外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯--商業(yè)戰(zhàn)略對(duì)項(xiàng)目組合管理及項(xiàng)目組合成功影響的一個(gè)理論框架（英文）

1、The influence of business strategy on project portfolio management and its success — A conceptual frameworkSascha Meskendahl ?Technische Universität Berlin, Chair for Technology and Innovation Management, GermanyRec

2、eived 12 March 2010; received in revised form 25 June 2010; accepted 29 June 2010AbstractFirms are facing more difficulties with the implementation of strategies than with its formulation. Therefore, this paper examines

3、the linkage between business strategy, project portfolio management, and business success to close the gap between strategy formulation and implementation. Earlier research has found some supporting evidence of a positiv

4、e relationship between isolated concepts, but so far there is no coherent and integral framework covering the whole cycle from strategy to success. Therefore, the existing research on project portfolio management is exte

5、nded by the concept of strategic orientation. Based on a literature review, a comprehensive conceptual model considering strategic orientation, project portfolio structuring, project portfolio success, and business succe

6、ss is developed. This model can be used for future empirical research on the influence of strategy on project portfolio management and its success. Furthermore, it can easily be extended e.g. by contextual factors. ©

7、; 2010 Elsevier Ltd. and IPMA. All rights reserved.Keywords: Project portfolio management; Strategic orientation; Strategy implementation; Project portfolio success1. IntroductionAccording to Mankins and Steele (2005), f

8、irms realize only 63% of their strategies' potential value and Johnson (2004) reports that 66% of corporate strategy is never implemented. While strategy implementation – frequently considered as the graveyard of str

9、ategy (Grundy, 1998) – was neglected, the main emphasis in strategy research has been on the formulation side of strategies (Grundy, 1998; Morris and Jamieson, 2005). But as Hrebiniak (2006) states, it is more difficult

10、to make strategy work than to make strategy. This is where project portfolio management comes into play. Shenhar et al. (2001) emphasize that projects and especially project portfolios are “powerful strategic weapons” as

11、 they can be considered as a central building block in implementing the intended strategy (Cleland, 1999; Dietrich and Lehtonen, 2005; Grundy, 2000). Project portfolio management – defined as the simultaneous management

12、of the whole collection of projects as one largeentity – is therefore gaining more and more importance in theory and practice (Artto and Dietrich, 2004; Dietrich and Lehtonen, 2005; Patanakul and Milosevic, 2009). A proj

13、ect portfolio is a set of projects that share and compete for scarce resources and are carried out under the sponsorship and management of a particular organisation (Archer and Ghasem- zadeh, 1999). The coordinated manag

14、ement of a portfolio delivers increased benefits to the organisation (Platje et al., 1994). Current literature highlights the importance of project portfolio management in evaluating, prioritizing, and selecting projects

15、 in line with strategy (e.g. Archer and Ghasemzadeh, 2004; Cooper et al., 2001; Englund and Graham, 1999). It is pre-eminent in choosing the “right projects” and therefore an important part of strategic management in org

16、anisations (Morris and Jamieson, 2005; Shenhar et al., 2001). So far, there are a few studies exploring single aspects of the linkage between strategy, project portfolio management, and business success. Müller et a

17、l. (2008) show the positive relation between strategy conform portfolio selection and project portfolio performance. A few other studies found project prioritization as part of the portfolio management process to be a ke

18、y success factor (e.g. Cooper et al., 1999; Elonen and Artto, 2003; Fricke et al., 2000). Again, other studies observed aAvailable online at www.sciencedirect.comInternational Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 807–

19、817www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman? Tel.: +49 30 314 28337. E-mail address: sascha.meskendahl@tim.tu-berlin.de.0263-7863/$ - see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. and IPMA. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijprom

20、an.2010.06.0072.1.1. Average single project success Most research in project management literature still focuses on the single project level (Artto et al., 2009) and limits its attention to the success criteria of budget

21、, schedule, and quality compliance (Shenhar et al., 2001; Shenhar and Levy, 1997). However, more and more research takes on a wider project perspective going beyond this “iron triangle” (Atkinson, 1999) in assessing the

22、project success (Artto and Wikstrom, 2005; Dietrich and Lehtonen, 2005; Engwall and Jerbrant, 2003; Söderlund, 2004). Several additional project success criteria, especially covering the fulfilment of customer and m

23、arket needs, have been proposed (Dvir et al., 1998; Griffin and Page, 1996; Shenhar et al., 2001). Martinsuo and Lehtonen (2007) documented in their study that project management with a broader set of success criteria ha

24、s a strong and significant effect on project portfolio efficiency. Therefore, the average success over all projects within the portfolio forms the first dimension of project portfolio success. The often used success crit

25、eria of delivering projects on time, within budget, and to specifications (Pinto and Prescott, 1988; Shenhar et al., 2001) are extended by the customer satisfaction dimension. Furthermore, the average compliance with per

26、for- mance objectives, target costs, and target quality is taken into account as this reflects the projects fulfilment of product specifications (e.g. Griffin and Page, 1996).2.1.2. Use of synergies According to Platje e

27、t al. (1994) the coordinated manage- ment of all projects within a portfolio delivers benefits beyond the results of independently managed projects. This wider view of project management is shared by several other studie

28、s (Cooper and Edgett, 2003; Engwall and Jerbrant, 2003; Martinsuo and Lehtonen, 2007; Patanakul and Milosevic, 2009). Although these additional benefits are often not put into practice due to complexity of the numerous i

29、nterdepen- dencies within the portfolio, it is worth the efforts to reduce double work and enhance synergies regarding technologies, marketing, knowledge and resources (Loch and Kavadias, 2002; Verma and Sinha, 2002). Zi

30、rger and Maidique (1990) for instance show in their research that product success increases if a firm's competencies are already considered during the initiation of new projects. Meta-analyses by Henard and Szymanski

31、 (2001) as well as Pattikawa et al. (2006) proved that the use of market and technology synergies is positively related to the success of projects. Kaplan and Norton (2006) emphasize the importance of synergies from a co

32、rporate strategy perspective. Therefore, the second dimension of project portfolio success constitutes the use of technical and market synergies between projects within the portfolio.2.1.3. Strategic fit Research on fit

33、or alignment has been examined by different areas in management literature (Srivannaboon and Milosevic, 2006). The concept of strategic fit originally stems from organizational research with the central proposition that

34、perfor- mance of an organization is the result of fit between two or morefactors such as strategy, structure, technology or environment (Bergeron et al., 2001; Schoonhoven, 1981). Therefore, the strategic fit of the proj

35、ect portfolio describes the degree to which the sum of all projects reflects the business strategy. Despite the acceptance of strategic fit asone of the major objectives of portfolio management, the literature on it is l

36、imited (Srivannaboon and Milosevic, 2006). Coulon et al. (2009) constitute that firms with a qualitatively high portfolio management achieve a higher level of strategic alignment. Resource allocation according to the fir

37、m's objectives (Chao et al., 2009; Hendriks and Voeten, 1999; Kaplan and Norton, 2005) and gap analyses between actual and intended state to take corrective actions are identified as fundamental aspects within strate

38、gy implementation (Artto and Dietrich, 2004). Hence, portfolio management has to achieve an optimal alignment of projects to each other and should only pursue projects that are in line with the business strategy. Still,

39、there is not much literature on a theoretical construct strategic fit for project portfolios. This study basically follows the concept of strategic fit byDietrich and Lehtonen (2005). The dimension assesses the alignment

40、 of project objectives with strategy, the alignment of resources with strategy, and the degree to which the portfolio reflects the overall strategy.2.1.4. Portfolio balance The idea of a balanced portfolio is based on mo

41、dern portfolio theory by Markowitz (1952, 1991). This theory has been adapted by strategic management literature in the 1970s, where different approaches were introduced by several management consultancies. Applied to pr

42、oject management the desired combination of projects is a balanced portfolio that enables a firm to achieve its objectives without being exposed to unreasonable risk (Mikkola, 2001). According to project management liter

43、ature, a portfolio has to be balanced along a range of dimensions to provide the best value to the organisation (Archer and Ghasemzadeh, 1999; Cooper et al., 2002; Killen et al., 2008). However, there is no consistent co

44、nvention on the dimension to cover. According to Chao and Kavadias (2008) and Chao et al. (2009) success for project portfolios on new product developments requires the balancing between short-term benefits from incremen

45、tal improvements of existing products and long-term benefits achieved through radically new products and services. Killen et al. (2008) constitute project type, risk level, and resource adequacy as criteria for balancing

46、 the portfolio. Archer and Ghasemzadeh (1999) point out the relevance of the dimensions project size and short term versus long term projects. Many of the criteria named in literature are not independent of each other, e

47、.g. long- term projects normally come along with a bigger project size or innovative projects implicate a higher risk, so that the dimensions have to be adjusted to the area of application. In this study, portfolio balan

48、cing considers the constant utilization of resources along the project execution as well as the constant generation of cash flow (Killen et al., 2008; Mikkola, 2001). Moreover, the risk level and the balance between new