PAPERS Project Portfolio Control and Portfolio
Management Performance in Different
Contexts
Ralf Müller, Umeå School of Business, Umeå University, Sweden and Norwegian School of
Management BI
Miia Martinsuo, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Tomas Blomquist, Umeå School of Business, Umeå University, Sweden
ABSTRACT ■
This article investigates the nature and relation-
ship of project portfolio control techniques and
portfolio management performance, and how
this relationship is moderated by situational
idiosyncrasies of internal and external dynam-
ics, industries, governance types, and geo-
graphic location. A worldwide questionnaire
with 242 responses was used, of which 136
high-performing responses were filtered out for
quantitative analysis of best practices. Three
portfolio control factors were identified: portfo-
lio selection, portfolio reporting, and decision-
making style. Two measures for portfolio man-
agement performance were identified: achieve-
ment of desired portfolio results and achievement
of project and program purpose. The results
indicate that different portfolio control mecha-
nisms are associated with different perfor-
mance measures. A contingency model was
developed, including moderating effects by
contextual variables.
KEYWORDS: project portfolio manage-
ment; portfolio management performance;
portfolio control
Project Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 3, 28–42
© 2008 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com)
DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20053
28 September 2008 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
INTRODUCTION ■
T
he project management research community has recently begun to
pay increasing attention to the context in which projects are man-
aged (Engwall, 2003). The contextual setup has been examined, for
example, in terms of:
• how projects are linked to broader business interests and the strategy of the
firm (Artto & Dietrich, 2004; Morris & Jamieson, 2005);
• how projects relate to programs and portfolios (Turner & Müller, 2003);
• how projects are managed as part of strategic programs (Lycett, Rassau, &
Danson, 2004; Vereecke, Pandelaere, Deschoolmeester, & Stevens, 2003);
• how projects are perceived in different industries (Blomquist & Wilson,
2007); and
• how projects are managed as part of the portfolio of an organization’s proj-
ects (Elonen & Artto, 2003; Engwall & Jerbrant, 2003; Payne & Turner, 1999;
Söderlund, 2004).
All these tracks of literature acknowledge that single projects cannot
be treated as isolated entities, but they influence and are influenced by
the complex and uncertain character of their context. This context is set by the
program or project portfolio of which a project is a part. Professional organ-
izations, such as the Project Management Institute (PMI; 2006) or the
Association of Project Management (APM; 2004), have both addressed this
through development of their own standards and guidelines for managing
programs and portfolios. While much has been written on the management
of programs, the management of portfolios is less often addressed in the lit-
erature. This is the focus of the present article.
A project portfolio is a group of projects that share and compete for the
same resources and are carried out under the sponsorship or management
of an organization (Archer & Ghasemzadeh, 1999a, 1999b). Turner and
Müller (2003, p. 7) defined a portfolio as “an organization (temporary or per-
manent) where projects are managed together to coordinate interfaces, pri-
oritize resources between projects, and thereby reduce uncertainty.” Project
portfolio management can therefore be considered a dynamic decision
process where a list of active projects is constantly updated and revised
(Cooper, Edgett, & Kleinschmidt, 1997a). Related normative frameworks and
techniques for project evaluation, selection and prioritization, resource allo-
cation, and knowledge sharing between projects were often the focus of ear-
lier project portfolio management research (Martinsuo & Lehtonen, 2007).
The progress in understanding portfolio management and its applications
now demands a deeper knowledge
about the mechanisms to control port-
folios from a corporate perspective.
As organizations struggle with
increased performance pressures, their
interest is to gain efficiency through
project portfolio management. However,
evidence on the implications of using the
normative portfolio management frame-
work is weak. Will the “good practices” of
portfolio management result in good
achievements? If not, what will, and
what actually does explain these
achievements? Recent research suggests
that at least some multiple-project fac-
tors (Fricke & Shenhar, 2000), portfolio
governance structure (Blomquist &
Müller, 2006a), or certain single-project
management practices (Fricke &
Shenhar, 2000; Martinsuo & Lehtonen,
2007) are associated with project portfo-
lio management performance. More
empirical research has been called for,
focusing on portfolio management effi-
ciency and factors explaining it (e.g.,
Martinsuo & Lehtonen, 2007).
The present study focuses on how
organizations control their project
portfolio, in their attempt to achieve
success in portfolio performance. In
the classical organization, control is
often exercised through behavioral
control and output control (Ouchi,
1977; Ouchi & Maguire, 1975), and the
nature of control has been perceived as
relevant, for example, in terms of how
subtle or participatory the form of con-
trol is (Ouchi, 1979).
The purpose of this article is to
develop a framework on portfolio con-
trol, and to estimate the role of portfolio
control in portfolio management per-
formance. We are particularly inter-
ested in the contextuality of portfolio
management (i.e., how contextual fac-
tors contribute to the relationship
between portfolio control and portfolio
management performance). Our
research question is:
How are portfolios controlled, and
how does this control relate to port-
folio management performance in
different contexts?
The unit of analysis is the portfolio
of projects.
The article continues with a review
of the relevant literature on project
portfolio management performance,
portfolio control, contextual factors,
and their relationships. From there, a
number of hypotheses and a research
model are developed. That is followed
by a description of the research method-
ology. Results of the empirical data are
then reported to test the hypotheses.
The article concludes with an answer to
the research question and a contin-
gency model for project portfolio con-
trol and performance. Throughout the
article, the term portfolio is used syn-
onymous to project portfolio.
Literature Review, Research
Model, and Hypotheses
The literature relevant for the study can
be categorized in those addressing the
following:
• the relationship between portfolio
management practices and perform-
ance;
• portfolio management performance;
• portfolio control; and
• contextual factors associated with the
relationship between portfolio control
and portfolio management perform-
ance.
The Relationship Between Portfolio
Management Practices and
Performance
In earlier research, a variety of project
portfolio management practices have
been associated with different product-,
portfolio-, and business-level perform-
ance measures. The Cooper, Edgett,
and Kleinschmidt studies on new prod-
uct development portfolios (e.g., 1997a,
1997b, 1999, 2000) report some project,
process, and portfolio practices as sig-
nificant to product and firm perform-
ance. Their research shows that certain
types of practices are more typical to
high-performing firms than low-
performing firms. However, they do not
necessarily explain causality between
the practices and portfolio-level per-
formance. Mikkola (2001) summarized
September 2008 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
some advantages and pitfalls of portfo-
lio management in innovation projects,
but her study did not develop actual
performance measures.
Some studies have centered on a
few selected good practices. A qualita-
tive study by Fricke and Shenhar (2000)
found that at least clear goals, manage-
ment support, ownership, resource
allocations, and prioritization could be
considered as success factors in a mul-
tiproject environment. A later quantita-
tive study proved that over half of the
variance in portfolio management effi-
ciency could be explained through
single-project factors; that is, goal set-
ting, decision making, and informa-
tion availability on single projects
(Martinsuo & Lehtonen, 2007). The
remaining half, however, would require
other explaining factors. Some other
studies have focused purely on alterna-
tive strategies of knowledge or technol-
ogy transfer between projects and
found evidence on the superiority of
rapid design transfer as compared to
the alternatives (Nobeoka & Cusumano,
1995, 1997). Loch (2000), however,
found evidence that portfolios could be
equally successful, irrespective of their
control approach.
These studies suggest that, other
than single-project-level practices,
some portfolio-level control practices
and their association with portfolio
management performance should also
be investigated in future studies.
However, previous studies do not pro-
vide a clear picture on the nature of
such an association, and how it is
impacted by different contexts.
Portfolio Management Performance
Earlier studies have already found some
empirical evidence on project portfolio
management performance. Cooper
et al.’s studies (1999, 2000, 2004a, 2004b)
examined the efficiency of project port-
folio management by estimating the
degree to which the portfolio has suc-
ceeded in fulfilling its objectives of
strategic alignment, balance across
projects, and value maximization
29
 Project Portfolio Control and Portfolio Management Performance
PAPERS
(Cooper et al., 1997a). They found some
supporting evidence concerning the
link between portfolio-level results and
business-level performance, and prod-
uct-level performance indicators.
Nobeoka and Cusumano (1995,
1997) focused on business-level perfor-
mance indicators such as sales growth,
and project performance. Martinsuo
and Lehtonen (2007) identified percep-
tions of portfolio management efficiency
as subjective culmination of portfolio-
strategy alignment, knowledge of
priorities, financial yield, realization
of strategy, and efficiency of managing
the project entity.
Some studies have shown that in
multiproject settings, different types of
performance should be considered
jointly, instead of separating them into
those for projects, programs, and port-
folios. A study of middle managers in
program and project portfolio manage-
ment acknowledged that portfolio per-
formance, program performance, and
project performance should be studied
simultaneously (Blomquist & Müller,
2006a). This is supported by Martinsuo
and Lehtonen (2007), who showed that
reaching of project goals mediates the
relationship between single-project
management success and portfolio
management efficiency.
However, portfolios are also not
stand-alone entities. They are part of a
wider organizational context. PMI
(2006) defined success of portfolio
management as the portfolio’s contri-
bution to the strategic measures of the
organization. Portfolio decisions
(such as which projects to accept in
the portfolio, at what priority, and
with which resources) must balance a
multitude of conflicting goals of an
organization. These portfolio deci-
sions cannot be taken in a vacuum
and must be balanced against other
organizational performance measures
or pressures (Turner & Müller, 2003).
Projects, portfolios, and their hosting
organizations are interwoven. Control
and performance measures in multi-
project settings (such as portfolios),
30 September 2008 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
launched to achieve an organization’s
desired benefits or change, should
accordingly include the project
dimension, the portfolio dimension,
and the organization within which the
portfolio is executed. Our first
hypothesis is therefore:
H1: Portfolio performance measures
in practice are multidimensional and
include the project, portfolio, and orga-
nizational level.
Portfolio Control
None of these studies previously men-
tioned covers portfolio control as a fac-
tor influencing portfolio management
performance. However, they all include
supporting evidence that points toward
examining this phenomenon further.
For example, Fricke and Shenhar’s
(2000) concepts of clear goals, manage-
ment support, ownership, and prioriti-
zation; Nobeoka and Cusumano’s
(1995) technology transfer; as well as all
of Martinsuo and Lehtonen’s (2007)
single-project variables could be con-
sidered as means of control contribut-
ing to portfolio management. The
question is, what are an organization’s
practices in executing portfolio-level
control and how are they used. Earlier
literature in this area can be catego-
rized in three main areas:
• portfolio selection;
• portfolio reporting; and
• portfolio decision making.
Portfolio Selection as a Form of
Behavioral Control
A variety of tools and techniques for the
optimal selection of projects and port-
folios have been suggested (e.g., Archer
& Ghasemzadeh, 1999b; Hall & Nauda,
1990; Henriksen & Traynor, 1999;
Stawicki & Müller, 2007). Such tech-
niques range from criterion lists, strate-
gy tables, scoring tables, visual graphs,
and force-field analyses to optimiza-
tion models, holistic portfolio manage-
ment frameworks, and the interaction
with a portfolio board. No estimation
exists about the contribution of individ-
ual techniques to portfolio management
performance. In summary, we see, how-
ever, that the literature suggests a con-
tingency view: fitting the portfolio
selection approach to the surrounding
organization’s characteristics and strat-
egy (Englund & Graham, 1996; Stawicki
& Müller, 2007).
A few empirical, qualitative studies
give partial support to the potential
linkage between portfolio selection and
portfolio management performance.
Fricke and Shenhar (2000) reported pri-
oritization as a success factor in multi-
project environments. Elonen and
Artto (2003) reported resource alloca-
tion issues and lack of portfolio-level
activities, including project overlaps
and lack of prioritization, as problems
with managing multiproject environ-
ments. Engwall and Jerbrant (2003,
p. 408) stated that
research on multi-project manage-
ment has to go beyond resource
allocation and start addressing
incentive structures, accounting
systems and other deeply embed-
ded features of the organization. [. . . ]
the whole system of managerial
procedures has to be reconceptual-
ized from the roots.
Based on both the normative sug-
gestions on portfolio selection and the
earlier qualitative studies, we hypothe-
size on the role of portfolio selection in
relation to performance.
H2: Selection of projects for the port-
folio based on the organization’s strate-
gy is positively associated with portfolio
management performance.
Project Reporting for Portfolio Follow-
Up as Output Control
The APM (2004) guidelines on gover-
nance of project management defines
reporting as one of the four dimensions
for proper governance practice, thus as
a control structure. This is supported by
research that showed the link between
information sharing and performance
variables in multiproject settings
(Fricke & Shenhar, 2000; Nobeoka &
Cusumano, 1997).
 Information availability for decision
makers (on projects) was shown by
Martinsuo and Lehtonen (2007) as the
most significant project-level factor
contributing to portfolio management
efficiency both directly and through
project management efficiency. Earlier
studies have used fairly differently
defined concepts of information or com-
munication. The findings stressed infor-
mation availability, supporting the need
for information sharing emphasized
in many studies (Bresnen, Edelman,
Newell, Scarbrough, & Swan, 2003; Kasvi,
Vartiainen, & Hailikari, 2003; Pich, Loch,
& De Meyer, 2002; Prencipe & Tell, 2001).
These studies provided little evidence on
information codification at the portfolio
level. Turner and Müller (2004) provided
some guidance on communication con-
tents, media, and frequency—however,
only on a single-project level, not at the
portfolio level. Hypothesis 3 addresses
the relationship between reporting and
portfolio performance.
H3: Project and program reporting
are positively associated with portfolio
management performance.
Portfolio Decision Making as
Interactive Control
Decision making is a cognitive phe-
nomenon, conceptualized as the end
point of a more or less complex process
of deliberation, which includes an
assessment of consequences and
uncertainties. The process of decision
making (problem definition, thought,
judgment, decision, action) is influ-
enced by the decision maker’s history,
situational beliefs, personal values,
social and occupational norms, person-
ality, and environmental constraints
(Parkin, 1996). Decisions are made
simultaneously at four different levels,
ranging from automatic (unconscious),
via those made in reference to a few
attributes, or choices between alterna-
tives, to problem solving, which implies
a complex process of information gath-
ering, advice seeking, and evaluation of
different scenarios, to define decision
alternatives (Svenson, 1996). Decision
making consists of resolving two con-
flicts (Tyszka, 1998), which are as fol-
lows:
a) The desire to make an accurate deci-
sion and the desire to minimize the
effort of decision making
b) The desire to make an accurate deci-
sion and the desire that this decision
is unequivocal
Decisions related to portfolio man-
agement are often described as choices
of Go, Hold, or Cancel of individual
projects. These decisions are to be exe-
cuted either at certain process gates or
at portfolio management board meet-
ings (Stawicki & Müller, 2007). Most
publications, however, emphasize the
need for clear decisions at gates (Archer
& Ghasemzadeh, 1999b; Cooper, Edgett,
& Kleinschmidt, 2002; PMI, 2006), thus
implying a stage-gate process to portfo-
lio management.
Martinsuo and Lehtonen (2007)
showed that systematic decision mak-
ing about single projects is in a com-
plex relationship with portfolio man-
agement efficiency. Even though the
relationship appears to be mediated by
project management efficiency, sys-
tematic decision making did not
explain project management efficiency,
neither directly nor indirectly through
reaching of project goals. However,
their variable dealt with decisions at
the different phases of the process
(when) and did not really cover deci-
sion-making style (how).
Blomquist and Müller (2004) found
slight indications for portfolio decision
making style being dependent on the
tangibility of the products created by
the organization. Portfolio managers in
industries with tangible outcomes tend
to decide as individuals, whereas indus-
tries with intangible products often use
groups of managers for portfolio deci-
sions. This was supported by Müller,
Spang, and özcan (2007), showing that
decision-making style in projects
differs by culture and its importance is
perceived differently across industries.
September 2008 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
The communication media used
among the decision makers has a fur-
ther impact on communication quality,
which limits the information quantity
and the quality of advice seeking and
interaction of decision makers. Face-to-
face meetings are generally seen as the
best media for information exchange
(Turner & Müller, 2004). This leads to
the fourth hypothesis:
H4: There is a positive association
between certain decision-making styles
and portfolio management performance.
Context Dependency
Some of the studies previously men-
tioned indicate that the relationship
between portfolio control and portfolio
management performance is affected by
different contextual factors. Although
many studies limit their focus to certain
types of contexts or projects only
(e.g., Cooper et al., 1999, 2004a, 2004b;
Elonen & Artto, 2003; Fricke & Shenhar,
2000), some specifically emphasize the
need to take into account the portfolios’
management context. For example,
Nobeoka and Cusumano (1995) identi-
fied different business results and multi-
project strategies for different product
types and different degrees of project
complexity. Martinsuo and Lehtonen
(2007) identified that complexity in
terms of the number of personnel was a
significant variable contributing to the
relationship between single-project
practices and portfolio management
efficiency and pointed toward studying
also other contingency factors in portfo-
lio management success.
Blomquist and Müller (2006b)
showed that governance through proj-
ect, program, and portfolio manage-
ment is typically implemented in one
of four possible ways (see Figure 1), by:
• having projects isolated from each
other in a multiproject organization,
with no synergies across objectives or
resources needed;
• grouping of projects by joint objec-
tives, a mainly program-driven organ-
ization;
31
 Project Portfolio Control and Portfolio Management Performance
PAPERS
Shared
Portfolio driven
organization
Resources
Unshared
Multiproject
organization
Unrelated
Objectives
Figure 1: Four types of governance (after Blomquist & Müller, 2006b).
• grouping projects by the resources or
skills needs, a mainly portfolio man-
agement–driven organization; and
• combining and balancing both pro-
gram and portfolio approaches, a
hybrid organization.
Organizational success varies
greatly among the four approaches. In
their study on 424 organizations
worldwide, Blomquist and Müller
(2006b) found that hybrid organiza-
tions, combining program and portfo-
lio management are significantly
(p ⬎ 0.001) more successful than com-
panies using one of the other three
approaches to governance. These results
show the importance of portfolio
management for good organizational
results. The researchers also found dif-
ferences in other contextual charac-
teristics, like industry, geography, and
market dynamics. These characteristics
are often found to have a moderating
effect on project success, perception
of success, or other measures of per-
formance—as shown by Blomquist
and Müller (2006a) and Müller and
Turner (2007). It can therefore be
hypothesized that the relationship
between portfolio control and portfo-
lio success is moderated by contextual
characteristics.
32 September 2008 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Hybrid
organization
Program driven
organization
Related
H5: The relationship between port-
folio control and portfolio management
performance is moderated by contextual
factors.
The literature review shows a
knowledge gap in portfolio control
techniques and how they relate to port-
folio management performance in dif-
ferent contexts. The associated
research model is shown in Figure 2.
Portfolio
control
Situation:
• Governance type
• Dynamics
• Geography
• Project type
• Industry
Figure 2: Research model.
Portfolio control, as an independent
variable, is hypothesized to impact
portfolio management performance,
as a dependent variable, moderated
by the context variables. The set of
moderator variables was chosen from
Blomquist and Müller (2006b), which
reflects the impact of governance type
of organizations, the market dynamics,
geography, and industry.
Research Methodology
Data Collection
We used a deductive, quantitative
approach to hypothesis testing. The
sample used was earlier collected by
Blomquist and Müller (2006b) as part of
their worldwide study on middle
managers’ practices, roles, and respon-
sibilities in program and portfolio
management. They used a Web-based
questionnaire to collect data. After a
pretest, an introduction letter, and the
Web link were e-mailed to chapter rep-
resentatives of professional organiza-
tions for managers and program/port-
folio managers. They were asked to for-
ward the survey to their members or
other managers working with program
and portfolio management. The quality
of the responses was strengthened by
Portfolio
success
having the survey sent to professionals
only. Organizations addressed included
the Institute of Directors, IEEE Engine-
ering Management, IEEE Computer
Society, IEEE Aerospace, the Swedish
Project Management Society, the PMO
Interest Group of Sweden, the National
Association of Corporate Directors, the
Society for Human Resource Man-
agement, the Performance Measure-
ment Association, and PMI and the
International Project Management
Association (IPMA).
This resulted in a convenience sam-
ple, whose traditional response rate
could not be calculated due to the snow-
ball approach used. The number of
responses totaled 244, of which 242
could be used for analysis: 31% of the
respondents were under 40 years of age,
42% were between 41–50 years, and 27%
were older than 50 years. Thirty-eight
percent had up to 15 years of business
experience, 36% had between 16 and 25
years, and 26% had more than 25 years
of business experience. Twenty-four per-
cent had one year or less of experience in
their current position, while 45% had
more than four years’ experience. A total
of 56% were certified project managers.
Respondents were from 26 coun-
tries: 40% from North America, 32%
from the Scandinavian countries
(Denmark, Finland, Norway, and
Sweden), 17% from other parts of
Europe, and 11% from other parts of the
world; 65% of the respondents worked
with projects internal to their organiza-
tion, and 35% with external projects.
Forty-six percent of the respondents
indicated that they were working in
program or portfolio management,
while 51% indicated they worked as
other managers or consultants. Analysis
of Variance (ANOVA) of the differences
between their responses showed no sig-
nificant differences between the two
groups (at p ⫽ 0.05). All responses were
therefore used for subsequent analyses.
Further details can be found in
Blomquist and Müller (2006b).
For the purpose of this study,
we used only the responses from
high-performing organizations. In the
pursuit for understanding the link
between portfolio control and portfolio
performance, we selected those re-
sponses whose mean performance level
was at or above the mean performance
of the entire sample, which reduced
the sample size to 136 but increased the
quality of the responses, as only the most
successful practices were selected. This
sample was used for all further analyses.
The questionnaire was used to col-
lect categorical data and scale data. It
addressed the following:
Project, program and portfolio manage-
ment practices:
• The management level of the respon-
dent, as well as the extent they were
involved in project, program, and
portfolio management
• Their tasks and activities
• The extent their organization uses
project, program, and portfolio man-
agement to accomplish their goals
• Project, program, and portfolio suc-
cess:
• Achievement of organizational, proj-
ect, program, and portfolio objectives
using nine different dimensions
Rotated Component Matrix
1 Achieving
results
Customer satisfaction
Time, cost, and quality results
Financial results
User requirements
Project purpose
Program purpose
Resource turnover
Timely accomplishments of programs
Stakeholder satisfaction
Note. Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.
Table 1: Factor structure and loadings for project portfolio performance variables.
Context variables:
• Project types and their duration, fre-
quency of internal and external change
This study focuses on a few selected
topics, as explained next.
Operationalization of Variables
All independent and dependent vari-
ables were measured through multi-
item Likert scales; only some control
(context) variables were of categorical
type. Principal component analysis
with Varimax rotation was used to iden-
tify the variable structures in portfolio
control and portfolio management per-
formance.
Portfolio Management Performance
A Varimax rotated factor analysis on the
project, program, and portfolio man-
agement success identified three
underlying success factors in line with
our proposed variable structure (KMO ⫽
0.587, Bartlett’s p ⫽ 0.000), explaining
53% of the sample variance and sug-
gesting a reasonably good fit for our
analyses. Table 1 shows the associated
rotated component matrix, with a
cutoff level of ⬎ 0.5 for insignificant
loadings.
Component
2 Achieving 3 Balancing
purpose priorities
.667
.610
.597
.508
.860
.839
–.731
. .665
.492

September 2008 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 33

 Project Portfolio Control and Portfolio Management Performance
PAPERS

Rotated Component Matrix

Component
1 Portfolio 2 Portfolio 3 Portfolio
selection reporting decision making
The firm or institution I work for communicates which .795
projects are important
The firm or institution I work for selects projects based .769
on the organization’s strategy
The firm or institution I work for prioritizes its projects .726
Decisions about groups of projects are made in the best .665 .511
interest of the firm or institution I work for
In the firm or institution I work for, all reporting to .853
Steering Groups is done using similar templates
In the firm or institution I work for, similar metrics are .822
reported for similar projects
The firm or institution I work for uses a tool to collect .627
and disseminate information about the status of all
high-priority projects
Decisions about groups of projects are most often .821
taken in face-to-face settings
Decisions about groups of projects are made as joint .679
management decisions
Note. Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Table 2: Factor structure and loadings for portfolio control variables.

The variable structure supported
Hypothesis 1: portfolio performance
measures in practice are multidimen-
sional and include the project, portfo-
lio, and organizational level.
Through the factor analysis we
identified three portfolio management
performance measures: achieving
results, achieving purpose, and balanc-
ing priorities. Achieving results resem-
bles the most common measures of
success in projects and includes four
items (customer satisfaction; combined
time, cost, and quality results; financial
results; and user requirements). Achiev-
ing purpose deals with achieving both
project- and program-level purpose
and includes two items (achievement
of project purpose and achievement of
program purpose). Balancing priorities
is about fulfilling broader business
interests in a balanced manner and
includes three items (resource retention
[inverse of resource turnover]; timely
accomplishments of programs; and
stakeholder satisfaction).
For each factor (achieving results,
achieving purpose, and balancing pri-
orities), a summated scales variable
was created as the average of those
items loading higher than 0.5 on a fac-
tor. Reliability tests led to the exclusion
of the balancing priorities summated
scale as the only variable of unaccept-
ably low Cronbach’s alpha value (0.4).
The other two variables were used as
replacements of the original variables
in the further analyses.
Portfolio Control
A Varimax rotated factor analysis was
done on the portfolio control practices
covered in the questionnaire. Three
factors on portfolio control were extract-
ed, explaining 67% of the sample vari-
ance (KMO ⫽ 0.772, Bartlett’s p ⫽ 0.000).
Table 2 shows the factor structure and
loadings. The item “decisions are made in
the best interest” was common to portfo-
lio selection and portfolio decision mak-
ing and it was included in both variables.
The results supported the three
mechanisms of portfolio control sug-
gested in the literature: portfolio selec-
tion, portfolio reporting, and portfolio
decision making.
Portfolio selection is about aligning
projects with strategy and prioritizing

34 September 2008 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

them, and it includes three items (proj-
ects are selected based on the organiza-
tion’s strategy; projects are prioritized;
project priorities are communicated).
Portfolio reporting concerns how
projects are reported toward the portfo-
lio and includes three items (reporting
using similar templates and similar
metrics; a tool used for collecting and
disseminating status of all high-priority
projects).
Portfolio decision making deals with
how decisions are made regarding the
portfolio and it includes three items
(decisions are made in face-to-face set-
tings and as joint management deci-
sions; decisions are made in the best
interest of the organization).
As with the dependent variables, a
summated scale variable was created
for each factor (selection, portfolio
reporting, and portfolio decision mak-
ing), as the average of those items load-
ing higher than 0.5 on a factor.
Reliability tests showed acceptable
Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.7 and
above. These three variables were
used as replacements of the original
variables in further analyses.
Context Variables
As moderating context variables, we
used six categorical items in the ques-
tionnaire (categories in parentheses):
• External dynamics (low/high frequency
of change in external factors)
• Internal dynamics (low/high frequency
of change in internal factors)
• Industry (IT, telecommunication, eng-
ineering, services, government, edu-
cation, other)
• Geography (North America,
Scandinavia, Other Europe, Other
World)
• Governance type (multiproject, pro-
gram, portfolio, hybrid)
• Internal versus external projects
Analyses
We first explored the results through
descriptive statistics. Second, a series of
ANOVA analyses was made using the
context variables as categorical inde-
pendent variables, to identify signifi-
N Minimum
Portfolio selection 135
Portfolio reporting 133
Portfolio decision making 134
Achieving results 136
Achieving purpose 136
Valid N (listwise) 131
Table 3: Descriptive statistics of performance and control variables.
cant differences among portfolio con-
trol factors and performance factors in
different contexts. Third, the research
model was tested by using regression
analyses with portfolio control vari-
ables as independent variables and
portfolio management performance
variables as dependent variables.
Furthermore, a series of regression
analyses was structured by the context
variables to identify the moderating
effects in the model.
Table 3 shows the descriptive statis-
tics of the three portfolio performance
and the three control variables.
Normality was assumed through skew-
ness and kurtosis being between ⫾1.
Table 4 shows the descriptive statis-
tics of the context variables.
To understand differences across
the different responding firms, we com-
pared contextually different firms with
each other by ANOVA analyses on the
use of portfolio control and portfolio
management performance. The results
show that responding firms did not dif-
fer from each other in their portfolio
control across different degrees of
industrial dynamics, different indus-
tries, geographic areas, or nature of
projects. Only governance type made a
difference in the magnitude of using
portfolio control.
Companies with different gover-
nance types differed from each other in
all three forms of portfolio control:
portfolio selection (p ⬎ 0.001), portfolio
reporting (p ⬎ 0.004), and portfolio
decision making (p ⬎ 0.000). A post-hoc
September 2008 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Maximum Mean SD
1.25 5.00 4.02 .77
1.00 5.00 3.67 1.00
1.00 5.00 3.49 0.86
3.50 5.00 4.36 0.45
2.00 5.00 4.13 0.67
Scheffe test was used to identify signifi-
cant differences at the 0.05 level. First,
hybrid project organizations had higher
scores in portfolio selection than multi-
project organizations (4.3 vs. 3.4, p ⬎
0.002). Second, hybrid project organiza-
tions also had higher scores in portfolio
reporting than multiproject organiza-
tions (3.8 vs. 3.0, p ⬎ 0.025). Third,
hybrid project organizations had higher
scores in portfolio decision making
than multiproject organizations (3.7 vs.
2.7, p ⬎ 0.001) and organizations in
mostly portfolio management–driven
governance structures had higher
scores in portfolio decision making
than multiproject organizations (3.6 vs.
2.7, p ⬎ 0.048).
When analyzing the differences of
portfolio management performance
between companies in different con-
texts, analysis of variance did not reveal
significant differences.
Portfolio Control and Portfolio
Management Performance
We tested Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4—that
is, the relationship between portfolio
control and portfolio management per-
formance variables, using stepwise
regression analysis. Portfolio control
variables were used as independent
variables, and portfolio management
performance variables as dependent
variables. A stepwise regression analysis
was done for each dependent variable
using all independent variables. Results
are shown in Table 5. All nonreported
results were insignificant.
35
 Project Portfolio Control and Portfolio Management Performance
PAPERS

The explanatory power in the models

Frequency Percent
for each of the three dependent vari-
Dynamics External factors change ables is low (4 to 7%) but significant.
low 64 47.1 Each of the models shows that variance
high 62 45.6 in different dependent variables is
Missing 10 7.4 primarily explained by a different
Internal factors change independent variable, and the other
low 78 57.4 independent variables are low and non-
high 52 38.2 significant.
Missing 6 4.4 Portfolio selection is found as the
Industry IS/IT 53 39.0 only independent variable explaining
Engineering 38 27.9 variance in achieving purpose and the
Services 32 23.5 correlation is positive and significant, as
Government 4 2.9 shown in Table 5. Selecting projects in
Education 2 1.5 line with the organization’s strategy, pri-
Other 7 5.1 oritization, and communication of the
Project types Internal 86 63.2 priorities appears to be associated with
External 50 36.8 achieving program and project pur-
pose. This supports Hypothesis 2: selec-
Governance type Multiproject 17 12.5 tion of projects for the portfolio based
Mainly program management 18 13.2
on the organization’s strategy is posi-
Hybrid (combined program and 88 64.7
portfolio management) tively associated with portfolio per-
Mainly portfolio management 13 9.6 formance.
Portfolio reporting is the only signif-
Geography North America 51 37.5 icant, positive independent variable
Scandinavian countries 43 31.6 explaining variance in achieving results.
Other parts of Europe 26 19.1
Interpretation of success appears to be
Other parts of the world 15 11.0
Missing 1 0.7 dependent on comparable metrics and
data. This supports Hypothesis 3: proj-
Table 4: Descriptive statistics of context variables. ect and program reporting is positively
associated with portfolio performance.
Hypothesis 4 is not supported, because
portfolio decision making is not signifi-
cantly correlated with the portfolio
Portfolio
management performance measures.
Portfolio Control Performance
As expected from the factor analy-
Variable Variable
sis, no significant correlations were
(Independent) (Dependent) Regression Model Significance
found among the dependent or the
Portfolio reporting Achieving results Adjusted R2 ⫽ 0.068 0.002 independent variables.
Constant ⫽ 3.906 0.000
Moderating Effects of Contextual
B ⫽ 0.123 0.002 Variables
Beta ⫽ 0.275 A series of stepwise regression analyses
was done to explore the moderating
Portfolio selection Achieving purpose Adjusted R2 ⫽ 0.036 0.016 effects of contextual variables on the
Constant ⫽ 3.401 0.000 relationship between portfolio control
and portfolio management performance
B ⫽ 0.182 0.016
(Hypothesis 5). All context variables—
Beta ⫽ 0.210 external and internal dynamics, indus-
Note. n ⫽ 131 (high-performing projects only). try, geography, governance type, and
project type—were each examined sepa-
Table 5: Regression analysis of portfolio control and portfolio management performance rately, using the portfolio control vari-
variables. ables as independent and the portfolio

36 September 2008 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

 Moderating Effect
(Only in Context-
Base Model (Derived From All Responses) Controlled Analyses)
Independent Portfolio Portfolio Portfolio
variables: selection reporting selection
Dependent Achieving Achieving Achieving
variables: purpose results results
n
External Dynamics Low 64 0.122***
High 58 0.116*** 0.067*
Internal Dynamics Low 77 0.038* 0.088***
High 49 0.078*
Industry Services 32 0.203***
Geography North America 47 0.071*
Scandinavia 42 0.079*
Other 15 (0.237*)
Governance Type Multiproject 16 (0.388**)
Hybrid 84 0.061*
Portfolio 13 (0.404*) (0.261*)
Project type Internal 81 0.079** 0.066*
External 50 0.134***
Note. Numbers ⫽ Adjusted R-square, () ⫽ sample size ⬍ 30 observations.
*p ⬍ 0.05. ** p ⬍ 0.01. ***p ⬍ 0.005. **** p ⬍ 0.001.

Table 6: Base model and moderator effects.

management performance variables as
the dependent variables. The results are
summarized in Table 6 for those correla-
tions that were found significant. The
table shows the structural context vari-
ables in the rows, and the base model, as
shown in Table 5, in the two left
columns. The right column shows those
correlations identified solely during the
regression analyses by different context
variables. The body of the table shows
the significant regression correlations,
their adjusted R-square and the signifi-
cance (indicated by *). Results in paren-
theses are based on small sample sizes
of fewer than 30 responses.
The analyses supported the overall
model shown in Table 5, by reinforcing
the relationships between portfolio
reporting and achieving results, as well
as portfolio selection and achieving pur-
pose, in different contexts. However, it
also revealed a latent relationship
between portfolio selection and achiev-
ing results in some specific contexts. To
that end, the relationship between
portfolio reporting and achieving results
appears to be stable across all contexts.
The relationship between portfolio
selection and the two portfolio manage-
ment performance measures, however,
appears to be moderated by context.
Here the relationship between portfolio
selection and achieving purpose is
strengthened in contexts of high external
dynamics, low internal dynamics, and
internal projects. The relationship
between portfolio selection and achiev-
ing results appears to be strengthened in
contexts of low internal dynamics, North
American location, hybrid governance
structures, and internal and external
projects. Internal projects and circum-
stances of low internal dynamics appear
to be the context factors reinforcing the
impact of portfolio selection on both per-
formance measures achieving purpose
and achieving results.

September 2008 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 37

 Project Portfolio Control and Portfolio Management Performance
PAPERS
The results support Hypothesis 5:
the relationship between portfolio
control and portfolio performance is
moderated by contextual factors.
Discussion and Conclusions
We investigated the underlying struc-
tures, relationships, and contextual con-
tingencies of portfolio control practices
and portfolio management perform-
ance in successful organizations. As our
primary research question, we asked:
How are portfolios controlled, and how
does this control relate to portfolio
management performance in different
contexts?
Our study has developed the con-
cept of portfolio control and analyzed
its association with portfolio manage-
ment performance in different con-
texts. The final model for the relation-
ship between portfolio control and
portfolio management performance
and the moderating effects of context
are shown in Figure 3.
These results are supported by
other studies, such as those on the link
between strategy and organizational
success (Cooper, Edgett, & Kleinschmidt,
2004a, 2004b, 2004c; Morris & Jamieson,
2005), those on the link between report-
ing and project success (Turner &
Müller, 2004), as well as those on team
Portfolio
Control:
Portfolio reporting
Portfolio selection
Situation:
Governance type
Industry
Geography
Dynamics
Project type
Figure 3: Final model.
38 September 2008 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
decision making, using qualitative and
quantitative factors, being superior to
individual decision making (Stawicki &
Müller, 2007).
Structure of Project Portfolio Control
and Portfolio Management
Performance
This study has examined project port-
folio control as a potential factor con-
tributing to portfolio management
performance. The empirical results of
133 organizations showed, first, that
successful organizations have an
organization-level practice of selecting
and prioritizing projects in line with
strategy. Second, successful organiza-
tions have a shared reporting approach
to channel information flows from
projects to the portfolio level. Third,
such organizations share responsibility
for decisions at the portfolio level. The
factor structure identified in portfolio
control practices clearly adds to find-
ings of earlier studies in general multi-
project management (Cooper et al.,
1997a, 1997b, 1999, 2000) and different
practices in multiproject contexts
(Fricke & Shenhar, 2000; Loch, 2000;
Martinsuo & Lehtonen, 2007) by sug-
gesting contents for three portfolio
control variables. Our study has given
shape to the concept of portfolio con-
Portfolio
Success:
Achieving results
Achieving purpose
trol, not previously covered empirically
at the multiproject level.
The results further showed that
organizations with different gover-
nance styles differ in their use of differ-
ent portfolio control practices, whereas
other contextual factors did not appear
as significant. Four types of governance
structures were included in this study:
multiproject organizations that did not
have clear integration among projects,
portfolio organizations, program
organizations, and hybrid organiza-
tions that combined portfolio and
program governance. As hybrid organi-
zations represent an example of well-
developed and mature project-based
organizations, they tend to have higher
degrees of portfolio control in place, in
the form of portfolio selection, portfo-
lio reporting, and decision-making
practices. Also, firms in portfolio man-
agement–driven governance structures
were more advanced in decision-mak-
ing practices than less mature multi-
project organizations. These findings
advance the current understanding
that portfolio control distinguishes
successful from less successful organi-
zations. It shows that successful organ-
izations differ in their use of portfolio
control mechanisms, depending on the
type of organizational governance. Our
results suggest that at least governance
mechanisms in the portfolio’s organiza-
tional context should be taken into
account when managing the portfolio.
Prior research has suggested that
portfolio management performance
should not be one-dimensionally
examined at portfolio level only, but it
should also include achievements at
the single-project and organizational
level (Blomquist & Müller, 2006a;
Martinsuo & Lehtonen, 2007). Our find-
ings lend support to such studies and
Hypothesis 1 on the multidimensionality
of portfolio management performance.
The results showed that successful
organizations look into achieving desired
portfolio results, and achieving proj-
ect and program purpose for the
overall portfolio. The factor structure
identified in portfolio management
performance gives support to earlier
studies using different measures of
portfolio and management performance
(e.g., Cooper et al., 1999, 2000, 2004a,
2004b; Martinsuo & Lehtonen, 2007;
Nobeoka & Cusumano, 1995, 1997).
Relationship Between Project
Portfolio Control and Portfolio
Management Performance
We set three hypotheses on the rela-
tionships between portfolio control
and portfolio management perform-
ance, two of which were partially sup-
ported by regression analyses and
revealed rather complex relationships.
Our primary finding shows that differ-
ent portfolio control practices are asso-
ciated with different measures of port-
folio management performance. More
specifically, strategy-aligned portfolio
selection was in a positive correlation
with achieving results, portfolio report-
ing was positively correlated with
achieving purpose, and portfolio selec-
tion was in a positive correlation with
achieving results in some specific
contexts.
These results add to our knowledge
about the complexities inherent to
portfolio management. While earlier
normative portfolio management liter-
ature has promoted a variety of portfo-
lio selection, prioritization, reporting,
and decision-making systems (e.g., Hall
& Nauda, 1990; Henriksen & Traynor,
1999; Mikkola, 2001), our results sug-
gest that none of them alone can serve
the multidimensional performance
interests of organizations. The present
study’s results, therefore, suggests and
supports holistic and integrated frame-
works of portfolio management that
take into account the organizational
context and different practices of port-
folio control simultaneously (e.g., Archer
& Ghasemzadeh, 1999a; Loch, 2000).
Context Dependency and Further
Research
We tested some moderating effects in
the relationship between portfolio
control and portfolio management
performance, to further increase
understanding on the contextual
contingency of portfolio management.
In testing Hypothesis 5, we found gen-
eral support particularly with regard to
project type, internal dynamics, gover-
nance types, and also geographical
location. The findings support a con-
tingency perspective toward portfolio
management. The details given here
should provoke further studies
addressing the contextuality of portfo-
lio management. To that end, we pro-
pose the following:
• We found that organizations engaged
in internal projects, as well as those
with low internal dynamics, have a
unique portfolio control–performance
relationship. Here, portfolio selection
is in positive association with achiev-
ing results and achieving purpose. The
uniqueness should be subject to fur-
ther investigation.
• Our findings indicate that organiza-
tions using a hybrid governance struc-
ture or that are located in North
America, or that have low internal
dynamics differ from the base model.
For these special cases, portfolio selec-
tion is associated with achieving
results, while the overall setting
reported its connection with achiev-
ing purpose. The idiosyncrasies of the
differences in context should be fur-
ther investigated.
Strengths and Limitations of the Study
The study’s strengths are in the focus
on high-performing projects, pro-
grams, and portfolios, which allows
identifying best practices by filtering
out the unsuccessful practices. A fur-
ther strength is the worldwide sample
over a number of industries, which
supports developing theory from a gen-
eral level to a more particular level by
identifying first the global practices in
portfolio management and then the
industry-, geography-, and management-
specific practices of particular sub-
groups.
The results indicate that portfolio
control variables explain significant,
September 2008 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
but only low degrees of variance in
portfolio management performance.
This raises new questions about other
aspects of portfolio control, and other
possible factors explaining portfolio
management success. Analyzing and
operationalizing portfolio control in
broader terms is suggested as a subject
for future research.
Theoretical Implications
The study results indicate three under-
lying portfolio control mechanisms and
their relationship to portfolio success
criteria. It supports existing theory on
the link between strategy and portfolio
success. At the same time, it expands
existing theory by identifying a contin-
gency model for the relationships
between control mechanisms and suc-
cess factors. Here, impact of reporting
as a control mechanism appeared to be
universal, whereas the impact of port-
folio selection appeared to be context-
specific.
To that end, the study showed that
portfolios are controlled at the level of
behavior in the form of portfolio selec-
tion (behavior control) and at the level
of output in the form of portfolio
reporting (output control). The hypoth-
esized interactive control in the form of
decision-making styles has no impact
on portfolio results. This resembles
control structures of the classical
organization as reported by Ouchi
(1977) and Ouchi and Maguire (1975).
Managerial Implications
The study results indicate the following
recommendations for practice:
• Define and establish a common com-
munication and reporting platform
for all projects in the portfolio.
Measure and compare projects along
similar metrics.
• Take portfolio decisions in teams,
after evaluation of the pros and cons
of different mixes of priorities and
go/no-go decisions, at the organiza-
tional and the portfolio level.
• Establish organizational routines to
ensure project selection based on
the organization’s strategy, not the
39
 Project Portfolio Control and Portfolio Management Performance
PAPERS
personal preferences of individual
managers.
• Review portfolios periodically using
comparable metrics.
The study provided insight into dif-
ferent portfolio management practices.
Organizations should use both the con-
trol mechanisms and the success fac-
tors and assign operational values to
them. That allows tracking, setting, and
measurement of goals, and their
achievement, which is the aim of port-
folio management. The study has pro-
vided the metrics for it. ■
References
Archer, N., & Ghasemzadeh, F. (1999a).
An integrated framework for project
portfolio selection. International
Journal of Project Management, 17,
207–216.
Archer, N., & Ghasemzadeh, F. (1999b).
Project portfolio selection techniques:
A review and a suggested integrated
approach. In L. D. Dye & J. S.
Pennypacker (Eds.), Project portfolio
management: Selecting and prioritiz-
ing projects for competitive advantage
(pp. 207–238). West Chester, PA: Center
for Business Practices.
Artto, K. A., & Dietrich, P. H. (2004).
Strategic business management
through multiple projects. In P. W. G.
Morris & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley
guide to managing projects (pp. 144–176).
London: John Wiley & Sons.
Association of Project Management
(APM). (2004). Directing change: A
guide to governance of project manage-
ment. High Wycombe, UK: Association
for Project Management.
Blomquist, T., & Müller, R. (2004).
Needs and prerequisites for project
portfolio management. Presented at
the PMI Central Sweden Chapter
meeting, Stockholm, Sweden.
Blomquist, T., & Müller, R. (2006a).
Practices, roles and responsibilities of
middle managers in program and
portfolio management. Project
Management Journal, 37(1), 52–66.
40 September 2008 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Blomquist, T., & Müller, R. (2006b).
Middle managers in program and port-
folio management: Practice, roles and
responsibilities. Newtown Square, PA:
Project Management Institute.
Blomquist, T., & Wilson, T. L. (2007).
Project marketing in multi-project
organizations: A comparison of IS/IT
and engineering firms. Industrial
Marketing Management, 36(2),
206–218.
Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell, S.,
Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2003).
Social practices and the management
of knowledge in project environments.
International Journal of Project
Management, 21, 157–166.
Cooper, R., Edgett, S., & Kleinschmidt,
E. (1997a). Portfolio management in
new product development: Lessons
from the leaders I. Research Technology
Management, 40(5), 16–28.
Cooper, R., Edgett, S., & Kleinschmidt,
E. (1997b). Portfolio management in
new product development: Lessons
from the leaders II. Research
Technology Management, 40(6), 43–52.
Cooper, R., Edgett, S., & Kleinschmidt,
E. (1999). New product portfolio man-
agement: Practices and performance.
Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 16, 333–351.
Cooper, R., Edgett, S., & Kleinschmidt,
E. (2000). New problems, new solu-
tions: Making portfolio management
more effective. Research Technology
Management, 43(2), 18–33.
Cooper, R., Edgett, S., & Kleinschmidt,
E. (2002). Optimizing the stage gate
process: What best practice companies
do-II. Research Technology
Management, 45 (6), 43–49.
Cooper, R., Edgett, S., & Kleinschmidt,
E. (2004a). Benchmarking best NPD
practices-I. Research Technology
Management, 47(1), 31–43.
Cooper, R., Edgett, S., & Kleinschmidt,
E. (2004b). Benchmarking best NPD
practices-II. Research Technology
Management, 47(3), 50–59.
Cooper, R., Edgett, S., & Kleinschmidt,
E. (2004c). Benchmarking best NPD
practices-III. Research Technology
Management, 47(6), 43–55.
Elonen, S., & Artto, K. (2003).
Problems in managing internal devel-
opment projects in multi-project envi-
ronments. International Journal of
Project Management, 21, 395–402.
Englund, R., & Graham, R. (1996).
Creating an environment for success-
ful projects—Steps and examples.
Presented at Project World Winter ‘96,
Hewlett-Packard Company, Santa
Clara, California.
Engwall, M. (2003). No project is an
island: Linking projects to history
and context. Research Policy, 32,
789–808.
Engwall, M., & Jerbrant, A. (2003). The
resource allocation syndrome: The
prime challenge of multi-project man-
agement? International Journal of
Project Management, 21, 403–409.
Fricke, S. E., & Shenhar, A. J. (2000).
Managing multiple engineering proj-
ects in a manufacturing support envi-
ronment. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 47, 258–268.
Hall, D., & Nauda, A. (1990). An inter-
active approach for selecting IR&D
projects. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 37, 126–133.
Henriksen, A. D., & Traynor, A. J.
(1999). A practical R&D project-selec-
tion scoring tool. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 46, 158–170.
Kasvi, J. J. J., Vartiainen, M., &
Hailikari, M. (2003). Managing knowl-
edge and knowledge competences in
projects and project organisations.
International Journal of Project
Management, 21, 571–582.
Loch, C. (2000). Tailoring product
development to strategy: Case of a
European technology manufacturer.
European Management Journal, 18,
246–258.
Lycett, A., Rassau, A., & Danson, J.
(2004). Programme management: A
critical review. International Journal of
Project Management, 22, 289–299.
Martinsuo, M., & Lehtonen, P. (2007).
Role of single-project management in
achieving portfolio management effi-
ciency. International Journal of Project
Management, 25, 56–65.
Mikkola, J. H. (2001). Portfolio man-
agement of R&D projects: Implications
for innovation management.
Technovation, 21, 423–435.
Morris, P., & Jamieson, A. (2005).
Moving from corporate strategy to
project strategy. Project Management
Journal, 36(4), 5–18.
Müller, R., Spang, K., & özcan, S.
(2007). Cultural differences in decision
making and decision implementation
in mixed German-Swedish project
teams. Presented at the 21st IPMA
World Congress on Project
Management, Krakow, Poland.
Müller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2007).
Project success criteria and project
success by type of project. European
Management Journal, 25, 298–309.
Nobeoka, K., & Cusumano, M. A.
(1995). Multiproject strategy, design
transfer, and project performance: A
survey of automobile development
projects in the US and Japan. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering
Management, 42, 397–409.
Nobeoka, K., & Cusumano, M. A.
(1997). Multiproject strategy and sales
growth: The benefits of rapid design
transfer in new product development.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(3),
169–186.
Ouchi, W. G. (1977). The relationship
between organizational structure and
control. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 22, 95–113.
Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A conceptual
framework for the design of
organizational control mechanisms.
Management Science, 25, 833–848.
Ouchi, W. G., & Maguire, M. A. (1975).
Organizational control: Two functions.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 20,
559–569.
Parkin, J. (1996). Organizational deci-
sion making and the project manager.
International Journal of Project
Management, 14, 257–263.
Payne, J. H., & Turner, J. R. (1999).
Company-wide project management:
The planning and control of pro-
grammes of projects of different type.
International Journal of Project
Management, 17, 55–59.
Pich, M. T., Loch, C. H., & De Meyer,
A. (2002). On uncertainty, ambiguity,
and complexity in project manage-
ment. Management Science, 48,
1008–1023.
Prencipe, A., & Tell, F. (2001). Inter-
project learning: Processes and out-
comes of knowledge codification in
project-based firms. Research Policy,
30, 1373–1394.
Project Management Institute (PMI).
(2006). The standard for portfolio
management. Newtown Square, PA:
Author.
Söderlund, J. (2004). On the broaden-
ing scope of the research on projects: A
review and a model for analysis.
International Journal of Project
Management, 22, 655–667.
Stawicki, J., & Müller, R. (2007). From
standards to execution: Implementing
program and portfolio management.
Presented at the 21st IPMA World
Congress, Krakow, Poland.
Svenson, O. (1996). Decision making
and the search for fundamental psy-
chological regularities: What can be
learned from a process perspective?
Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Making, 65, 252–267.
Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2003). On
the nature of the project as a tempo-
rary organization. International
Journal of Project Management, 21,
1–7.
Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2004).
Communication and co-operation on
projects between the project owner as
principal and the project manager as
agent. European Management Journal,
22, 327–336.
Tyszka, T. (1998). Two pairs of conflict-
ing motives in decision making.
Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Making, 74, 189–211.
September 2008 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Vereecke, A., Pandelaere, E.,
Deschoolmeester, D., & Stevens, M.
(2003). A classification of development
programmes and its consequences for
programme management.
International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, 23,
1279–1290.
Ralf Müller is an associate professor at Umeå
University, adjunct professor at the Norwegian
School of Management BI, and adjunct professor
at ESC Lille. He is also the managing director of
PM Concepts AB, a Swedish-based management
consultancy. He lectures and does research in
project management, governance of project-
based organizations, and research design and
methodology. He has authored more than 60
publications, including three books, several
book chapters, and a number of articles in inter-
national management journals, as well as con-
ference papers. Prior to his academic career he
spent 30 years in consulting to large enterpris-
es in project management and governance, for
example, as worldwide director of project man-
agement at NCR Teradata. He holds a Doctor of
Business Administration (DBA) from Henley
Management College/Brunel University and an
MBA from Heriot-Watt University, both in the
United Kingdom.
Miia Martinsuo is a senior lecturer in industrial
management and director for postgraduate
studies at the Department of Industrial
Engineering and Management, Helsinki
University of Technology. Her teaching, student
instruction, and research work focus on the fol-
lowing aspects of project business: multiproject
management, innovation management, and
organization development. She has 15 years of
experience in strategy, business process devel-
opment, and management development in inter-
national private companies, especially in metal
and electrotechnical industry. She has consult-
ed to industry and service and public sector
organizations, as well as managed international
research and development projects towards
improve organizational efficiency and well-
being. She has written and coauthored over 100
papers, book chapters, and books, especially in
41
 Project Portfolio Control and Portfolio Management Performance
PAPERS

the areas of project portfolio management and
organization development. She studied at
Helsinki University of Technology and holds
D.Sc. (Eng.), Lic.Tech., and M.Sc. (Eng.) degrees
in industrial engineering and management.
Tomas Blomquist is associate professor at
Umeå School of Business at Umeå University in
Sweden. He is head of the management section
and a director for the Erasmus Mundus Masters
Program in Strategic Project Management, a
joint program with Heriot-Watt University and
Politecnico di Milano. In recent years he has
worked in research concerning projectified firms
and how they organize, manage, and control
their projects, as well as studies in product
development and customer projects. He had
been involved in work to coordinate and actively
support project management research activities
within IRNOP and Project Sweden. Previous par-
ticipation experience includes product develop-
ment and renewal projects in both industry and
the public sector. This also includes activities to
access and improve project management and
portfolio management systems in firms. He
holds an MSc in engineering and a BA in busi-
ness administration.

42 September 2008 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj