The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive
text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
JMTM
16,5
466
Received March 2003
Revised February 2004
Accepted March 2004
Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management
Vol. 16 No. 5, 2005
pp. 466-482
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-038X
DOI 10.1108/17410380510600464
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm
Multiple project management:
a modern competitive necessity
L. Dooley
Centre for Enterprise Management, School of Engineering,
University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
G. Lupton
Department of Industrial Engineering and Information Systems,
National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland, and
D. O’Sullivan
Computer Integrated Manufacturing Research Unit (CIMRU),
National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
Abstract
Purpose – The paper aims to examine the theory of project and multiple project management and
develop a framework tool to facilitate the management of a portfolio of multiple projects across an
organisation and enhance the overall effectiveness of the process.
Design/methodology/approach – The methodology adopted in this paper was first, to undertake a
literature survey of the area and to distil the key elements affecting the management of multiple
projects within organisations. A number of interrelated tools to support effective management are then
developed and applied to a mall to medium-sized enterprise (SME) to validate their applicability.
Findings – The paper highlights that greater organisational efficiency and less conflict can be
achieved through greater structure and understanding of the intricacies of managing multiple projects.
Practical implications – Organisations can reduce the pressure imposed on staff as a result of the
matrix structure by clearer deployment of strategies to projects and increased awareness of risk of
conflict between function and project co-ordinators.
Originality/value – The value of the paper is that it presents organisations with a tool that
interrelates projects to strategy fulfilment and also identifies the level, focus and loading of projects to
individuals across the organisation. In this way organisations can better understand their
organisations and manage their portfolio process more effectively.
Keywords Organizational change, Project management, Portfolio investment
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Daily organisations around the world make decisions altering strategic direction,
developing new products, enhancing capacity or introducing new
infrastructure/technology that will improve the efficiency and competitive position
of the organisation. Such changes do not occur in a vacuum but instead management
must attempt to balance between the ongoing requirements of the market place
(namely operations) and the requirement for the organisation to better position itself
for the future (namely develop). A common vehicle for planning and implementing
organisational change is that of projects whose teams are resourced by personnel with
operational commitments (Turner and Muller, 2003). As manufacturing engineers exist
at the interface between these two pressures, they are under ever increasing stress to Multiple project
maximise efficiency within both the operations and projects in which they engage management
(O’Sullivan, 1994). The modern manufacturing engineer is daily faced with multiple
customer-focused projects, often exhibiting apparently conflicting demands. The
challenge therefore is to manage these development projects in an effective and
efficient manner, while at the same time continuing to run their operations
successfully. The management of multiple projects is problematic (Turner and Speiser, 467
1992; Platje et al., 1994) and as such requires new tools to facilitate its effective
management.
While significant expertise has been developed within the area of project
management, the need to manage ever more varied and disruptive projects, at different
stages of their project life cycle poses new and challenging issues for organisations.
Organisations and its employees are faced with a new set of problems, which differ
from those of managing individual projects (Turner and Speiser, 1992; Platje et al.,
1994; Pellegrinelli, 1997). These challenges include issues such as the mix of projects
(Elonen and Artto, 2003), balancing of resources across the portfolio (Engwall and
Jerbrant, 2003), aligning the portfolio to achieve optimisation (Dooley, 2000) and
reacting to “emergent shifts” during the life of the project (Cooper et al., 2000). Thus, in
order for organisations to respond adequately to ever increasing demands,
management require a new framework of tools to address the needs of multiple
project management.

Project versus multiple project management

Projects and their management
Leintz and Rea (1995) stress that the current trends towards global competition, rapid
technological change and reengineering are increasing the importance of project
management processes since the project manager and their team are “agents of
change”. Projects are suited for undertaking organisational change as they are “a
temporary undertaking, with a specific objective that must be accomplished by
organized application of appropriate resources” (Rosenau 1998). Tidd et al. (2001)
support the importance of organisational project management competencies and view
them as highly correlated with an organisation’s ability to innovate their systems
successfully. Duncan (1996) defines project management as “the application of
knowledge skills, tools and techniques to project activities in order to meet or exceed
stakeholder needs and expectations from the project”. It is a cyclical process of
planning, monitoring and review, where strong inference is placed on communication
during the planning stage (Reiss, 1992). Duncan (1996) further expands on the project
management process, viewing it as encompassing the stages of project initiation,
planning, execution, control and the closing process.
Differing authors have concentrated on critiquing factors to be defined and
controlled as part of the project management process. Meredith and Mantell (1995)
discuss these factors under the broad headings of budgeting and cost estimation,
scheduling and resource allocation. Rosenau (1998) states that project objectives must
focus on accomplishing the “triple constraints” of performance specification, time
schedules and cost budget simultaneously. He views the project lifecycle as consisting
of a number of key activities, namely the definition of project objectives, formulation of
the project plan, leading and monitoring plans for implementation and finally project
JMTM completion. As part of their analysis of project management, Leintz and Rea (1995)
16,5 identify a number of characteristics that affect project success. These are:
.
The clarity of project objectives.
.
The fit between a project’s scope and the objectives it tries to achieve.
.
The strong relationship of all projects with the standard structure of the
468 company.
.
The identification and proper management of potential difficulties early in a
project.
.
Maintaining a small, effective project implementation team that possesses the
necessary skills to achieve the project objectives.
As a portfolio of projects is a collection of individual projects, the above issues remain
highly relevant when managing multiple projects.

Managing multiple projects

While the management of individual projects is difficult, the situation becomes much
more complicated where there are multiple projects ongoing within an organisation.
Projects need to be viewed as an integrated portfolio rather than a disjointed collection.
In managing multiple projects, one is required to maintain control over a varied range
of specialist projects, balance often conflicting requirements with limited resources and
co-ordinate the project portfolio to ensure the optimum organisational outcome is
achieved. The issue of managing multiple projects, brings with it a new set of problems
that the organisation must address. These issues have been addressed by researchers
under various guises, including: programme management (Pellegrinelli, 1997);
multi-project management (Van Der Merwe, 1997); portfolio planning (Turner and
Speiser, 1992; Platje et al., 1994); and global, one of a kind projects (Hameri, 1997).
While there are subtle differences between the perspectives of the researchers, the core
problems faced by organisations are the same. The cause of some of the difficulties
related to managing multiple projects is highlighted by Turner and Speiser (1992), who
emphasise that:
.
Projects have interfaces with other projects and day-to-day operations, sharing
common deliverables, resources, information or technology across those
interfaces.
. Projects must negotiate priority for resources on an almost daily basis with other
projects and day-to-day operations.
.
Projects deliver related objectives, which contribute to the overall development
objectives of the parent organisation.
Dooley and O’Sullivan (2003), when discussing the main causes of failure of innovation
portfolios within organisations, also highlight difficulties associated with portfolio
management:
. poor leadership and direction;
.
poor alignment between goals and projects;
.
poor monitoring of holistic process results; and
.
poor planning and control of action implementation.
Accordingly, the effective management of multiple projects can be defined as: Multiple project
[. . .] a portfolio of projects which are managed in a coordinated way to deliver benefits which management
would not be possible were the projects managed independently (Turner and Speiser, 1992).
Platje et al. (1994) stress that the larger the portfolio of projects being executed then
“the more communication and tradeoffs between projects (and departments) will have
to take place”. Thus management of a “programme” has three essential features, 469
namely the need to coordinate the management of all projects (Elonen and Artto, 2003),
the need to set priority and resources between the various projects (Engwall and
Jerbrant, 2003) and finally the need for focus on maximising the “global optimum”
(organisational objectives) rather than the “local optimum” (project objectives) (Dooley,
2000).

Project alignment
One of the core problems facing multiple project management lies in co-ordination of
the portfolio or configuration management (Hameri, 1997). Platje et al. (1994) promote
the concept of a portfolio planning cycle that exists above the control cycle of specific
projects. According to Platje et al. (1994), this holistic planning cycle creates a clear
process of priority setting and resource allocation, while balancing the interests of all
parties involved and realising the overall objectives. This cycle strives to address the
problem where a divergence may develop between the maximisation of the objectives
of the individual projects and the maximisation of the organisational objectives from
the portfolio of projects. Put another way, the issue of co-ordination management
recognises that the sum of maximising the objectives of individual projects is not equal
to maximising the objectives of the organisation and can often be substantially less.
The presence of an over-arching structure for portfolio management facilitates
decisions relative to priority of projects over time (Elonen and Artto, 2003) and the
suitability of these projects to current organisational objectives (Cooper et al., 2000)
Pellegrinelli (1997) when discussing programme management increases the
management scope from focusing on implementing projects to include those still at
a concept or development stage. The purpose is to ensure that whatever projects are
undertaken are better coordinated “to achieve a common goal or to extract a benefit
which otherwise may not be realized” if the projects were allowed to develop
independently (Pellegrinelli, 1997). The decision of which specific concepts to pursue
further, will directly influence the ability of the organisation to achieve its emerging
objectives and meet emerging market needs (Graham and Englund, 1997). In this
context, decisions concerning which “draft” projects join the development portfolio
may be influenced by issues such as the success of existing projects within the
portfolio or shifts to the state of the external environment (Reiss 1992). Thus any
system to manage multiple projects effectively must not only provide a mechanism for
evaluating prospective projects but also for continuously reviewing ongoing projects
relative to their suitability to the current environment and also relative to the other
projects in the portfolio. In this way, an organisation can ensure that their portfolio
continuously represents the correct mix and type of projects to achieve its current
objectives.
It is evident from the above that when managing multiple projects, there exists a
need for an overarching structure in order to provide adequate coordination to the
JMTM portfolio of existing and emerging projects in order to achieve the organisational
16,5 objectives. Such a structure will facilitate management’s efforts to balance the needs of
individual projects, relative to organisational pressures and will provide a mechanism
for deciding which projects will be pursued by the organisation and the priority level of
these projects to achieving organisational objectives.
Control and communication. A common problem encountered by organisations
470 pursuing either an individual or a portfolio of projects is the difficulty of maintaining
control and communication. This occurs due to many organisations being unable to
align the management of their cross-functional projects with their functional structure
in an effective matrix. When discussing this issue, Graham and Englund (1997)
emphasise that within matrix structures, “many people . . .complain of being ‘caught in
the web’ of conflicting orders, conflicting priorities and reward systems that do not
match the stated organizational goals”. The functional/department structure has
benefits such as defining clear lines of authority, allowing specific competencies to be
developed and structuring the transfer of information across departmental boundaries.
However, the functional structure can also be accused of creating inefficiencies due to
division, creating departmental myopia among employees and encouraging
duplication (Davenport, 1993). The major weaknesses of the functional structure,
relative to project management are summarised as follows (Leintz and Rea, 1995):
. lack of focus and attention on a project relative to the day-to-day priorities;
.
inability of the function to cope with different projects characteristics;
.
feeling of exploitation by staff as a consequence of projects being viewed as an
extra workload; and
.
lack of project management experience by an organisation.
Duncan (1996), when discussing possible structures applicable to project management
within traditional organisations, identifies four possibilities: functional, projectised,
weak matrix and a balanced matrix organisational structure. Hayes et al. (1988) also
identify a number of possible organisational structures for supporting project
management. These are the functional organisation, the lightweight project manager,
the heavy weight project manager and the tiger team organisation. Thus, within
organisations undertaking significant change and innovation, there is a need for the
supporting systems of the functional structures to be altered to better balance between
functional and project pressures (Elonen and Artto, 2003). The matrix structure offers
organisations the benefit of achieving both a functional and project perspective, but
also introduces specific challenges that must be addressed if such a structure is to be
effective. When discussing structure, Kuprenas (2003) identifies certain
implementation challenges that the organisation must address relative to the matrix
structure. These are:
.
confusion and conflict over roles and responsibility between function and project
managers;
.
unsuitability of existing reporting and reward systems;
.
politicisation of assignment of scarce resources;
.
reduced motivation and job satisfaction due to ambiguity; and
.
poor communication between parties.
Organisations must be cognisant of these weaknesses within the matrix structure and Multiple project
instigate routines that effectively manage the evolving relationships between management
functional and project managers (Van der Merwe, 2002) in order to avoid conflict
and inefficiencies in the portfolio management.
Highly interrelated with the control structure are the difficulties associated with
resource allocation when managing multiple projects. Engwall and Jerbrant (2003)
describe this as the prime challenge of managing multiple projects. When 471
organisations innovate, they have limited financial budgets with which to do so.
Equally, the organisation has a limited amount of human resource loading to assign
to development projects. Thus the availability of resources limits the number of
projects that can be undertaken at any one time. If more projects are undertaken by
the organisation than resources exist, then resource shortages will occur across the
portfolio and projects will begin to compete against each other. This competition
can result in the politicisation of the individual projects (Kuprenas, 2003) and can
spread conflict across the matrix structure. If the project portfolio is not planned
and controlled effectively, then organisations will constantly overcommit their
development capacity resulting in what Wheelwright and Clark (1992) refer to as
the “canary cage approach”. Under such a scenario, ever more projects are added to
the portfolio “cage”, increasing the competition for scarce resources and impeding
the development of the various projects. Quality information must be readily
available to management to allow the assessment of available resources relative to
decisions to undertake projects. This will not only influence the developing projects,
but also the project being implemented as the information may lead to killing off
unsatisfactory projects in order to free up resources for higher priority ones (Cooper
et al., 2000). As with all management decisions, the reasoning behind the decision
should be clearly communicated across the organisation to prevent conflict or
disillusionment amongst those involved. Thus, leadership and consistency in
decision making is fundamental.
Learning and knowledge. Another problem at the core of managing multiple projects
is that many organisations find it difficult to improve the process as they fail to learn
from their past errors. Hayes et al. (1988) highlight the importance by stating
“continual improvement is not only sought through procedures and organizational
approaches alone, but also through mechanisms that facilitate individual and
organizational learning across projects”. Thus, the organisation must consciously seek
to exploit all sources of knowledge to their full potential. Pava (1983) states: “when
management fail to evoke organizational learning and change, even the most
sophisticated [systems] . . . cannot realize substantial benefits for the enterprise”.
Tidd et al. (2001) state that: “well designed and controlled [projects] . . . minimise the
incidence of failure and ensure that where it does occur, lessons are learned to avoid
falling into the same trap in the future”. Grundy (1993) indicates, however, that
“organisations are notoriously bad at learning”. A learning organisation concentrates
on the management of its innovation process, through utilising two interrelated
learning loops (Tidd et al., 2001). The first of these loops refers to learning about their
operation processes and how to manage these systems more effectively. The second
loop refers to the knowledge the organisation acquires relating to effective
management of the innovation process itself and the appropriateness of its strategic
direction. Argyris (1977) believes that this “double-learning” loop results in an
JMTM organisation’s knowledge resource is being continually validated and developed.
16,5 Through such an approach, an organisation develops a “corporate consciousness” of
their successes and failures (Tyson, 1997). Instead of reacting with their traditional
response, learning allows employees to critically reflect on an organisation’s
fundamental routines and be more creative in their solutions.
The main difficulty with projects is that they are temporary in nature and although
472 possessing some repetitive features, are primarily unique (Duncan, 1996). This
temporary nature makes it difficult for organisations to learn from the undertaking and
thus avoid the reoccurrence of mistakes. The management of an individual project may
often be an extremely detailed task, much of which is not required by senior
management to manage the portfolio. Drawing on socio-technical theory, Pava (1983)
promotes the use of “minimal critical specifications”, that concentrate on core features
of a project, necessary for allowing high level decisions to be made. This information
may include data such as interrelationship to other projects, key resources, team
leaders and current status, which can then inform management decision making with
respect to the portfolio.
Many projects undertaken by organisations are never analysed to determine how
successfully they have been relative to their objectives. Leintz and Rea (1995) stress the
importance of tracking and monitoring projects in order to effectively manage and
evaluate their performance. Currently there is little knowledge recovered by the
feedback loop and as a result, organisations continue to repeat the same mistakes (Tidd
et al. 2001). Hayes et al. (1988) report that: “continual improvement is sought not
through procedures and organizational structure alone, but also through mechanisms
that facilitate both individual or organization learning across projects”.
Tidd et al. (2001) emphasise the importance of learning from project failure as it can
improve existing routines for the future. It is only from learning from the mistakes that
have been made during the management of past innovation projects, that organisations
can improve their innovation process management. The monitoring of the results of the
system’s output allows certain controls to be maintained. The need for feedback of
knowledge with respect to results management, relates both to the achievement of
individual project targets (Rosenau 1998), operational performance targets and also to
the longer term strategic goals of an organisation (Disterer, 2002). The importance of
results management is emphasised by Kaplan and Norton (1996), who propose the use
of a “balanced scorecard” to evaluate the progress of the organisation towards goal
achievement and to “drive” strategy to the operational level. Platje et al. (1994) also
emphasis the importance of regular feedback concerning the progress of the individual
projects and propose that it takes place on a frequent basis. Thus, through feedback
and documentation, the organisation can begin the process of learning.
Synopsis. It is evident from the above that the management of multiple projects is an
issue, which will face all organisations as they adapt to their changing environment
and has its own challenges. Organisations, undertaking the management of multiple
projects need to ensure that systems and processes are in place to adequately address
these challenges in order to maximise the benefits for the organisation. Allowing ad
hoc approaches to develop will result in an uncorrelated collection of projects that
compete against each other for organisational champions and scare resources. The
synopsis of the major problems associated with the management of multiple projects
may be categorised into three broad headings (see Table I), namely:
Alignment management
Control and communication
Learning and knowledge management
Balancing individual project objectives with overall
Multiple project
organisational objectives management
Managing the issues of a rolling development plan (parallel
project generation, implementation or closure)
Inability to adapt to emergent shifts in environment
Increasing visibility of projects relative to day-to day
operations 473
Responsibility of individuals within functional structure
Maintaining effective communication in both vertical and
lateral dimensions
Maintaining motivation across multiple project teams
Management overload from too many issues to control
Maintain optimal resource allocation across the portfolio
Inability to learn from past projects
Loss of valuable information due to temporary nature of Table I.
project Multiple project
Lack of timely information to allow intervention management issues

(1) alignment management;

(2) communication and control; and
(3) learning and knowledge management.
In order to maximise the benefit to the organisation from its portfolio of projects,
support systems must address the particular challenges associated with managing
multiple projects. In the following section, we propose a tool to support management’s
efforts to manage multiple projects and enhance the benefits to the organisation.

Multi-project management framework

It is clear that organisations require a supporting framework to address the needs of
multiple projects and maximise the benefit to the organisation. The first issue that an
organisational framework must address is balancing individual project objectives with
overall organisational objectives, in order to maximise benefit to the organisation.
Thus, the proposed structure must provide mechanisms not only for aligning existing
project objectives, but also for aligning and screening potential projects that are at a
conceptual or developmental stage. By encompassing the entire project life cycle under
the proposed structure, organisations can attain a better correlation between the
multiple projects within the portfolio and also the correlation to the organisational
objectives. The first step within such a framework is the identification of which
organisational objectives are being achieved by the projects undertaken. These
organisational level objectives are driven by requirements from sources such as
customer, corporation, competitors or government regulations and are usually defined
in terms of vision, strategies and performance measures. The concept of strong
interrelationships between strategies and performance metrics as a means of
impacting change at an operational level is also highlighted by the AMBITE project
(Jagdev et al., 2004), where researchers strove to provide decision makers with an
approach to allow them evaluate the impact of new manufacturing technologies on
business objectives. The clarification and interrelationship of the organisational
objectives communicates to employees the broad thrusts of how the organisation
JMTM wishes to change over the forthcoming years. This knowledge provides a structure
16,5 within which employees can focus their creativity and generate project proposals that
actively contribute to the achievement of the defined organisational objectives. The
absence of this communication and clarification of organisational objectives can result
in a mismatch of project proposals, which do not contribute directly to the
organisational efforts to fulfil its vision (see Figure 1).
474 Relating project outcomes to strategy fulfilment may provide a method of
“screening” the developing projects through the life-cycle process. The application of a
matrix to identify the interrelationships between the organisational objectives and the
projects can be a useful tool for communicating and managing the portfolio make-up.
Figure 2 provides an example of a “strategy matrix”. As is evident from the example in
Figure 2, the relationship between strategy and project is not often a simple one-to-one
relationship but can instead be a many-to one or a one-to-many relationship (e.g.
Project 4). Stated another way, one project may fulfil the objectives of one particular
strategy, where another project may contributes to the achievement of the objectives of
a number of strategies. The strategy matrix also identifies the department head who
will act as strategy champion for the fulfilment of a specific organisational strategy
and is responsible for projects within the portfolio that relate to their strategy. Thus
each department head will have a dual responsibility; to manage their functional
department and also to manage the projects ongoing to achieve the specific strategy
they champion.
Through the “strategy matrix” structure, we believe that the organisation’s
management team can review the projects underway relative to specific strategies,
encourage specific project proposals in strategic areas where they are “weak” and
reprioritise strategic priorities based on emerging requirements over time. From this
information, management can influence the portfolio mix of projects underway to
achieve their organisational objectives by decisions that merge, postpone, fast-track or

Figure 1.
Alignment management
 Multiple project
management

475

Figure 2.
Strategy matrix

even abandon specific projects. The inclusion of developing projects into the matrix
can enlighten management as the suitability of the “draft” proposal relative to the
organisational objectives and provide a useful screening criteria. The strategy-matrix
also communicates which organisational employees are responsible for leading specific
projects.
Any framework to ensure effective management of multiple projects must address
the issue of control and communication. Van Der Merwe (1997), when analysing
structure and control of managing multiple projects proposes the use of a matrix to
communicate project roles such as the champion and manager in relation to the
organisational structure. The project role of “champion” is one undertaken by a
member of the management team, where they endeavours to progress the project’s
development where possible. The “strategy matrix” communicates the relative
priority of specific projects within the portfolio to overall organisational objectives
(e.g. in the example in Figure 2, Strategy 3 is currently only being fulfilled by Project
4, so what will happen should this project fail), together with the identity of the
strategy champion (C) and the employee (L) leading the specific project team.
However, as mentioned earlier, due to the cross-disciplinary nature of projects,
organisations can experience difficulty in maintaining control and conflicts may arise
relative to the matrix lines of control. This authority conflict may result in mixed
messages being communicated to employees and also ineffective management of
individual projects. Therefore organisations require a framework capable of
balancing the necessary authority levels between functional and project lines.
Turner and Speiser (1992) identify three core roles in ensuring an appropriate control
and communication structure for effective programme management. These are the
programme director (responsible for achievement of holistic development objectives),
JMTM the resource manager (responsible for maximising efficient usage of resources across
16,5 portfolio) and finally the project manager (responsible for delivery of the specific
project objectives).
In balancing the necessary authority levels between functional and project
management, a consistent message is communicated from one organisational level to
another. Thus each layer of the organisation must adopt a group or consensus-based
476 approach to decision making to ensure a common direction. This concept of group
decision making improves understanding of the various functional perspectives and
strives to achieve a workable compromise that avoids authority conflicts. Through
operating as a group, informal lines of communication are established that cut across
organisational boundaries and reduce the risk of projects from becoming “politicised”.
Management can address potential conflict between functional and project lines of
authority can be addressed before they spiral out of control. This will reduce one of the
core problems of the matrix structure, facilitating the effort to balance between
operational issues (functionally driven) and development issues (project driven).
In order to clarify the matrix organisational structure and enhance control, the
reporting lines for each mode must be transparent, otherwise, individual employees
will find themselves answering to multiple bosses and attempting to reconcile varying
directions. The responsibility matrix is introduced to address this need and clarify the
reporting structure of individuals with both operational and development
responsibilities (see Figure 3). According to Platje et al. (1994), there are three
distinct parties, each with their own responsibilities within the “portfolio planning
cycle”. Adopting a similar hierarchy to that of Platje et al. (1994), the portfolio planning
cycle can be viewed as consisting of the project leader (L), department head (DH) and
the senior management team (SMT). The project leader has responsibility for achieving
the specific project goals and communicating hierarchically to their relevant strategy
champion (C). The department heads (DH) are responsible for the most efficient and
effective use of their departmental resources and for overseeing specific projects that
relate to strategies that they champion. The third party, namely the senior

Figure 3.
Responsibility matrix
management team (SMT) is responsible for maximisation of portfolio objectives in line Multiple project
with the organisational vision and addressing any conflicts that may arise between management
authority lines, resource allocation or strategic fulfilment. In addition to these three
parties, there are a number of other roles that are important to addressing control and
communication issues while managing multiple projects. These include the
relationship between specific strategy champion (C) and project leader (L) and also
the relationship between the project members (M) and the project leader (L), who 477
comprise the project team.
While the responsibility matrix does not eliminate the scenario where an individual
is pressurised for deliverables from both their department head and their relevant
strategy champion, it does allow for better structuring and planning of these situations.
Using the tool, it is evident the project workload that any individual is being required
to carry. The increased project loading of individual team members is important as it
not only increases the potential for authority line conflict but also because above a
loading of two projects, the productivity of the individual significantly decreases
(Wheelwright and Clark, 1992). The tool (see Figure 3) also highlights the reporting
lines for individuals engaged in both project and operational activities and identifies
areas of increased potential for authority line conflict (e.g. in the example in Figure 3,
Project 1 and Project 5 have project leaders who functionally answer to department
heads not responsible for championing the strategy effected by the project). The
potential for conflict does not mean that conflict will occur, but does mean that the
management team need to increase their focus on managing the relationships. The
information contained in this matrix may assist the management team in their efforts
to better allocate their human resources and also highlight areas of potential conflict.
Thus through better information from the matrix, the management team can plan their
resource allocation in a more enlightened manner and reduce the authority conflict
between functional and project operations.
The third macro issue identified in relation to multiple project management is that
of learning and knowledge management or “organisational amnesia”. This issue
arises from an organisations inability of learn from the projects it has undertaken in
the past and to avoid the reoccurrence of mistakes. Organisations have exhibited a
weakness to learn effectively from projects due to their temporary and unique nature
(Duncan, 1996). In order to overcome this weakness and allow project management
routines to be enhanced, organisations must develop systems that trap essential
project information and manage this knowledge effectively. These data can then be
used, both to improve the management of a project while it is underway and also as a
resource for learning by project leaders during the project planning stage future
projects (Figure 4).
A problem with managing knowledge is the achievement of an appropriate balance
between the “trapping” of information to allow for effective learning and avoiding
situations where record keeping and reporting becomes a factor that affects the
performance of the project (Platje and Seidel, 1993). The articulation of projects to date
has relied on project management practice that only offers the chance of preparing
detailed specifications for every project no matter how small or large. A far more
effective technique is one proposed in socio-technical systems design – that of
minimum critical specifications (Pava, 1983). This technique asks that only critical
details are planned and monitored by management teams. Individual project managers
JMTM
16,5

478

Figure 4.
Project record sheets

can later supplement these data and create whatever level of complexity they desire for
management of their individual project. Thus the presence of a “project record”
template that identifies critical information allows the management team to remain
better informed of their portfolios progress without getting submerged in the detail of
specific projects. The template allows management to periodically review the status of
relevant projects, in a concise manner and to adopt a management “by exception”
approach. Thus, the responsibility for the day-to-day management rests with the
specific project manager, but the management team can attain a holistic perspective of
progress across the entire portfolio. The inclusion of a “traffic-light system” on the
project record, similar to that used in Toyota’s production process (Ohno, 1988), may
also provide a simple, yet effective means to draw managements’ attention to specific
project problems that require their intervention. Under such a system, project records
which display a green signal may be ignored by the senior management team, where as
records with an amber or red signal require the management team to intervene at
varying levels.
Once the project is completed, the project record template requires the specific
project leader to evaluate the success of their project and document the insights and
lessons learned from the experience. These experiences may then be stored on a
database and form the basis of an organisational consciousness (Tyson, 1997), which is
referred to prior to the undertaking of new projects. Thus through such a mechanism,
organisations may begin to learn from their project actions and improve the
management of multiple projects by preventing the reoccurrence of costly mistakes.
The application of these three techniques within an organisation will not eliminate
all the problems associate with managing multiple projects. They will however address
some of the core problems and provide the basis on which organisations can develop
their systems further (Table II).
Case study Multiple project
The above tool was used by a medium-sized manufacturing organisation in order to management
assess its operability. The organisation selected for the trial is a sub-supplier to the
biomedical industry and by its own admission is constantly in a state of adaptation
and flux. The tool was utilised by a senior manager to analyse the effectiveness of the
company’s existing project portfolio and identify areas where scope existed for
improvement. A brief induction to the operation of the tool was provided to a senior 479
manager prior to its use. The organisation is structured under five functional
departments (Manufacturing, Quality, Engineering (R&D), Customer Service and
Finance), which answer directly to a general manager and consists of four
organisational layers.
From analysis of the tools’ use, the senior manager concluded the following with
respect to his company’s development activities:
(1) Strategic matrix findings:
.
It was unclear which member of the senior management team were
ultimately responsible for championing specific strategies.
.
Two separate projects were ongoing that had highly similar objectives.
.
Approximately 60 per cent of the project leaders were from Engineering
(R&D) departments.
.
All strategies, except Strategy 1, had a minimum of two projects
contributing to its achievement.
.
Analyses of project contribution to strategic objectives highlight the need to
increase the priority and resources of project A as it was the sole contributor
to Strategy 1.
.
There were far more development projects ongoing within the organisation
than the senior manager was aware of.

(2) Resource matrix findings:

.
Highlighted that manufacturing staff were members of 80 per cent of
projects ongoing in organisations.
.
Average project workload was 4.5 projects for manufacturing staff as
opposed to the organisational average of 3.1.
.
One individual from Engineering (R&D) was project leader of three projects.
.
Two staff were engaged in 60 per cent of all projects.
.
Even within small organisations, project interdependencies existed that
senior management team were unaware of.

Macro problem Facilitating tool

Alignment management Strategy matrix Table II.

Control and communication Responsibility matrix Multiple project
Learning and knowledge management Project records management framework
JMTM (3) Project learning findings:
16,5 .
no structural analysis of complete projects took place; and
.
no structured list of developing, ongoing or past projects existed and people
were unclear of the number and type of projects ongoing at any one time.

480 From the above, the senior manager concluded the following:
.
His best people were engaged in an ever-increasing number of projects and were
under pressure to achieve their operational duties.
.
Internal conflict between department heads of Engineering and Manufacturing
was a consequence of the fact that little attention was taken of project scheduling
relative to production schedules.
.
Clarification with respect to ownership of specific strategies needed to take place.
.
Project priorities needed to be re-evaluated relevant to their ultimate contribution
to strategy rather than individual cost-benefit.
.
Limits on the number of projects an individual is allowed to engage in needed to
be imposed and also limits on the percentage of projects led by specific
departments.
.
Need for each project to have a “wake” on completion to evaluate its effectiveness
and highlight improvements for future.
The company that tested the tool is representative of many of the medium size
manufacturing organisations that supply to larger multi-nationals in the region. It was
the opinion of the manager that the framework tool helped to raise the profile of the
projects and the interrelationships ongoing within the organisation and highlight
certain areas where possible improvements could be made.

Conclusions
The problems associated with the management of multiple projects are more that the
sum of the problems associated with individual projects. As with any hierarchy, the
management team is ultimately responsible for alleviating any project problems
experienced by their subordinates, but they must also address the additional
challenges specific to management of the portfolio. These additional challenges
associated with achieving the most effective output from managing multiple projects
have been categorised into the following three headings.
(1) alignment management;
(2) control and communication; and
(3) learning and knowledge management.
This paper examines each of these headings and analyses the core challenges that an
organisations management must meet. The reader is presented with a number of
support tool that have been developed that address the core challenges under these
headings and enhance an organisations ability to effectively manage multiple projects.
As is evident from the case study, the tool focuses management’s attention on the
portfolio perspective rather than that of the individual projects and provides them with
information with respect to portfolio mix and resource allocation that allow them to Multiple project
identify potential conflicts that may be looming in the future. management
Future work being undertaken by the research team focuses on the implication that
enlightened portfolio management has on senior management decision making and
also to develop the framework further so that its routines become systemic within the
organisational culture, as opposed to an analysis tool for senior management.
481
References
Argyris, C. (1977), “Double loop learning”, Harvard Business Review, September-October.
Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J. and Klienschmidt, E.J. (2000), “New problems, new solutions: making
portfolio management more effective”, Research Technology Management, Vol. 43 No. 2,
pp. 18-33.
Davenport, T.H. (1993), Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information
Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Disterer, G. (2002), “Management of project knowledge and experience”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 512-20.
Dooley, L. (2000), “Systems innovation management”, PhD thesis, National University of Ireland,
Galway.
Dooley, L. and O’Sullivan, D. (2003), “Developing a software infrastructure to support systemic
innovation through effective management”, The International Journal of Technological
Innovation and Entrepreneurship (Technovation), Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 689-704.
Duncan, W.R. (1996), The Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, Project
Management Institute Standards Committee, Upper Darby, PA.
Elonen, S. and Artto, K.A. (2003), “Problems in managing internal development projects in
multi-project environments”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 6,
pp. 395-402.
Engwall, M. and Jerbrant, A. (2003), “The resource allocation syndrome: the prime challenge of
multi-project management”, International Journal of Project Management., Vol. 21 No. 6,
pp. 403-9.
Graham, R.J. and Englund, R.L. (1997), Creating an Environment for Successful Projects: A Quest
to Manage Project Management, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Grundy, T. (1993), Implementing Strategic Change: A Practical Guide for Business, Kogan Page,
London.
Hameri, A.P. (1997), “Project management in a long-term and global one-of-a-kind project”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 151-7.
Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C. and Clarke, K.B. (1988), Dynamic Manufacturing: Creating the
Learning Organization, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Jagdev, H.S., Brennan, A. and Browne, J. (2004), Strategic Decision Making in Modern
Manufacturing, Kluwer Academic Publishing, London.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), “Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management
system”, Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 75-85.
Kuprenas, J.A. (2003), “Implementation and performance of a matrix organizational structure”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 51-62.
Leintz, B.P. and Rea, K.P. (1995), Project Management for the 21st Century, Academic Press,
London.
JMTM Meredith, J.R. and Mantell, S.J. (1995), Project Management: A Managerial Approach, 3rd ed.,
John Wiley, New York, NY.
16,5 Ohno, T. (1988), Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-scale Production, Productivity Press,
Cambridge, MA.
O’Sullivan, D. (1994), Manufacturing Systems Redesign: Creating the Integrated Manufacturing
Environment, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
482 Pava, C. (1983), Managing New Office Technology: An Organizational Strategy, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Pellegrinelli, S. (1997), “Programme management: organizing project-based change”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 141-9.
Platje, A. and Seidel, H. (1993), “Breakthrough in multiproject management: how to escape the
vicious cycle of planning and control”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 209-13.
Platje, A., Harald, S. and Wadman, S. (1994), “Project and portfolio planning cycle: project-based
management for the multiproject challenge”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 100-6.
Reiss, G. (1992), Project Management Demistified, Chapman Hall, London.
Rosenau, M.D. (1998), Successful Project Management: A Step by Step Approach with Practical
Examples, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Tidd, J., Blessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2001), Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological,
Market and Organizational Change, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Turner, J.R. and Muller, R. (2003), “On the nature of the project as a temporary organization”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Turner, J.R. and Speiser, A. (1992), “Programme management and its information system
requirements”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 196-206.
Tyson, K.W.M. (1997), Competition in the 21st Century, St Lucie Press, Orlando, FL.
Van Der Merwe, A.P. (1997), “Multi-project management: organizational structure and control”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 223-33.
Van Der Merwe, A.P. (2002), “Project management and business development: integrating
strategy, structure, process and project”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 401-11.
Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B. (1992), Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps
in Speed, Efficiency and Quality, The Free Press, New York, NY.