Milosevic, D. y Srivannaboon, S. (agosto, 2008).
A theoretical framework for aligning project
management with business strategy. Project Management Journal, 37 (3) pp. 98-110. (AR22865)
A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR
ALIGNING PROJECT MANAGEMENT
WITH BUSINESS STRATEGY
~BSTRAC!)
This study addresses two aspects of a
topic under·researched in the strategic
management literature: the alignment of
project management and business strat·
egy. Two areas of this alignment were
studied: (1) The reciproca! lnfluence
between project management and busl·
ness strategy, which we ca Uthe nature of
the project management/business strat·
egy alignment¡ and {2) the process used
to allgn project management and busi·
ness strategy. Then an empirically based
theoretical framework, which highlights
the impact of business strategy on proj-
ect management-and the impact of
project management on business strate·
gy-as well as the mechanisms used to
strengthen these alignments, was devel·
oped. This study expands on the previ-
ous, mostly anecdotal work, by using a
rígorous theoretical approach to develop
the proposed framework. This framework
is contingent upon the type of business
strategy-simple to understand and
use-developed through numerous proj·
ects that are typology·free and not
restricted to any particular business
strategy typology, through projects that
are empirically based on rea l-world data.
Keywords: qualitative research; project man·
agelli; pragmatic knowledge; skills development
©2006 by the Project Managementlnstltute
Vol. 37, No. 3, 98·110, ISSN 8756·9728/03
~DRAGAN Z. MllOSEVIC, PMP, Portland State University]
L SABIN SRIVANNABOON, Portland State University
lntroduction
istoricaiiy, the world of business has recognized business strategy planning,
H ponfolio management. and project selection as the responsibilities gov-
emed by senior managers and project planning and execution processes as
the activities performed by project managers and their project teams. When these
processes are aligned, the strategic element feeds the ponfolio elemenl, the pon-
folio element feeds the project management element, and the project manage-
ment element feeds projects and the team's execution. But in many cases, these
processes are not aligned; as a result, o rganizations may fail to tie their projects
either to their business strategy orto their portfolio, which may cause them to ter-
mínate the project or to continue implementing projects that do not con tribute to
the organization's goals, thus wasting imponant organizational resources. In
many instanccs, organizations treat all projects in the same way, regardless of the
business strategy that the organization chooscs (Pinto & Covin, 1989; Shenhar,
2001). When the organization's business strategy is translated into project-level
goals, its professional uniqueness- such as speed to market, superior product
quality, among othcr factors- may dissolve. By understanding the challenges
involved in aligning project management and business strategy, practitioners can
effectively manage their projects in today's competitive environment.
Scant, howcver, is the empírica] literature o n aligning projcct managernent
and business strategy. This study, however, addresses lack of information by
exploring two aspects of aligning projcct managemcnt and business strategy:
l . A two-way influence betwccn project management and business strategy,
one suggesting the nature of the alignment between project management
and business strategy.
2. A process used for aligning project management and business strategy.
We have developed an empirically based theoretical framework that shows the
impact of business strategy o n project management- as well as the effcct of proj-
ect management on business strategy-and discusses the mechanisms used to
strengthen that alignment. We define this framework in rcgard to a set of well
developed concepts related to each other by state ments ofinterrelationships, state-
ments that include an integrated structure that can be used to describe phenome-
na in a manner si milar lO the concept of theory defined by Strauss a nd Corbin
.A UG LI ST lOOÓ I I' ROJEl'T M ANA G EM ENT ) OU RNAI.
( 1998). We also refer lo the alignmenl between p ro jecl ma n-
agemen t and business strategy in relatio n to the compatible
prio rities between an o rganizalio n's projecl managemenl
p ractice and its business slrategy.
Theoreticat Background
To develo p a theorelical framework fo r aligning projecl
management with busi ness strategy, we examined multiple
streams o f related literature, streams that incl ude business
strategy and its typology ( i.e., u nderstanding the defl nitions
of business-level strategy and the conceptual basis o f differ-
ent strategk types), p ro ject management (i.e., id entifying
project m anagement e lements lhat sho uld be aligned with
business slrategy), and a lignmenl lileralu re (i.e., sludying
previous and recent alignment research to identify what has
been do ne and what is m issing).
Business Srraregy a11d Busi11ess Srraregy JYpologies
Though the definitions of business strategy vary, these-in
general- do focus on how lo better deal with competitio n
(Tse & Olsen, 1999) by mea ns o f creating competitive
advantages (Ha mel & Prahalad, 1989), advantages thal p ro-
vide o rganizatio ns with 1he benefits that will sustain them
when atlracting customers and defending themselves
against competitive forces (Tho mpso n & Strickland, 1995 ).
Altho ugh the literature d iscusses multiple business-strategy
typologies, o rgan izations should only consider those that
aligo with their project management practice and their busi-
ness strategy, e.g., Miles a nd Snow's typology ( 1978),
Po rter's gcneric strategies ( 1980), Treacy and Wiersema's
typology ( 1995) . In this paper, we present o nly o ne, Po n er's
generic slrategies, using it as 1he fo undation fo r a ligning
projecl managemenl and b usiness strategy (see the Research
Design sectio n for informalio n abo ut our reasoning).
Poner ( 1980) claimed that lo achieve a sustainable
competitive advantage, an organizatio n musl reinfo rce ils
chosen strategies. Depending on 1he scope, there are three
generic stralegies thal can result: cost leadership, differentia-
tio n, and focus. Accord ing to Po ner, generic strategíes-
when an o rganizalio n chooses o nly o ne-p rovides the
o rganization with the abili ty lo achieve competitíve advan-
tages and outperform their competilo rs. llowever, if an
organizatio n pu rsues more than o ne generic slrategy, it will
pe rfo rm below its capabilily. Po ner referred 10 lhe latter type
of o rganization as stuck-irHIIe-m iddle. Despile this, the pro-
liferation of global competitio n is compelling more o rgani-
zations to focus o n a single combination of generic
strategies ( 1-larrison & St. lohn, 1998). Many researchers and
practiüo ners ( e.g., Hill. 1988; Miller & Friesen, 1986;
Phillips, Chang, & Buzzell, 1983; While, 1986) refer lo 1his
combination as the best-cost slrategy. In this paper, we used
tluee o f the previously mentio ned busi ness slrategies for our
analysis, each of whid1 we d efine as fo llows:
• Cost /eadership: Organizations pursuing a cost leader-
ship s1ra1egy seek 10 gain com petilive ad van tage a nd
increase markel share by being the lowest cosl pro-
d ucers in the industry (Porter, 1980).
AliG\IST l OOÓ I PR l1)ECT
• Differentiation: O rganizations pursuing a d ifferentia-
tion strategy seek to positio n lhemselves in the mar-
kelplace with a disti nct identily that satisfies the
desi res o f their customers (e.g., fast time-to-markeL,
su perior q ua lity and seJVice, innovative fea tu res). This
d ifferentiation allows lhe o rganiza1ion lo charge a
premium price ( Po ner, 1980).
• Best-cost: U nder certa in cond ilio ns, many researchers
argue thal a comb ination o f strategies may be the best
way of creating a sustainable competitive advantage
(e.g., Hill, 1988; Miller & Friesen, 1986; Phillips,
Chang, & Buzzell, 1983; White, 1986 ). In particular,
o rganizations may more effectively create a sustain-
able competitive advantage when they combine cost
leadership and differentiatio n, when they provide
low-cosl produc1s and address customer val ues ( fasl
time-lo-markel, superior product q uality, etc. ).
Project Mtmagemellt
Projecl management is a specialized fo rm o f management,
sim ilar 10 other fun ctio nal strategies, that is used to accom-
plish a series of business goals, stralegies, and work tasks
withín a well-defined sched ule and budget. The essence o f
projecl management is 10 su pport the execution o f an orga-
nizatio n's competitive stra tegy to deliver a desired ou tcome
(i.e., fas t time-to-markel, h igh quality, low-cosl producls)
(Milosevic, 2003). As o pposed to the traditio nal stereotype,
the recent literature recognizes project management as a key
business process (Jamieson & Morris, 2004 ) . This view
defines an o rganizatio n as lhe process rather than the tradi-
tio nal functio nal or matrix form and describes pro ject man-
agement as o ne of the key business processes that e nable
companies to im plement value d elivery systems. Therefore,
when o rganizalions link their p ro jects to thei r b usiness
slrategy, they are better able lo accomplish their o rganiza-
tio nal goals. Shenhar's strategic project leadership (SPL)
framework ( 1999 ) identifies t he p ro ject managemenl ele-
ments thal organizatio ns sho uld align with business slrate-
gy, elernents such as project strategy, o rga nizatio n, process,
tools, metrics, and culture. (Fo r lhis paper, we have ad apled
the SPL fra mework, add ing metrics and changing project spir-
it 10 project culrure.)
Aligmnent Lirerature
Research in the li1era1ure has exami ned the idea of align-
menl in vario us management areas. Fo r example, nu merous
sludies have d iscussed the alignment be1ween tasks, po li-
cíes, and practices (e.g., Boyer & McDermott, 1999; Kathuria
& Davis, 2001 ); o thers have e mphasized the relatio nship
between alignment and perfo rmance in regards 10 o rganiza-
tio nal hierarchy: corporate, business, and fun ctio n (e.g.,
Papke-Shields & Malhotra, 200l ; Youndt, Snell, Dean, &
Lepak, 1996 ). The li teralure frequently mentio ns research
and development (R&D), p rod uction, human resources,
and informal io n techno logy- amo ng others-as fu nctio nal
stralegies and uses these as 1he variables to exa mine align-
menl in relatio n to the b usiness strategy. Because projecl
M M,:AUEM ~NT j l1L RNA L
199
 management is sim ilar to these fu nctionaJ strategies, it too
sho uld be a ligned with the business strategy ( llarrison,
1992 ). However, the trad itional literatu re o n aligning pro j-
ect management with the business strategy is vague: Most
studies link the business strategy with pro ject management
through pro ject seleclion, viewing itas part of the alignment
p rocess (e.g., Baker, 1974; Bard, Balachandra & Kaufmann,
1988; Cooper, Edgett & Kleinschmidt, 1998a; Englund &
C rah am, 1999; Hartman, 2000). Added Lo th is is p roject
portfo lio management (PPM and also called pipeline man-
agement). another concept suggested in the literature to
ensure the strategic alignment of project management and
business strategy (Turner & Simister, 2000). Cooper, Edgeu,
and Kleinschm idt ( 1998b) defined PPM as a dynamic deci-
sion-rnaking process through wh ich a n o rganization ca n
update and revise its list of active projects. The organiza-
tion's cho ice of business strategy is what drives their PP1\II
process, the majar purposes o f w hich are to select and pri-
o ritize pro jects (Cooper et al., 1998b ), ba lance projects
(Archer & C hasemzadeh, 1999; Cooper et al., 1998b ), align
pro jects wi th the b usi ness strategy (Cooper et al.. 1998b ),
rnan age rough -cut resource Glpacity ( llarris & McKay, 1996;
Wheelwright & Clark, 1992). and articulate em powerment
bo undaries for pro ject and fun ctio nal man agement (l larris
& McKay, 1996).
O nly recently h ave researchers started to explore the
alignrnent of project management mo re tho roughly (e.g.,
Artto & Dietrich, 2004; Jamieson & Mo rris, 2004; Papke-
Sh ields & Malho tra, 2001; Srivannaboon & Milosevic,
2004 ). For example, Jamieson and Mo rris (2004) suggested
that most o f the components comprising the strategic p lan-
ning process- internal analysis, o rganizational structures,
control systems- have stro ng links to project management
p rocesses and activities. As a result, these stro ngly influence
an o rganization's intended business strategies. Simi larly,
Artto and Dietrich (2004) suggested that an impo n ant man-
agerial ch allenge involved in align ing project manilgement
and business strategy is encouraging individuals to panici-
pate in using emerging strategies to create new ideas a nd
renew existing strategies. These stud ies suggest a need for
more research in this area; none, however, explicitly talks
abo ut the process used to align p roject management an d
business strategy cohesively and comprehensively.
Research Design
To complete this study, we integrated two overlapping
research phases: data gathering and data analysis. During
d ata gatheri ng ( ph ase l ). we conducted a 1iterature review
so asto understand the general research on aligning project
management and b usi ness strategy. 1n paraJlel with o ur lit-
erature review, we researched case-studies over a 10 -month
period, studying the nature of alignment in market-leading
o rganizations through sem i-structured interviews ( ra nging
from 60 to l 20 minutes per interview) with individuals
holding key o rganizational positions, individuals such as
senio r managers, pro ject managers, assistant project man-
agers, and tea m mem bers-as well as a few cu stomers- in
lOO
order to obta in information from different perspectives
(Boynto n & Zmud, 1984). In addi tion to the interviews, we
reviewed related documents-meeting minutes, pro ject
descriptions, risk logs-to triangulate and valida te our fi ndings.
In this study, we d etenn ined a case stud y to be a study
nf a pro ject in a distinguishable business unit, where a proj-
ect is bei ng executed. To select th e reviewed cases (com pa-
nies, projects, a nd participants). we defined multiple criteria
and identified the cases rnost relevant to such criteria as the-
orelical sampling and pro ject fra rne of reference (pro jects
completed in al least six mo nth o r u nder) as well as the pro j-
ect management exp erience o f the participants ( at least
three years ).
We then classified these pro jects into d ifferent types,
including strategic projects (creating strategic positions in
markets and b usinesses), extensio n pro jects (improving o r
u pgrading an existing p roduct), utility projects (acquiring
and installing new equipment or software, implementing
new methods o r new processes, reorganizatio n, reengineer-
ing), and R&D projects (exploring future id eas, no specific
product in mind). Th ese pro jects were also categorized in
regards to externa! cu stomers (externa! comract o r con -
sumers), interna! customers (i nterna! users o r another
department), or b oth. We also evaluated each project in re la-
tion to such success dimensions as pro ject efficiency, irnpact
o n the customer, direct o rganizational success, and tearn
leader and team spirit.
After each interview (phase 2: d ata an alysis), we tran-
scribed the conversatio n and coded it. We then wrote case
studies- 25-30 pages per case-about o ur interviews and
study of the related documents. We sent these cases to the
com panies to verify t.he accuracy of our transcri ptio ns so as
to enhance the validity of the research. We then performed
within-case, cross-case, a nd content analyses. Al together, we
studied eight cases (Cases A to H) in seven o rganizations, a
stud y that invo lved nine projects o f differing size, type, and
complexity (42 interviews). During phase 3, we engaged a
panel of five expens- from academia ( tluec pro fessors) and
industry ( two practitio ners )- to valida te the essential find -
ings. These ex:pens generally agreed o n the findings; they
also contri buted views, which we integrated into our find -
ings to sharpen our theoretical frarnework.
For each case study, we employed a self-typi ng method
(Conant, Mokwa, & Varadarajan, 1990) to classify the busi-
ness strategy, one based o n Porter's generic strategies
( 1980). w hich we used to illustrate the irnpact of the busi-
ness strategy types o n the compositio n of project manage-
men t elements. We chose Porter's generic strategies to
classify business strategies types because o f thc fo llowi ng:
• Po rter's gen eric strategies are well accepted and o per-
ationalized in the literature (e.g., Harrison & St. Jo hn,
1998; Kim & Lim, 1988; Miller & Dess, 1993;
Reitsperger, 1993; Veliyath, 2000).
• Poner's generic strategies focus on the strategic posi-
tioning di mension of the business strategy (Kald,
Nilsson, & Rapp, 2000), the underlying way in which an
organizatio n relates to its product. where differentiatio n
 (i.e., quality, time-to-market), cosl, and a co mbina-
lion o f bo lh are o ften add ressed as a project's major
objectives, constraints, and requi rements.
In sludying lhe nature of alignment, we adapled the ele-
ments o f projecl managemen l fro m Shenhar's SPL frame-
wo rk ( 1999 ), ele ments such as projecl strategy,
o rgani:tatio n, process, tools, melrics, a nd culture. We ado pl-
ed this fra mework because it is well-publicized and tested .
O ur study comprised two differentimion strntegy companies
(Cases A a nd B), o ne costleadersllip company (Case 11 ), and
five best-cost companies (Cases C. D, E, F, and G) . We coded
the exa mined project as xS o r xUS, where x represents a case,
S represents a successful p ro ject in 1ha1 case (pro jects AS, RS,
CS, etc. ), and US represents an unsuccessful projecl in thal
case (projecl AUS).
Results
In this sectio n, we divide o ur findings into two subsections:
The nature of the align ment and the process used fo r the
alignmen t.
Tire Nalllre of Aligning Project Mmwgemelll tmd Busirzess Strategy
First, we an aly:ce the patterns of cach o f Po rter's generi r
stralegies in relalion to each pro ject management element.
Then, wc propose six proposilions-o ne for each projecl
management element-al the end o f each generic strategy.
Pro posilio ns fo r difl'erentimion are represented as D, propo-
sitio ns fo r cost lc>adership as C, and pro positions for besr-cost
as BC. We a lso use co n lent an alysis lo compare cases and
d evelo p generic pro posit ions (P) that add ress individual
projecl managemen t elements withoul reference lo any spe-
cific type of business strategy. Lastly, we explain the recipro-
ca( rel;uio nship belween pro jecl rnanagement and business
stralegy, discussing these as the emergent strategic feedback
adapling business slralegy.
Pauerns in l'roject Management Elemer!Ls for Differentiation
Business Stmtegy
l . f>rojecc strategy: General rules 10 guide the behavio r
(straleg.ic forus) o f the p roject tea ms- d esigned to
help accompl ish the goals o f differentiation- are
rooted in competitive attributes (fastli me-to-rnarket,
superio r producl q uality). For exarn ple, the 1cams
irnple menting projects AS and AUS were direcled by
the ir sen io r managers to dro p sorne produc1 fealures,
if necessary, in lrade-o ff situatio ns so as to mainlain
1he project's time-lo-markcl focus as mandated by
d ifferentialion. Si rnila rly, senior managers guid ing
the lca m realized pro jecl BS would de lay the p roject's
sch edule by three rnonth s; as a result, they fixed the
fu nctio nalities so as to re1ain lhe focus and content
needed lo achieve superio r product q uality, a com-
petitive atlribute of differentia tio n.
2. Project orgarrization: The project o rganization tends lo
p ossess a high degree of fl exibility when compared lo
o ther projects in this study; it is aiming 10 achieve 1he
compeltltve allribules associa1ed with a customer
focus. r:or examp le, the stntctures of p rojects AS, AUS,
and BS were relatively fl exible in o rder to help them
achieve their desired outco me (speed. quality, etc. ).
3. Projecr process.· Project process is relalively flexible,
when compared to other pro jects in this s1udy, and
mandated by its competitivc altribules o f customer
focus. For example, we observed the overlapped and
combi ned phases in ti me-lo-market d ifferentiation
(Case A); we found that the ilerative phases ensure
the best q uality in q uality d ifferentiatio n (Case B).
4. Project too/s: Time-to-markel differentiation focuses on
schedu ling w ols, wherein cosl lools are more flexible
1han scheduling lools. Quality differentiation focuses
o n quali1y control 1ools, wherein schedule and cosl
1oo ls are more flexib le 1han quali1y co ntroltools.
S. flrojec1 merrics: Projt'ct performance rneasures are
d irected by the compclitive attribules determined by
1he differentialio n stratcgy (e.g., lhe abilily of pro jecls
to meet the schedu le, featu re sets, quali1y, and fi nan-
cia( expectations). Similar to pro ject tools, time-to-
markct differen liation fo cuscs on scheduling metrics,
wherein cost metrics are more fl exible than schedul-
ing metrics. Quality di ffcrentiaüon foruses on quality
co ntrol metrics, wherein sch edule and cosl metrics are
more flexib le than qualily contro l metrics.
G. /'rojees culture: A project cu lture of lime-lo-markel dif-
ferentiation is buill aro und the schedule fo cus where
projects must b e finished al the earliestlime possible.
Therefore, a rapid ly changing environmenl is com-
mo n; p roject lea ms are taking risks a nd proactivcly
accelerating the p ro ject cycle time; as a result, senior
managers reward thcir speed . Similar ly, product qual-
ily is driving the project's culture o f quali1y d ifferen-
tiatio n; lhus, project leams communicate openly and
exlensively to ensure 1hey achieve a h igh leve( of
pro ducl quality. Such effo rts are usually rewarded by
senio r managers.
Frorn these patterns we have developed six p ro posi-
lions, one fo r each project management element:
O n the basis o f its compctitivc attribules, the di fferenli-
ation stralegy generally drives the focus and conten l o f the
fo llo wing:
Proposition O 1: pro ject strategy
Proposition Ol : pro ject o rganizatio n
Proposilion 03: projecl process
Proposilion 04: project tools
Proposition 05: pro jecl metrics
Proposition OG: project culture
Pt11tcnrs ;, Project Marwgemem Elemems for Cose Lendersllip
Business Slmtegy
l . Projc>CL strategy: Project strateb'Y is d riven by cosl lead-
ership with the purpose o f creating compelitive
advan1age through a cost reduclion (e.g., process
improvement), which mayor may not lead to under-
pricing the com pe1i1io n. Sch edule is importa nt
 because it helps the cost leadership company save
money if the project finishes o n time.
2. Project organiuuion: The strucrure of an o rganization's
cost leadership strategy is Aexible, when it is co mpared
to o ther p rojects in this study, enough to adapl toa lot
of change through process improvemenl so as 10 atta in
its ultimate goal o f saving costs.
3. Project. process: The project process o f cost leadership
strategy is highly standardized and built on tem-
plares. The observed project fo llowed the generic
steps a nd proccdures created by the organizatio n (or
business unit). Because stand ardization reduces vari-
ation and cost, the idea was that evel)' project fo llows
the same steps.
4 . J>rojecl wols: Schedule tools are importanL because
these help projects finish on lime, thus helping
increase cost savings. Cost estimates and cost baselines
are required; Cantt charts are often used as a visual dis-
play of the project sd1edule.
S. Project merrics: Schedule metrics are used as 1echniques
fo r tracking projects; by meeti ng target dates, o rganiza-
tio ns can save mo ney. Cost-saving, or net present value
(NPV), is the ultimate measttre of project success.
6. Project culwre: Team spirit is cost-centric, focusing on
cost reduction goals and getting the job done. Sorne
observed attrib utes include open communication,
Aexibility, and cost efficiency.
From these patterns we have created six propositions,
o ne for each project managemenl elemen t:
O n the basis of its competilive attribules, the cost lead-
ership strategy generally drives the focus and content o f the
fo llowing:
Proposition C l: project strategy
Proposition C2: project o rganization
Proposition C3: project process
Proposition C4: project tools
Proposilion C5: project metrics
Proposition C6: project culture
Pauem s in Projecl Mmwgemem Elemellts for Best.-Cosl
Busi11ess Srmregy
l . Project stmtegJ': The focus and coment o f pro jea strat-
egy are driven by the combination o f its compelitive
attributes (e.g., quality. innovative, cuslomization,
sdence) de1ermined by best-cosl stralegy and cost.
For example, p ro ject strategies of CS. DS, ES, FS, and
es were developed 1.0 balance customer need s (e.g.,
quality, innovation, science) and project resources.
The key is to find the level of the differentiation ata
reasonable cost.
2. Project organiullion: Project organizatio n is fairly flex-
ible, when compared 10 other projects in this study,
and o ften involves different fun ctions with the aim of
ensuring the best quality, innovative fea1ures, or
desired science, and accomplish ing this while
decreasing project cost.
102 A u¡;u~T >ooli I I'ROJECT
3. Project process: The project process is standardized and
bui lt on templates. Every pro ject follows the same
steps with a keen ern p hasis o n achieving the best
quality, innovative features, o r desired science at the
minimum cost, as in projects CS, DS, ES, FS, and CS.
4. Project tools: Customer voice is crucit~ l for hitting the
cus10mer's required quality level and innovative fea-
ture level in addition 1.0 the cost e~timates and base-
lines. Other tools-for schedule, scope, and risk-t~re
also used throughout the project life cycle.
S. l'roject metrics: Similar 10 p roject tools, project
progress is measured by the ability of projects to meet
o r exceed the specification of the expected products
while still maintaining or minimiz ing expected cosls.
Quality assurance, cost, and schedule rnetrics are
d omi nant, imporlant, and used throughout the proj-
ect life cycle.
6. Project culrure: To maintain a high level o f product
qut~lity with a mínimum cost, the exami ned projecl
culture of 1he besl-cost stralegy induded open com-
municatio n, intensive preparatio n, trade-off consid-
eratio ns, and rewarding project leams for product
quality and cost efficiency.
From these patterns, we have outlined six propositions,
one fo r each projea management element:
On the bt~sis of its competitive attribules, the best-cost
strategy generally drives the focus and content of the following:
Proposition BCI: project strategy
Proposition BC2: project o rganizatio n
Proposition BC3: project process
Proposilion BC4: p roject tools
Proposition BC5: project metrics
Proposition BC6: p roject culture
Figure 1 sumrnari.zes the configuratio n of project man-
agement elements, as influenced by each type o f Porter's
business strategies tha t we have p reviously discussed.
Patterns in Projecr Mmwgemer1l Eleme11ts for Porter's
Ce11eric Strategies
The proposit ions presented in the previo us section are stat·
ed in a way lhat is specific lo Porler's generic strategies. To
generalize these even more, we used a content analysis
process 10 develop generic proposilio ns that address indi·
vidual projecl management elements without reference lo
any specific type of business strategy. The content analysis
process searched for whal the three strategic types have in
comrnon in regards to how the business strategies dictale
the configu ration of project management elements. The
compariso n o f lhe propositions that describe how business
strategy types of differentiation, cosl lead ership, and best·
cost impact the project m anagement elements revealed pat-
terns: All lhree slralegic types influence p roject management
elements thro ugh the competitive attributes that were cho -
sen as a basis o f compelition for individual strategic types.
From the patterns previously outlined, we suggest six
propositio ns, o ne fo r each project management element:
M ANAt<F.M~>~T ) nU RNA I.

(2) Cost leadership Strategy
(Example: Process improvement)
Emphasis is placed on:
• (Strategy) Cost-efficiency project success measures
• (Organization) A flexible structure to adapt to
changes in process improvement
• (Process) A highly standardized and built-on
template process
• (Tools and Metrics) Cost- and schedule-driven tools
and metrics
• (Culture) Cost-conscious culture
Figure 1: Summary of project management <Onfigural ion per Porler's generic strategies
Th e competitive attributes of the b usiness strategy
d rive the focus and content o f the fo llowi ng:
Proposit ion 1: project strategy
Pro p osition 2: pro ject o rgan izatio n
Proposition 3: pro ject p rocess
Propo sition 4: project tools
Pro p o sition 5: project metrics
Pro p o sitio n 6: project culture
Reciproca[ Relt1tio11sllip of IJrojecLMa rwgermmt and
Business St mtegy
Interest in gly, we fou nd cases where pro ject manage ment
eleme nts n o l o nly su ppo rt but also impact business
strategy. We ca ll th is rela1ionship the reciproca/ relation-
ship of project management tmd business strategy. T his rel a-
ti o nsh ip occurs wh en co mp a nies o bta in from th eir
pro jects info rm atio n a bo u t the w:~ys they :~dap t thei r
bus iness stra tegy, a process th at Mintzb erg ( 1994) re f-
e red to as an enrerge111 srrntegy approach, o ne a lso kn ow n
as th e redirectio n o f pro jecls.
t\ L L>U~T >Oo6 j i'Rlli~LT M AS~lol
(1} Differentiation Strategy
(Examples: Time-to-market or quality differentiation)
Emphasis is placed on:
• (Strategy) Schedule or quality project success
measure
• (Organization) A flexible structure to facilitate
project speed or product quality
• (Process) A flexible process to speed up projects or
maximiza product quality
• (Tools and Metrics) Schedule- or quality-oriented
tools and metrics
• (Culture) Rewarding time-to-market speed or quality
(3) Best-Cost Strategy
(Example: Ouality/cost)
Emphasis is placed on:
• (Strategy) Quality and cost project success
measures
• (Organization) A flexible structure to ensure the best
product quality at the mínimum cost
• (Process) A standardized but flexible process
• (Tools and Metrics) Quality/cost-oriented tools and
metrics
• (Culture) Rewarding quality/cost culture
An explicit example o f th is relatio nship is Pro ject AUS and
its business strategy. l h is project's fa ilure is related to the win-
dow o f opport un ity. Altho ugh lhe project was initially aligned
with the organization's business strategy, the product that
resulted from the project was released after the market had
sh ifted ami custo mers began looki ng fo r a more complex
product. This project also fail ed because the project team d id
not appropriately validate the p roduct defi nition (as pan of
the project's sl r:~tegy) with the key rustomers throughout its
life cycle. As a result, Pro ject AUS failed because of ineffici ent
stage gate reviews that lacked the feedb ack necessary to detect
significan! lhreats, such as a mtlrket shift. The company, how-
ever. later adjusted its stage gate reviews 10 cover market sh ifts
as a measu re 10 prevenl such failure from repeating.
This ex:~m pl e implies that in order to cnsure project per-
formance, p roject managers must realign the p roject strategy,
1he organizatio n and its culture, and the processes, tools, met-
rics of realizing projects with a project's progress. Anothcr
proposit ion conccrning the rcciprocal relatio nship between
project management and business strategy involves the o per-
M I \J T } <'11 1\NAI 103
ating conditions of reviewed projects, which are revealed at
stage gate reviev.-s. Results o f stage gate reviews may impact the
business's strategies and its competitive attributcs because o f
environmental changes (also known as the emergent
approach IMintzberg, 1994 1}.
Proposition 7: Project management e lements rnay
irnpact business strategy. as based o n the o perating cond i-
tions of reviewed projects.
A Tl!eoretical Frameworlt: Nature of tl1e Project. Marwgement-
BtlSÍtleSS Strategy Aligmnetll
To construct a theoretical fra rnework for the configuratio n of
project management elements. one influenced by business
strategy, we used the seven proposilions previously o utlined to
connect business strategy and each project management ele-
rnent {PI to P6) and vice versa (P7). The nature o f the project
management/ business strategy alignment is depicted in the
theoretical framework in Figure 2 as the impacting nature. as
that which addresses the relatio nship between the competilive
attributes of business strategy and the focus and content o f
project management elements.
A company (business unit) makes its strategic choice by
seJecting competitive attributes that are advantageous (e.g.,
time-to-markel, quality, cost. and features). ·n,esc attribules
are used to drive the d ifferent ways that projects are managed
in terms o f 1heir foci and contents. For example. if the com-
petitive attribute of lime-to-market is d1osen, the focus or pri-
ority of project management elements (stralegy, organization,
Business
Strategy lmpacting Nature
Competitiva PM Elements
Attributes Focus
The
Competitiva
A!tributes of
Business
Strategy
• •
• •
• •
·Proposilions
L---------------------------------------------------~ P7*
!__________ _ __________ __ _____ __ ____________ __ _______________________ _
Figure 2: A theoretical framework for the nature of the alignment
A llU I H lOOt\ 1 P ROJ H"T M A N AUf. MEN 1 j OU RNA L
process, tools, metrics, and culture) is to accomplish the time-
to-market compelilive attribute. 'lñis study defi nes this focus
as schedule-driven (see Figure 2). The content o r configuration
of project management elements (strategy, o rganizatio n,
process, tools, metrics, and culture) is also tailored to support
this schedule-driven focus. For example, in case study A. the
configuratio n of the project strategy (Pl) was tailo red to sup-
port its schedu le focus; the time-to-market competitive attrib-
ute adopts a strategic focus thal allows project managers 10
igno re cost and product fealures in maki ng trade-o ff decisio ns
in arder 10 attain time-to -market goals. The project process
(P3) is similarly tailo red to deliver a time-lo-market competi-
tive advantage by overlapping o r combining process phases,
milestones, and activities. At the same time, operating condi-
tio ns detected fro m stage gates (P7) help to redirect projects, if
there is any change that might threaten the success of the proj-
ects. There are infinite combinations of competirive attributes
that companies can use as sources o f advantage 10 compete
with their rivals. lñere are also unlimited alternatives for tai-
loring project rnanagement elements to suppon these compet-
itive attributes. Propositions 1 lo 6 demonstrate how the
competitive attributes of business stralegy configure the indi-
vidual project management elements. This should lead lo one
single and generic proposition that describes the interactio n of
the business strategy and pro jecl management elements:
Generic Proposition: The competitive attributes of the
business slrategy drive the fo cus and content of pro ject man-
agemenl ele ments.
Project Management
Elements
PM Elements
Contents
Strategy
Org.
Process
Tools
Metrics
Culture
•
•
•
Tite Process Used for rhe Project MtmagememfBusiness
Strategy Aligmnent
In this subsectio n, we analyze the patterns of the processes
used by lhe companies we surveyed 10 aligo pro ject man-
agemen t and business strategy. In do ing so, we discuss the
simil arities and the dissimilarities across all cases in order to
generale a theoretical fra mework o f the processes that
o rganizations use lo ensure proper a lignmenl. We per-
form ed a conlent analysis to compare these cases and iden-
tify lhe pallerns o fthe alignmenl proresses used acro ss these
cases. The pattem we found revealed tha1 organizations
could divide the mechanisms used 10 aligo projects with
busin ess strategies into three levels: the strategic, the tactical,
and the correclive emergent strategic feedback. Each levels
contained distinct mechanisms to achieve alignment. Table 1
surnmarizes the alignmen l procc.o;s o f d ifferent cases and
patterns upon these levels.
Leuel 1- Mediat ing Process at rlre Srrategic Level
The general sleps ofthe alignment process begin at the strate-
gic level, where the long-term b usiness goals are d efined and
business d irections are determined through a stralegic plan,
through what Mintzberg ( 1994) called an in tended strategy.
We found that every sample company h ad a strategic plan;
sorne used a formal plan, some used an informal one. In all
bul two cases, these plans were develo ped lo reOect a three-
year p lan ning ho rizon. One exception was Case B, which at
the time o f our interview was a sho rt-term plan (one-year
ho rizon) that the company was active! y expanding 10 a three-
year range. The other exception was Case G, which used an
informal plan due to the na1ure of its business (construc-
tion). In some cases, roadmaps were induded in th e strategic
p lan as the guidan ce for the company's (or department's)
future interests, such as a product roadmap (Cases A and B)
and an information technology roadmap (Case 0).
We also observed that the sample companies used a
projcct portfolio process- aga in, some used a form al
process. o thers used an informal one- as a mechanism for
selecting the most vaJuable projects that would contribute to
the organization's goals. To select such projects, and make
them pan of the portfolio, many companies used ma1ched
their swuegic goals with the project's contribution. with its
strategic fit. In severa! cases, the term project portfolio was
not recognizcd, but its project selection and prioritization
fun ctions were employed (Cases B. E, F. G, and H). In addi-
tion, 1wo cases recognized the term project portfolio, but it was
still an informal process (Cases C and 0). O nly Case A had
a fo rmal projecl portfolio management process and semi-
ann ual portfo lio reviews, one that included such functio ns as
project selection and prioritizalion, risk balance, strategic
alignment, and capacity management. Tab le 2 summarizes
these project ponfolio processes and fun ctions used by the
sample companies.
In general, the mechanisms to ensu re the alignmenl
process at this level are what we refer to as "the mediating
processes at the strategic level. " wh ich i ndude a strategic plan
and pro ject portfolio management.
Leve! 2-Mediating Process al tl1e Project Level
O nce o rganizations select projects into their ponfol io, they
further plan the d etails and executc thesc throughout thc proj-
ect life-cycle p hases. We refer to these mechanisms so as to
ensure the proper alignrnent d uring the project life cycle as
the mediating processes at the project level. which can be clas-
sified into the p lanning process and lhe monitori ng process.
In the plann ing process. we found that the companies
used varying mechanisms to ensure proper alignment. The
most explicit p lanning mechanism used was in Case C: 1nis
company requ ired that project managers identify the align-
ment lin k of their project p lans and the goals in their strategic
plan. 'Jhis was accomplished through product definition and
project definition, by lin king these with the business goals oul-
lined in the strategic plan. ln the o ther cases, this was implicit-
ly accompl ished through the development of the project plan,
as based upon the objectives o f the projects and the reason
why these exjsted, such as ad1ieving business goals.
We found that as projects progress, mosl companies use
common mechanisms 10 ensure these are properly aligned
during execution, using mechanisms such as project metrics,
interna( coordination mechanisms (i.e., project manage-
ment office involvemen t and interna( sign -off), custo mer
invo lvemen l (sign-off), and stage gates. This last ítem, stage
ga1es, is so imponant that we h ave separated it from this sec-
tio n to explain it separately as the mediating process at the
emergent slrategic feed back levcl.
Leve/ 3-Mediating Process al rhe Emergenl Strategic
Feedbac/1 t evel
Stage gales are points in the project life cyde where pro jects
transition from stage to stage. The gates represen! filters for
project status and provide pro ject teams with the opportu-
niry to realign the project 10 the requirements set by the
pro ject owner. In the sample companies. we observed such
slage gates as mileslone reviews for evaluating the project
status (time, cost. performance). An exceptio n 10 this obser-
vation is Case A. This company covered staffi ng level and
market shift considerations as additional concerns. When a
project fails to meet a stage gate's requirements (i.e., when
the project is misaligned), 1he project team must adjust the
project (if the owner has not killed the p roject), in accor-
dance with the o perating conditions of the project.
In cenain instances where the operating co nditions of
the project reveals significan! changes resu lting from inter-
na! or externa! factors, revealing factors that may affect the
overa ll success of the project if the project manager fails 10
manage the changes, the operating conditions will impact
the deployment of the business strate{,'Y by changing the pri-
orities under which the pro ject is managed. For example, we
fo und lhat one of the examined projects in Case A was con-
sidered an unsuccessful project by its project team and the
company's upper management, even tho ugh the was in itial-
ly well aligned with the company's busin ess strategy. Pan of
the reason for this perceived fa ilure was that the project was
committed 10 the wrong se1 of customers, which led to a
poo r product d efinition of the overall market. By the time
 Case Strategic Level of the
Alignment
1 1
Case A • Three-year strategic plan (e.g. ,
product map, technology
roadmap, business model)
• Project portfolio
- Strategic table
Case B • One-year strategic plan
(four-stage product marketing,
product roadmap)
Case C • Three-year strategic informatioo plan
• lnformation technology activity
management matrix
• Informal project portfolio
Case D • Three-year strategic information plan
• Roadmap charts
• Alignment charts
• Informal project portfolio
Case E • Three-year strategic plan (goals,
recommendations and reviews)
Case F • Three-year strategic plan (goals,
recommendations and reviews)
Case G • Informal strategic plan
Case H • Three-year strategic plan
• Dashboard
Pattems Level1 : Mediating Process at
the Strategic Level
Strategic planning and project
portfolio management processes are
the majar mechanisms to ensure the
proper alignment.
Table 1: The alignment process and patterns across all cases
to6
Tactical Level of the
Alignment
• Dashboard
• Flexibility matrix
• Bounding box
• Project life-cycle phases
• Project metrics and monthly
status report
• Project life-cycle phases
• Project metrics and monthly
status report
• Project life-cycle phases
• Project metrics and monthly
status report
• Project life-cycle phases
• Project metrics and monthly
status report
• Project life-cycle phases
• Project metrics and monthly
status report
• Project life-cycle phases
• Project metrics and monthly
status report
• Project life-cycle phases
• Project list
• Project metrics and monthly
status report
• Project life-cycle phases
Level 2: Mediating Process at
the Project Level
Processes during project planning
and execution are the mechanisms
to ensure proper alignment.
A u<~ ll sT • oot\ 1 PRnJECT M ~~M~n1 ENT
Corrective Emergent Strategic
Feedback Level of the Alignment
1
• Semi-yearly project portfolio
reviews
• Gate reviews of individual
projects (market shift, staffing
level, project status)
• Gate reviews of individual projects
(project status)
• Gate reviews of individual projects
(project status)
• Gate reviews of individual projects
(project status)
• Gate reviews of individual projects
(project status)
• Gate reviews of individual projects
(project status)
• Gate reviews of individual projects
(project status)
• Semi-yearly dashboard reviews
• Gate reviews of individual projects
(project status)
Level 3: Mediating Process at the
Emergent Strategic Feedback Level
Stage gates are the mechanisms to
ensure proper alignment.
Jou RNA L
 Case Formahty
1 1
Case A Formal and recognized
Case B Informal and not recognized (the
term is not used)
Gasee Informal but recognized
Case D Informal but recognized
Gases E& F Informal and not recognized (the
term is not used)
Case G Informal and not recognized (the
term is not used)
Case H Informal and not recognized (the
term is not used)
Table 2: Project portfolio process
the project was finished, the oper;J ting conditions of the
project had changed (the market had shifted), and there
was no lo nger a place for the produrt d eveloped through
this project. In this case, the stage gate fa il ed to p rovide
the organization with the info rmalion it needed to realign
its process of managing the project to meet those changes.
Once thc problem was idcntif1ed at a subsequent stage
gate, the project team should have adjusted the product's
def1nition (as part of the project strategy). Unfortunately.
the p roject team fa iled to identify in a timely manner the
changes that were necessary to save this project. As a
resu h, the team was not able to react to those changes
effectively. To accommod ate fo r this uns uccessful effort,
the company later adjusted its stage gate reviews to cover
m arket shift consideratio ns.
The mechanism p reviously explained is a feedback
loop that emerges during project execution . 1t is a result
that is not planned or intended but that emerges from a
stream o f managerial decisions through time, thro ughout
what Mintzberg ( 1994) ca lis the em ergent approach. 1n
o ther words, the operating conditions of reviewed projects
are expected to su pport the company's business strategies
by hc lping it adapt the business strategy and its competi-
tive attributes to enviro nmental changes.
Operating conditions refers to the actual conditions o f
project implementation, which may be equa l to those
assumed in the project-planning phase. These may also
differ from those assumed during plann ing as a conse-
q uence of environmental changes in the marketplace.
These changing business and p roject conditjons can be
revealed during the stage gate reviews as well as any phase
of developm ent. Therefore, a combinatio n of in tended and
emergent strategies is needed to align pro ject management
and business strategy.
Used Project Portfoho Proccss Functions
Project selection and prioritization, risk balance, strategic alignment, and
capacity management
Project selection
Project selection
Project selection and prioritization
Project selection
Project selection and prioritization, and risk balance
Project selection and prioritization
A Theoreticc1l Framework: Process for Project
Management/Business Strategy Aligmnent
To further develop the theoretical fr;~mework we proposed in
the section titled Nature of tl1e Project McmagememjBusiness
Strategy Alignment, we combine propositions and mediating
processes into a single framework. as is shown in Figure 3. The
propositions are used LO con nect business stratcgy and ead1
project management element through statements of relation-
ships (a two-way infl uence). Mediating processes are mecha-
nisms that organizations use to <~lign p rojea management
and business strategy. For the sake of illustrating the process-
es in general, we have used the traditional phases of the proj-
ect life cycle, including conception, planning. exeo.ttion, and
dosing. Each company, however, uses different p ro jcct life-
cycle phases, seleding those that are most relevan! to their
industry, company culture, and o ther signifi can! issues.
lt is the rompetitive attributes of the business strategy
that drive the focus and the con tent o f the project manage-
ment elemen ts. The propositio ns we have o utlined in the
framewo rk describe the interrelationships between project
management elements and business strategy. To establish
and m aintain the processes used to align project manage-
men t elemcnts and business strategy. we suggest that o rgan-
izations use mediating processes-strategic planning and
project portfolio management- at the strategic leve! to
interpret their business strategy in the context of project
management. Organizalions initiate and select projects for
their project portfolio to fu lf111 business needs; they then
implt'ment a standard life cycle that includes project plan-
ning and p roject monitoring (the primary mediating
processes at the project leve!) to ensure the quality of the
alignment between project managemcnt elements and busi-
ness strategy. One of the majar control mechanisms o rg<mi-
zations use to ensure that thcir pro jens align with their
 Business Medlatlng Processes PM Elements
Strategy (Focus and Content)
Stratcg1c Levcl PrOJCCt Levcl
PLC Strategy

•r Conceptual Org.
Strategic 11
1-
1
Planning 11
11
1
1
11 Process
11
: Desired Products/Services 11
r Planning
Competitiva ::- _.,. High Level+Analysis 1
Tools
! 2~E~~
Attributes ol
Business
Strategy :: Projects Are+Selected 1
Execution Metrics

1
: +
1 Project Portfolio Culture
i
1
Management Closing
1 Portfollo Review
1 1 1"
1 1 1 11
: 11 Rejected/Killed : 11
-- - -- - - - --- -- - - ---------H~ - - --- -- ------ - --1"1 ~
•rr---------------
1
,:::::::::::::::::J 11

Pr
~------------------------------------------------~

*Propositions Represents Stage Gales

-- -- - -- -- - --- Represents a Feedback Loop
(emergent approach) when the project is required
to change or is reje<:ted at the stage gates

Figure 3: A theoretical framework for aligning project management with business strategy

exp ectatio ns as the project progresses from o ne project
phase to the next is Lhe stage gate. This mediating process
provides strategic feedback that can lead to wh at Mintzberg
( 1994 ) caJ is emergent strategy.
Discussion
In this study, we exp lai ned an inductive logic process-frorn
specific to general practices-as a means to derive o ur
propositions. The general process o f developing these
propositions was based on case study research, which heav-
ily used within-case, cross-case, and content analyses. We
also d eveloped detailed propositions fo r Poner's generic
strategies, which we generalized into typology-free proposi-
tions. We then developed a single pro positio n suggesting a
most generic relatio nship between pro ject management ele-
ments and business strategy.
Similarly, we used inductive logic to develop an
overview descri b ing the mediating processes at different lev-
e ls. Our genera l process was based on our case study
research and used within-case and cross-case analyses. The
framework resulting from Lhis an alysis explains the align-
ment process at the strategic level, the p roject level, and the
corrective emergent feedback level.
O ur framework satisfi es the major characteristics fo r a
theoretical framework, as suggested by Dubin ( 1978), which
includes units/variables, laws of their interacLion, system
boundaries, and pro positions.
• Unicsf variables: The variables o r units of analysis in the
fra mework consist of two major elements: pro ject
management elements (strategy, org11nization, process,
tools, metrics and culture) and business strategies (dif-
feren tiation, cost leadership, and best-cost).
• Lmv.~ of lllei r i r1Lemction: Th e interaction o f variables in
the fra mework can be seen as a two-way influence
between project management elements and business
strategy, o ne that is perceivable through a formal o r an
info rmal alignment process by translating business
needs into project actions and using project operating
conditio ns to mo re effectively deploy business strategy.
• Syslem boundtlries: The boundary of the framework is
the o rganizational business units o r departments sup-
porting them. The pro ject m anagementf business
strategy alignment occurs within this boundary.
• Proposi tions: Seven propositions of the framework
are d erived from the content analysis of multiple
cases. The propositions explain the unique interac-
tions of each project m anagement element with the
business strategies.
 Our study expands on previous, mostly anecdotal work
by incorporating a rigorous theorelical approach into the
proposed framework. Ahhough )amieson and Morris (2004)
identified strategic planning. ponfolio management, and
emergent approach as important stcps in the alignment
process, with information that supports this research, they
did not provide a fra mework and did not posilion their
research as a set of case studies oras a theoretical foundation
for alignment. Furthermore, Tumer and Simister (2000)
argued, conceptually and without an empírica! validation,
that portfolio management is an important step in aligning
projects with the business strategy. In comparison with the
existing literature, our fram ework contributes three elements:
• Compreherrsive: This framework indudes-and
relates-a JI levels of participants (executives, middle
managers, pro ject managers, team members, cus-
tomen¡), different levels of management processes
(strategic, tacticaL operational ), and variables (project
management elements, business strategy). lt integrales
these into a coherent structured set of relationships
based on propositions that describe lhe phenomenon
of the project managementfbusiness strategy align-
ment in differcnt situations.
• Empiriwlly l'Stnblislrl'd mrd vnlidnwd: The framework is
based on a diverse set of companies and projects as
well as real-world data. lt also takes a mulli-level view
(no single-source bi;~s), an approach that enabled us
to develop a strong theoretical framework.
• Comingenr: The frarnework captures di ffe rent configu-
rations of project management elements to account
for spccifk business strategies ( differentiation, cost
leadership, and best-cost ), and thus presents a contin-
gency approach hased on the differences.
Research Limitation
Although Eisenhardt ( 1989) argued that four to ten cases
provide a sufficient range of measure and for analytic gener-
a li z<~ tions, one m::~jor limitation in our study is the relative-
ly small number of cases that we used to develop the
fr::~mework (eight cases). This study may also suffer fro m a
bias of company management views. 1lowever, we were able
to minimize any such bias by using mult iple data sources
(review of related documents received from companies, the
existing literature among others) and validaling the findings
with a panel of expens.
Future Study
The research fi ndings and limitations suggest lhat the align-
ment measurement methodology deserves an empirical
study. lf such a study uses a comprehensive approach.
researchers could standardize the measurement and creare a
framework for comparative studi es of aligning the various
project and business strategy types. This would also enable
researchcrs to work toward determining the degree of align-
ment required lO assure pro ject and business success in rela-
tion to different circumstances. Researchers should apply such
a contingency approach in subsequent studies. What is also
needed is a largc sample study that focuses on the quantita-
tive correlations of various strategy types and project man-
agement elements. The point here is to find which strategies
need which project elements 10 comribute 10 project success.
References
Archer, N., & C.:hasemzadeh, F. ( 1999) . An integrated
fram ework for pro ject portfolio selection. lntemntional
)ounwl of Projecr Mmragemem, 17(4 ), 207- 216.
Artto, K. A., & Dietrich, P. H. ( 2004). Strategic business
management through multiple projects. In P. W. G. Morris &
J. K. Pinto (Eds. ), Tire Wiley guide to mnnaging projeclS (pp.
144 - 176 ). ll oboken, NI : John Wiley & Sons, In c.
13aker, N. R. ( 1974 ). I~&D project selection models: An
asscssmcn t. 1EEE TrarrSfiCLions orr Errgirret->rirrg Marragenrent,
21(4), 165- 170.
Bard, J. F., Balachandra, R., & Kaufmann, P. E. (1988).
An interactive approarh 10 R&D project selection and termi-
nation. I EEE Tm rrMctiorrs on Engineering Managemenr, 35(3) ,
139- 146.
Boyer, K. K., & McDennou, C. ( 1999). Strategic cansen-
sus in operations strategy. }ounwl of Operat.ions Manngement,
1 7( 3 ), 289- 305o
Boynwn, A. C., & Zmud. R. W. ( 1984 ). An assessment
of critica! success factors. S/onn Manngeme111 Revieu1, 25(4 ),
17- 27.
Conan t, ). S., Mokwa, M. P., & Varadarajan, P. R. ( 1990).
Strategic types, distinctive marketing competencies and
organizational performance: A multiple measures-based
study. Stmtegic Mmwgement )ourna/, 11 (5), 365-383.
Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J.. & Kleinschmidt, E. J.
( 1998a ). Best practi ces for managing R&D portfolios:
Research. Tecl111ology ,\.1nnagemellt, 20-33.
Cooper, R. C., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J.
( 1998b ). Portfolio management for new produas. Reading, MA:
Perseus Books.
Dubin, R. ( 1978). '11reory building. New York:The Free Pres.s.
Eisenhard t, K. ( 198? ). Building theories from case
study research. AcnrlPIII )' of Mmwgement Ue1tiew, 14 ( 4 ),
532-550.
Englund, R. L., & Craham, R. J. ( 1999). From experi-
ence: Linking pro jects to strategy. T11e Journnl of Producr
lnn ovarion Management, 76( 1), 52- 64.
llame!, C., & Prahalad, C. K. ( 1989 ). Strategic in ten t.
Hnrvard Business Revieu1, 67(2), 92- 101.
llarris, J. R., & McKay, J. C. ( 19?6 ). Optimizing product
development t.hrough pipeline management. In D. R. Rosenau
(Ed.), ·111e PDMlv\ lumtlbooh of rww product de~telopment (pp.
63-76). New York: Wiley.
llarrison, F. L ( 1992 ). Alil'anced projl'ct managemenr: A
stmcwred approar/1 (J rd ed .). Ncw York: Halsted Press.
Harrison, J. S., & St. John, C. 11. (1 998). Strategic mnrrnge-
mem oforganiuuiom rmd sw/(efwlders (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH:
South-Western College Publishing.
ll anman, F. (2000). Dorr'l {Xlrh your bmin oulSuie: A pract.i-
cnl guide to improvin.~ slrareholder value wit/1 SMART mnna}¡emenr.
Newtown Square, PA: Pro ject Managemenl lnstitute.
109
 Hill, C. W. L ( 1988). Differentiation versus low cost o r dif-
ferentiation and low cost: A contingency framework. Academy of
Management Revieu1, 13{3 ), 401- 412.
Jamieson, A., & Morris, P. W. C. {2004). Moving from cor-
porate strategy to project strategy. In P. W. C. Morris and l. K.
Pinto (Eds.), 111e Wi/ey guüle to managing projeas (pp. 177-205).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, lnc.
Kald, M., Nilsson, E, & Rapp, B. {2000). On strategy and
ma nagement control: The impo nance of dassifying business.
British Joumal of Mtmagement, 1C 197-212.
Kathuria, R , & Davis, E. B. {2001 ). Quality and work force
managem ent pract.ices: 'fl1e managerial performance implica-
tion. Productíon and Operations Management, 10( 4 ), 460-4 77.
Kim, L., & Lim, Y. {1988 ). Environment, generic su-ategies,
and perfonnance in a rapid ly deve.loping countJy: A taxonom ic
approach. Aau:lemy of Management }oumal, 31( 4 ), 802-827.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. ( 1978). OrganÍZittíonal slrategy,
structure and process. New York: West.
Miller, A., & Dess, C. C. ( 1993). Assessing Po rter's model
( 1980) in terms of its generalizab ility, accuracy and simplicity.
}ourrml of Management Suulies, 30(4), 553- 585.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. (1986). Poner's ( 1980) generic
strategies and perfom1ance: An em pírica! examinatio n with
America n data. OrganÍZIJtional Swdies, 7( 1), 3 7-55.
Milosevic, D. Z. (2003). Project nmnagemem toolbox: Tools
and tecfmiques for the practicing project manager. l loboken, NI:
Joh n Wiley & Sons.
Mint7.berg, H. (1994). Tite lise and fa/1 of stmt:egic planning.
New Yo rk: l l1e Free Press.
Papke-Shields, K. E., & Malhotra, M. K (2001 ). Assessing
the im pact of the manufacturing executive's role on business
performance th rough strategic alignment. }oumal of Operar.ions
Management, 19( 1), 5- 22.
Pinto, J. K., & Covin, J. C. {1 989). Cri tica! factors in pro ject
im plementation: A comparison o f construa ion and R&D p roj-
ects. Teclmouation, 9(1 ), 4 9- 62.
Phillips. l. W., Chang. D. R., & Buzzell, R. D. (1983 ). Prcxluct
quality, cost position, and business performance: A test of some key
hypotheses. }owwl of Marfleting, 47(2), 26-44.
Porter, M. E. ( 1980). Com~iti1-e sr.rnregy. New York: Free Press.
Reitsperger, W. D. (1993). Produd quality and cost leader-
sh ip: Compatible strategies? Management lntemational Revie111.
33( 1), 7-22.
Shenhar, A. ( 1999 ). Strategic project management: The new
framework. In PortJand lntematiorwl C-Onference 011 Managemer11 of
Engíneering and 1eclmolog)' {PlCME1) Proceedings (pp. 382-286),
Pon land, OR.
Shenhar, A. J. (2001 ). One size does not fi t all pro jects:
Exploring classical contingency domains. }ournal of the ln.stitute
for Opemtions Reset1rch ami the Management Science, 47(3),
394-414.
Sri va nnaboon, S., & Milosevic, D. Z. (2004). "lne process of
translaúng business strategy in project act.ions. In D. P. Slevin, D.
l. Cleland, & J. K. Pinto (Ecls.), lnnouation.s: Projecr management
re.s&lrcll 2004 (pp. 175-192). Newtown Square, PA: Pro ject
Management !nstitute.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, ). { 1998). &LSics of qualitaliue research:
Teclmiques and procedures for deueloping grounded tlteory (2nd ed .).
'rhousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publicatio ns.
·rhompson, A A , & Strickland, A. J. l. (1995). Crafting tmd
implementing strategy. Ch icago: lrwin.
Treacy, M., & Wie.rsema, E (1995). 111e discipline of marhet
looders. Reading. MA: Addison Wesley.
l se, E. C., & O lsen, M . D. {1 999). Strategic management In
B. Brothenon (Ed. ), T11e /¡andboolt of contemporary mcmagement
research (pp. 351-373). New York: Jolu1 Wiley & Sons.
Tumer, J. R., & Simister, S. (2000). Tite Cower handbook of
projecr. management (3rd ed.). Aldershot, LIK: Gower.
Veliyath, R (2000). Firm capabilities, business strategies,
customer preferences, and hypercornpeti tive arenas: "lhe sustain-
ability of cornpetitive advantages with implications for fi rm com-
petitiveness. Cmnpetitiueness l?euiew, 10( 1), 56- 83.
Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B. ( 1992 ). Reuolucionizing prrxl-
ua deuelopmenL New York: The Free Press.
White, R. E. {1986). Ceneric business strategies, organiza-
tio nal context and perfom1ance: An empirical investigation .
Srmtegic Marwgemenr }ouma/, 7{3 ), 217-231.
Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. W., & Lepak, D. P. ( 1996).
Human resource management, manufacturing stra tegy, and firm
performance. Academy of Manager11em Joumal, 39(4 ), 836- 866.

DRAGAN Z. MILOSEVIC, PMP, is an associate professor of engineering and technology management in the Department of
Engineering and Technology Management at Portland State University, where he has developed practica! tools and ínnovative
approaches to the traditional and current challenges of project management, and published numerous papers in management
journals. He ls a leading authority on project and program management, and has more than 20 years of e.xperíence in interna-
tional work as a project manager and distilled sorne of his theoretical ideas and practica! knowledge into an award·winning
book, Project Management Toolbax, published in 2003 by Wiley. Milosevi c earned his credentials as a project manager in the
prívate sector. managing large projects around the world. As a consultan! with Rapidinnovation, LLC, an executive consulting
company, he helps leading companies streamline their project and program management models to ensure profitabilíty. He
also conducted project management seminars for the Project Management lnstitute, where he has earned their project man-
agement professional designation of PMP. He has worked in this field ata wide range of companies including lntel, Hewlett-
Packard, Armstrong World Industries, Boeing, Daimler Chrysler, Mentor Graphics, Tektronix, Inc., lnFocus, Credence Systems,
Flextronics, WelchAIIyn, Tyco, and U.S. Sprint.

SABIN SRIVANNABOON received a PhD in systems science in engineering management from Portland State University (PSU). He
has an MS in engineering management from PSU, and BE in environmental engineering from Chulalongkorn University (Thailand).
He currently works asan NPI program manager for a hi-tech company in Hillsboro, OR, USA. Asan academician, Sabin presented
his research al well-recognized international technology and project management conferences, where many of his articles were
selected to be published as chapters in books. In addition, Sabin has published articles in lnternationa/ )ourna/ of Project
Management, Engineering Management )ourna/, and Project Manogement jaumal. Sabin was listed in the 2005-2006 "Honors
Edition" of the United Who's Who Registry of Executives & Professionals as a scholar/ professional who has demonstrated
outstanding leadership and achievement in his profession. He also won an "Outstanding Graduate Student Award" from Maseeh
College of Engineering and Computer Science, PSU.

A l'< ; ~;,T >oo6 1 PRt >lf.<"T M A N AOL M t N1 j n U Rr>:A L

Copyright of Pr·oject Management J ournal is the property of Project Management Institute and its
content may not be copied or emai led to multi pie si tes or posted to a 1istserv without the copyright
holder •s expr·ess written permission. However, users may print, download, or emai 1 articles for
individual use.