Conference Papers

A benefits-focussed process of step-wise refinement from strategic objectives through Benefits Models to implementation via projects can be achieved by integrating the Balanced Scorecard approach with the Benefits Model component of the Managing Successful Programmes (MSP) method. This will increase the effectiveness of the strategic project portfolio and improve the confidence of business sponsors that their investment in projects will return benefits that they perceive to be of value. Replacing Strategy Maps with Benefits Models means that a single tool is used to bridge the gap between strategy definition and implementation planning. Benefits Models can be encoded with the four perspectives of the Balanced Scorecard approach to ensure that benefits and initiatives are balanced across the perspectives This paper was presented at the 3rd International Conference on Project Management on 29 September 2006, in Sydney, Australia

This paper argues that for PMOs to continue to evolve, to remain relevant and valuable to senior management, they must follow advances in program management into the strategic level. If program management is regarded as an executive level process, then PMOs must be seen as valuable to these executives, whose primary needs include business continuity across periods of change and the delivery of real and measurable returns from their investments in programs and projects. The role of PMOs in maintenance of business-as-usual, termination of non-performing projects and benefits realisation is explored. A model of the strategy implementation process is analysed with respect to historical and possible future roles of PMOs. Current PMO configurations emerge from the model, and possible future configurations are predicted. For example, one possibility is that enterprise-level PMOs will merge over time with the organisational units responsible for capturing and monitoring metrics associated with the Balanced Scorecard approach to tracking achievement of strategic objectives – a Value Management Office. This paper was presented at the Australian Institute of Project Management National Conference, 7-10 October 2007, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

This paper reports on a detailed comparison of the PMBoK (3rd Edition) and PRINCE2:2005 (Release 4), which compares the two methods in a number of ways: the major features of each method; the impact of each method on various stakeholders; and the approaches of each method to a selection of issues of importance to project managers. The number of similarities seems to have increased since the previous versions were released.
However, several critical differences remain. Firstly, in the externalities of projects, namely governance, project context and benefits, PRINCE2 is seen to provide guidance and effective controls to those who are responsible for governing projects, about which the PMBoK is silent. The PRINCE2 requirement for a single point of accountability, the supporting roles of Senior User and Senior Supplier, and the concepts of planning horizons, stages and tolerance around estimates, and Work Packages are clearly valuable. Secondly, with respect to the project manager’s role, the PMBoK is seen as being more expansive in certain knowledge areas and more prescriptive in terms of activities to be undertaken. The PMBoK provides greater guidance and support for project managers in their day-to-day roles.
So, the PMBoK and PRINCE2 methods are better regarded as the yin and yang of project management, different but complementary, and not incompatible. Their remaining differences make each attractive to different stakeholder groups. The best approach? In the Taoist philosophy, yin and yang are complementary aspects of the same whole. So, why choose just one, when you actually need both, and sometimes more.
This paper was presented at the Australian Institute of Project Management National Conference, 7-10 October 2007, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

There are many parallels between investment portfolio management and project portfolio management. If enterprise project portfolio managers applied approaches derived from investment portfolio management to their enterprise project portfolio, then better decisions about allocation of scarce resources would be made.
This paper will show how common approaches and techniques applied by professional share traders to manage their investment portfolios can be applied to enterprise project portfolio management.
This paper was presented at the 5th Annual Project Management Australia Conference (PMOz2008), 18-20 August 2008, Melbourne, Australia

Today’s business environment demands shorter time to market for new products and services along with early benefit realisation. In an effort to meet demand, project teams are realising that success can only be achieved through a more collaborative approach and a willingness to commence without a detailed understanding of requirements. Clients often don't know what is required to achieve a business objective until they actually see a working prototype, which may then have to be rapidly adjusted to the clients’ emerging understanding. To enable a client to attain the maximum return on investment in every product development, there must be an acceptance of change throughout the life cycle of a project. In fact, the complexity and uncertainty associated with such emergent projects may mean that a final set of requirements may not be known until the end of the project. This paper is the result of a collaboration between an experienced PRINCE2 project manager and trainer and a qualified coach and trainer in the Scrum method, in analysing the application of PRINCE2 and Scrum in an actual project environment. We provide an analysis of those areas where conscious decisions appropriate to each project and each organisation will have to be made. The careful and tailored application of Scrum and PRINCE2 can create a synergy that results in a dynamic yet controlled product development environment. This paper was presented at the Australian Institute of Project Management National Conference, 13-15 October 2008, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Not-for-profit organisations have just as great a need for improved project delivery as other organisations, but face a number of additional challenges that commercial organisations do not face. Presented at the 6th Annual Project Management Conference (PMOz2009), 10-12 August 2009, Canberra

This paper reports on a detailed comparison of the latest versions of the PMBoK (4th edition) and PRINCE2:2009 (Release 5). The two methods are compared in a number of ways: the authority attached to each, their underpinning philosophies, the major features of each method; the approaches of each method to a selection of issues of importance to project managers, the impact of each method on other key project stakeholders; the usefulness of each method to organisations; the recognition of accreditation in each method and supporting materials.
With respect to the role of an individual project manager, the overlap between the methods seems to have increased since the previous versions were released. While PRINCE2’s guidance in several knowledge areas (communications and quality) is superior, and its guidance in several other aspects such as risk analysis and estimating has improved, the PMBoK’s guidance in most other technical knowledge areas is deeper.
There are several critical differences between the methods. Firstly, PRINCE2 provides valuable guidance relating to the externalities of projects, namely governance and benefits, about which the PMBoK is silent, such as how to establish an effective project governance structure and the use of the Business Case as the primary control over the life of the project. Other differences, such as the PRINCE2 requirement for role clarity for everyone involved in a project, the project assurance function, the concepts of management stages and tolerance around estimates and Product Descriptions, are also valuable concepts for organisations. Finally, PRINCE2’s guidance to team managers in areas such as work packages and quality, about which the PMBoK remains almost silent, is another key difference.
While PRINCE2 remains a better choice as the basis for an organisational project management method, the two methods are better regarded as complementary, and not incompatible. Their remaining differences make each attractive to different stakeholder groups.
This paper was presented at the OGC Conference, 14 September 2009, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Many organisations appear to experience difficulty in extracting maximum organisational value from investments in projects, particularly but not exclusively in areas such as IT. Research, experience and anecdotal evidence suggest that poor project governance is widespread. This is despite the fact that historical evidence should have indicated to those in corporate governance the need for more effective project governance from the outset in many projects.
One reason for such negative outcomes for organisations appears to be an emphasis on the technical, financial and scheduling aspects of projects rather than emphasis on ensuring that required business outcomes will be achieved and organisational value realised. Another is that many of those appointed to project governance roles are ill prepared.
In many cases, projects are not subject to adequate oversight and guidance by senior business managers. The achievement of business value is enhanced through active participation of senior business managers in the governance of projects from initiation to realisation of benefits, particularly through their involvement in project decision making and promotion of the organizational change necessary to achieve anticipated business value.
This paper first reviews the guidance available on project governance, then discusses possible approaches to professionalising and supporting those governing projects and programmes, including emerging accreditation options.
This paper was presented at the PMOz 2010 Project Management Conference, 25 August 2010, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia