions:
The semi-structured interviews consisted oI a total 18 question distributed as 9 open
questions and 9 closed questions. The questions included: checklists. grids and rating
scales oI 5 categories based on the Likert scale were used. The questions were provided in
Arabic and English Iormat to Iacilitate the inIormation gathering Ior the employees.

60

Below is a listing oI the interview questions along with their purposes:

1-Does your organization have a PPM process; i.e. a process for selecting projects or
portfolios of projects?
The purpose oI this question was to identiIy whether the organization had any sort oI
structured process Ior selecting proiects or proiect portIolios. The answer to this question
will be Yes or No.

2- What is the mission of your organization and background?
Knowing the mission and general background oI the organization can be useIul in
determining the importance oI PPM to the organization overall strategy

3-In regards to the projects being conducted in UAE. please describe the nature of
those projects and scale.

Due to the variety in proiects being conducted by organizations. this question aims to
understand the nature oI the proiects being conducted by the organizations included in the
study.
Table 4.1 Question 4
No. Question
N
e
v
e
r

S
e
l
d
o
m

S
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
s

O
I
t
e
n

A
l
w
a
y
s

4- How often is your organization engaged in large
portfolio of projects. comprised of various sub-
projects?

The question aims to identiIy how Irequent are organizations involved in delivering
proiect portIolios.

5- What are the factors you usually consider for project or project portfolio
selection? (i.e. Government support. budget limitations. etc.)
The question aims to identiIy the common Iactors considered by philanthropic
Ioundations when selecting proiect portIolios/proiects.


61
6- Please clarify what is the process or procedure to be followed when selecting a
project or portfolio?
The purpose oI this question is to gain details on the Iramework used by the organization
to select proiect or portIolios.

7- Are charitable reasons the most important factor to be considered for project
selection? Please clarify.
This question was used to investigate iI non-humanitarian Iactors could be oI higher
importance to philanthropic organizations. than oI purely humanitarian reasons. The
answer to this would be Yes or No and also space was provided Ior more clariIication
details.

No. Question
Y
e
s

N
o

N
/
A

8
The survey aims to investigate relevance of
implementing a project/portfolio management process
for philanthropic foundations in the UAE. Do you
think there is a need for such a study to avoid issues or
problems?

Please explain your response.
The purpose oI this question is to identiIy the need Ior studying PPM in the area oI
philanthropic work. The answer would be Yes or No and space was provided to
provide more clariIication details.

62
9- Please explain the challenges generally faced when selecting projects or
portfolios?
The question aims to identiIy problems Iaced due to lack oI eIIective PPM.
10- Are you aware of any general recommended portfolio approaches for social
organizations like your organization?
The question aims to measure employees awareness oI PM implemented approaches in
their Iield oI work
11- Are there any issues faced due to lack of structure in a management process for
projects and portfolios?
The purpose oI the question is to identiIy management related Iactors to implementation
oI PPM in their organizations.

To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
No Statement
S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

d
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

N
e
u
t
r
a
l

A
g
r
e
e

S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

12 Organization projects in-line with corporate
strategy

13 Organization selected projects successfully
delivered

14 Organization resources spread evenly among the
projects

15 Current projects and portfolios managed smoothly
16 Current project and portfolio management process
helps to identify risks and arising needs

Questions 12-16 aims to identiIy the eIIectiveness oI the organizations PPM process by
gaining perspectives oI the employees on the deliverables oI the PPM process: Degree oI
proiects alignment with the corporate strategy (Question 12). SuccessIul proiect delivery
(Question 13). EIIective Resource allocation (Question 14). EIIective portIolio proiect
management (Question 15). EIIectiveness oI PPM process in identiIying arising
challenges (Question 16)

63

17. Do you have any further comment. suggestion or contribution relative to PPM
performance?
The goal oI this question was to provide the employees with the chance to express any
additional inIormation or remarks that could be oI beneIit to the research

18- ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS For Follow-up purposes only if accepted
Your name:

Organization name:

Your job title:

A small number of follow up research interviews will be
conducted later - Is it ok to contact you again for a short
research interview Yes / No

Email (only used if follow-up needed):

Mobile (only used if follow-up needed):

The goal oI the last part was to seek permission Ior Iurther research Iollow-up Irom the
interviewees. The interested interviewees would have Iilled-in the relevant contact
inIormation mentioned in the last part such as employee name. email or contact number.

4.3.2. Survey Method

Introduction
The second step was to distribute a survey among the employees oI the targeted
organizations in the exploratory study. Initially. the research methodology aimed to
conduct both the semi-structured interviews and surveys among only UAE based
philanthropic organizations.

The goal was to obtain and analyze inIormation Irom the same environment. However.
many approval diIIiculties were noticed during the exploratory stage that discouraged
distribution oI surveys in the UAE. (ReIer to next chapter Ior more details). This lead to

64
the survey distribution in Sudan: where the researcher was able to obtain better Ieedback
suitable Ior analysis and research Iindings.

In-order to meet the interest oI each organization. surveys were conducted diIIerently
across these organizations: electronic copies were sent to several organizations and then
completed during telephone conversations with the organizations representatives.
Several others were provided access to entering the survey online on a dedicated website
using www.surveymonkey.com.

Finally. others were invited to group sessions in which hard copies oI the survey
questions were distributed and then later gathered upon completion. The survey questions
were provided in both Arabic and English language to Iacilitate answering oI questions.
The survey is available in both Arabic and English in Appendix A.

Description and purpose of survey questions
The survey structure was designed by the researcher. oI which a Iull copy is attached in
Arabic and English languages in Appendix A. The structure was mostly based on the
semi-structured interview questions oI the exploratory study; this was done to answer the
research questions discussed in the introductory chapter.

The survey was designed to give a proper balance between being short. simple and
comprehensive. This was one oI the most important aspects oI the design which ensured
that suIIicient interest is attracted among the respondents to participate in the survey
while ensuring that the collected data is inclusive. beneIiciary and reliable.

Below are the changes incorporated into the survey along with their iustiIications:

The survey comprised oI 21 questions. 18 question were close questions and the
remaining 3 open question were voluntary and Ior demographics inIormation only.
This approach was selected to encourage data collection and to control quality oI
responses provided. the Iact that the survey would be distributed among various
organizations with varying levels oI proiect management awareness lead to this

65
consideration. Thus the below mandatory -open ended questions were removed Irom
the survey:

What is your name?
What is your organization name?
What is your iob title?
What is the mission oI your organization and background?
In regards to the proiects being conducted in UAE. please describe the nature
oI those proiects and scale.

The above questions were replaced by the below voluntary open questions:
Please Ieel Iree to provide any comment/suggestion on proiect management
related to philanthropic work
Job role (Voluntary)
Email (Voluntary)

The Iollowing questions were added:

How would you rate the size oI your organization? (Answer only one)
o Small
o Medium
o Large

The literature discussed that size oI the organization aIIects the mission and approach
oI philanthropic organizations (Braverman. Constantine and Slater 2004).
Thus considering the organization size would be an important element to data
analysis.

How long has your organization been practicing this PPM Process?

o 1-2 Years
o 3-5 Years
o More than 5 years

The goal was to gain understanding on the level oI PPM maturity in the organization
by identiIying the period PPM was practiced.

4. How was the PPM process developed? (Answer only one)
o By your organization independently
o By hiring consultants or implementing PPM software?
o By combining organization efforts with external consultation or use of PPM
software


66
The goal was to gain understanding on the process oI developing PPM oI the
organization. whether it was solely based on the organization eIIorts or additional
resources were utilized such as external consultants or specialized PPM soItware.

Is there an assigned department clearly responsible Ior implementing PPM?
(Answer only one)
o Yes
o No

The question aims to identiIy whether the organization considers PPM aspects
speciIically.

How oIten do you review your proiect portIolios? (Answer only one)
o Monthly
o Quarterly
o Never

The purpose is to identiIy the degree to which organizations review proiect portIolios
What method(s) is used in your organization Ior selecting portIolios oI proiects?
o Financial Methods
o Strategic approaches
o Bubble diagrams
o Weighted scoring models
o Checklists
o None

Cooper et al. (2001b) discussed the above selection methods to be commonly used
by organizations. Thus. the question aims to identiIy the methods employed by
philanthropic organizations.

How important are the Iollowing Iactors when selecting proiect portIolios?
Please answer all oI the questions. (Place X on the appropriate answer Ior each
item in the list)


67

Factors Absolutely
essential
Very
Important
Important Relevant Not
Relevant
Pure Charitable
inclinations

Sponsor or Funder
preIerences

Government policy
Local needs
Organizations
strategy

Budget limitations

The question aims to identiIy the most critical Iactors Ior philanthropic
organization when implementing proiect portIolios.

In your experience. to what extent do the Iollowing points represent barriers to
eIIective portIolio management? (Place X on the appropriate answer Ior each item
in the list)
Factors Highly
eIIective
EIIective Mixed IneIIective Highly
IneIIective
Lack oI clear
organizational
strategy or obiectives

Lack oI executive
support

Lack oI cooperative
environment or
culture

Undeveloped or poor


68
monitoring process
oI portIolios &
proiects
Lack oI inIormation
on resources

Lack oI inIormation
on proiects metrics
used to evaluate
proiects progress

IneIIective
prioritization oI
proiects

Absence oI
accountability
measures Ior
implementing PPM
Process

Lack oI eIIective
proiect portIolio
managers

Having a poor
repository Ior proiect
inIormation

The question aims to identiIy the most impeding barriers to proiect portIolio
management
Do you know the return on investment (ROI) Ior implementing PPM at your
organization? (Answer only one).
o Yes
o No
II yes. please select the ROI appropriate Ior your organization: (Answer only
one).
o 2-5%
o 6-10%
o More than 10%

This question consists oI two parts; Iirst part aims to identiIy whether the surveyed is
aware oI the measured impact oI proiect portIolio management on their organizations.
The second part enables the surveyed to select the ROI range that includes this
measured value.

The two below questions were added to the below original question grid:


69
To what extent do you agree with the Iollowing statements? (Place X on the
appropriate answer Ior each item in the list)

Statement
S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

N
e
u
t
r
a
l

A
g
r
e
e

S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

A
g
r
e
e

Current process have lead to
increasing cost savings by
elimination oI unnecessary. poor or
repeated proiects

Current system Ior tracking and
documenting proiect progress is
satisIactory

The question aims to identiIy the degree to which the philanthropic organizations
are satisIied with the current process Ior monitoring proiects and level oI cost
savings reduced due to this.

Distribution of survey
The survey was distributed to a randomly sampled size oI 100 respondents that included
employees Irom 15 philanthropic organizations in Sudan. The respondents iob roles
ranged Irom including higher management roles to normal staII duties.

4.4. Data Analysis Tool
Statistical Package Ior the Social Sciences (SPSS) was the soItware selected Ior statistical
analysis oI data collected. The statistical website: www.surveymonkey.com was used to
collect the survey Ieedback.

4.5. Limitations of the Research Design
The research design Iaced a number oI limitations: The choice oI the research problem
itselI presented a limitation since related work was diIIicult to Iind. Thereby. results oI
the research could not be compared to other research Iindings.


70
In addition. the research design Iaced some weakness in its control settings. Ior instance
the survey distribution could have been better controlled. The better design would have
been the distribution oI surveys within Iocused group settings. The advantages are better
monitoring oI data collection and increased quality; since the researcher could discuss the
Ieedback directly with the respondent and gain deeper understanding and analysis.

The sample size was not large enough to enable drawing oI descriptive or inIerential
conclusions about a larger group. The design oI the exploratory research; prevented other
interesting research questions to be asked: Examples are descriptive questions such as:
How do Philanthropic organizations approach sponsors Ior Iunding? Or How do
Philanthropic Organizations improve their staII capabilities?

However. in order to ensure relative data quality and control: the survey design included
mostly close type questions to enhance data reliability and attract high response interest.

4.6 Alternative Approaches to the Research Problem
The dissertation could have been approached alternatively. below is a discussion on this:

An action research approach could have employed. where the researcher would
have actively participated in the research. The researcher would have ioined
various philanthropic organizations and have better reIlected on the inIormation
collected. Moreover. an action plan could have been developed where a PPM
proposed model Ior philanthropic organizations could have implemented and
more inIormation on the changes acquired.

Another alternative approach would have been a case study approach. in which
selected philanthropic organization would have been involved. The approach
would add strength and empirical evidence; which would make it appropriate Ior
the research topic. Moreover. gaining insight on the organizations special situation
would have added more valuable observations.


71

Furthermore other approaches hindered by access diIIiculties and time limitations could
have been undertaken:

II data access was granted. a large sample size would have been collected. The
gathering oI a more representative sample would have allowed Ior more
generalization oI results.

II more time was available. interviews with key respondents would have been
conducted to gather more detailed inIormation that would have concluded higher
quality recommendations.


72
Chapter 5

Data Collection

This chapter provides the general inIormation gathered during the data collection process.
It presents the main Ieedback gathered Irom the exploratory study and surveys results.

5.1. Exploratory study

Several philanthropic organizations were contacted Ior interview purpose and the below
UAE based organizations provided initial approval:

- Organization T- Abu Dhabi based: provides a voluntary social program
designed to create a culture oI volunteering throughout the United Arab Emirates.
The organization mobilizes people and resources across the nation to Iind creative
and sustainable solutions Ior proven community needs. It particularly oIIers young
people meaningIul opportunities to volunteer Ior humanitarian. social and
community programs.

- Organization R- Abu Dhabi based: Organization R oI the United Arab Emirates
is the UAE aIIiliate oI the International Federation oI Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies. The authority was Iounded in 1983 with support oI the late ruler: Sheikh
Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan. Its main obiectives are to carry out operations on a
systematic basis throughout the whole UAE. In 2010. the organization celebrated
its 27th birthday. In 2001. the organization was chosen as the second best
humanitarian authority at the level oI the continent oI Asia.

- Organization U- Abu Dhabi based: Organization U is on the ground in 166
countries. working with them on their own solutions to global and national
development challenges. Organization U has implemented proiects in the value oI
14 Million USD in the UAE during the last Country Cooperation Framework
2002-2006.. Organization U looks Iorward to working in assisting the UAE in its
visionary pursuit oI continued human development progress.


73
- Organization Z- Dubai based: Since its establishment. the Ioundation has
Iocused on diversiIication oI its activities in association with national and
international organizations. to promote the United Arab Emirates in the charity
and humanitarian Iield around the globe. The organization made great
contributions in the emergency relieI activities as well as the construction proiects
in disaster stricken countries.

- Organization K Abu Dhabi based:
Organization K was established in July. 2007 with the vision oI being a leading
initiator oI humanitarian services in the United Arab Emirates. The Ioundation
Iocuses locally and globally on the Iield oI health and education. The Ioundation
strategy includes supporting educational proiects in the region. meeting the health
requirements related to malnutrition. child protection and welIare.

Interviewing challenges:
During the initial discussions. all the above-mentioned organizations stated initial
approval and support Irom the semi-structured interviews.

However. upon attempting to conduct the interviews the researcher Iaced the Iollowing
obstacles; that lead to participation oI only two (Organization T and Organization R) oI
the above mentioned Iive organizations:

- Low interest oI respondents in participating in exploratory research
- Unwillingness oI interview participants to answer all questions provided
- Lack oI support Irom targeted organizations in providing interviewing approval
- DiIIiculty in contacting concerned personnel Ior interviewing
- Late reply Irom organizations on conIirming participation in interviews


74
Response rates

As stated earlier. Iive organizations were targeted; Table 5.1 below shows the number oI
respondents in each oI the organizations. A total oI Iive responses were received; three in
English and the other two were provided in Arabic and then translated into English.

Table 5.1 Number oI targeted and received respondents within each organization

ORGANIZATION TARGET RECEIVED
Organization T 20 4
Organization R 5 1
Organization U 3 0
Organization Z 3 0
Organization K 10 0
TOTAL 41 5

Respondents information:

The participants were three males and two Iemales. Iour oI them were Irom the same
organization (Organization T. two Iemales and two males) and one Irom Organization R
(male).
Each participant was interviewed individually within a period oI 20-30 minutes.

The participant iob roles were as Iollows:

In organization T:

Female 1: Executive OIIice Coordinator (to be reIerred to as Interviewee 1)
Female 2: Proiect Developer (to be reIerred to as Interviewee 2)
Male 1: Media OIIicer (to be reIerred to as Interviewee 3)
Male 2: Technical Manager (to be reIerred to as Interviewee 5)

In organization R:

Male 1: Local Assistance Coordinator (to be reIerred to as Interviewee 4)

Semi-structured interviews feedback

Below is a listing oI the answers provided by each oI the 5 respondents (Interviewee1.
Interviewee2. Interviewee3. Interviewee4 and Interviewee5) Ior each question:


75
1-Does your organization have a PPM process; i.e. a process for selecting projects or portfolios of
projects?

Table 5.2 Answers oI Question 1

Interviewees Response
Interviewee1 Yes
Interviewee2 Yes
Interviewee3 Yes
Interviewee4 Yes
Interviewee5 No

2- What is the mission of your organization and background?


Interviewee1 Through the establishment oI a sustainable public-
private partnership. the Ioundation seeks to
continually beneIit the United Arab Emirates through
the development and support oI community-based
initiatives. The Foundation will:
Cultivate a supportive partnership between
the public and private sectors to achieve
increased social consciousness oI vital
community-related issues.
Progressively develop valuable community-
based initiatives. programs and centers oI
excellence in support oI our core areas oI
interest.
Foster. support and maintain long-term
initiatives through the management and
disbursement oI our Endowment Fund

Interviewee2 Organization T is a voluntary social program that has
been designed with the primary purpose to
encourage people to volunteer and to mobilize both
people and resources in the UAE to deliver creative
solutions that meet community needs.

Interviewee3 A semi government entity that seeks to provide
philanthropic work in a systematic and organized
way
Interviewee4 Answer not provided
Interviewee5 The organization aims to prepare the population oI
the UAE and strengthen the nations resilience
towards disasters and crises. by training emergency
response volunteers across the country. ready to
support proIessional emergency responders in maior
emergencies. The programme started with initial
surveys in 2008 and operations began in 2009.

3-In regards to the projects being conducted in UAE. please describe the nature of those projects and
scale.

76


Interviewee1 DiIIerent types oI proiects: Social Arts & Culture.
Environment. Education. Technology.
Interviewee2 There are diIIerent proiects that are developed. one
maior example is volunteering at the Hospital sector
where volunteers assist in administration work as
well as helping hospital patients with the
supervision oI nurses

Interviewee3 Social proiects. education proiects. Environmental
proiects. health proiects
Interviewee4 Housing construction proiects Ior Iamilies
Interviewee5 (Sub-)proiects in addition to general eIIorts to
increase the programs emergency response capacity
include: 1) continuous training. oI emergency
response volunteers and advanced emergency
response volunteers. targeting
speciIic groups. organizations or agencies across the
UAE; 2) external inIormation eIIorts Ior public
awareness and saIety (such as inIormation eIIorts to
the public in malls. etc) 3) special emergency
response-related exercises and activities; 4)
engagements in special proiects such as volunteer
management or other eIIorts during maior public
events such as Formula 1 or FIFA. providing large
numbers oI volunteers Ior these events; 5) special
proiects such as a relieI eIIort in Peshawar. Pakistan
Iollowing the Ilooding disaster in 2010.

No. Question
N
e
v
e
r

S
e
l
d
o
m

S
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
s

O
I
t
e
n

A
l
w
a
y
s

4- How often is your organization engaged in large
portfolio of projects. comprised of various sub-
projects?

Interviewee2 X
Interviewee3 X
Interviewee4 X
Interviewee5 X


77
5- What are the factors you usually consider for project or project portfolio selection? (i.e.
Government support. budget limitations. etc.)


Interviewee2 Proiect suitability Ior volunteering activity. Hazard
Iree Ior volunteers. proiect matching Ior volunteers
requirements and needs
Interviewee3 Government policy. Budget. Planning. Coordination
between the diIIerent parties
Interviewee4 Need Ior proiect
Interviewee5 Impact and internal/external value; potential;
resources needed; timeIrame needed; geographic
distance and resources available; relevance to
current proiect strategic
priorities; short-term and long-term eIIect.

6- Please clarify what is the process or procedure to be followed when selecting a project or portfolio?


Interviewee1 Not applicable. we have no process
Interviewee2 Yes. a volunteering proiect idea has to be proposed
to the management team as a start. AIter making
sure that it is a suitable volunteering proiect and
discussing certain Iactors. we start with our
communications to raise our Iunds and to start an
activity with all parties involved. AIter setting the
requirements; (No oI volunteers. roles. date etc.)
we post the proiect opportunity on our website to
start recruiting volunteers.

Interviewee3 There is a process that considers a proposal Irom
planning to delivery
Interviewee4 There are specialized authorities who have certain
procedures Ior this
Intervirewee5 There is no speciIic process or procedure per se.
other than approval sought Irom relevant managerial
levels by initiating staII. given the current phase oI
the programme
and rapidly developing operations.

7- Are charitable reasons the most important factor to be considered for project selection? Please
clarify.

Interviewee1 No. the organization Iocuses on sustainable
proiects & not charitable ones.

Interviewee2 Yes
Interviewee3 Sometimes yes and sometimes other Iactors like
governmental policy and the Iocus on development
proiects are oI higher importance

78
Interviewee4 Yes
Interviewee5 Yes. Sub-proiects are selected and prioritized
based on their level oI positive impact
(immediate or long-term) Ior the programmes
development. which in itselI aims to
serve the public by saving lives in emergencies and
providing a saIer society by well- prepared citizens.
Thus. charitable reasons could be said to indirectly
be part oI all selected proiects as the programme
overall has a humanitarian purpose aimed to help
civilians in diIIicult circumstances.


No. Question
Y
e
s

N
o

N
/
A

8
implementing a project/portfolio management process
for philanthropic foundations in the UAE. Do you
think there is a need for such a study to avoid issues or
problems?

Interviewee1 X
Interviewee2 X
Interviewee3 X
Interviewee4 X
Interviewee5 X

9- Please explain the challenges generally faced when selecting projects or portfolios?
Interviewee1 No answer provided

Interviewee2 Challenges diIIer Irom one proiect to another. An
example would be. is trying to identiIy the proper
volunteers Ior special needs proiect. They have to be
selected in a way that they know how to
communicate/work with Special Needs. Sometimes
aIter taking a long process in selecting people. they
suddenly withdraw on the same day oI the activity
and we have to look Ior other qualiIied volunteers
ASAP.

Interviewee3 Availability oI InIormation. Prioritization oI needs.
absence oI group decision making that lead to weak
implementation oI proiect processes and decisions
Interviewee4 Prioritization oI action making
Interviewee5 Time constraints and limitations in staII and

79
resources can place limitations on timing. or
selection. oI speciIic proiects.
10- Are you aware of any general recommended portfolio approaches for social organizations like
your organization?
Interviewee2 Yes. there is an approach by Sheikh Zayed Higher
Organization

Interviewee3 There are various approaches Ior each organization
since each has their own vision or approach
Interviewee4 No
Interviewee5 Not speciIically. other than generic best practices
Irom international organizations.

11- Are there any issues faced due to lack of structure in a management process for projects and
portfolios?
Interviewee2 No

Interviewee3 Yes. absence oI accountability. issues oI delivery
obstacles
Interviewee4 Yes
Interviewee5 Not in this particular programme. which is speciIic
in its mission and in the Iirst Iew years oI
development.

To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
Table 5.13 Answers to Questions 12-16 (All interviewees)

No Statement (Interviewee 1)

S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

d
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

N
e
u
t
r
a
l

A
g
r
e
e

S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

strategy
X
delivered
X
projects
X
X
X

S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

d
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

N
e
u
t
r
a
l

A
g
r
e
e

S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y


80
strategy

delivered

projects




S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

d
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

N
e
u
t
r
a
l

A
g
r
e
e

S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

strategy

delivered

projects



S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

d
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

N
e
u
t
r
a
l

A
g
r
e
e

S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

strategy

delivered

projects



S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

d
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

N
e
u
t
r
a
l

A
g
r
e
e

S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

strategy

delivered

projects



17. Do you have any further comment. suggestion or contribution relative to PPM performance?
Table 5.14 :-Answers oI Question 17


81
Interviewee1 InIormation not provided
Interviewee4 A point to be considered is that much oI the proiects
we conduct are based on Iunders orientations and
interests.

General findings of the exploratory study:

Below is a summary oI the main Iindings oI the exploratory study:
o The exploratory study Iaced poor responders interest in interview participation
and access problems; this identiIied an obstacle to carrying out the survey in the
same settings. Accordingly. the survey was decided to be distributed in Sudan.

o During the interview process. recommendations were provided on the questions
structure: Several interviewees stated their concern with Iilling in their personal
and organization names. Thus it was decided to consider only the iob role and
email as voluntary question in the survey method; this modiIication was done to
encourage the survey respondents.

o The maiority oI the respondents believed their organizations were engaged in
implementing portIolios in some degree. The lowest degree oI engagement answer
provided was: sometimes with most answers provided to be: Always.

o Although the maiority oI the respondents stated that they had a PPM process in
place; none identiIied a clear process: the answers ranged Irom stating no PPM
process in place to asserting the availability oI a PPM process; however the
supporting explanation basically described an approval process Ior initiating
PortIolios. No clear systematic PPM process was discussed by any oI the
respondents.

o The respondents identiIied the below Iactors as important Ior portIolio/proiect
selection:
Stakeholders preIerences
Government policy

82
Organizations budget limitations
Coordination required between the various organization bodies Ior
proiect/portIolio implementation
Need Ior proiect/portIolio
Potential social impact oI proiect/portIolio
Resources required Ior proiect/portIolio
Time limitations oI proiect/portIolio
Strategic priorities oI organization
Short-term and long-term eIIects oI proiect or portIolio

o The respondents provided the below challenges to implementation oI
proiects/portIolios:
Limitations in availability oI resources (staII or other types)
Availability oI inIormation
Prioritization oI needs and actions
Absence oI group decision making that lead to weak implementation oI
proiect decisions/processes
Time constraints
Funder orientations
Absence oI accountability

o Answers on the core aspect oI whether philanthropic organizations considered
charitable reasons one oI the most important proiect selection criteria. showed that
other Iactors such as: governmental policy and sustainability considerations could
be considered oI higher importance to purely charitable Iactors.

o There was consensus among the respondents that there was a need to investigate
PPM implementations Ior philanthropic organizations.

o None oI the respondents could name a recommended PPM approach Ior
philanthropic organizations. the maiority stated that there are generic best
practices Iollowed by international organizations but no speciIic approach was
identiIied

83
5.2. Survey Results

The survey targeted 15 diIIerent philanthropic organizations in Sudan. A total oI 71
surveys were collected and the below Iigures illustrate the Ieedback received

Figure 5.1 Question 1 Survey results



84



85

Figure
5.6 Question 6 Survey results

86


87


88


89


90


91


92


93
Question 19: Please free to provide any comment/suggestion on project management
related to philanthropic work.

Results:

24 respondents out oI the total 71 provided comments; those comments were grouped
under two categories: PPM Challenges and PPM recommendations.

Below are the respondents comments and suggestions:
PPM Challenges:
There is lack oI Iollow-up on achieving sustainability oI proiects. there is no
regular evaluation. problem in documentation and recording oI inIormation and
poor tools Ior monitoring progress

Management oI proiects at our organization is poor. we lack human resources
specialized in our Iield as well as developing concepts and technical tools

Humanitarian proiects conducted in Sudan and Arab world usually stem Irom
humanitarian and good will reasons. and it does not depend on international
standards in selection and execution because oI poor independent Iunding and
reliance on sponsors orientations and proiect interests.

In addition. there is a lack oI management expertise and lack oI interest in
considering academic perspectives in selecting and executing proiects.

Philanthropic organizations are not Iinancial oriented and usually Iocus only on
humanitarian aspects. which provides challenges to Iinancial support

NGOs depend on donations Irom international Organizations. stakeholders; each
donor is having their own systems in managing. reporting. monitoring and
evaluating proiects progress. sometimes the recipient NGO have to comply with
donor requirements that aIIects its entire system oI managing proiects.


94
Since NGOs are. in short or lacking Iinancial resources to implement proiects that
are in line with its strategy this might aIIect the process oI selecting proiects.
NGOs may specialize in certain social interventions that serve its mission

PPM Recommendations:
Proiects related to philanthropic work should not be dealt with in a corporate
Iramework. since their risks are higher than those Iaced in the corporate settings
and not always identiIied in the initial stages

The management board must provide a good image oI the philanthropic
organization by being honesty in all their dealings. Good training must be
provided to management and all employees.
Setting oI goals and expected indicators is very important in measuring
perIormance and identiIying progress oI work

It is important to increase awareness and educate all the personnel to maintain a
high level oI eIIiciency and Ilexibility in work which will reIlect well on the
humanitarian proiects delivered

There must be a clear and systematic/organized strategy Ior managing
humanitarian proiects while considering humanitarian concerns

The proiect manager should be oI high caliber and oI excellent managerial skills

Considering the beneIiciaries oI the proiects is one oI the important Iactors Ior
placing a strategy Ior proiect management

Humanitarian proiects should have proIit-generating proiects supporting it; this
will ensure sustainability oI Iunding. Thus humanitarian organizations could be
supported by their independent proIit generating sub-proiects away Irom the
Iunders and sponsors inIluence and control. who may try to impose their own
agenda and policies on the humanitarian work

95

The Log-Frame approach in planning and reporting is very eIIective in portIolio
management

Any philanthropic service requires honesty and high moral values by
management. Since this is related to servicing needy such as orphans. elderly and
those lacking good education. Thus we suggest that management should act as a
single body and aim to maintain values oI: honesty. understanding. intelligence
and hard work.
Question 20: Demographics-Respondent details: 1ob Role
Results of question 20:
43 oI the 71 respondents provided details oI their iob roles. The iob roles
comprised the Iollowing groups: Higher Management. Middle management and
General staII.

Higher Management group was Iound to be the largest group with 25 respondents
comprising this group with iob roles such as the Iollowing: Secretary General.
Proiect Manager. Executive Managers. Vice Presidents. Planning and Monitoring
manager. Organization Director. Department Head. Country Director. Finance
Manager and Country Accountant.

General StaII group was second aIter Higher Management in respondents count.
with 11 identiIied iob roles such as: Programme specialist. HR Analyst.
Administrative Associate. Administrative Assistant. Program Planner. SoItware
Engineer. System Administrator. Proiect Control OIIicer. Proiects Planner.
Logistics OIIicer and Humanitarian Financing OIIicer.
Middle Management was Iound to be the smallest group. with 7 identiIied
respondents with iob roles such as: Department secretary and First Researcher
Question 21: All individual returns will remain confidential and anonymous. If you
would like to receive a summary of the aggregated quantitative results of the survey.
then please give an email address for sending: `Email (Voluntary)
Results of Question 21: 41 respondents provided their emails as contact inIormation.

96
Chapter 6

Data Analysis
This chapter aims to analyze the data gathered using the research methods by addressing
the research questions:

- RQ1: What is the current status oI proiect portIolio management in philanthropic
settings?

- RQ2: What are the general recommended portIolio approaches Ior philanthropic
organizations?

- RQ3: What are the challenges and recommendations to successIul portIolio
management in philanthropic sector?

6.1. Exploratory Study Analysis

The goal oI this section is to analyze the data gathered during the exploratory study while
reIerencing each resource question.

RQ1: The maiority oI the interviewees were Iound to have general understanding on the
concept oI proiect portIolio management and its potential beneIits. Most oI the
organizations were engaged in implementing large portIolio. This was highlighted by the
high number oI answers which stated that the organizations were always engaged in
proiect portIolios.

However. the organizations seemed to have poor implementation oI portIolio
management processes. Since. the respondents Iirst asserted the availability oI a PPM
process but Iailed to discuss a systematic process with clear steps and assigned
responsibilities.

This was evident during the interviewee discussion. when most oI the talks revolved
around a basic approval process Ior initiating portIolios. However. there was consensus

97
among the respondents on the need to investigate Iurther PPM implementation Ior
philanthropic organizations. This opens potential Ior Iurther research in this Iield.

RQ2: The respondents were unable to identiIy a speciIic portIolio approach; in Iact none
oI the respondents were able to name a recommended PPM approach in their Iield. The
varying nature oI proiects and portIolios were mentioned as likely reason; since
philanthropic organizations were Iound to be engaged in diIIerent proiect types.

The gathered Ieedback noted proiects that included: social arts. culture. environment.
education. technology. education. emergency response or training proiects. Such variety
in the proiect nature oI the philanthropic sector could have lead to diIIiculty in generating
speciIic portIolio approaches.

Another point discussed was the variance in the organizations missions and visions that
have lead to varying approaches used by each organization. However. it was highlighted
that several generic best practices were available. which were Iollowed by international
organizations and UAE based organizations. Furthermore. this emphasizes the need Ior
research in philanthropic Iield to investigate appropriate PPM approaches that would
meet the requirements oI those organizations.

RQ3: Traditionally. the philanthropic sector has been identiIied with being purely
concerned with charitable considerations. However. the exploratory study identiIied that
charitable concerns are not necessarily the most critical Iactor considered by
philanthropic organizations. It was discussed that other Iactors such as: governmental
policy and sustainability considerations could be considered oI higher importance.

This poses a challenge to the implementation oI PPM in philanthropic organization
context; since it seems that there are several Iactors that need to be considered when
selecting portIolios and proiects.

In addition. the respondents Ieedback provided a range oI Iactors that can aIIect
philanthropic organizations selection oI proiect such as: sponsor preIerences. budget
limitations. resources required and many other Iactors. Thus one oI the key elements oI

98
the portIolio management approach is to be capable oI considering the diIIerent Iactors
that comes into play.

Moreover. the study indentiIied challenges to PPM implementation particularly due to
issues Iaced in the philanthropic sector such as: Iunding orientations. budget limitations.
availability oI resources. in-eIIective prioritization oI needs. absence oI group decision
making which lead to weak implementation oI decisions or processes and timing
constraints. The portIolio management approach should also be capable oI tackling those
issues.

6.2. Survey Analysis
The goal oI this section is to analyze the data gathered by the survey and come-up with
observations that address the research questions. Below is a general overview oI the
results Iollowed by the results oI the statistical analysis using SPSS soItware.
Note: All Iigures reIerred to in the below analysis are available in the previous chapter
(Chapter 5: Data Collection).

General overview
As discussed in the early chapter. 71 respondents had participated in the survey Irom 15
philanthropic organizations in Sudan that included: international humanitarian
organizations. locally based organizations and United Nations related bodies.

All questions were answered Iully except Ior the demographic related questions. For
instance. 43 oI the 71 respondents provided their iob role. The maiority oI those iob roles
were related to higher management: 25 respondents out oI 43; almost 58 oI respondents
were related to higher management roles. The respondents also included general staII
roles: 11 respondents out oI 43; almost 26. However. middle management roles were
Iound to comprise the smallest numbers; 7 respondents out oI 43; 16.

RQ1: Generally the respondents seemed to be Iamiliar with the general PPM concept;
since the maiority identiIied availability oI a PPM process in their organizations: 74.6
while only 25.4 stated that they did not have a PPM process in place. (ReIer to Figure
5.2 in previous chapter).

99
In general. the maiority oI the organizations were practicing PPM Ior more than 5 years
(46.5) concluding these organizations had adequate time to improve their PPM
processes. Moreover there was a considerable percentage (33.8) ;that has been
practicing PPM processes Ior up to two years only (ReIer to Iigure 5.3 in previous
chapter). Furthermore. 74.6 stated that they had a department clearly responsible Ior
implementing PPM. (ReIer to Figure 5.7 in previous chapter)

Overall the maiority (80.3) oI the respondents Iound Proiect PortIolio management very
relevant to tackling philanthropic organizations issues or problems

RQ2: Almost halI oI the respondents 47.9 indicated their unawareness oI recommended
portIolio approaches Ior philanthropic organizations in their Iield. (ReIer to Figure 5.14).
However. on the mechanism oI developing their PPM processes: most organizations
(54.9) have combined organization eIIorts with external consultation or use oI PPM
soItware in order to develop their PPM process. Only a small minority hired consultants
or implemented purely PPM soItware in order to do this (15.5) (ReIer to Figure 5.4.)

On the subiect oI PPM decision making. most oI the respondents stated that they did not
use any soItware to aid decision making: 54.9 reiected use oI soItware. (ReIer to Iigure
5.5). However. Ior those who used soItware. much oI the soItware was Iound to be in-
house developed (54.3) (ReIer to Iigure 5.6).

35.7 oI the organizations were Iound to be always engaged in large portIolios oI
proiects. (ReIer to Figure 5.9). The maiority reviewed their portIolios on a quarterly
basis (53.5) (ReIer to Iigure 5.8). In regards to portIolio selection methods. the top two
methods were identiIied to be: Iinancial methods (56.3) and Strategic approaches
(42.3). However. alarmingly a considerable number oI respondents (19.7) stated no-
use oI any method. (ReIer to Iigure 5.10)

RQ3: SuccessIul portIolio management requires consideration oI all relevant Iactors
when selecting portIolios . The survey results identiIied the Iour most absolutely essential
Iactors Ior philanthropic portIolio selection to be Iirst Pure Charitable inclinations
Iollowed by Local needs and budget limitations and lastly organization strategy. (ReIer to

100
Figure 5.11). Charitable inclinations were also considered in another question by 81.7
oI respondents as the most important Iactor Ior portIolio selection. (ReIer to Figure 5.13)

Most organizations strongly disagreed with their current system Ior tracking proiect
progress and status oI proiects in lined with organization strategy and obiectives.(ReIer to
5.18). This indicates that organizations have not yet reaped the main beneIit oI PPM
which is to align proiect and portIolios with their organizations strategy. This is evident
Irom the high percentage oI respondent who did not know the percentage oI ROI gained
Irom PPM implementation (49.3. reIer to Figure 5.16)

The survey identiIied the top three challenges to eIIective portIolio management to be (in
decreasing order oI importance): Lack oI clear organizational strategy or obiectives. Lack
oI eIIective proiect portIolio managers and lack oI inIormation on resources.

Another challenge was identiIied by one oI the survey respondents: Humanitarian
proiects conducted in Sudan and the Arab world usually stem Irom humanitarian reasons;
proiects usually Iace Iunding diIIiculties and sponsor inIluences that greatly aIIect proiect
selections. This can lead philanthropic organizations to comply with donor requirements;
even iI it aIIects its whole process oI selection. In addition the humanitarian Iield lack
management expertise and suIIer Irom relatively low academic interest.
The survey also gathered recommendations Ior eIIective portIolio management in
philanthropic settings. Below is a summary oI the main points:
Proiects related to philanthropic work should not be dealt with in a corporate
Iramework. since their risks are higher than those Iaced in the corporate settings
and not always identiIied in the initial stages
Any philanthropic service requires honesty and high moral values by
management. Since this is related to servicing needy such as orphans. elderly and
those lacking good education. Thus we suggest that management should act as a
single body and aim to maintain values oI: honesty. understanding. intelligence
and hard work.

101
Setting oI goals and indicators is very important in measuring perIormance and
identiIying progress oI work. The proiect portIolio manager should be oI high
calibre and oI excellent managerial skills

It is important to increase continuously educate all related personnel. to maintain a
high level oI eIIiciency and Ilexibility in work; that would reIlect well on the
humanitarian proiects delivered

There must be a clear strategy Ior managing humanitarian proiects while
considering humanitarian concerns. Considering the beneIiciaries oI the proiects is
one oI the important Iactors Ior placing a strategy Ior proiect management

Humanitarian proiects should have proIit-generating sub-proiects; those will
ensure Iunding sustainability. Thus humanitarian organizations could be supported
by their independent proIit generating sub-proiects away Irom the Iunders and
sponsors inIluence and control. who try to impose their own agenda and policies
on the humanitarian organization.
Results of Data Analysis using SPSS
Implementation of PPM in philanthropic organizations

A total oI 71 respondents were surveyed on the implementation oI Proiect PortIolio
Management and the Iactors aIIecting the implementation oI PPM in philanthropic
organizations were analyzed.

General analysis of the surveyed sample
14 Respondents surveyed ranked their organizations as small. 29 as medium and 28 as
large sized organizations. 33 respondents stated that their organisations were practicing
PPM over 5 years while 14 respondents came Irom organisation that were practicing PPM
over 3 years.

102

Figure 6.1 Organizations size and PPM practicing duration

There are 39 respondents whose PPM practicing organizations PPM process was
developed as a customized tool with external consultation and PPM soItware. Most
common proiect management soItware like MicrosoIt proiect management and primavera
were used by 50 oI the organisation. Also more than 50 oI the samples perIormed
proiect reviews quarterly. PPM methods like Iinancial methods and strategic approaches
were widely used in selecting portIolios. Bubble diagram is used in determining the
priority oI the proiect and comparison between the costs.

Analyzing the factors affecting PPM implementation in philanthropic organizations
There are various Iactors aIIecting selection oI proiect portIolios. Factors like pure
charitable inclination. sponsor or Iunder preIerence. government policy. local needs.
organisation strategy. budget limitation were included in the survey questions.
The inIluences oI these Iactors on selecting proiect portIolios were analysed using linear
correlation to understand the linear signiIicance oI the Iactor aIIecting PPM
implementation:

0
10
20
30
40
Small Medium Large
Size of the organisation surveyed
0
10
20
30
40
1-2 Years 3-5 Years More than 5
years
Organisation practising PPM Process
Duration

103
Correlation:
Correlation is a statistical technique that can show whether and how strongly pairs oI
variables related. For example selecting proiect portIolios related to organizations
engaged in large portIolios. The correlation model called Pearson correlation is used in
analysis. The correlation coeIIicient ranges Irom -1.0 to 1.0. The closer the correlation
coeIIicient to 1 or -1. the more closely the two variables have relation. II the correlation
coeIIicient is positive then the variables are correlated linearly. while iI the correlation
coeIIicient is negative then the variables are correlated non linearly.

Table 6.1 Analysis oI correlation between organisation engaged in large portIolio oI
proiect with selecting proiect portIolios in philanthropic organizations
Correlations

Organisation
Engaged In
Large Portfolio
Selecting Project
Portfolios
Organisation Engaged In
Large Portfolio
Pearson Correlation 1 .197
Sig. (2-tailed)

.100
N 71 71
Selecting Project Portfolios Pearson Correlation .197 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .100

N 71 71

Result:
Pearson correlation coeIIicient is 0.197 which positive illustrates that the variables are
linearly correlated. The signiIicant 2 tailed test illustrate that there is 1/10 (0.1) changes oI
sampling error in reiecting the acceptance oI linear correlation between Selecting proiect
portIolios and organisation engaged in large portIolio.


104

Table 6.2 Analysis of correlation between factors influencing project portfolios.
(The variables analyzed were pure charitable inclination. sponsor or Iunder preIerence.
government policy. local needs. organisation strategy. budget limitation.)
Correlations

Pure
Charitable
Inclination
Sponsor
Funder
Preference
Government
Policy
Local
Needs
Organisations
Strategy
Budget
Limitation
Selecting
Project
Portfolios
Pure
Charitable
Inclination
Pearson Correlation 1 -.007 -.124 .086 -.035 .040 .310
**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.954 .303 .476 .771 .741 .008
N 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Sponsor
Funder
Preference
Pearson Correlation -.007 1 .201 .189 .034 .065 .529
**


.092 .114 .779 .588 .000
N 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Governme
nt Policy
Pearson Correlation -.124 .201 1 .050 .117 .045 .456
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .303 .092

.677 .330 .709 .000
N 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Local
Needs
Pearson Correlation .086 .189 .050 1 .392
**
.301
*
.640
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .476 .114 .677

.001 .011 .000
N 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Organisati
ons
Strategy
Pearson Correlation -.035 .034 .117 .392
**
1 .425
**
.601
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .771 .779 .330 .001

.000 .000
N 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Budget
Limitation
Pearson Correlation .040 .065 .045 .301
*
.425
**
1 .544
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .741 .588 .709 .011 .000

.000
N 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Selecting
Project
Portfolios
Pearson Correlation .310
**
.529
**
.456
**
.640
**
.601
**
.544
**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .008 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Result:


105
We understand that selecting proiect portIolios is highly inIluenced by Local needs as the
correlation coeIIicient is 0.64. Also Iactors like organisation strategy. sponsor Iunder
preIerence; budget limitation signiIicantly eIIects the selection oI proiect portIolios.
Charitable inclinations. Government policy do not show high correlation with selection oI
protect portIolios.

Table 6.3A. Analysis of correlation factor influencing barriers to effective PPM in
philanthropic organizations (first 5 factors)
Correlations

Lack of Clear
Organisation
Strategy
Lack
Executive
Support
Lack of
Cooperative
Environment
Poor
Monitoring
Process
Lack of
Information On
Resources
Barrier To
Effective PPM
Lack of Clear
Organisation
Strategy
**
.328
**
.320
**
.414
**
.555
**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.010 .005 .006 .000 .000
N 71 71 71 71 71 71
Lack
Executive
Support
**
1 .351
**
.170 .328
**
.554
**


.003 .156 .005 .000
N 71 71 71 71 71 71
Lack of
Cooperative
Environment
**
.351
**
1 .331
**
.449
**
.677
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .003

.005 .000 .000
N 71 71 71 71 71 71
Poor
Monitoring
Process
**
.170 .331
**
1 .502
**
.684
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .006 .156 .005

.000 .000
N 71 71 71 71 71 71
Lack of
Information On
Resources
**
.328
**
.449
**
.502
**
1 .753
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .005 .000 .000

.000
N 71 71 71 71 71 71
Barrier To
Effective PPM
**
.554
**
.677
**
.684
**
.753
**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 71 71 71 71 71 71

Result:


106
The Iactors such as lack oI inIormation on resources. poor monitoring process. lack oI
cooperative environment acts as barrier to implementation oI PPM in NGOs
signiIicantly. Also lack oI organisation strategy and lack oI executive support eIIected
implementation linearly.
As the signiIicant value is very low (0.005). there are 5/1000 change oI sampling error.
hence there are strong and linear oI correlation oI the Iactors eIIecting barriers to the
implementation oI PPM.
Table 6.3 B Analysis oI correlation Iactor inIluencing barriers to eIIective PPM in
philanthropic organizations (Iirst 5 Iactors)
Correlations

Barrier To
Effective
PPM
Lack
Information on
Project Metrics
Ineffective
Prioritization
of Projects
Absence Of
Accountability
Measures
Lack of
Portfolios
Managers
Having Poor
Repository
Project
Information
Barrier To
Effective PPM
Pearson
Correlation
1 .833
**
.729
**
.730
**
.605
**
.724
**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 71 71 71 71 71 71
Lack of
Information on
Project Metrics
Pearson
Correlation
.833
**
1 .556
**
.592
**
.339
**
.623
**


.000 .000 .004 .000
N 71 71 71 71 71 71
Ineffective
Prioritization of
Projects
Pearson
Correlation
.729
**
.556
**
1 .549
**
.325
**
.499
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000

.000 .006 .000
N 71 71 71 71 71 71
Absence Of
Accountability
Measures
Pearson
Correlation
.730
**
.592
**
.549
**
1 .322
**
.554
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

.006 .000
N 71 71 71 71 71 71
Lack of
Portfolio
Managers
Pearson
Correlation
.605
**
.339
**
.325
**
.322
**
1 .409
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .004 .006 .006

.000
N 71 71 71 71 71 71
Having Poor
Repository
Pearson
Correlation
.724
**
.623
**
.499
**
.554
**
.409
**
1

107
Project
Information
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 71 71 71 71 71 71

Results

The Iactors like lack oI inIormation on proiect metrics. ineIIective prioritization oI
proiects. absence oI accountability measures. having poor repository Ior proiect
inIormation acts as barrier to implementation oI PPM in philanthropic organizations
signiIicantly. Also lack oI eIIective portIolio managers aIIected implementation linearly.

As the signiIicant value is very low (0.000). there are 0/1000 change oI sampling error.
hence there are strong and linear oI correlation oI the Iactors eIIecting barriers to the
implementation oI PPM.

Table 6.4 A. General Factor affecting PPM implementation in the organisation
currently

Correlations

Current Situation
In organization
Implementing PPM
Organisation
Project In Line
With Strategy
Selected Project
Delivered On Time
Organisation
Resources Spread
Evenly
Current Situation In
NGOs Implementing
PPM
**
.697
**
.604
**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000
N 71 71 71 71
Organisation Project
In Line With Strategy
**
1 .431
**
.101

.000 .403
N 71 71 71 71
Selected Project
Delivered On Time
**
.431
**
1 .271
*

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000

.022
N 71 71 71 71
Organisation
Resources Spread
Evenly
**
.101 .271
*
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .403 .022

N 71 71 71 71

108
Correlations

Current Situation
In organization
Implementing PPM
Organisation
Project In Line
With Strategy
Selected Project
Delivered On Time
Organisation
Resources Spread
Evenly
NGOs Implementing
PPM
**
.697
**
.604
**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000
N 71 71 71 71
Organisation Project
In Line With Strategy
**
1 .431
**
.101

.000 .403
N 71 71 71 71
Selected Project
Delivered On Time
**
.431
**
1 .271
*

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000

.022
N 71 71 71 71
Organisation
Resources Spread
Evenly
**
.101 .271
*
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .403 .022

N 71 71 71 71
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Results:
The analysis conIirms that PPM helps in spreading resources evenly. Proiect delivered on
time and the selected proiects are aligned with strategy. The correlation between the
variables is linearly and signiIicantly high. The signiIicance oI error iI slightly higher Ior
Iactors organization aligned with strategy and Proiect delivered on time are there are
other external Iactors inIluencing proiect delivery.


109
Table 6.4B. General Factors affecting PPM implementation in the organisation
currently.
Correlations

Current Situation
In organization
Implementing PPM
Current
Portfolio
Management
Smoothly
Current Portfolio
Management
Satisfactory
Current
Processs
Have Lead To
Cost Saving
Current
System For
Tracking
Satisfactory
NGOs Implementing
PPM
**
.831
**
.719
**
.745
**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000
N 71 71 70 71 71
Current Portfolio
Management
Smoothly
**
1 .703
**
.612
**
.703
**


.000 .000 .000
N 71 71 70 71 71
Current Portfolio
Management
Satisfactory
**
.703
**
1 .541
**
.602
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000

.000 .000
N 70 70 70 70 70
Current Process
Have Lead To Cost
Saving
**
.612
**
.541
**
1 .454
**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

.000
N 71 71 70 71 71
Current System For
Tracking Satisfactory
**
.703
**
.602
**
.454
**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000

N 71 71 70 71 71

Results:

The analysis conIirm that PPM implementing organization in current situation have PPM
running smoothly. satisIactory. leading to cost saving. satisIactory tracking and
monitoring process.

Factors like Current portIolio management running smoothly. current portIolio
management satisIactory. current process having lead to cost saving. current system Ior
tracking satisIactory are linearly correlated and hence help us to conclude that these
Iactors supported the philanthropic organizations to succeed in proiect portIolio
management.

110

Chapter 7

Discussion
Chapter Objective

The purpose oI this chapter is to provide a discussion on the research Iindings in
reIerence to the research questions below:

The research questions were:
RQ1: What is the current state oI proiect portIolio management in philanthropic
settings?
RQ2: What are the general recommended portIolio approaches Ior philanthropic
organizations?
RQ3: What are the challenges and recommendations to eIIective portIolio
management in philanthropic sector?

Discussion of the research findings

In regards to RQ1: below are the research findings:

Poor implementation of Project Portfolio Management in philanthropic settings:
Based on the literature reviewed and the undertaken research it was concluded that
Proiect PortIolio Management has been poorly applied in philanthropic settings.
The investigative research could not Iind adequate literature on portIolio management
pertinent to philanthropic settings. In contrast. several PPM approaches and literature
were richly Iound related to the Ior-proIit sector (Cooper et al 2001b).

The research provides several reasons Ior this identiIied gap in the philanthropic Iield:
The philanthropic Iield is still an emerging Iield that operates without a settled doctrine or
established Iramework (Frumkin 2006). Thus it is a Iield that is lacking in research and
development and has not been Iocused upon by researchers and scholars.


111

Moreover. the philanthropic Iield Iaces several obstacles that could hinder PPM
implementation. Non-availability oI ample resources and Iunding are main concerns
Iaced by the philanthropic Iield as discussed in the literature review. (Balin 2003.
Benedict 2003a. Desai and Kharas 2008). This poses a great challenge to PPM
implementation; since researchers rank resource allocation as the top issue that needs
consideration Ior successIul portIolio management (Cooper et al. 2000).
When analyzing the reason behind the resource allocation issue. Cooper et al (2000)
discussed how running more than one proiect simultaneously aIIects this. This is very
relevant to the Philanthropic sector which is a proiect- oriented Iield and that is
witnessing an increase in their activities due to increased amount oI donations received.

In addition the literature state that the philanthropic sector suIIers Irom Iragmentation that
hinders gathering oI lessons learnt and poses research problems to relatively any research
attempt (Help 2007. Kharas 2008. Porter and Kramer 1999. SandIort 2008). Moreover.
lack oI standard measures Ior perIormance and indicators makes proiect portIolio
selection diIIicult; since assessment and comparisons between proiects or portIolios
would be diIIicult to perIorm. This point was highlighted by one oI the respondents in the
exploratory study who stated:

Setting oI goals and indicators is very important in measuring perIormance and
identiIying progress oI work. The proiect portIolio manager should be oI high
calibre and oI excellent managerial skills

Another potential reason is the Iact that modern portIolio management was primarily
based on the Nobel-prize winning economist Harry Markowitz (1959) work on
developing a Iinancial portIolio selection and capital allocation theory (Levine 2005).

Thus. utilizing Iinancial based portIolio approach to managing portIolio or proiects oI
social nature might be unpractical and would present obstacles to the PPM
implementation and use in the Philanthropic sector.

112
Data Ieedback Irom the exploratory study and survey also supports this; since respondent
could not identiIy any known portIolio management approach related to philanthropic
organization setting.

Critical factors influencing current philanthropic portfolio selection decisions

One oI the research Iindings is the observation that many Iactors apart Irom charitable
orientations aIIect portIolio decision makings in philanthropic organizations.
Interestingly. 81.7 oI the survey respondents had identiIied charitable considerations as
one oI the most critical Iactors oI portIolio selection. (Figure 5.13).

However. SPSS data analysis results indicated that current PPM practicing organizations
were highly inIluenced by local needs. Iollowed by organizational strategy and Budget
limitations. In Iact. (Local needs Pearson correlation coeIIicient) was Iound to be the
highest (0.640). Iollowed by organizational strategy (0.601) and budget limitation
(0.544). However. charitable inclinations were Iound to be oI weak inIluence on
portIolio decisions; its Pearson correlation coeIIicient was Iound to be (0.310). Thus. the
results point out very clearly that philanthropic portIolio decisions are not only based on
purely charitable inclinations; but rather a variety oI Iactors are considered.

On the same note. many researchers have pointed out the importance oI considering all
relevant issues. when selecting portIolios (Cooper et al 2000). Thus. it appears that
philanthropic organizations are successIully considering this important point.

Relevance of PPM to philanthropic organization
The research concluded that philanthropic organizations could signiIicantly beneIit Irom
eIIective PPM.
The literature pointed out that most philanthropic organizations did not possess a strong
strategic plan (Frumkin 2006). This may cause philanthropic organizations to make
poorly made decisions and progress without Iollowing a clear vision or mission.

In addition. the scale oI giving has grown largely in our current times; the non-proIit
sector is receiving unprecedented amounts oI money (Goldberg 2009). Moreover. the

113
combination oI absence oI strong strategic plan and increased scale oI giving is likely to
cause unwise selection oI social proiects and portIolios. These proiects would not be able
to achieve the maximum social impact desired by their organizations.

As discussed Irom the literature. proiect portIolio management aims to achieve the
optimal mix oI proiect that would best achieve the organization goals aligned with the
organizations strategies (Dye and Pennypacker 1999. Levine 2005 and MoustaIev 2011).

Thus. implementing PPM in philanthropic organization would assist in the Iounding oI a
sound organizational strategy and the selection oI proiects portIolios oI maximum social
impact. It was very clear that survey respondents also had positive view oI PPM value;
since the survey results indicated that 80.3 considered PPM relevant to Philanthropic
organizations and agreed that PPM has potential Ior tackling issues or problems being
Iaced in the Iield (ReIer to Figure 5.14). Moreover. SPSS data analysis results indicated
that PPM implementing organizations had proiects running smoothly. satisIactory.
leading to cost saving. satisIactory tracking and monitoring process.

RQ2: below are the research findings:
Lack of portfolio management approach for philanthropic organizations and need for a
revised portfolio approach:

Although many approaches were Iound in the literature Ior proIit oriented organizations.
no portIolio management approach was mentioned Ior philanthropic organizations.
The main obstacle was understood to be in the nature oI philanthropic work; which is
diIIerent in nature to proIit-oriented work that Iocuses on maximizing Iinancial value.

This poses a problem because much oI the PPM approaches available rely on analyzing
Iinancial eIIiciency oI the proposed proiects; since it was based on the Iinancial portIolio
selection and capital allocation theory oI Harry Markowitz (1959).

The survey respondents answers matches this Iinding; since almost 47.9 (Figure 5.15)
oI the respondents could not identiIy any PPM approach relevant to their organizations.
This was also supported Irom the exploratory stage (Table 5.11). in which respondents

114
had vaguely mentioned other organizations involvement in PPM approaches that they
were not aware oII. However. one oI the Proiect Managers (Interviewee5) had
commented on the issue oI unavailability oI any direct PPM approach in philanthropic
settings. He elaborated that he was aware only oI generic practices and international
standards.
Research work was Iound by Norrie (2006) that conIirmed the need Ior a strategically
based PPM approach due to philanthropic settings being usually absent oI Iinancially-
oriented decisions.

RQ3: below are the research findings.
Note: Research Recommendations Ior addressing these challenges have all been provided
in the Recommendations section.

Challenge oI philanthropic nature and strategy gap
The study identiIied that the main challenge to eIIective portIolio management lies in the
nature and current state oI the philanthropic sector. The research has identiIied that
philanthropic work has many diIIerent Iorms and ambitions (Frumkin 2006). Various
organizations are involved in this sector and this Iield largely operates without a settled
doctrine or sound accountability measures.

In addition. the sector suIIers Irom work Iragmentation which is a continuing problem
being Iaced (HELP 2007. Kharas 2008. Porter and Kramer 1999. SandIort 2008).
Furthermore. strategy gap in the philanthropic sector is an issue that needs to be
addressed. Thus. implementing PPM would Iace diIIiculty due to the variety in missions.
practices and lack oI good strategy oI philanthropic organizations.

Challenge oI lack oI reliable Iunding
Receiving reliable Iunding was Iound to be one oI the main issues oI philanthropic
organizations. The research identiIied that inconsistent Iunding can put unnecessary strain
on philanthropic organizations and divert their attention Irom quality portIolio
implementation to weak portIolio decisions due to budgeting concerns and inIluencing oI

115
sponsors. Data results support this; which states that sponsor Iunder preIerences and
budget limitations highly inIluence portIolio selection decisions; due to this weakness.

Challenge oI non-proIit inIormation gap
The research identiIied that the non-proIit sector produces inadequate inIormation about
its social impact. Much oI the inIormation is oI little value and provides unreliable
observations.

A possible reason Ior this is the diIIiculty in accessing inIormation about social issues
and organizations working on those issues. This was realized during the process oI data
collection; data access was very diIIicult although approval was initially granted and the
intention oI doing research Ior education purposes was emphasized.

Another reason is the measurement challenges due to Iragmentation oI practices and non-
uniIied indicators. As a result philanthropic organizations perIormance cannot be
measured using standard metrics or indicators; which leads to scarcity in quality
inIormation.

Challenge oI transparency and accountability
Philanthropic Ioundations have oIten been criticized Ior their lack oI transparency and
accountability. The literature discusses that Ioundation decisions are oIten sensed to be
opaque and lacking in eIIective internal and external accountability measures (Frumkin
2006. Guidice and Bolduc 2004. Porter and Kramer 1999).

Data analysis using SPSS also identiIied absence oI accountability measures as
signiIicant barrier to implementation oI PPM in organizations (Correlation coeIIicient
was Iound to be: 0.730; greater than 0.5).


116

Chapter 8
Recommendations and Conclusion
This chapter provides recommendations to address the challenges identiIied in the study.
suggestions Ior Iuture research and the overall conclusion oI the research.
8.1. Recommendations

Below are recommendations to address the identiIied challenges in the research:

1. Recommendation to develop a revised PPM approach for philanthropic organizations
The research concludes that PPM implementation in philanthropic organizations requires
a revised PPM approach that would enable decision makers to analyze the strategic
relevance oI the proposed proiects and enable philanthropic organizations to select and
manage the most strategic portIolio oI proiects.

This too has been conIirmed in the exploratory study and survey; since results showed
low awareness oI any portIolio approach speciIic to philanthropic work and much oI the
respondents agreed in pursuing Iurther PPM study in philanthropic settings. This point
was also raised in literature through research by Norrie (2006) who discussed that the
public sector lacked in PPM models that strategically evaluated proiects and proposed a
strategic model.

Furthermore. it is recommended that the to-be developed model considers the Iactors oI
local needs. organizational strategy and budget limitations; because they are highly
important to their philanthropic organizations.

2. Recommendation for more research on PPM implementation in Philanthropic settings
The research concluded lack oI studies on PPM implementation in Philanthropic settings.
It also identiIied the potential beneIits oI conducting such research. The results oI data
analysis using SPSS support this. Since it was Iound Irom analysis that: PPM helped
philanthropic organizations deliver proiects on time and in selecting proiects that were
aligned with strategy.


117

Furthermore the respondents in the exploratory study and survey stated their agreement
that there is need Ior Iurther study oI PPM in relevance to philanthropic organizations.

3. Recommendation for supporting new funding resolution:
The research identiIies that the philanthropic sector would always Iace Iunding
challenges; since Iunding is one oI the core weaknesses oI the philanthropic sector.
Thus. Iocus should be on investigating means that could support philanthropic eIIorts on
this such as: establishing best practices. sharing knowledge on cost reduction techniques.
brainstorming various Iunding resolutions or establishing contacts with key stakeholders
that could provide support on this.

In addition. philanthropic organizations could initiate proIit-generating sub-proiects as
Iunding solution. This will also provide them with some Ireedom Irom sponsor
inIluences.

4. Recommendation for conducting joint industry studies in philanthropic field:
The research recommends development oI ioint and integrated approaches to
philanthropy. There is much need Ior establishing standards. perIormance metrics and
accountability measures that requires ioint eIIorts and coordination Irom the philanthropic
personnel.

The research indicates that establishment oI standards and addressing oI known
philanthropic issues such as lack oI accountability and absence oI sound strategies; would
lay a strong Ioundation Ior Iacilitating successIul PPM implementation.

A good example is the recommendation made by the US HELP Commission (2007) oI
development oI an integrated approach to Ioreign aid to address this same concern. In
addition. studies should Iocus also on strategy building to improve philanthropic work
generally and portIolio management practices (Frumkin 2006).


118

8.2. Suggestions for future research

Below are suggestions Ior Iuture work identiIied Irom the research:
1. Researching unified metrics for philanthropic organizations:
Research that tackles deIinition and uniIication oI the standard scales Ior measuring
philanthropic perIormance is suggested. Further research on this issue would assist in
Iorming a uniIied solid measure that would be useIul in assessing the variety oI
philanthropic organizations and providing a good base Ior Iuture researches in the
philanthropic Iield.

2. In-depth Researching on factors affecting portfolio decisions
Research with Iocus on rigorous analysis oI the critical Iactors aIIecting portIolio
decisions is required. Time limitations and diIIiculty in obtaining a high number oI
responses; prevented achieving oI this in the conducted research.

However there is a need to Iurther examine the Iactors and the reasons behind their
inIluence on decision making. This would improve the understanding oI the Iactor
roles and their relations to the philanthropic organizations.

8.3. Conclusion

The main aim oI this research was to investigate the concept oI portIolio management in
the philanthropic environment. identiIy the main challenges to its implementation and
provide recommendations to its eIIective management. This was undertaken by reviewing
the available literature on the two main topics: portIolio management and philanthropy.

This was Iollowed by an exploratory study to draw a more comprehensive picture about
the subiect; since the topic was Iound to be poorly researched. Upon completion oI the
exploratory study. a survey was distributed among philanthropic organizations in Sudan.
In doing this. the research sought to build an integrated Iramework capable oI generating
beneIicial Iindings and used by Iuture research.


119
The research concluded that eIIective portIolio management in the philanthropic Iield
required a revised approach that enables assessment oI strategic value oI proiects and
management oI the most strategic portIolio oI proiects.

PPM was Iound to be oI potential beneIit to the Philanthropic sector due to its ability oI
addressing the strategy gap Iound in this Iield. However. because oI the time limitations
oI the research and moderate sample size; Iurther empirical investigations and
experimental research on the topic is necessary to support the research results.

None the less. the researcher agrees with Frumkin (2006) who had emphasized that the
Iield oI philanthropy is still emerging and establishing its cores deIinitions and doctrines.
Thus this makes the philanthropic Iield a tempting target Ior analysis and study; one that
appears ripe Ior systematic thinking and reconceptualization (Frumkin 2006).

The researcher ends by hoping that this study has produced valuable research and
contributed to enhancing eIIective philanthropy oI maximum social value to society.


120
References

Archer.N. and Ghasemzadeh.F. (1999). ' An integrated Iramework Ior proiect
portIolio selection'. International Journal oI Proiect Management.17(4). pp 207-
216

Balin.M. (2003) Requestioning. Reimagining. and Retooling Philanthropy.
NonproIit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 32(4).pp 635-642

BCG. (1970). The Product PortIolio. Boston Consulting Group. Inc. Retrieved
March 15. 2011 Irom
http://www.bcg.com/impactexpertise/publications/Iiles/ProductPortIolioJa
n1970.pdI .

Benedict. K. (2003a). Creating. Changing. and Closing Areas oI Philanthropic
Activity Discussion paper Ior the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation. Available at
|www.macIound.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?clkLXJ8MQKrH&b272412
9&content idD81EC64B-C255-453A-8ABC-481A4A208480}&notoc1|.
Accessed 2 March 2011.

Benedict. K. (2003b). Foundation Collaborations Discussion paper Ior the John D.
And Catherine T. MacArthurFoundation. Available at
|www.macIound.org/site/apps/nlnet/
content2.aspx?clkLXJ8MQKrH&b2724129&content id77C8F163- 768E-
4BD0-A926-5ACD5B3925A2}&notoc1|. Accessed 2 March 2011

Benko. C. and F. W. McFarlan (2003). Connecting the dots: aligning proiects with
obiectives in unpredictable times. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Better. M. and Glover F.(2006) 'Selecting Proiect PortIolios by optimizing
simulations'. The Engineering Economist. 51(1) pp 81-97

Beyer C. (2007) 'Non-Governmental Organizations as Motors oI Change'.
Government and Opposition. vol.42. no. 2 pp 513-535

BlichIeld.B. and Eskerod. P. (2008). 'Proiect portIolio management - There's more
to it than management enacts'. International Journal oI Proiect Management. 26
(4). pp.357-365

Braverman. M.. Constantine. N. and Slater. J. (2004). Foundations and evaluation
Contexts and Practices Ior EIIective Philanthropy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Carlsson C.. Fuller R.. Heikkila M. and Mailender.P. (2007) A Iuzzy approach to
R&D proiect portIolio selection'. International Journal oI Approximate Reasoning.
44(1). pp 93 - 105

Ciconte. B. and Jacob. J. (2009): Fundraising Basics: A Complete Guide. USA:
Jones and Bartlett Learning LLC.

121

Cooper. R. Edgett.S. and Kleinschmidt.E. (1997). PortIolio Management in New
Product Development: Lessons Irom the Leaders 1 Research Technology
Management. 40 (5).pp. 16-28

Cooper. R.. Edgett. S. & Kleinschmidt. E (1997). PortIolio Management in New
Product Development: Lessons Irom the Leaders-II. Research Technology
Management. 40 (6). pp. 43-52.

Cooper. R.. Edgett. S. and Kleinschmidt. E. (1998). PortIolio management Ior
new products. Reading. MA: Perseus Books.

Cooper. R.. Edgett.S.. and Kleinschmidt. E. (2000) New Problems. New
Solutions: Making PortIolio Management More EIIective. Research Technology
Management. 43(2).pp. 18-3

Cooper. R. . Edgett. S. . and Kleinschmidt.E. (2001). PortIolioManagement Ior
New Products. 2nd edition. Reading. MA: Perseus Publishing.

Cooper. R. . Edgett. S. . and Kleinschmidt. E. (2001). PortIolio Management in
New Product Development: Results oI an Industry Practices Study. R & D
Management. 31 (4).pp. 361-381.

CrawIord. L. . Hobbs. B. & Turner. J. (2006). Aligning Capability with Strategy:
Categorizing Proiects to Do the Right Proiects and to Do Them Right. Proiect
Management Journal. 37 (2).pp. 38-50.

Desai. R. and Homi.K. (2008) The CaliIornia Consensus: Can Private Aid End
Global Poverty.Survival.50(4). pp. 155-168

Dey. P.(2006). Integrated Proiect Evaluation and Selection Using Multiple-
Attribute Decision-Making Technique. International Journal oI Production
Economics. 103(1). pp. 90-103

Doerner K.. Gutiahr W.. Hartl R.. Strauss C. And Stummer C. (2006)
'Pareto ant colony optimization with ILP preprocessing in multiobiective proiect
portIolio selection'. European Journal oI Operational Research. vol. 171. 3(1). pp
830 -841
Dye. L. D. and J. S. Pennypacker. Eds. (1999). Proiect portIolio management:
selecting and prioritizing proiects Ior competitive advantage. West Chester. PA..
Centre Ior Business Practices.

Dye. L. D. & Pennypacker. J. S. (eds). (1999) Proiect PortIolio Management:
Selecting and Prioritizing Proiects Ior Competitive Advantage. pp.169-181. West
Chester. PA: Center Ior Business Practices.

Englund.R. and Graham. R. (1999). From Experience: Linking Proiects to
Strategy. Journal oI Production and Innovation Management. 16 (1).pp. 52-64

122

Englund. R. and Graham. R. (1999). From Experience: Linking Proiects to
Strategy. Journal oI Production and Innovation Management. 16 (1). pp.52-64.

Engwall M. and Siogren Jerbrant A. (2003). 'The resource allocation syndrome:
the prime challenge oI multi-proiect management'. International Journal oI Proiect
Management. 21(6).pp. 403-409

FamilyHealth international. Natasha M. Cynthia W. and Estados Unidos Agency
Ior International Development. (2005) .Qualitative research methods: a data
collector's Iield guide. FLI

Fink. E. . and Katrinka Ebbe. "The World Bank and Foundations: Good Practices
Ior Partnerships." Washington. DC: The Foundations Unit. Global Partnerships
and Programs Group. the World Bank. August 2005.

Frumkin. P. (2006) Strategic Giving The Art and Science oI Philanthropy.
Chicago: The university oI Chicago Press

Fruttero A. and Gauri V. (2005) 'The Strategic choices oI NGOs: Location
Decisions in Rural Bangladesh'. The Journal oI Development Studies. vol. 41
no. 5. pp. 759-787
Ghasemzadeh. F..Archer. N. and Iyogun. P. (1999). A Zero-One Model Ior
Proiect PortIolio Selection and Scheduling. The Journal oI the Operational
Research Society. 50 (7). pp.745-755.

Goldberg. S.. (2009) Billions oI Drops in millions oI Buckets Why Philanthropy
doesn't advance social progress. City: Jossey-Bass

Guidice. Phil. and Kevin Buolduc. "Assessing PerIormance at the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation: A Case Study." Available at
|www.eIIectivephilanthropy.org/images/pdIs/RWJFcasestudy.pdI|. 2004

Gutiahr W.. Katzensteiner S.. Reiter P.. Stummer C. And Denk M. (2008)
'Competence-driven proiect portIolio selection. scheduling and staII assignment'.
Central European Journal oI Operations Research. vol. 16. no. 3. pp 281-306

HELP Commission. "Beyond Assistance: The HELP Commission Report on
Foreign Assistance ReIorm." Available at
|www.helpcommission.gov/portals/0/Beyond20AssistanceHELP
CommissionReport.pdI|. 2007.

Horasanh.M. and Fidan. N. 'PortIolio Selection by Using Time Varying
Covariance Matrices'. Journal oI Economics and Social Research. 9(2). pp.1-22

Johnson. G.. Scholes. K. and Whittington. R. (2006). 'Exploring Corporate
Strategy'. 7th ed. Harlow. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.


123
KauImann. Katherine. and Robert.S.(2007)"The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Answering the Hard Question: 'What DiIIerence Are We Making?. Boston. MA:
The Bridgespan Group. Inc.

Kendall. G. and Rollins. S.(2003). Advanced Proiect PortIolio Management and
the PMO. Multiplying ROI at Warp Speed. Boca Raton. FL: J. Ross Publishing.
Inc.
Kharas. H. (2008) "The New Reality oI Aid." In Can Philanthropists. the Public.
and the Poor Make Poverty History?. edited by Brainard.L. and Chollet.D.
Washington. DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Kramer. Mark. with Rebecca Graves. Jason Hirschhorn. and Leigh Fiske. "From
Insight to Action: New Directions in Foundation Evaluation." Available at
|www.Isg-impact.org/images/upload/From20Insight20to20Action(3).pdI|.
April 2007.

LeIley. F. and Morgan. M. (1998). A New Pragmatic Approach to Capital
Investment Appraisal: The Financial Appraisal ProIile (FAP) Model. International
Journal oI Production Economics. 55 (3).pp. 321-41.

LeIley. F. and Sarkis. J. (2007). The Financial Appraisal ProIile (FAP) Model Ior
Evaluation oI Enterprise-Wide InIormation Technology: A Case Example in
Gunasekaran. A. et (eds.) (2007) Modeling and Analysis oI Enterprise
InIormation Systems. Chapter 13. Hershey PA. USA: IGI Publishing.

LeIley. F. (1997). Capital Investments: The Financial Appraisal ProIile. CertiIied
Accountant. 89 (6).pp. 26-29.

Levine. H. A. (2005). Proiect PortIolio Management: A Practical Guide to
Selecting Proiects. Managing PortIolios and Maximizing BeneIit. USA: PIeiIIer
Wiley

Lindsay. D. and Wuthnow. R. (2010). Financing Faith: Religion and Strategic
Philanthropy. Journal Ior the ScientiIic Study oI Religion. 49(1) pp 87-111.

Lu. L. .Chiu. S. . and Cox. L.(1999). Optimal Proiect Selection: Stochastic
Knapsack with Finite Time Horizon. The Journal oI the Operational Research
Society. 50 (6).pp. 645-650.

Lycett.M.. Rassau.A. and Danson.J. (2004). Programme Management: A critical
review.International Journal oI Proiect Management; 22(4). pp.289-299

Martino. J. P. (2003). Proiect Selection.

Milosevic. D. (2003). Proiect Management Toolbox Tools and Techniques Ior the
Practicing Proiect Manager. pp. 19-66. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons. Inc.

Martino. J. P. (1995). Research and development in proiect selection. New York:
Wiley.


124
Matti. A.(2008). 'Proiect leadership in multi-proiect settings: Findings Irom a
critical incident study'. International Journal oI Proiect Management. 26 (4).pp
338-347

Morris. P. & Jamieson. A. (2004). Translating Corporate Strategy into Proiect
Strategy: Realizing Corporate Strategy through Proiect Management. USA: PMI

MoustaIaev. J. (2011). Delivering Exceptional Proiect Results: A Practical Guide
to Proiect Selection. Scoping. Estimation and Management. USA : J.Ross
Publishing

Norrie. J. and D. H. J.T Walker (2004). A balanced scorecard approach to proiect
management leadership. Proiect Management Journal..35(4). pp 47-57.

Norrie. J. (2006). Improving results oI proiect portIolio management in the public
sector using a balanced strategic scoring model.DPM. Thesis. Royal Melbourne
Institute oI Technology University.

Paul D.Gardiner (2005). Proiect Management a strategic planning approach.
USA: Palgrave Macmillan

PMI(2000). Guide to the Proiect Management Body oI Knowledge. Proiect
Management Institute. Upper Darby. PA (Check Iormat oI citing later)

Porter. Michael E. and Marc R. (1999) /Philanthropy's New Agenda." Harvard
Business Review . pp. 77-121

Rad. P. and Levin. G. (2006). Proiect PortIolio Management Tools and
Techniques. New York: ITL Publishing.

Rdulescu1. Z. and Rdulescu. M. (2001). 'Proiect PortIolio Selection Models and
Decision Support'. Research Paper. National Institute Ior Research &
Development in InIormatics. Romania.

Raiegopal. McGuin and Waller (2007):Proiect portIolio management: leading the
corporate vision. By Shan Raiegopal. Philip McGuin. James Waller

SandIort.J.(2008) Lessons Irom Public AIIairs to InIorm Strategic Philanthropy
NonproIit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 37(3). pp.537-552.

Seligman.A. .(1992) The idea oI civil society. New York: The Free Press
Sergio Ricardo Calderini. (2005). "The Impact oI Proiect PortIolio Management
on InIormation Technology Proiects"

Smith. S. and Barker. J. (1999). BeneIit-Cost Ratio: Selection Tool or Trap?
Reprinted in: Dye. L. D. & Pennypacker. J. S. (eds). (1999). Proiect PortIolio
Management: Selecting and Prioritizing Proiects Ior Competitive Advantage. pp.
281-286. West Chester. PA: Center Ior Business Practices


125
Sommer. R.(1999). PortIolio Management Ior Proiects: A New Paradigm. In Dye.
L.D. and Pennypacker. J.S. (eds.) Proiect PortIolio Management: Selecting and
Prioritizing Proiects Ior Competitive Advantage. pp. 55 - 60.West Chester. PA:
Center Ior Business Practices.
Souder. W. E. (1984). Proiect selection and economic appraisal. New York. NY.
Van Nostrand Reinhold

The Hudson Institute. Index oI Global Philanthropy 2008. Washington. DC: The
Hudson Institute. Available at
|https://www.hudson.org/Iiles/documents/200820Index20-
20Low20Res.pdI|. 2008

Teece. D.. Pisano. G. and Shuen. A.(1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal. 18(7). pp. 509-533.

Toepler S. (2003) 'Culture Grassroots Associations Versus Larger NonproIits:
New Evidence Irom a Community Case Study in Arts'. NonproIit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly.32(2). pp. 236-251

Turner. R.(1992).The handbook oI proiect-based management.2nd ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill

Whitman. J. (2009). Measuring Social Values in Philanthropic Foundations.
Non ProIit Management and Leadership. 19(3). pp. 305 325

William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. "Making Every Dollar Count: How
Expected Return Can TransIorm Philanthropy." Available at
|http://www.hewlett.org/NR/rdonlyres/7FE84D66-A773-47B8-9247-
C43F8FDA1136/0/MakingEveryDollarCount.pdI|. 2008.

W. K. Kellogg Foundation. "Blurred Boundaries and Muddled Motives: A World
oI ShiIting Social Responsibilities." Battle Creek. MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
November 2003.

World Health Organization. "Mid-Term Strategic Plan 2008-2013." Available at
|www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdIIiles/AMTSP-PPB/a-mtsp2en.pdI|. 2008.


126
Bibliography

Anderson. J. M. (1975) Public Policy-making. New York: Praeger

Anheier. H.. M. Glasius and M. Kaldor (eds) (2001) Global civil society. OxIord:
OxIord University Press. Online at
http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/global/Yearbook/outline.htm

Appadurai. A. (1996) Modernity at large. Cultural dimensions oI globalization.
Minneapolis: University oI Minnesota Press.

Bayat. A. (2000) Social Movements. Activism and Social Development in the
Middle East. Civil Society and Social Movements Programme. Paper Number 2.
Geneva: UNRISD

Bebbington. T. and Mitlin.D. (1996) NGO capacity and eIIectiveness: a review oI
themes in NGO related research recently Iunded by ESCOR. London:
International Institute Ior Environment and Development

BrinkerhoII. D. and Goldsmith.A (2002) How citizens participate in
macroeconomic policy: international experience and implications Ior poverty
reduction. World Development 31(4): pp.685701.

Brock. K. and McGee.R. (2004) Mapping trade policy: understanding the
challenges oI civil society participation. IDS Working Paper 225. Brighton: IDS.

Brown. L. (2001) Civil Society Legitimacy: A Discussion Guide in L. David
Brown (ed) Practice Research Engagement Ior Civil Society in a Globalizing
World. Cambridge. MA: Hauser Center Ior NonproIit Organizations and
Washington DC: CIVICUS: World Alliance Ior Citizen Participation

Candland. C. and S. Nurianah (2004) Womens empowerment through Islamic
organizations: the role oI Indonesias Nahdlatul Ulama in transIorming the
governments birth control program into a Iamily welIare program. Case Study
prepared Ior the World Faiths Development Dialogue Workshop. New Delhi.
India 911 February. Clay. E. and B. SchaIIer (eds) (1984) Room Ior Manoeuvre:
An Exploration oI Public Policy in Agriculture and Rural Development. London:
Heinemann.

Clayton. A.. Oakley. P. and Taylor.J. (2000) Civil Society Organizations and
Service Provision. Civil Society and Social Movements Programme. Paper
Number 2. Geneva: UNRISD.

Cobbah. A. (2004) The role oI civil society in ensuring good governance:
Challenges Iacing public libraries in AIrica. Paper presented at the ISTR Sixth
International ConIerence. Toronto. Canada / July 11-14. 2004


127
Driscoll.R. . Christiansen.K. and Jenks.S. (2004) An overview oI NGO
participation in PRSPs. ODI Consultation Ior CARE International.

Edwards. M. (2004) Civil Society. Cambridge. UK: Polity Press

Ehrenberg. J. (1999) Civil society: the critical history oI an idea. New York and
London: New York University Press.

Edwards. M. (2004) Civil Society. Cambridge. UK: Polity Press.

Ehrenberg. J. (1999) Civil society: the critical history oI an idea. New York and
London: New York University Press.

Falobi. O. (2000) Keynote address. Civil Society Organisations Pre-Iorum
Meeting. AIrican Development Forum. Addis Ababa. 2 December.

Fisher. J. (1998) Nongovernments: NGOs and the political development oI the
third world. West HartIord. CT: Kumarian Press.

Flyvbierg. B. (2001) Making social science matter: why social inquiry Iails and
how it can succeed again. Cambridge. UK: University Press.

Foweraker. J. (2001) Grassroots Movements. Political Activism and Social
Development in Latin America: A Comparison oI Chile and Brazil. Civil Society
and Social Movements Programme.Paper Number 4. Geneva: UNRISD.

Fowler. A. (2000) Civil Society. NGDOs and Social Development: Changing the
Rules oI the Game. UNRISD Occasional Paper 1. UNRISD: Geneva.

Fox. J. (2001) Vertically integrated policy monitoring: a tool Ior civil society
policy advocacy. NonproIit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 30: 61627.

Gaventa. J. (1999) Crossing the great divide: building links and learning between
NGOs and community based organizations in North and South in D. Lewis (ed)
International perspectives on voluntary action: reshaping the third sector. London:
Earthscan.

Giddens. A. (1976) New rules oI sociological method. Cambridge. UK: Polity
Press.

Lee.W.. Kim.S..( 2001). An integrated approach Ior interdependent inIormation
system proiect selection. International Journal oI Proiect Management 19. 111
118.

Mavrotas. G.. Diakoulaki. D.. Capros. P.. (2003). Combined MCDA-IP approach
Ior proiect selection in the electricity market. Annals oI Operations Research 120.
159170.
Mild. P.. Liesio.J. . Salo. A. .( 2004). Multi-criteria capital budgeting with
incomplete preIerence inIormation. 15th Mini Euro ConIerence. Coimbra.
Portugal.

128

PettiIor. A. (2004) Does evidence matter?. Paper presented at ODI Lunchtime
meeting series Does Evidence Matter?. Meeting 7. 11 June 2003. on Policy
Entrepreneurship. London:Overseas Development Institute.

Pollard. A. (2004) Making the most oI ethnography: bridging research and policy
Irom inside and outside NGOs. Paper presented at NGO Study Group Seminar
Ethnography oI NGOs: Understanding Organisational Processes. 28 OxIord.
Online at http://www.intrac.org/Intrac/docs/AmyPollard.doc.

Pross. P. (1986) Group Politics and Public Policy. Toronto: OxIord University
Press.PRSP Monitoring and Synthesis Proiect. 2004. Online at:
http://www.prspsynthesis.org/

Putnam. R. (1993) Making democracy work. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.

Robinson. M. and White.G. (1998) Towards Synergy in Social Provision: Civic
Organizations and the State in M. Minogue. C. Polidano and D. Hulme (eds)
Beyond the New Public Management: Changing Ideas and Practices in
Governance. Cheltenham: Edwin Elgar.

Roe. E. (1991) Development narratives. World Development 19(4). pp.106570

Roias. O. (1999) The role oI civil society organisations in sustainable
development in CIVICUS Civil society at the millennium. West HartIord. CT:
Kumarian Press.

Sabatier. P. (ed) (1999) Theories oI the policy process. Boulder. CO: Westview
Press.
Salamon. L. (1993) The Global Associational Revolution: The Rise oI the Third
Sector on the World Scene. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Scholte. J.. OBrien. R. and Williams. M. (1998) The WTO and civil society.
CSGR Working.

Schusterman R.. Almansi.F. . Hardoy.A.. McGranahan.G. .Oliverio.I.
Rozensztein.R. and Urquiza.G. (2002) Public Private Partnerships and the Poor:
Experiences with water provision in Iour low-income barrios in Buenos Aires.
Loughborough. UK: WEDC. Loughborough University.

Shaxson. L. (2005) Is your evidence robust enough? Questions Ior policy makers
and practitioners. Evidence & Policy: A Journal oI Research. Debate and
Practice. January 2005. 1(1): 101-112(12).

Sutton. R. (1999) The policy process: an overview. ODI Working Paper 118.
London: Overseas Development Institute


129
Van der Linde. A. and Naylor. R . (1999) Building sustainable peace: conIlict.
conciliation. and civil society in northern Ghana. OxIam Working Papers.
OxIord: OxIam GB.

Van Rooy. A. (ed) (1999) Civil society and the aid industry. London: Earthscan.
in association with The North-South Institute.

Van Rooy. A. (ed) (2004) Global Legitimacy Game: Civil Society. Globalization
and Protest. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Young. J.. Kaiume.J. and Wanyama.J. (2003) Animal Health Care in Kenya: The
Road to Community-Based Animal Health Service Delivery. ODI Working Paper
214. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Young. E. and Quinn.L. (2002) Writing EIIective Public Policy Papers: A Guide
To Policy Advisers in Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest: LGI.


130
Appendix A

Research Survey (English Format)

This research study titled Exploring status oI Proiect PortIolio Management Ior
philanthropic Ioundations" is undertaken by a student in MSc Proiect Management at
British University in Dubai (BUID) to investigate the Proiect PortIolio Management
(PPM) status and awareness in philanthropic organizations. Please answer all questions in
relation to YOUR ORGANISATION.

Section A General PPM information

1. How would you rate the size oI your organization? (Answer only one)
o Small
o Medium
o Large

2. Does your organization have a PPM process; i.e. a process for selecting portfolios of
projects?

o Yes
o No

3. How long has your organization been practicing this PPM Process?

o 1-2 Years
o 3-5 Years
o More than 5 years

4. How was the PPM process developed? (Answer only one)
o By your organization independently
o By hiring consultants or implementing PPM software?
o By combining organization efforts with external consultation or use of PPM
software

5.a Are any software being used to aid in PPM decision making>
o Yes
o No
5b. If yes, which of the following software is being used?

o Off the shelf software such as (MS Project or Primavera Teamplay)
o In-house developed software

6. Is there an assigned department clearly responsible for implementing PPM?
(Answer only one)
o Yes
o No


131
7. How often do you review your project portfolios? (Answer only one)
o Monthly
o Quarterly
o Never

No. Question
A
l
w
a
y
s

O
I
t
e
n

S
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
s

R
a
r
e
l
y

N
e
v
e
r

8. How oIten is your organization engaged in large
portIolio oI proiects. comprised oI various sub-
proiects? (Answer only one)

9. What method(s) is used in your organization Ior selecting portIolios oI proiects?
o Financial Methods
o Strategic approaches
o Bubble diagrams
o Weighted scoring models
o Checklists
o None

SECTION B: Identifying the factors and challenges for effective portfolio selection

10. How important are the Iollowing Iactors when selecting proiect portIolios?
Please answer all oI the questions. (Place X on the appropriate answer Ior each item in the
list)

Factors Absolutely
essential
Very
Important
Important Relevant Not
Relevant
Pure Charitable inclinations
Sponsor or Funder
preIerences

Government policy
Local needs
Organizations strategy
Budget limitations


132
11. In your experience. to what extent do the Iollowing points represent barriers to
eIIective portIolio management. (Place X on the appropriate answer Ior each item in the
list) ?
Factors Highly
eIIective
EIIective Mixed IneIIective Highly
IneIIective
Lack oI clear organizational
strategy or obiectives

Lack oI executive support

Lack oI cooperative
environment or culture

Undeveloped or poor
monitoring process oI
portIolios & proiects

Lack oI inIormation on
resources

Lack oI inIormation on
proiects metrics used to
evaluate proiects progress

IneIIective prioritization oI
proiects

Absence oI accountability
measures Ior implementing
PPM Process

Lack oI eIIective proiect
portIolio managers

Having a poor repository Ior
proiect inIormation

12. Are charitable reasons the most important Iactor to be considered Ior proiect
selection? (Answer only one).
o Yes
o No

SECTION C: Relevance of Project Portfolio Management to philanthropic foundations

13. Do you think there is a need Ior studying relevance oI PPM to Philanthropic
Ioundations to avoid issues or problems? (Answer only one).
o Yes
o No

14. Are you aware oI any general recommended portIolio approaches Ior social
organizations like your organization? (Answer only one).
o Yes
o No

133
15a. Do you know the return on investment (ROI) for implementing PPM at your
organization? (Answer only one).
o Yes
o No

15b. if yes, please select the ROI appropriate for your organization: (Answer only one).
o 2-5%
o 5-10%
o More than 10%

16. To what extent do you agree with the Iollowing statements? (Place X on the
appropriate answer Ior each item in the list)

Statement
S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

N
e
u
t
r
a
l

A
g
r
e
e

S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

A
g
r
e
e

Organization proiects in-line with
organization strategy and obiectives

Organization selected proiects successIully
delivered on time & meeting obiectives

Organization resources spread evenly among
the proiects

Current proiects and portIolios managed
smoothly

Current proiect and portIolio management
process is satisIactory (and helps to identiIy
risks and arising needs)

Current process have lead to increasing cost
savings by elimination oI unnecessary. poor
or repeated proiects

Current system Ior tracking and documenting
proiect progress is satisIactory

17. Please free to provide any comment/suggestion on project management related to
philanthropic work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demographics-Respondent details:
Job role:
All individual returns will remain conIidential and anonymous. II you would like to
receive a summary oI the aggregated quantitative results oI the survey. then please give
an email address Ior sending:
*Email (Voluntary):

Thank you for your time and support in completing this survey


134

Research Survey (Arabic Language)

-- -=- '---- " - -'--' --' --=' '---' "

- -+- '= -' ' '----` -=' '---' -' =-' =' --- - '---=- -
--' -'--' = ---='-' = .--' '--- --' -=- =' --'=--' -'=' .- -'--'
- . '--` --= '= -'=` =- =--=--- -'--' .

-'~-- := '- -'- '-:--- :V -~--

1 . =--=-- == - -- ) -= -'= '--= =- (
o --
o =---
o --

2 . '--=` -=- '--= -'-= --' . = ---- -'--' ) -= -'= '--= =- (
o -
o `

3 . --=- - '= -- -''=' -'-' --=--' -'--' '--=` ) -= -'= '--= =- (
o 1 - 2 .---
o 3 - 5 .---
o .- ` 5 .---

4 . - -- -=- -'-' -- ) -= -'= '--= =- (
o =- ---' '- '= '--=`'-
o --=- -'= --- -=--'- +--=- - .---=- --'---
o .- =-'= '= '--=`'- -'= --- .---=- ' '-`'- ---' '-
--=--

5 . ) ( ---- -'--' = '--= -'-= '-''= -'= --'-- -=-- -- .
) -= -'= '--= =- (
o -
o `
5 ). ( -''-' ---' .- -=-- -'=` --' :
o -'= --- .`- '= : MS Project Primavera Teamplay
o ---' .- .- '-=- - ---

6 . -'--' = '--= .= -=- .-- '-- -=- '- . ) '--= =-
-= -'= (
o -
o `

7 . -'--' -- =-= =- -- -- ) -= -'= '--= =- (
o +- .

135
o -' - . - ) `= 3 +- (
o =-' -- `

-- '- '-'-= '--'- '-- :~- :~- --
= ---- =- -- '-
'---- -'-- .- -- -'--
=--- ) -'= '--= =-
-`= - -= .= -=X(

8 .

9 . --' --''-` .- '--= =- -'--' '--=` '+--=-- -- -' .--` ) .
-'= .- ` '--= =--- (

o --- -- .' -''- '----
o --- -- .' -=--- '-'--
o -=--'- =---' -'--'' `-'=- " =-==-' -' '='- " Bubble Diagram
o -=--'- =---' -'--'' `-'=- " '-- -- " -- .' weighted
score model
o -=--'- -'--'' `-'=- " '--= --' " Checklist
o .-- '- -=-- -- `

- -'-- -~- : +=:-- '--=-- =='-- -'~-- '--= J-:- ~ :
10 . -''-' .-' -`'- ---- =- -'--' '--= ) . -`= - =- X '=
''-' -=' - . -'= (

:--'- '+- c-- :--'-
=-~-
-+- :--'- -+- :--'-
-=
-'- :--'-
--V
J-:-
-=- --'-- '--
=' --
--'
'-' -'--
-'=-' '='--=`
-=---
---'
----' ----

11 . =='-' -'--' -'-' -- '- -''-' '--' --- -- '
) -`= - =- X ''-' -=' - . -'= '= (

136

12 . -'--' '--=` ''--= -- -' --'-' --'--` =-' --- . ) '--= =-
-= -'= (
o -
o ` .

- -~- ~-'-- : -:-=- '~~:-- -'~-- --- -- >~- ~ :

13 . .- -= '--= -+- -=-' .'-- -'= =-- .-- -'--' . .- - '--' '' -+' ='= - .
'-'--' .'--' ) -= -'= '--= =- (
o -
o
`
14 . --- -+- '- '= '= -- . '= .-- --'--` '---'' -'--' '--= ) -'= '--= =-
-= (
o -
o
`
15 . '= -- . '= -'--' --=- -'-= .- =---' '-`--` --'- ) -= -'= '--= =- (
-= ~-~ :- :-
~-~
:- =~:--
-:--'- -
:- :- :- :-
-=
J-:-
= -=
-=---- ---=--
=- -
= -= =

= -= --- .-=
-=- '-`
--- -'-= =
-- -'--'
-'--'
.= '-'-' .--
=-' -'
) - --- --'
'-= (
'-'-' .--
--- ----' -='--'
-'--''
---=- --
'-' -'--'
= -= ----
.= ''--'
'-'-- -----
-'--'
-= -'' ---
-'--'
-'-= --
'-'-' -`-
-'--''- -'--'

137

o -
o
`

15 . '-`--` --'= --- '--= =- -- -'=` --' ) -= -'= '--= =- (

o 2 - 5 %
o
6 - 10 %
o
.- ` 10 %
16 . -''-' '-' - --- -- ' =- -`= -
-~- - - --'=- '- '-
-~-
'--
- - -=--' -'--
-' -=---- '+-

'=-- '-=-' -'--' -'-- --
-=--' - -'-- =-
-'-=-' -'--' .-- '--''-

-'--' -- -'--' =
.'- .--
--- ` -''=' -'-'
-'--' = -'--' --=''-
) -='-- + ='=-' ---=- '=
--'-' '='--=` (
--- ` -''=' -'-'
-'--' --''-' .-= =='-
---' -'--' .= --'-'
----' -' -'
--- ` -''=' -'-'
-'--' . -`- =='-
-'--''- -'--' '-'-'

17 . -:-=- '~~:-- -'~- :~:-- ----- '=:--- ==>- -'~ :=:-

:-~=~- --~V

--=:- _-~-- : __________________________________________

-=-' --'-- '= -=' --- -- .=- ---'- -` ='' --- '-'-' . - .-'-' -- - *
:.--` ---' --= -'- =-

--` ---'

oS:ln: _a> _lc ,Sa


138
Appendix B

Interview questions structure for UAE Philanthropic organizations

PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS

Your name:

Organisation name:

Your job title:

A small number of follow up research interviews will be
conducted later - Is it ok to contact you again for a short
research interview Yes / No

Email (only used if follow-up needed):

Mobile (only used if follow-up needed):

Does your organization have a PPM process; i.e. a process for selecting projects or
portfolios of projects? Yes / No

SECTION A: General information

1.1 What is the mission oI your organization and background?

1.2 In regards to the proiects being conducted in UAE. please describe the nature oI those
proiects and scale.

No. Question
N
e
v
e
r

S
e
l
d
o
m

S
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
s

O
I
t
e
n

A
l
w
a
y
s

1.3 How often is your organization engaged in
large portfolio of projects. comprised of
various sub-projects?

SECTION B: Factors for successful portfolio selection


139
2.1 What are the Iactors you usually consider Ior proiect or proiect portIolio selection?

2.2 Is there a process or procedure to be Iollowed when selecting a proiect or portIolio?
Please clariIy.

2.3 Are charitable reasons the most important Iactor to be considered Ior proiect
selection? II not. please clariIy.

SECTION C: Relevance of Project Portfolio Management to philanthropic foundations
in UAE

No. Question
Y
e
s

N
o

N
/
A

3.1
implementing a project/portfolio management
process for philanthropic foundations in the
UAE. Do you think there is a need for such a
study to avoid issues or problems?

Please explain your response below.

...................................................................................
...................................................................................

3.2 Please explain the challenges generally faced when selecting projects or portfolios?

3.3 Are you aware of any general recommended portfolio approaches for social
organizations like your organization?

3.4 Are there any issues Iaced due to lack oI structure in a management process Ior
proiects and portIolios ?

To what extent do you agree with the Iollowing statements:

140
No Statement
S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

d
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

N
e
u
t
r
a
l

A
g
r
e
e

S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

3.5 Organization proiects in-line with corporate
strategy

3.6 Organization selected proiects successIully
delivered

3.7 Organization resources spread evenly among
the proiects

3.8 Current proiects and portIolios managed
smoothly

3.9 Current proiect and portIolio management
process helps to identiIy risks and arising
needs

4.0. Do you have any Iurther comment. suggestion or contribution relative to PPM
perIormance?

Thank you


141
Appendix C

Example of BUID letter provided for addressing Philanthropic organizations

Project Portfolio Management in Philanthropic Organizations

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Project Portfolio Management in Philanthropic Organizations

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Project Portfolio Management

S-ar putea să vă placă și