Archive for September, 2009

Risk, control and trust in Enterprise 2.0

Posted in Communicate / Collaborate on September 28th, 2009 by Leanne Fry – Be the first to comment

Risk, control and trust. Add any of these words to a business proposal, as issues to be addressed, and you can guarantee someone is going to be nervous.

Dion Hinchcliffe recently highlighted how these three issues were starting to push their way through the excitement of Enterprise 2.0 to become potential show-stoppers. For many organisations they may be already.

He was responding to blogs by Andrew McAfee and Dennis Howlett on what, precisely, Enterprise 2.0 was trying to solve.

In the context of products, customers, services, processes and governance, those three elements – risk, control and trust – are fundamental to a successful business.

And Enterprise 2.0 proponents should also keep in mind that for certain organisations, the penalties for failing to manage risk, to control what needs to be controlled or for breaching trust are significant and substantial. For some organisations operating in a highly regulated environment, brand or reputation damage from a You Tube video or Facebook group may be just the start of the problem.

Risk, control and trust in business aren’t bad. In fact, when you think about it, they are assumptions that underpin a customer’s willingness to engage with you. speed test website Aren’t they?

As McAfee observes, it is unhelpful and wrong to ‘… portray hierarchy, standardization, and management as enemies of innovation, creativity, and value creation.’ I’ve worked in organisations where a finely tuned balance of all of those elements made for a rich, rewarding and successful business.

As I see it, the challenge for Enterprise 2.0 is that the way it achieves things – the process, the interaction, the players and the speed – is so different to an organisation’s current risk/control/trust paradigm. And that happens at both the corporate level, where Ent 2.0 slams up against process, sign-off, hierarchy, and regulation, and at the personal level, where workers function every day using control, knowledge, and well trodden paths of interaction.

There are now numerous examples of Enterprise 2.0 tools facilitating the core business of an organisation, and McAfee lists many in his post.

So the objectives, and rationale, and expected outcomes must be clearly defined, at both corporate and personal levels. And all the enablers (people, process, culture, organisational) must be understood and either in place, or able to be dealt with. Which probably means that Enterprise 2.0 initiatives in many organisations should start as discrete, self contained, well thought out pieces of work. The degree of change required to fully leverage them is broad, and touches on so many important aspects of an organisation. Given the ROI of Enterprise 2.0 could be argued as in its infancy, for many organisations the risks will continue to outweigh the benefits.

Sharing process knowledge

Posted in Business Process Consulting, Practice Areas on September 24th, 2009 by Stephanie Chung – Be the first to comment

We believe in the continuous learning cycle and for us, a big part of that is sharing the learnings in an open forum. Every month, we hold lunch sessions to provide snippets into what we know that others may not. This month it was my opportunity, and we generated the dialogue around business process management.

This presentation is an introduction to basic BPM – the tools and techniques we use in business process modeling projects.

Our clients find the process and outcomes from BPM provide a solid, focused foundation for projects and organisational change.

10 reasons to tackle corporate email – reason 5

Posted in Communicate / Collaborate on September 21st, 2009 by Leanne Fry – Be the first to comment

Compliance. Compliance. Compliance.

When it really comes down to it, how much do you know about the conversations your people are having on email? Long before the highly visible ‘wish I hadn’t said that’ contributions on Facebook, Twitter and numerous other social networking sites, all manner of jokes, personal conversations and transactions were humming back and forth on email.

And for a significant number of people in most organisations, they still are.

Generally organisations have an acceptable use policy, and recognise that tools such as the phone and email will be used for personal matters at some stage. For many people and organisations, email is still the primary tool for transactional interchanges.

But because so many of those email conversations are not generally visible to the world at large, organisations don’t appear to attach the same risk profile to them as we are seeing with employee contributions on social networking sites (although emails can still go viral – here’s a recent example). Maybe that’s because the fallout to brand and reputation is so visibly dramatic with social networking. And perhaps because the email genie is already long out of the bottle.

Leaving aside the knowledge implications of all that information wallowing in email boxes there may also be compliance reasons to investigate the toolset your organisation is using.

Consider this. Your organisation contracts with customers or suppliers. The contract is captured in a word or pdf document. It is usually filed on a server. And then everyone gets on with the business of working under that contract.

The people involved may well email back and forth on many aspects of the contract – interpretation, delivery, terms, service levels. That people understand their limits of authority is critical (that is, what they are entitled to offer or agree to on behalf of the company), and the potential to state something in the email that will alter the terms of the contract and bind the company is high.

Representations will bind an organisation even when an email has been deleted. We’re talking here about emails, but document management protocols – or lack thereof – in a company can cause grief for a very long time, as evidenced by the Rolah McCabe case.

For many organisations, document management systems that link all transactions or conversations with the contract, or primary agreement, are essential. It provides both visibility of the entire transaction, over time, with an audit capability to ensure compliance. Toolsets won’t solve a compliance issue, but as part of a solution they will dramatically increase the visibility of the process.

How to make sure people access information?

Posted in Communicate / Collaborate on September 16th, 2009 by Leanne Fry – Be the first to comment

‘Even if you provide the right information, to the right place at the right time, how do we [knowledge workers] make sure people access information and have power to action information?’ Manson Yew, Project Manager, NASA Engineering Network, NASA. at KM Australia 2009

How do you make sure people access information?

Manson Yew’s comment at the KM Australia conference posed the question: what if, as a knowledge worker, you’ve done everything right. You have the systems and processes in place to analyse and decide what information is the ‘right’ information, you have worked out the process and workflow for where that information is needed, and you know the timing required to deliver it to people when it is needed.

As part of any knowledge management initiative we start with people’s roles – the ‘what do you come to work to achieve each day’ – and determine the information that is critical to them being able to get those jobs done. Only then do we work out what needs to be captured, found, saved, stored, shared and reused.

The ‘what’s in it for me’ factor is critical.  So if the information is not what they think is important, strike one.

But assuming you have hit the mark with the information, and you’ve solved the delivery issues around time and place, what if they ignore it?

What if your project managers aren’t interested in your templates? What if they’d rather work off the materials from the previous project they managed?

What if your bid managers start from scratch every time they put a proposal together? Even though you have put together a detailed database of best-practice clauses or templates?

One reason may be that you still haven’t convinced them. You haven’t given them the ‘what’s in it for me’ factor.

We have some basic measurable criteria that we use for information and knowledge management objectives. Saving time, cutting costs, reducing errors, and simplifying activities. One of those will usually hit the mark with people. One of those is usually an issue or objective that matters to the person. Not the team. Not the corporation. Not the department. The person.

So there might be a process of engagement and persuasion missing, at the right level. I’ll change my behaviour when you give me a reason to do so. And unless that reason is strong, established practices and other priorities, or simply the familiarity of how I always do it (which gets the job done you know) will prevail.

Just remember that there are two definitions of the ‘right information’ – the information that the organisation or management think is critical (to capture, to control, to replicate), and the information that people need to do their work.  They are two different things and they drive two different behaviours.

Governing programs for strategic success – implications from Victoria

Posted in Governing Programmes and Projects, Practice Areas on September 16th, 2009 by Raymond Young – 1 Comment

The State of Victoria is one of the international leaders in New Public Management and is frequently compared to the UK, Canada and New Zealand. We expected it to be at the forefront of practice because it leads the world in the application of management techniques to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the public sector.

But our research shows us that even for those at the forefront of practice, many of the approaches with the most potential to improve project success have not been incorporated.

Our research, commissioned by the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, showed billions of dollars were invested in projects in Victoria, and yet often the expected strategic benefits are not being realised. Research we have undertaken on the private sector suggests it struggles with exactly the same issue. (In 2008, fewer than 178 of the 2224 ASX listed companies (8%) report their IT investment, and there is no apparent requirement to report investments in soft projects). If one of the best performers does not have the tools to help it achieve its strategic goals, what are the implications for the rest of us?

We have commented earlier that the tools with the most potential to address this issue (portfolio management, programme management, project governance) are too immature in their current state to be widely adopted and overcome the issue.

The specific issue that needs to be addressed is to increase the flexibility of tools to:

  1. provide feedback on the effectiveness of strategy, and
  2. contribute to changing and refining of strategy as it is implemented and lessons are learned (current approaches are too mechanistic).

To advance the discussion, we have just documented our findings in our paper Governing programmes for strategic success – implications from Victoria submitted to the 2009 International Research Workshop on IT Project Management, a special interest group of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2009 (recognised as ‘the most prestigious gathering of IS academics and research-oriented practitioners in the world’). We are also considering presenting another version of this paper in Melbourne in Feb 2010.

This post extends the invitation to participate to the entire online community. We wish to go beyond project management and ‘find more appropriate programme and portfolio management approaches that can be adopted with confidence by senior decision makers’. All contributions will be acknowledged and there is the opportunity to incorporate them into an advanced course being developed initially for the University of Sydney.

Please read the blog posts on this site, download the academic paper and share your initial thoughts by posting below. I encourage you not to hold back, and to help shape an initiative that will improve education / health / police / environment / defence / business results by 4-8 times.

We all win if governments get better results with lower costs.

Social media for local government

Posted in Communicate / Collaborate on September 11th, 2009 by Leanne Fry – Be the first to comment

Saw an interesting post from a UK social media practitioner, Simon Wakeman, on social media relations for local government. He defines what social media is, why public sector organisations would bother with it, and then the possible benefits.

He highlights the two way engagement that is the great leap for many organisations to make. I’d suggest that the additional challenge is the speed of the interaction. Larger enterprises, particularly those with high regulatory or public accountability structures, generally don’t move that fast. Communication is controlled for very valid reasons. Not the least of which is the time commitment and cost of resources dedicated to multiple conversations.

Taking on social media just because it is there is a bit like signing up for the gym because everyone else goes. Someone told you it was good for you and an essential part of a carefully balanced life, but you would really rather be doing something else, and quite frankly, you’re not convinced that the benefits are really there, or that you can’t get the benefits from doing something you enjoy more. It’s an effort to get to the gym because it is a complete change to your routine, and… you get the picture.

The questions are the same: why should I do this, what do I want out of it, how will I know it is worthwhile, will I enjoy it enough to continue?

And so the fundamental question for an organisation is: who do we need to engage with and why would we want to engage with them?

Over a decade ago we used question and answer forums on a corporate intranet, to take the temperature of the organisation in relation to some really thorny issues. We had the view that it was better to have the questions out in the open, and properly answered, than hurtling along the grapevine and potentially doing damage. I recall using the words to some senior executives more than once: ‘Don’t ask for questions unless you are really prepared to answer them.’

So a simple blueprint for an organisation eyeing off all the ‘promises’ of social media might be:

  1. Education: Understand the levels of engagement and interaction that social media provides,
  2. Assessment: Understand the engagement model you have with your customers/stakeholders etc, and the one you aspire to and why,
  3. Commitment: Understand where the benefits of increased engagement will come from, and what it will take from your organisation to commit to that.

KM Australia 2009 conference summary

Posted in Communicate / Collaborate on September 9th, 2009 by Leanne Fry – Be the first to comment

If you didn’t manage to get to the KM Australia conference, held in Sydney in August, Nicky Hayward-Wright has written a great review, complete with links, of the sessions. You’ll find it on the NSW KM Forum site.

Why are blogs and wikis useful knowledge sharing tools?

Posted in Communicate / Collaborate on September 7th, 2009 by Leanne Fry – Be the first to comment

The latest McKinsey Global Survey Results (June 2009) surveyed 1,700 executives globally about the value their organisations are gaining from using web 2.0.

The interesting thing about the report is that more executives are acknowledging that they are seeing measurable benefits (my emphasis). This is significant progress. Business people like measurable benefits. That’s the language and outcome that gets a hearing.

The benefits tracked are across various usages – internally in organisations, externally with customers and with business supplier and partners.

Externally, they benefit relationships – bringing the organisation closer to customers and suppliers and in some instances allowing them to innovate together. A number of companies reported lower communication and travel costs.

Some companies reported have been able to track revenue increases from improved customer interactions.  You may have read about the CBA mortgage approval where a blunt tweet from a potential customer hit the radar of the head of customer service. While the tool provides almost instant notification, the organisational will must be there to track the conversations, and act to respond to or resolve problems.

The most heavily used technologies are blogs, wikis and podcasts, and this preference goes across both organisations and consumers. That’s not surprising, for not only are those technologies incredibly easy to use, but it doesn’t take much to create a useful information asset in them. By that I mean that they take shape quickly provided the contribution is there. Tools like Yammer (the enterprise Twitter equivalent), which is essentially speedy information exchange, can sometimes be harder to embed.

A key point in relation to the use of the tools internally was that they needed to be tightly integrated into the workflows of employees. That sounds a bit self-evident, but too often we train people on how to use new tools, but not on why. The ‘why’ got asked and answered in the business case, and becomes a hulking great assumption from then on. Asking ‘why would I use this’, ‘in what circumstance would I use this’ and importantly ‘what can this replace’ are critical to take-up. The importance of this in a knowledge management context was highlighted in a CSC paper some years ago – The Fusion of Process and Knowledge Management.

We distilled these concepts into some KM guiding prnciples, but they easily relate to web 2.0 tools as well:

  • Make the use of the tools part of the way people work.
  • Embed the use of the tools in your key business processes.
  • Target business processes that deliver real benefits to teams: save time, cut costs, prevent errors, simplify activities.

The benefits to organisations were greater ability to share ideas, improved access to experts, and better employee satisfaction.

And that’s where wikis, blogs and podcasts have a great ROI. Every information asset in those toolsets (a blog post or a wiki entry) has a person’s name attached to it.  So depending on where you are using them, an organisation can create an expert register at the same time it is capturing knowledge and sharing information.

Deficiencies with programme management?

Posted in Governing Programmes and Projects, Strategic Programmes on September 7th, 2009 by Raymond Young – Be the first to comment

Executive Summary

Having raised the question in a earlier post of why billions of dollars invested in projects were not resulting in the realisation of strategic benefits, and then exploring portfolio management, this post explores whether programme management may play a part.

It appears programme management is indeed the vital link but may be deficient in two critical areas:

  1. Current conceptions of programme management are often immature and inconsistent.
  2. Current guidelines may not be flexible enough to support strategy.
    1. The level of certainty that exists with strategy is far less than programme managers have traditionally assumed.
    2. It is not optimal to work on the basis that top managers set strategy and programme managers implement strategy.
    3. Programme management must adapt to the context within which it operates. This flexibility of practice is important to:
      1. support some level of challenging, feedback and dialogue on strategy, and
      2. easily redefine the program as new information comes to hand.

this post is an extract from an academic paper prepared for the IT Project Management SIG meeting at the2009  International Conference for Information Systems

Making Sense of Program Management

Programme management in contrast to project or portfolio management is not a mature discipline. There are less than a dozen textbooks and almost all of them start by commenting on the dearth of available guidance. This situation may have arisen because the origins of program management were in the US aerospace and defence industries where it was kept secret for decades. It was only in the 1980s as people moved did program management take hold in the commercial sector but even then it was sometimes only the term being misapplied to the management of large or multiple projects [1]. The US understanding is probably best captured by the Project Management Institute’s recently published Standard for Program Management with its focus on new product development. However, the UK’s Office of Government Commerce’s developed Managing Successful Programmes in the late 1990s to focus on the delivery of change and has begun to dominate the way programme management is being understood internationally [2].

However, there remains however considerable confusion [3]. Some successful project managers have been promoted into programme roles only to flounder [2]. It was an important clarification to find that project management and program management had different theoretical foundations and that programmes could not be treated as scale-ups of projects [4]. It was found that project management had been applied successfully mainly in the domain of new product development. Program management was characterised more as a tool for strategy implementation in domains that included manufacturing, quality, organisational change, change in work and industry and product development [5]. It is not well understood that programme management competence relates more to general management skills and generic leadership qualities than to project management skills [6].

Deficiencies with implementing strategy

A problem has arisen because strategy is becoming more complex and is increasingly less about the technical skills to develop new products and more about the leadership skills to introduce organisational changes to react to rapidly changing environments. A strategy may sometimes require development of new products and services but to be effective the strategy will still require organisational change to develop the capacity to deliver new services [7]. We are starting to realise that the programme management practices that we have inherited are not particular supportive of strategic thinking and are inadequate for strategy implementation.

Programme management practice has yet to reflect the insights from thirty years of experience with strategic planning. Strategic planning has been found to be fundamentally different to strategic thinking [8]. The WW1 battle of Passchendaele is an example of how a strategically desirable option was found to be tactically impossible. After four months and the loss of over a quarter of a million lives, the generals eventually found they were sending their men through a sea of impassable mud. This particular failure was inexcusable, because the map is not the reality and the general should have seen for himself. However, corporate leaders do not have this option because they are not dealing with a physical environment that can be inspected but a future environment which cannot. It is necessary for a strategy to be informed by the results of a strategic plan. A chosen strategy must be tested on an ongoing basis, whether it is working as expected, or whether an alternative strategy is a better option. The level of certainty that exists with strategy is less than the practitioners of strategic planning and programme managers have traditionally assumed. It is not appropriate to work on the basis that top managers set a strategy and programme manager implement the strategy. There must be some level of questioning, feedback and dialogue.

Deficiencies with programme management

This insight is rarely if ever reflected in practice. Mainstream programme management is strongly influenced by the project management tradition and programme management practices may have been codified too rigidly. Practice tends to be programme-centric and a clear boundary between the project and business domains is maintained [9]. Guidelines suggest a level of documentation rigour that works as a disincentive to challenging and redefining the program as new information comes to hand and the guideline underemphasise the need to adapt to the context in which a programme operates [2]. Responsibility for the realisation of benefits is often assigned to business managers outside a narrowly defined programme [10]. One major text provides an example of a program to develop a new product independent of another program to market the product without emphasising the need to coordinate decisions to realise a strategic goals such as profitably entering a new market [1]. When organisations view programmes in this way, they tend to shoe-horn programmes into project-level thinking, fail to focus adequately on building and maintaining support for the strategic programme goals and lose most of the benefits sought in setting up programmes in the first place  [11][2]

Effective programme managers have been shown to frequently adapt the formal guidelines in subtle and creative ways, or ignore or contradict them completely. Arguably the common guidelines were found by them to either be not useful or not make sense. They seek more to engage stakeholders than to manage them as the methodologies might suggest. The current codification into a common set of transferable principles and processes appears to be inadequate and some even question whether it is possible [2].


The conclusion is that programme management is far from uniform and is immature as a discipline. It is as much about coping as it is about planning and rational decision making, as much about re-shaping the organisational landscape as it is about delivering new capabilities. There is the suggestion that the tendency towards prescription based on ‘one size with minor variations’ approach may warrant re-examination [2]. These insights may explain why programme management concepts have not had more influence or lead to the realisation of more strategic benefits within the Victorian public sector or beyond. This would appear to be a crucial deficiency that justifies further work. It does not seem acceptable to allow governments or corporations to continue to invest tens of billions of dollars and not realise the strategic benefits that we expect of them. This finding seems particularly important in the context of the massive fiscal stimuli being funded by governments around the world to counter the GFC.


[1]       D.Z. Millosevic, R. Martinelli, and J.M. Wadell, Program Management for Improved Business Results,  Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2007.

[2]       S. Pellegrinelli, D. Partington, C. Hemingway, Z. Mohdzain, and M. Shah, “The importance of context in programme management: An empirical review of programme practices,” International Journal of Project Management,  vol. 25, 2007, pp. 41 – 55.

[3]       A. Stretton, “Program Management Diversity – Opportunity or Problem?,” PM World Today,  vol. 11, Jun. 2009.

[4]       M. Lycett, A. Rassau, and J. Danson, “Programme management: a critical review,” International Journal of Project Management,  vol. 22, 2004, pp. 289 – 299.

[5]       K. Artto, M. Martinsuo, H.G. Gemünden, and J. Murtoaro, “Foundations of program management: A bibliometric view,” International Journal of Project Management,  vol. 27, 2009, pp. 1 – 18.

[6]       D. Partington, S. Pellegrinelli, and M. Young, “Attributes and levels of programme management competence: an interpretive study,” International Journal of Project Management,  vol. 23, 2005, pp. 87 – 95.

[7]       D. Williams and T. Parr, Enterprise Programme Management: Delivering Value,  Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

[8]       H. Mintzberg, “The fall and rise of strategic planning,” Harvard Business Review,  vol. Jan-Feb, 1994.

[9]       M. Thiry and M. Deguire, “Recent developments in project-based organisations,” International Journal of Project Management,  vol. 25, 2007, pp. 649 – 658.

[10]     CCTA, Managing Successful Programmes,  London: Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (now called OGC), 2000.

[11]         S. Pellegrinelli, “Programme management: organising project-based change,” International Journal of Project Management,  vol. 15, 1997, pp. 141 – 149.

Deficiencies with Portfolio Management?

Posted in Governing Programmes and Projects, Practice Areas, Strategic Programmes on September 7th, 2009 by Raymond Young – Be the first to comment

Executive Summary

Having raised the question in a earlier post of why billions of dollars invested in projects were not resulting in the realisation of strategic benefits, this post explores whether project portfolio management has a part to play.

Project portfolio management (PPM) practice may be deficient in two main areas:

  1. PPM not is practiced in a way that supports strategy development.
    1. It is common practice to focus on project risk, a lower order concern, but even then fewer than 33% of organisations report they diversify projects to manage portfolio risk.
    2. PPM is mainly used to manage resource conflicts
    3. Investments in software are therefore not justified in most cases.
  2. PPM focuses decision-making at the wrong level.
    1. For strategy to be implemented and strategic outcomes realised the key is to select the right programme rather than the right project (projects alone rarely deliver the desired strategy).
    2. PPM must support programme management more adequately.

Portfolio Management

this post is an extract from an academic paper prepared for the IT Project Management SIG meeting at the 2009  International Conference for Information Systems

Project portfolio management (PPM) is a well established field, particularly in the US. It has an extensive literature and is supported in industry by an established and growing PPM software market. Portfolio management has its conceptual foundations in portfolio theory applied to the selection of financial investments to reduce risks and increase returns [1]. This theory was applied to the domain of project portfolio management to select IT projects [2] and PPM software vendors market on the basis of being able to reduce risk and increase returns on a portfolio of project investments [3].

However, the question is whether PPM adds any strategic value [4]. Portfolio selection has been justified in the context of selecting new product development projects [5], but it is far less convincing when applied to the implementation of strategy. A significant problem arises because there is a disconnect in the way strategy is developed and way the strategic is planned [6].  Strategy development is fluid and emergent. Strategic planning, especially when following the current approaches to PPM is relatively inflexible and mechanical. Project selection tends to be based on first degree criteria identified through risk management tools [7]. In contrast upper level strategic decisions have traditionally relied on non-linear processes and higher level considerations. As a result relatively few organisations use PPM strategically. Fewer than 33% of organisations report they diversify to reduce portfolio risk [4] and in our experience PPM is never used to inform or implement strategy. PPM is mainly used to manage project resource issues.

The potential of PPM appears to only be justified when other aspects are in place such as top management commitment, agreed benefits measurement and a willingness to deal with project interdependencies and resource constraints  [4]. Some believe that PPM, because it is meant to deal with fairly stable environments, can only be effective if combined with programme management which is meant to deal with more turbulent environments and emergent strategies [7]. We would agree and add that by definition, strategic outcomes can only be achieved when a whole program is undertaken. If strategic outcomes are to be realised, it makes no sense to select individual projects, selection criteria must be at the program level.

The Victorian public service investment frameworks are quite closely aligned to the concepts of project portfolio management because they emphasise selecting the right projects. However some Victorian managers believe the tools and frameworks are simply guidelines with little voluntary application and little influence in practice. This conclusion can be applied more generally because Victoria  is a leader in New Public Management and for many represents best-practice. This discussion goes some way to explaining why PPM concepts have not had more influence or lead to the realisation of strategic benefits. The crucial deficiency seems to the absence of meaningful linkages to programme management.


[1]    H. Markowitz, “Portfolio Selection,” The Journal of Finance,  vol. 7, 1952, pp. 77-91.

[2]    F. McFarlan, “Portfolio appraoch to informatiuon systems,” Harvard Business Review, 1981, pp. 142-150.

[3]    CA, “Leading Market Research Firm Finds PPM Software Delivering Over 500 Percent ROI – CA,” 2009.

[4]    B.D. Reyck, Y. Grushka-Cockayne, M. Lockett, S.R. Calderini, M. Moura, and A. Sloper, “The impact of project portfolio management on information technology projects,” International Journal of Project Management,  vol. 23, 2005, pp. 524 – 537.

[5]    A. Jamieson and P.W. Morris, “Moving from corporate strategy to project strategy,” The Wiley Guide to Project, Program, and Portfolio Management,  Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2007, pp. 34-62.

[6]    H. Mintzberg, “The fall and rise of strategic planning,” Harvard Business Review,  vol. Jan-Feb, 1994.

[7]    M. Thiry and M. Deguire, “Recent developments in project-based organisations,” International Journal of Project Management,  vol. 25, 2007, pp. 649 – 658.