Lund Institute of Economic Research
Working Paper Series
Management of Multi-projects
In a Process Oriented
Organization
2006/8
Nikos Macheridis
Carl-Henrik Nilsson
Corresponding author: Dr. Carl-Henric Nilsson, Technology Management Centre, Lund
University, P.O. Box 7080 , SE-220 07 LUND, Sweden, Tele +46462223720, Fax +46462224437,
carl-henric.nilsson@fek.lu.se
Abstract
When projects are used as an organisational platform to conduct business, a project
can be the only project in the organisation or one amongst several others. The latter
case is called multi-project organisation. Usually an organization with a multi-project
environment has a base organisation, which can be functional, matrix structure or
another. The purpose of this article is to develop a model based on a process oriented
organization as a complement to functional or matrix organizational structures. The
article is written from a management point of view. Management of Multi-projects in
a process-oriented organisation is analysed from a strategic point of view as well as
from an operational point of view. Theoretical conclusions as well as practical
recommendations are presented.
Keywords: Multiproject, Processes, Managing Projects, Project Office, Systems
Approach.
Jel-codes: M10, M20, L20, L22, L23
ISSN 1103-3010
ISRN LUSADG/IFEF/WPS-006/8-SE
1. Introduction
In a multi-project environment several projects can be performed at the same time
(Van Der Merwe, 1997; Fricke & Shenbar, 2000; Engwall, 2001:6; Nilsson, 2004;
etc). Multi-project organizations share some common characteristics (Eskerod, 1996;
Lee & Miller, 2004; etc). Projects are often not the primary organisational structure
but formed across a base organisation. In a multi-project environment the projects
share resources, such as personnel, facilities, infrastructure and top management, with
the base organisation and use the same administrative systems, communication
systems and control systems. Project documentation and the generic project process
are sometimes standardised.
The conditions descript above raises the question how projects in a multi-project
environment can be managed and organized firstly in relation to each other and
secondly in relation to the overall business of the organization. Usually there is a base
organisation, which can be functional, matrix structure or otherwise (Engwall
2001:8; Gray & Larson, 2003; Söderlund & Bredin, 2005; etc). Nobeoka &
Cusumano (1995), Van Der Merwe (1997), Engwall (2001) and other researchers
suggests that the fit between organizational structures in multi-project environment,
and the base organisation has potential for improvements.
In this article the preconditions of a process oriented base organisation as a vehicle for
running a multi-project organisation is analysed (Abdomerovic & Blakemore, 2002;
Anavi-Isakow & Golany, 2003; etc). The process oriented organization is viewed as a
complement to functional or matrix organizational structures rather than as a full
substitute. Process oriented organization focus on processes serving the customer,
rather than functions connected to management in an internal hierarchy (Ljungberg
& Larsson, 2001). A crucial task of a process-oriented organization is to continuously
improve the processes that, by definition, are repetitive.
Processes and projects are thus fundamentally different from each other in the respect
that processes are running continuous without end while the definition of a project
rests on the fact that it has a defined end. However, with this in mind, the similarities
are substantial;
•
A clear goal orientation – main processes are aimed at satisfying the
customer as is the project (although in projects the customer is often
internal).
•
Time focus - in processes the flow of resources through activities is paced as
the process is carried out while in the project the project lifecycle is central.
Resource orientation - Process oriented organisations evaluate the flow while
in project management the performance of the project itself is evaluated.
•
The similarities between process and project lead us to the purpose of this paper: to
develop a model for multi-project management in a process oriented organization. We
apply a managerial perspective and highlight the process-oriented organization both
from a strategic and operational point of view.
1
2. Multi-project environment
Project management has been studied during the last decades and an increased
interest has been redirected toward multi-project management. According to Van
Der Merwe (1997) the area of multi-project is a largely un-researched area. A few
years later (2000) Fricke & Shenbar note that “the current literature is still focused
on the study of a single project in isolation, assuming limited interactions among
projects”. Anavi-Isakow & Golany (2003) considers that most of the literature on
project management has been dedicated single projects. In recent years there is a
growing interest in questions related to management of multi-project environment
(Meredith & Mantel, 1995; Shtub, Bard & Globerson, 1994; Van Der Merwe,
1997; Levy & Globerson, 1997; Fricke & Shenbar, 2000; Engwall, 2001:6, 2001:8;
Chan & Chung, 2002; Anavi-Isakow & Golany, 2003; Gray & Larson, 2003;
Nilsson, 2004). Over time we can see an increasing interest in the area of multiproject management.
The need for more research in the area of multi-project arises from the fact that
projects are usually running in parallel in organisations. Payne (1995) suggests that
up to 90% of all projects occur in a multi-project context. Fricke & Shenbar (2000)
support this when they write “few, if, any, actual projects are carried out in complete
isolation”. The same is also expressed by Engwall (2001:6). According Engwall
(2001:8) the multi-project environment is an important research field based on two
basic arguments. One is that the analysis of single projects requires that the
organizational context must be included. The other is that multi-project environment
is a significant aspect of modern organizations. Hendricks, Voeten & Kroep (1999)
contributes with two “practical” reasons to study multi-project environment: ultra
short time-to-market and cost reductions.
Fricke & Shenbar (2000) define multiple projects as a setting in which more than
one project is carried out at the same time. Many researchers (Shtub, Bard &
Globerson, 1994; Van Der Merwe, 1997; Hendriks, Voeten & Kroep, 1999;
Engwall, 2001:6; Nilsson, 2004) define multi-project in a similar way, multi-project
is used to define organizational environments in which many different projects are
performed at the same time. The terms “multi-project” and “multi-project
organization” are used synonymous with ”multi-project environment”.
A multi-project environment can include different types of projects, e.g. product
development projects, organizational development projects and marketing projects.
The projects can have different characteristics and can be in various stages of a project
life cycle. Payne (1995) differentiates between projects in terms of size, required
skills, and urgency.
•
Size refers to number of actors involved in a project, the volume of required
resources etc. A situation that brings differences of size to the fore is when a
project, which is not large enough to stand alone, must share common
resources.
•
Variety of required skills refers to differences between the skills used in
projects. Differences on skills depends on project output, project size etc.
Different degrees of urgency lead to increased project complexity.
•
2
From a management point of view it is important to take into consideration the
characteristics of multi-project environment and how those characteristics impact the
design of an organizational structure aimed at managing multi-projects.
Characteristics of multi-project environment pointed out by Eskerod (1996) and Lee
& Miller (2004) are; that tasks are carried out in projects, interdependencies between
projects, the projects share a common resource pool, the employees can be assigned
to several projects or other tasks at the same time, trade-offs between the utilization
of resources and the on-time completion of individual projects. Engwall (2001)
consider multi-project rather as an organization and management form than as a way
to perform tasks. According Engwall the multi-project comprises the perspectives of
the hierarchical levels above the project manager but also the perspective of
multitasking, individual team members, who are engaged in several projects at the
same time.
Fricke & Shenbar (2000) discuss four ideas for management consideration in a
multi-project environment.
1. Project selection.
2. Project classification, priorities, and policies. Anavi-Isakow & Golany (2003)
point out problems related to control mechanisms for multi-project
environments. The need of priorities depends on the fact that many projects
require the same resources at the same time.
3. Resource allocation, which has also been studied by Lova, Maroto &
Tornos, 2000 and Fatemi Ghomi & Ashjari, 2002. Allocation of human
resources has been studied by Hendriks, Voeten & Kroep, 1999.
4. Management skills. Develop management skills is related to knowledge
transfer between projects. A crucial problem relating to management skills,
discussed by Engwall (2001:8), is how knowledge and experiences transfers
between projects. In a multi-project environment it is important to have a
balance between long-term knowledge development of the base organization
and knowledge development at project level.
3. Organizational structures to manage multi-project
environment
Engwall (2001:8) propose two principle ways to organize multi-project
environments; functional structure and matrix structure.
A functional structure is common in civil engineering, movie making, theatres and
software consulting. According Gray & Larson (2003) the project is split up into
different parts that are delegated to the respective functional units and each unit is
responsible for completing its part of the project. When a functional area with
dominant interest in the success of the project, is given the responsibility of
coordinating the project. This can however, according to Gray & Larson, lead to
drawbacks such as; poor integration across functional units, it generally takes longer
to complete projects though this functional arrangement and the motivation of
people assigned to the project can be weak.
3
The other way to organize multi-project environment is in a matrix structure.
According Gray & Larson (2003) matrix arrangements can be designed in a variety of
ways and Söderlund & Bredin (2005) relate that to the classical dilemma concerning
double management and double loyalties. The aim of matrix structure is to balance
the requirements from various functional areas and at the same time give project
managers responsibly to coordinating the project thru organizational boundaries.
According Ljungberg and Larsson (2001) the draw-back of a project matrix is that
power and control of resources often remain in the base organization because this is
permanent, transformation of knowledge and experiences between projects can cause
problems. Managers are often focusing on the differences between projects rather
than the similarities, and there is a risk that the motivation to continuously work
with improvements is not always on top since projects are temporary.
A third alternative to organize multi-project business, discussed by Söderlund &
Bredin (2005), is project oriented organizational structure. In this structure the
individual is primarily member of the project. Unlike the matrix structure the
individual doesn’t belongs to a base organization but often he or she moves from one
project to another. Project managers have the overall responsibility for the project
and control of allocated resources to the project and are also responsible for the
performances. Project work is performed in different specialized functional areas.
Project teams have the right to develop own rules and procedures. As early as 1996
Eskerod (1996) pointed out that many companies used a project oriented
organizational structure. Levy & Globerson point out that most multi-project hightech companies are organized in a matrix structure. Other organizations that use
matrix structure to manage multi-project environment are according Hendriks,
Voeten & Kroep (1999) R&D organizations. In those organizations a common and
important problem is to allocate people to different projects.
We have above given a short recap of common organizational structures to manage
multi-project environments and discussed advantages and limits of each
organizational structure. We agree with Payne (1995) when he concludes that the
potential for improvement in management of simultaneous multiple projects are
significant. The organizational design of the base organization is critical in this aim,
which is also observed by others. Nobeoka & Cusumano (1995) support that in
order to achieve coordination both cross functionally and intra-functionally
simultaneously requires a multi-project perspective. Van Der Merwe (1997) points
out three critical areas in multi-project management where solutions need to be
found - organizational structure, control and prioritization of projects. Fricke &
Shenbar (2000) suggests that future studies in multi-project should focus on
organizational functions. Engwall (2001) attract attention to organizational structure
as a significant issue for future research.
4. Multi project management in process oriented
organizations
In process oriented organizations multi-project environment can be organized firstly
as a whole which means that projects are organized in relation to other projects and
in relation to the base organization and secondly at the operational level where the
projects are planned, organized and carried out. Advantages of process oriented
organizations are the possibilities for management to consider problems concerning
4
capacity, conflicts, commitment, content and complexity related to characteristics of
multi-project environment and at the same time take into account management
considerations concerning project selection, project classification, priorities and
policies, allocating resources and managing the mixture of projects, and the
development of management skills. This paper is focused on management
considerations.
Design of process oriented organization to manage multiproject environment
Process orientation has attracted a steady growth of interest during the 1990-s with
BPR (Business Process Reengineering) as a leading idea. Later studies and practical
implementations have slowly abandoned the strictest reengineering interpretations in
favour of focusing on current processes. (Hammer, 2001)
Characteristics of process orientation that are advantageous in a multi-project
environment are flow orientation, focus on customer, and a comprehensive view on
quality and value added. Another advantage of process orientation is the possibility
for the base organization to delivery results and react faster to novel circumstances. A
further advantage is that process orientation can lead to a reduction of the number of
organizational levels, which will make the management of multi-project environment
easier. Another advantage is that process orientation can facilitate to relate projects to
base organization without loosing focus on the project processes.
Project management processes are usually categorised into core processes, support
processes and management processes (Ljungberg & Larsson, 2001). The base for
classification is customer value. Core processes provide a direct value to the customer.
Examples are; to develop a product, sell, distribute, and produce. Theses processes are
often cross-functional. They are necessary to carry out the project and delivery
project results. Support processes support core processes so that they will be
performing efficiently. Support processes can be found both in projects, i.e. project
documentation, and in a base organization, i.e. administrative processes. The most
efficient set-up in a multi-project environment is that base organization develops
support processes that serve many projects. Management processes can exist for the
whole organization as well as at the project level. Management processes for whole
organization are processes in order to manage the organization through objectives,
strategies, plans and policies. At the project level, management processes has the
function to manage the project life cycle and the development of the project output.
Management processes also has the function to coordinate core processes and support
processes.
Mattsson (1999) distinguish between main processes and sub processes. This
classification is depending on the level of detail. Sub processes are parts of the main
processes. Another classification named by Mattsson is after organizational scope.
Functional processes are processes that run inside one function. Inner-organizational
processes are processes that run through many organizational parts or functions in the
same organization. Intra-organizational processes run across many organizations.
In order to control projects two roles can be defined; he project owner or sponsor,
who is financing the project and the project manager responsible for executing the
5
project. The primary duty of the project owner is to bring visibility to a project and
to maintain a link between the project and the organization as a whole. The project
manager brings project management procedural expertise to the project team. The
project manager guides the project team through the different stages of the project
life cycle by fulfilling the roles of decision maker, facilitator, educator and consultant.
It is the project manager’s responsibility to manage the project across departmental
boundaries. The primary duty of project manager is to carry out the project and
delivery project result according to budget, time and scope.
Strategic management of multi-projects in a process oriented
organization
Dietrich & Lehtonen (2005) discuss how to implement strategies successfully
through projects in order to maintain a competitive edge. Artto & Wikström (2005)
highlighting the strategic importance of projects to the overall business of an
organization bringing the concepts of “business” and “project” together. They suggest
that “projects are part of overall business and a central part of the development,
strategic sight and maintaining of the firm’s competitiveness” (p 349).
One strategic issue in multi-project environment is integration between projects.
Boznak (1988) suggest that multi-project integration can become the key to a
company's productivity. Payne (1995) maintains that integration between projects
has to do both internal interfaces in a multi-project and with interfaces with other
projects. Interfaces are not always directly and immediate but also indirect, for
instance via intermediaries such as common-resources providers. In a multi-project
environment it is important to integrate between projects in order to harvest
synergies, to use common resources etc. Interaction of interfaces between the projects
in the multi-project environment can lead to technical and to economical
compromises, which may satisfy the single project’s requirement but sub-optimise
from a multi-project point of view.
Gray & Larson (2003) discuss integrated management of projects with the overall
strategy and within actual project management. In the first area the focus is on
selection of projects that must support the overall strategy of the organizations. In the
second area the focus is on the project management process that defines how project
will be implemented and delivered.
Fricke & Shenbar (2000) notice differences between success factors in multi-project
environment and success factors in traditional single-project management.
Differences have to do with resource allocation and flexibility. Fricke & Shenbar
point out that factors such as; clear goals, top management support, ownership,
experienced staff, and communication which are important in the management of a
single project also are significant in the management of multi-projects. They find that
factors such as ownership, staff experience and communication, division and
assignment of resources, prioritization and customized management style, take on
additional dimensions in multi-project environment as compared to single project
management. Factors such as client acceptance and troubleshooting, technical issues
that are affecting either the success or failure of a project are not affecting the success
or failure of multi-projects.
6
Multi-project
environment
Management considerations
Strategic Issues
Project selection
Project visibility
Project portfolio
Fit between projects
Success factors
Project classification,
priorities and policies
Project integration
Project visibility
Success factors
Allocating resources and
managing the project mix
Project integration
Project portfolio
Developing organizational
skills
Develop competencies to manage
interactions between projects
Develop competencies to manage project
portfolios in multi-project environment
Develop competencies to manage project
visibility in multi-project environment
Develop competencies to manage success
factors to carry out projects in multiproject environment
Figure 1. Strategic issues in multi-project environments.
Figure 1 summarizes a statement of process-oriented organization to manage multiproject environment from a strategic point of view. The figure relates strategic issues
to management considerations in a multi-project environment. Analysis of strategic
issues concerning integration between projects, such as; project portfolio, project
visibility and success factors, involves capturing the process dynamics of a multiproject environment. The analysis also requires understanding of the complexity of a
multi-project environment both from the functional department perspective and
from single project perspective. The combination of the responsibilities of the project
owner and the project manager provides a platform for a delicate balancing act.
Firstly balancing functional authority and project authority and secondly balancing
the long-terms objectives of the base organization’s functional departments with the
more short-terms objectives of the projects.
Operational management of multi-projects in a Process oriented
organization
A process oriented organization focuses, from an operational point of view, on
management and control of a multi-project environment. Management and control
are more related to operational issues rather than strategic. The first advantage of a
process-oriented organization is that a multi-project environment is dynamic instead
of stable and predictable. The other advantage is that it encourages engagement and
commitment in project teams and action by project management instead of topdown decision-making.
Fundamental in process orientation is performance measurement. Bryde (2005)
suggest that in order to manage a multidimensional framework of performance
measurement systems and key performance indicators it is necessary to consider and
balance various stakeholders’ perspectives. Bryde notice also that a framework of
7
performance measurement systems and key performance indicators must consider the
difference between project management success and project success. Ljungberg &
Larsson (2001) suggest that objectives of every activity must be decided and how to
measure the fulfilment of the objectives must be specified. Measures can be financial,
such as; cost and return on investment, as well as non-financial, such as; quality,
competence and innovation. The selection of specific measures must take into
consideration the type of process, project classification, project visibility,
organizational responsibilities and the circumstances of multi-project environment.
Nilsson & Ford (2004) develops the comprehensive Intellectual Potential framework
for process based project measurements based on Kaplan & Norton’s (1996)
Balanced Scorecard, Edvinsson and Malone’s (1997) Intellectual Capital and
Barney’s (1994) Resource Based View.
Figure 2 summarize management of multi-project in a process-oriented organization
from an operational point of view. The focus on operational level results in
management considerations concerning project classification, priorities, policies and
considerations concerning resource allocation and managing the project mix.
Multi-project
environment
Management
considerations
Operational Issues
Project selection
Performance measurement
Project classification,
priorities and policies
Managing and control links to organizational
structure (project owner and project
managers)
Performance measurement
Allocating resources and
managing the project mix
Performance measurement
Rationalization
Dependencies analysis
Control and following up
Multi-project tools
Developing organizational
skills
Rationalization
Develop competencies and skills to manage
and control the operational businesses in
multi-project environment
Figure 2. Operational issues in multi-project environments.
5. Conclusions and further research
The first fundamental ground for this paper is that the characteristics of a multiproject environment lead to issues concerning capacity, conflicts, commitment,
context and complexity. The second fundamental ground is that in a multi-project
environment management has to take into consideration; project selection, project
classification, priorities and policies, allocating resources, managing the project mix
and develop management skills. We take the organizational structure of a multiproject environment as the analytical starting point to propose and discuss process
oriented organization as an effective way to manage a multi-project environment.
8
Process oriented organizations provide possibilities to organize and manage project
processes both at single project level and multi-projects. Crucial in this work is to
classify project processes. Organizational roles such as; project owner and project
manager are important to organize the interdependencies between projects and
between projects and the base organization. Strategic considerations as well as
operational considerations must be taken into account. Based on the discussion in
this article same practical recommendations can be made.
A practical recommendation is to identify and visualize processes and the interaction
between them. This is the starting point to classify, organize and improve project
processes in order to shape the management of multi-project environment in an
effective way. Another recommendation is that organizational roles such as; project
owner and project manager allow the organization to integrate projects with each
other and align with the overall objectives and strategy of the organization. The third
recommendation is that successful organization of multi-project environment
assumes; integration between projects, development and management of project
portfolios, making each project visible and identification and communication of
success factors to carry out projects in a multi-project environment.
The data of this study is not enough to extensive conclusions (other than the practical
recommendations above). More research in this area is needed. A limiting factor is
the lack of empirical material concerning how process oriented organization match
different kind of projects and different multi-project environment should thus be
further penetrated. More empirical research is need on how process orientation is
related to organizational structures such as matrix structures. Future research can
focus the following topics:
Organizations have different ways to organize and manage multi-project
environment. Benchmark oriented studies can shed some light on which
organizational structures are used by different organizations to manage multi-project
environment. Several focus points are possible; one study could focus on project
visibility in a multi-project environment while another study could focus on how
questions related to project portfolio can be managed in process oriented
organization.
Another research area is to study multi-project management process in order to
analyze the type and amount of project related activities for which the project
management process is suitable and workable. A study could focus on analysing the
relationship between multi-project environment and management processes suitable
for project portfolios in multi-project environment in comparison with single
projects in the same business area such as for instance telecommunication or the
pharmaceutical industry.
9
References
Abdomerovic M. and Blakemore G. Project process interactions. International Journal of
Project Management, 2002, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 315-323.
Anavi-Isakow S., and Golany, B. Managing multi-project environment through constant
work-in-process. International Journal of Project Management, 2003, Vol. 21, No.
1, pp. 9-18.
Artto K. A. and Wikström K.: What is project business? International Journal of Project
Management, 2005, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 343-353.
Barney, J. B., Bringing managers back in: a resource-based analysis of the role of managers in
creating and sustaining competitive advantage. In J.B. Barney, J.C. Spender & T.
Reve (Eds.), Does management matter? On competencies and competitive
advantage. (pp. 1-36). Lund, Sweden: Institute of Economic Research, 1994.
Boznak R. G.: Project management-today’s solution for complex project engineering.
Engineering Management conference, 1988. Engineering Leadership in the 90`s,
1988, pp. 19-26.
Bryde D. J.: Methods for Managing Different Perspectives of Project Success. British Journal
of Management, 2005, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 119-131.
Bryde D. J.: Establishing a project organization and a project-management process for
telecommunications project management. International Journal of Project
Management, 1995, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 25-31.
Chan K. C. C., Chung L. M. L.: Integrating Process and Project Management for Multi-Site
Software Development. Annals of Software Engineering, 2002, Vol. 14, No. 1-4,
pp. 115-143.
Dietrich P. and Lehtonen P.: Successful management of strategic intentions through
multiple projects – Reflections from empirical study. International Journal of
Project Management, 2005, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 386-391.
Dooley L., Lupton G. and O'Sullivan D.: Multiple project management: a modern
competitive necessity. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 2005,
Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 466-482.
Edvinsson, L. & Malone, M. S., Intellectual Capital – The Proven way to Establish your
Company’s Real Value By Measuring its Hidden Brainpower. New York:
HarperBusiness, 1997.
Eskerod P.: Meaning and action in a multi-project environment. Understanding a multiproject environment by means of metaphors and basic assumptions. International
Journal of Project Management, 1996, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 61-65.
Engwall M.: Multi-project Management: Effects, Issues and Propositions for future Research.
Fenix Working Paper Series WP 2001:6, Stockholm School of Economics,
Stockholm.
Engwall M.: Moving Out of Plato’s Cave: Toward a Multi-Project Perspective on Project
Organizing. Fenix Working Paper Series WP 2001:8, Stockholm School of
Economics, Stockholm.
Fatemi Ghomi S. M. T. and Ashjari B.: A simulation model for multi-project resource
allocation. International Journal of Project Management, 2002, Vol. 20, No. 2,
pp. 127-130.
10
Fricke S. E. and Shenbar A. J.: Managing multiple engineering projects in a manufacturing
support environment. Engineering Management, 2000, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 258268.
Gray C. F. and Larson Erik W: Project Management: The managerial process. Mc GrawHill/Irwin, 2003
Hammer, M., The Agenda. London: Business Books, 2001.
Hendriks M., Voeten B., and Kroep L.: Human resource allocation in a multi-project
environment – Resource capacity allocation and project portfolio planning in
practice. International Journal of Project Management, 1999, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.
181-188.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P., Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management
System, Harvard Business Review, 1996, Vol. 74, No. 1, Jan-Feb., pp. 75-85.
Lee B. and Miller J.: Multi-project software Engineering Analysis Using System Thinking.
Software Process Improvement and Practice 2004:9, p 173-214.
Levy N. and Globerson S.: Improving multi-project management by using a queuing theory
approach. Industrial Project Management, 1997, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 40-47.
Ljungberg A. and Larsson E.: Processbaserad verksamhetsutveckling. Lund, Studentlitteratur
2001.
Lova A., Maroto C. and Tornos: A multicriteria heuristic method to improve resource
allocation in multi-project scheduling. European Journal of Operational Research,
2000, Vol. 127, No. 2, pp. 408-424.
Mattsson S-A.: Effektivisering av materialflöden i supply chains. Institutet för
Transportekonomi och logistik, Växjö 1999.
Meredith J. R., Mantel S. J. JR.: Project Management A managerial Approach. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 1995.
Nilsson A.: Projektledning i korta projekt Observationer av projektledares arbete i multiprojektmiljö. Handelshögskolan vid Umeå universitet, Institutionen för
företagsekonomi, FE-publikationer 2004:174.
Nilsson, C-H. & Ford, D., Introducing Intellectual Potential – the Case of Alfa Laval,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2004, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 414-425.
Nobeoka K. and Cusumano M. A.: Multi-projects strategy, design transfer, and projects
performance: a survey of automobile development projects in the US and Japan.
Engineering Management, 1995, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 397-409
Payne J. H.: Management of multiple simultaneous projects: a state-of-the-art review.
International Journal of Project Management, 1995, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 163-168.
Rautiainen K., Nissinen M., and Lassenius C.: Improving Multi-Project Management in
rd
Two Product Development Organizations. Proceedings of the 33 Hawaii
International Conference on System Science -2000.
Shenbar A. J.: A two dimensional construct model for the classification of technical projects.
Engineering Management Conference, 1992. Managing a Global Environment,
1992 IEEE International, pp. 184-189
Shtub A., Bard J. F., Globerson Shlomo: Project Management Engineering, technology and
implementation. Prentice Hall International Editions 1995.
Söderlund J.: Projektledning & projektkompetens - Perspektiv på konkurrenskraft. Malmö,
Liber 2005.
11
Söderlund J. and Bredin K.: Perspektiv på HRM - nya organisationsformer, nya utmaningar.
Malmö, Liber 2005.
Van Der Merwe A. P.: Multi-project management-organizational structure and control.
International Journal of Project Management, 1997, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 223-233.
Willoughby K. A.: Process improvement in project expediting: there must be a better way.
International Journal of Project Management, 2005, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 231-236.
12
School of Economics and Management
Lund University
Working Paper Series
Editors: Hans Landström & Ulf Elg
Year
No Author
Title
2006
10
Johan Anselmsson
Ulf Johansson
2006
9
Anna Jonsson
Thomas Kalling
Innovation in the competition between retailer and manufacturer
brands – An examination of new-product releases in the Swedish
grocery sector
Challenges to knowledge sharing across national and intraorganizational boundaries: A comparison of IKEA and SCA
Packaging
2006
8
Nikos Macheridis
Carl-Henric Nilsson
Management of Multi-projects In a Process Oriented
Organization
2006
2006
7
6
Project selection from an ethical point of view
Unpacking the Client(s): Constructions, Positions and ClientConsultant Dynamics
2006
5
2006
4
2006
3
2006
2
2006
1
Nichos Macheridis
Mats Alvesson
Dan Kärreman
Andres Sturdy
Karen Handley
Diamanto Politis
Jonas Gabrielsson
Johan Anselmsson
Ulf Johansson
Niklas Persson
Mats Alvesson
Laura Empson
Martin Fougère
Agneta Moulettes
Johan Anselmsson
2005
9
2005
8
2005
7
2005
6
El-Ansary, Adel
Cerne, Annette
Elg, Ulf
2005
5
Svensson, Peter
Sveningsson, Stefan
Larsson, Magnus
Norén, Catharina
Entrepreneurial Decision Making: Examining Preferences for
Causal and Effectual Reasoning in the New Creation Process.
A conceptual framework for understanding Customer-based
brand equity and price premium in grocery categories
The Construction of Organizational Identity: Comparative Case
Studies of Consulting Firms
Development and Modernity in Hofstede´s Culture´s
Consequences: A Postcolonial Reading
Customer perceived service quality in the supermarket and the
discount store – Examination of a service quality measurement
scale in a Swedish context
Fantasies of leadership - identity work
The Social Construction of Successful Practical Selling - A study
of how sales persons at CR Ltd construct selling as successful
An Integrative Framework for Evolving A Socially Responsible
Marketing Strategy
A study of inter-firm market orientation dimensions in Swedish,
British and Italian supplier-retailer relationships
The Survival of the Unfittest: Delinquent corporations and the
production of organisational legitimacy through symbolicdiscursive fit.
2005
4
2005
3
2005
2
2005
1
2004
10
2004
9
2004
8
2004
7
2004
6
2004
5
2004
4
2004
3
2004
2
2004
1
2003
2003
10
9
2003
8
2003
7
2003
6
2003
5
2003
4
2003
3
Erlingsdottír,
Gudbjörg
Lindberg, Kajsa
Sanchez, Ron
Tarnovskaya,
Veronika
Elg, Ulf
Burt, Steve
Politis, Diamanto
Gabrielsson, Jonas
Braunerhjelm, Pontus
Oxelheim, Lars
Thulin, Per
Alvesson, Mats
Hardy, Cynthia
Harley, Bill
Andrén, Niclas
Jankensgård, Håkan
Oxelheim, Lars
Macheridis, Nikos
Nilsson, Carl-Henric
Stafsudd, Anna
Elg, Ulf
Jonnergård, Karin
Bengtsson, Anders
Elg, Ulf
Ghauri, Pervez
Sinkovics, Rudolf R.
Macheridis, Nikos
Holmqvist, Mikael
Larsson, Rikard
Dedijer, Stevan
Jonnergård, Karin
Kärreman, Mats
Svensson, Claes
Alvesson, Mats
Kärreman, Dan
Forsbæck, Jens
Oxelheim, Lars
Kärreman, Dan
Alvesson, Mats
Alvesson, Mats
Sveningsson, Stefan
Oxelheim, Lars
Rafferty, Michael
Schewe, Charles
Carlson, Benny
Isomorphism, Isopraxism and Isonymism - Complementary or
Competing Processes?
Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning:
Fundamental Concepts for Theory and Practice
The Role of Corporate Branding in a Market Driving Strategy
Exploring the Role of Experience in The Process of
Entrepreneurial Learning
The Relationship Between Domestic and Outward Foreign
Direct Investment: The Role of Industry-Specific Effects
Reflecting on Reflexive Practices in Organization and
Management Theory
Exposure-Based Cash-Flow-at-Risk under Macroeconomic
Uncertainty
Managing Project Complexity - a managerial view
The (Non-)Significance of Quantitative Management Research:
The Demise of Popper in View of a Hypothesis-Verifying
Publication Norm.
Societal, Organizational and Individual Factors Influencing
Women´s Entry to Professional Organizations
Exploring the Symbolic Dimension of Co-Branding: When
Hershey Met Betty
A market and network based model for retailers´ foreign entry
strategies
The Specific Costing Problems of Project Form – How those can
be managed with activity based costing
Interlevel Learning Dynamics: Balancing Exploitation and
Exploration Within and Between Organizations
Development & Intelligence 2003-2053
The impact of changes in the corporate governance system on the
boards of directors – experiences from Swedish companies
Collectivity –a cultural and processual view
Do Exchange-Rate Regimes Matter for Monetary-Policy
Autonomy? The Experiences of 11 Small, Open European
Economies in the 1980s and 1990s
Understanding ethical closure in organizational settings - the case
of media organizations
Managers Doing Leadership: The extra-ordinarization of the
Mundane
The quality of bond markets. The dynamic efficiency issue
Age Matters. Segmenting Swedish Markets by Generational
Cohorts
2003
2
2003
1
2002
2002
5
4
2002
3
Noble, Stephanie M.
Schewe, Charles D.
Sveningsson, Stefan
Alvesson, Mats
Landström, Hans
Oxelheim, Lars
Randøy, Trond
Kalling, Thomas
2002
2
Alvesson, Mats
2002
1
Johansson, Ulf
2001
9
2001
8
2001
7
2001
6
Hedman, Jonas
Kalling, Thomas
Andrén, Niclas
Oxelheim, Lars
Oxelheim, Lars
Rafferty, Michael
Elg, Ulf
2001
5
Stavsudd, Anna
2001
2001
4
3
Johansson, Ulf
Johansson, Ulf
2001
2
Alvesson, Mats
Willmott, Hugh
2001
1
Oxelheim, Lars
Randøy, Trond
2000
9
Oxelheim, Lars
Wihlborg, Claes
2000
8
Elg, Ulf
2000
7
Alvesson, Mats
Due-Billing, Yvonne
2000
6
Alvesson, Mats
2000
5
Sveningsson, Stefan
2000
4
2000
3
Larsson, R
Lubatkin, M
Henriksson, K
The Globalization of Values. A Comparison of the United States
and the Kingdom of Jordan
Managing Managerial Identities. Organizational Fragmentation
Discourse and Identity Struggle
Why do European Venture Capital Companies Syndicate?
The Effect of Internationalization on CEO-Compensation
Enterprise Resource Planning Systems: Strategic and
Organisational Processes.
‘Up-or-out’ versus ‘Fun-and-profit’: A Study of Personnel
Concepts and HR Themes in two IT/Management Consulting
Firms.
Information Technology in Supplier-Retailer Relationships.
Some Possible Consequences
The Business Model: A Means to Understand the Business
Context of Information and Communication Technology
Exchange-Rate and Interest-Rate Driven Competitive
Advantages in the EMU.
On the Static Efficiency of Secondary Bond Markets.
Market Orientation in Retailing: An Approach Based on Interand Intra-Firm Activities
Managers in the Context of Strategic Content – Industrial
Organization Theory and Resource-Based view Predictions for
the Selection of Managers
Food Retail Buying Processes. A Study of UK, Italy and Sweden
Retail Buying; Process, Information and IT use. A Conceptual
Framework
Identity Regulation as Organizational Control: Producing the
Appropriate Individual (published in Journal of Management
Studies, Vol 39 (5): pp 619-644, 2002)
The Impact of Foreign Board Membership on Firm Value:
A Study of Corporate Governance in Scandinavia. (Forthcoming
in Journal of Banking and Finance
Recognizing Macroeconomic Fluctuations in Value Based
Management. (Forthcoming in Journal of Applied Corporate
Finance.)
The Meaning and Antecedents of Market Orientation in a
Distribution Network
Beyond Body-counting - a Discussion of the Social Construction
of Gender at Work, with the Scandinavian Public Sector as an
Example.
Knowledge Work: Ambiguity, Image and Identity (Published in
Human Relations,vol 54 (7): pp 863-886, 2001)
Strategy as a Disciplinary Technology. Discursive Engineering in
the Newspaper World
Achieving Acculturation in Mergers and Acquisitions: A Case
Survey Study
When Communities of Practice Came to Town. On Culture and
Contradiction in Emerging Theories of Organizational Learning.
2000
2
Eneroth, K
Malm, Allan, T
2000
1
Alvesson, Mats
Johansson, Anders W
1999
5
Elg, Ulf
Johansson, Ulf
1999
4
Alvesson, Mats
1999
3
Alvesson, Mats
1999
2
1999
1
Pushkala, Prasad,
Birdsell, Judith M
Zerbe, Wilfred
Oxelheim, Lars,
Stonehill, Arthur
Randøy, Trond
Strategic Identity. Visions as Catalysts for Competence
Dynamics (published in Advances in Applied Business Strategy,
vol 6A (2000) pp: 121-146)
Professionalism and Politics in Management Consultancy Work
(forthcoming in T Clark & R Fincham (eds): Critical
Consulting: Perspectives on the Management Advice Industry.
Oxford: Blackwell)
The Contributions of International Alliances when Managing the
Firm’s Set of Interorganizational Dependencies. (Published in
the Journal of Strategic Marketing, 9 pp 93-110 2001)
Methodology for Close up Studies. Struggling with Closeness
and Closure
Beyond Neo-Positivists, Romantics and Localists. A Reflexive
Approach to Interviews in Organization Research
Translated Myths: The Mirroring of Institutional Expectations
in the Formal Structure of the Canadian Breast Cancer Research
Initiative (CBCRI)
Finance-Specific Factors and Theories of Foreign Direct
Investment (Published in International Business Review, Vol. 10,
(4), 2001)
Working papers are published and distributed as a professional service of the Institute of
Economic Research. Direct inquiries to:
Elsbeth Andersson
Institute of Economic Research
P.O. Box 7080
SE-220 07 Lund, Sweden
Tel: +46 46-222 7824,
Fax +46 46-222 44 37
E-mail: Elsbeth.Andersson@fek.lu.se
You can also find the working paper series on our home page (pdf-format):
http://www.lri.lu.se