International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 221–227

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Combining value and project management into an effective

programme management model
Michel Thiry
Boulevard G. Van Haelen, 193, 1190, Brussels, Belgium

Abstract
In this paper, I will suggest that the current Programme Management paradigm is strictly performance-based. I will aim to
demonstrate that there is a need for both a performance and a learning process in the management of programmes. Following this
demonstration, I will suggest that value management can be combined with project management to form an integrated learning-
performance programme management model. I will further develop this concept by identifying some specific methods and techni-
ques which can be used to implement such a model. I will also recommend the iterated application of the model, throughout the
programme life cycle from strategic choice, to business objectives and feasibility, through planning and appraisal, and finally ter-
mination. # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Programme management; Project management; Value management; Performance; Learning; Uncertainty; Ambiguity.

1. An emerging paradigm in programme management 1.1. The current programme paradigm

There are a number of definitions of programme
management; most of them, by organisations that are
heavily into project management like PMI (Project
Management Institute), APM (Association for Project
Management) or CCTA (Central Computer and Tele-
communications Agency). All these definitions have
both, things in common and differences. The main
common points are that programmes usually cover a
group of projects; that their management must be co-
ordinated; and that they create a synergy, which will
generate greater benefits than projects could do indivi-
dually. The main differences are: the fact that they also
cover ongoing operations (PMI [1]); that the elements
must have a common objective (APM [2]) and the fact
that their impact is at the organisational level and con-
cerns change (CCTA [3]).
Ruth Murray-Webster and I [4] have tried to integrate
those three elements in our definition: ‘‘A collection of
change actions (projects and operational activities) pur-
posefully grouped together to realise strategic and/or
tactical benefits’’. The concept of purposefulness is
related to the objectives, which need to be defined; the
word ‘actions’, refers to ongoing operations, as well as
projects; and the benefits can be both strategic or tac-
tical, but are always measured at organisational level.
E-mail address: michel.thiry@chello.be
0263-7863/02/$22.00 # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
PII: S0263-7863(01)00072-2
Roland Gareis [5] of the University of Vienna, affirms
that any project lasting longer than 2 years should be
called a programme; a number of project managers, like
Gareis, associate programmes with large projects. Other
authors associate it to multi-project co-ordination or
portfolio management, which is often associated with
resource management; [6] or account-client manage-
ment; this view is also emphasised by ‘‘Programme
Management’’ computer software, which is essentially
designed to support resource management, planning
and cost/time control.
Another view is that of Becker [7], Pellegrinelli [8],
Reiss [9] and Bartlett [10] who link programmes with
organisational change, often IT-based. Although a
number of programmes are about change. Even those
who advocate that programmes are more than just large
projects and need to address strategic benefits, still pro-
mote a project paradigm to run programmes. For
example, the recently developed Programme Manage-
ment Maturity Model (PMMM) [11] points out that
most organisations still consider ‘organisation’, ‘issues
and risk’, ‘planning’ and ‘accounts and finance’ as key
to the success of programmes, whereas ‘achievement of
benefits’, ‘stakeholders management’, ‘communications’
and ‘configuration management’ seem less important.
Partington [12] cites studies by Wateridge [13] and Pinto
and Millet [14], to emphasise the fact that failures in
222 M. Thiry / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 221–227
large IT/IS projects are due to a ‘failure to address
people issues’. By concentrating only on performance
issues, organisations are missing a key element of suc-
cess.
The concepts of learning organisations and manage-
ment of emergent change stem from the works of lead-
ing strategic management authors like Mintzberg et al.
[15], Weick [16], Senge [17] or Porter [18]. Currently, the
concept of learning, including knowledge management,
and the capability to integrate and transform itself are
key elements of successful organisations, programme
management still ignores them.
Thiry [19] and Weick [16] (and similarly Daft and
Lengel) have made a clear distinction between uncer-
tainty and ambiguity/equivocality. Uncertainty is defined
by the difference between the data required and the data
already possessed; it is a ‘lack of information’. Ambi-
guity, on the other hand, means the existence of multi-
ple and conflicting interpretations; it is linked to
confusion and lack of understanding. Whereas uncer-
tainty leads to the acquisition of objective information
and the answering of specific questions, ambiguity leads
to sensemaking, the exchange of views and the defini-
tion of situations/problems.
Generally, organisation, planning and cost manage-
ment are key elements of uncertainty reduction, as well
as risk management, which has become a key process in
the new ‘PMBOK# Guide’. Benefits, stakeholders, and
communications are softer issues, linked with the
reduction of ambiguity, which project managers still do
not apply explicitly Configuration management, as cur-
rently stated, is about the product, not the process,
project managers traditionally direct a process and do
not feel responsible for configuration beyond delivering
what was asked. Görög and Smith [20], argue that pro-
ponents of the current project (performance-based)
paradigm concentrate on describing tools and techni-
ques, rather than, when to use the most appropriate for
the situation, as do Thomas et al. [21].
I would therefore argue that the current programme
paradigm is a ‘performance’ paradigm. It is about clear
objectives and deliverables and robust control techni-
ques embedded in an ‘uncertainty-reduction’ process of
plan-execute-control with which Winch et al. [22] have
already associated to projects.
1.2. The emerging programme paradigm
Görög and Smith [20], who advocate the use of PM in
strategy implementation of organisations, imply that
project management needs to move towards a more
strategic-oriented paradigm, or as Thomas et al. [21] put
it: ‘promise-centric values (rather than product-centric)’.
They argue that this new paradigm involves: a cycle
which encompasses both strategic objectives and strate-
gic benefits evaluation; the development of a methodo-
logical background in addition to tools; and taking into
account of the interrelatedness of projects. I would
argue, that programme management can provide those,
but only if it encompasses a strategic decision perspec-
tive, which is ‘ambiguous and complex; fundamental
and organisation-wide and has long-term implications’
(Johnson & Scholes [23]).
Wijnen and Kor [24] write that a programme strives
for the achievement of a number of, sometimes con-
flicting, aims and has a broader corporate goal than
projects, which aim to achieve single predetermined
results. Görög and Smith [20], argue that strategic
management is based on the continuous re-formulation
and is a form of continuous adjustment, whereas pro-
jects concentrate on achieving one single particular
result within set time and cost constraints. Partington
[12] argues that programmes require integration across
strategic levels, controlled flexibility, team-based struc-
tures and especially, an organisational learning per-
spective, which is able to accept paradox and
uncertainty. Murray-Webster and Thiry [4] advocate a
vision, which includes mechanisms to identify and
manage emergent change; they use an idea developed by
Hurst [25] to promote the concept of a ‘learning loop’,
which completes the ‘performance loop’.
These concepts must be supported by an ‘ambiguity-
reduction’ process that needs to take place before any
attempt is made at uncertainty reduction (Fig. 1). It is
supported by: learning, value management, sensemak-
ing, information sharing, group decision support and
‘shared construction’ of statements. In management,
this process uses a range of ‘soft’ methodologies and
techniques like stakeholder analysis, functional analysis,
ideation-creativity-innovation, soft systems analysis and
others.
Additionally, in the current organisational context
and culture, of e-business and accelerated change, man-
agers are required to process a large flow of often-con-
tradictory information in a short time. Programme
managers, in particular, are caught right between the
ambiguous, soft, ‘fuzzy’ realm of strategic management
and the concrete, hard place of implementation. They
have to deal with both high ambiguity and high uncer-
tainty at the same time.
Fig. 1. The uncertainty–ambiguity relationship in change situations.
 M. Thiry / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 221–227
Decision-making and change situations often mean
that multiple stakeholders, with conflicting needs and
expectations, are competing with each other. The
expectations need to be brought out in he open and
discussed (Kirk [26]), stakeholders need to ‘make sense’
of the situation (Weick [16]) and construct a shared
understanding of it (Thiry [19]) before they can progress
towards an agreed decision. It is a context where the aim
is to identify and understand needs and expectations and
reduce ambiguity through negotiation before attempting
to use any kind of uncertainty-reduction process.
To be adopted by progressive organisations, thriving
in a complex, continually changing environment, a pro-
gramme management paradigm would require to
include both a learning, and a performance loop; to
address both uncertainty-reduction and ambiguity-
reduction. Murray-Webster and Thiry [4] have described
this integrated process as the programme ‘eco-cycle’,
which Thiry [27,28] has later called a ‘Decision Man-
agement Cycle’ (Fig. 2).
2. The proposed model
The model developed in this paper acknowledges that
there are ‘deliberate’ (or planned) strategies and ‘emer-
gent’ (or unplanned) strategies [29].
Projects are triggered by a conscious decision to
undertake an action; they are based on clear, well-
defined objectives and deliverables; they are a deliberate
strategy. The project management process is initiated
with a high level of uncertainty at the beginning (high
assumptions/facts ratio); it then uses tools and techniques
like work breakdown, risk analysis and planning, fol-
lowed by quality, time and cost control. All those methods
are designed to accelerate the knowledge of the project
situation through information gathering and simulation;
they are aimed at the reduction of uncertainty.
But, deliberate strategy is just the part of the process
that takes place after a decision has been made. The
‘emergent’ inputs, which will trigger the need for
change, should also concern the programme manager;
whether they are a simple adjustment in a project para-
Fig. 2. The integrated programme management cycle model.
223
meters, or whether it is the circumstances that initiate a
whole new series of actions. The learning loop addresses
the processes required to manage both the emergent
inputs and the decision-making process leading to its
resolution.
As stated earlier, project management processes cover
only the implementation part of the strategy process.
There are three other important elements in strategy
management, which need to be taken into account; they
are: (1) the making of the decision itself; (2) the apprai-
sal of its benefit during implementation and; (3) the
changes that may influence its execution. These changes
will be triggered by either emergent inputs or the failure
to achieve the stated benefits. It does not matter whe-
ther it is a strategic, portfolio or incremental pro-
gramme; these principles still apply.
2.1. The learning loop
Some theorists associate learning purely to the acqui-
sition of knowledge. Bramley [30] defines it as ‘‘acquir-
ing the ability to behave in new kinds of ways’’. In
Chinese ‘‘learning’’ literally means ‘‘study and practice
constantly’’ (in Senge [17]); finally Nevis, Di Bella and
Gould [31] define learning as ‘‘the capacity or processes
[. . .] to maintain or improve performance based on
experience’’. The Society of Learning defines it as:
. . .individual and collective capabilities to under-
stand complex, interdependent issues; engage in
reflective, generative conversation; and nurture
personal and shared aspirations.’’ (The Society for
Organizational Learning (SoL) [32])
In the context of this paper, ‘learning’ will be defined
as: ‘the capability to self-assess and feedback to improve
and innovate’ and consider that there is both a social
process and a need for improvement involved in learning.
The learning cycle of programmes cannot be based on
the same principles as the performance cycle; time,
focus, decision and leadership take different dimensions.
Whereas, once a decision has been made, implementa-
tion time should be as short as possible, as it becomes a
success factor; more time is required for the interaction
leading to the decision. Whereas planning and execution
must be rational, analytical and efficient, the process
leading to decision making will rely more on sensemaking
and intuition, it will require innovation and creativity.
Leadership, during the performance cycle is more
deliberate, during the learning cycle; leadership requires
a more consultative approach. In the performance cycle,
the project needs to be broken down into work packa-
ges, and roles and responsibilities clearly allocated so
that resources can be focused on simple specific tasks
without questioning. In the learning cycle, the same
resources will need a holistic approach of the project in
224 M. Thiry / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 221–227
order to be able to identify a wide range of opportu-
nities; the project has to be viewed as a system of com-
plex interactions to which everybody can contribute.
2.2. Value management and learning
I personally believe Value Management (VM) can
offer programme managers the tools and techniques
that are missing in project management to tackle the
learning loop of the programme cycle. As Kaufman [33]
stated: ‘‘The problem with most problem-solving dis-
ciplines [. . .] is that they assume that the stated problem
is the real problem’’; VM is a problem identification, as
well as a problem-solving, methodology.
The new VM Standard (BSEN-12973:2000) states
that: ‘‘Value lies in achieving a balance between the
satisfaction of many differing needs and the resources
used in doing so. The fewer resources used or the
greater the satisfaction of need, the greater is the value.’’
It also continues: ‘‘Value Management integrates the
operational managers’ efforts with those of higher
management [. . .] by concentrating objectively on out-
comes which are in line with overall corporate objec-
tives, in preference to local or short-term priorities.’’
These are exactly the requirements bestowed upon the
programme manager by the proponents of a new para-
digm. The standard describes a number of tools and
techniques which can be applied in the following steps
A Value Management study involves the applica-
tion of one or more methods to a specific subject
[. . .]. The Value Management study will, regardless
of the level at which the study is being undertaken,
follow the sequence set out [. . .] below:
a) define the objective(s) of the [. . .] study in relation
to the [. . .] Policy and Programme ;
b) identify the methods and the supporting processes
needed to achieve the objectives and select the teams
(see note 1) [. . .];
c) identify the functions which are essential to achieve
the objectives and which together will result in the
objective being attained;
d) identify how to measure changes in performance
and use of resources;
e) set targets for performance and use of resources for
each of the functions identified above in the most
effective manner for the organisation as a whole;
f) apply the methods and supporting processes to
identify innovative ways of achieving the targets;
g) select and validate proposals for improvement;
h) implement the proposals which have been chosen
by the decision maker;
i) monitor and measure the outcomes and compare
with targets;
j) feed back results for continuous improvement [. . .].’’
Note 1: In programme management, this would mean
to identify the stakeholders.
In line with the decision management model, I have
grouped points (a), (c), (d) and (e) under ‘sensemaking’;
(b) and (f), under ‘ideation’ and (g) under ‘evaluation’.
Point (h) is partly the actual decision and, with (i) and (j)
part of the performance loop review and change processes.
2.3. Sensemaking
The first premise of good programme management is
to fully understand stakeholder needs and expectations.
Sensemaking has been described by a number of
authors. Louis [34] described it as: ‘‘a recurring cycle
comprised of a sequence of events occurring over time.
The cycle begins as individuals form unconscious and
conscious anticipations and assumptions, which serve as
predictions about future events.’’ (p. 241). Weick [16]
suggests that ‘sensemaking is partially under the control
of expectations’; it is ‘an interpretive process’. As for
myself (Thiry [19]), I summarised it as ‘‘a system of
interactions between different actors who are [. . .]
building a collective understanding of a situation,
developing a strategic model of the intervention and
defining a shared [. . .] desired outcome’’.
In ambiguous situations, Quinn [35] advocates what
he calls: ‘good conversation’. It can be associated to
sensemaking and requires the following features:
‘issues-oriented’, focusing on specific problems and
alternative courses of action;
‘rational’, meaning ‘intelligible, reasonable and well
argued’;
‘imaginative’ in the sense that they encourage ‘open
social interaction’ and;
‘honest’ in that inputs must be true and agreed out-
puts ‘honored’.
Sensemaking is triggered by expectations: ‘beliefs or
assumptions about the future’ [25], and the realisation
that the current situation is inconsistent with this vision.
Stakeholders then need to enter a sensemaking process,
which, in the context of organisations, I [19] have
defined as ‘an individual process grounded in social
interaction’. In the paper, ‘Sensemaking in Value Man-
agement’ [19], I have described how VM can provide the
methodology to achieve positive sensemaking and, ulti-
mately, agreement on the benefits, success factors and
objectives of a solution to a complex situation.
2.3.1. Functional analysis (FA)
Specifically, I have recommended the use of FA as a
technique to achieve positive sensemaking. The VM
Standard states that: ‘‘FA is an essential component for
quantifying value and is therefore at the heart of the
 M. Thiry / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 221–227
VM approach, at any strategic or technical level.’’ [36].
It states that a function ‘‘expresses the effect of a pro-
duct (see note 2) or of one of its constituents and is
accompanied by performance indications (see note 3)
(levels and flexibilities)’’.
Note 2: a product describes both goods and/or
services.
Note 3: performance indications corresponds to ‘key
performance indicators’
Görög and Smith [20], describe functions as that
which has to be ‘provided by the project results during
the operating phase.’
‘‘FA, is used to:
. identify the functions of a product, a system or an
organisation;
. quantify the performances to be reached;
. [. . .] improve communication between those
involved in the definition, design and development
of the product.’’ (CEN36)
Note that, in a programme environment, functions can
be expressed as benefits or objectives.
The FA method requires stakeholders ‘to think in
terms of objectives and end results’. It also requires an
identification of all those who may ‘have particular
requirements or expectations with regard to the pro-
duct’: a stakeholder analysis. FA, if well conducted,
generally achieves a ‘comprehensive description of the
functions and of their relationships, which may be sys-
tematically characterised, classified and evaluated’ [36].
The FA process usually involves the development of a
function model, which I have previously called Function
Breakdown Structure [37]; it provides a representation of
the agreed understanding of the expected functional
benefits of the programme by the stakeholders. The
FBS, because it classifies functions/benefits/objectives
from the more abstract ‘strategic objective’ [20] to the
more concrete ‘project solutions’, can become the fra-
mework of the programme, in the same way as the WBS
is the framework of the project.
2.4. Ideation and evaluation
I will not delve into details concerning those two
aspects of the learning loop, only to say that pro-
gramme managers would apply a creative thinking pro-
cess, promoted by VM, where creativity, imagination
and lateral thinking are to idea generation what eva-
luation, analysis and vertical thinking are to options
appraisal. Creative thinking promotes the alternative
use of those two techniques in order to produce a
greater quantity of more innovative ideas and apply a
better selection and validation of alternatives. For more
information on this process, see Thiry [37]; Kaufmann
[33] or CEN [36].
225
2.5. Review, evaluation, change and feedback process
Once the decision to undertake a programme, sup-
ported by a ‘collection of change actions’ is taken, the
programme enters the performance loop.
The latest revision of the EFQM# Excellence Model
[38] now includes a ‘learning and innovation’ loop.
Most proponents of the learning/performance paradigm
[4,20,24] argue for a continuous re-evaluation or ‘re-
formulation’ of the programme, in regards of the
achievement of organisational benefits, an inductive
(based on emergent inputs) and ‘formative’ (to improve)
type of evaluation/control. This view can be associated
with a transformational leadership perspective [39,40],
or what Argyris and Schon [41] have called ‘double loop
learning’. Quinn [35] argues that when the relationship
between means and ends is not well defined, control will
operate through ‘self organisation’ and encourage peo-
ple to ‘speak up and to challenge received wisdom’. He
sees ‘good conversation’ as a way to exercise control in
a positive, or should we say, ‘proactive’, way and states
that whatever perspective is taken, ‘extensive discussion
should occur between parties involved in the control
process’ (p. 387).
On the other hand, proponents of the performance
paradigm (Bartlett [10]; CCTA [3]; Reiss [9]) argue for a
deductive (based on set parameters) and ‘summative’ (to
assess) type of control, based on performance para-
meters such as time, cost, resources, risks, etc. This
perspective is more associated with transactional lea-
dership [39,40], or ‘single loop learning’ [41]. Quinn [35]
defines it as: ‘‘a ‘warning bell’, a signal [. . .] that all is
[. . .] not going according to plan leading to a discussion
of the causes of deviation from anticipated performance
and necessary remedies.’’ (p. 384). I would argue that it
is therefore not appropriate to programme manage-
ment, as it does not allow for the flexibility necessary to
the management of programmes.
2.5.1. Programme appraisal
Programmes are usually long-term processes; most
programme management authors advocate, as part of
the control process, ongoing re-evaluation of the pro-
gramme benefits and objectives, as the programme’s
expected benefits may change over time [3,10,20]. Fol-
lowing the writings of strategic management authors
[15,17] who advocate a continuous appraisal/learning
process, authors like Partington [12], Murray-Webster
and Thiry [4], Wijnen and Kor [24] add the concept of a
formal programme appraisal process, the objective of
which is to reassess the programme’s critical success
factors on a regular basis.
The learning loop of the full programme cycle is
therefore repeated at regular intervals. In order to
achieve stakeholders’ satisfaction at the time of delivery
[42], it is paramount that a sensemaking process be
226 M. Thiry / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 221–227
included at each appraisal phase and that, when change
is required, alternatives be sought and evaluated to
maximise opportunities throughout the process.
The VM Standard reinforces this concept in stating:
‘‘The kind of FA and the kind of functions that are
worked on may change during the progress of [the pro-
gramme], beginning with the formalisation of the mar-
keting objectives and ending with the validation of a
proposal, which ensures that the reliability and safety
necessary for the fulfilment of the objectives will be
met.’’ [36]
The programme appraisal can be planned on a reg-
ular basis, but allowance must be made for ad hoc
learning loops, when required by exceptional circum-
stances or emergent inputs. The appraisal can typically
lead to continuation, re-orientation or termination.
2.5.2. Project reviews
Project, or sponsor, reviews are quite well described in
the project management literature [1] under Scope Ver-
ification, Integrated Change Control and Quality Con-
trol. They basically consist of evaluating project
deliverables in regards of the stated project objectives.
In addition, in the emergent programme management
paradigm, it involves assessing those results against the
critical success factors of the programme and, in gen-
eral, against the organisational benefits, determined by
the strategy. These requirements can be met by steps i)
and j) of the VM process described above. The use of
VM in this instance enables the programme manager to
ascertain that the project deliverables are still in line
with the programme’s expected benefits.A typical step-
by-step process would include:
. reassess critical success factors (CSFs);
. identify changes in user needs and/or expectations;
. assess probability-impact of deviation (risk analysis);
. generate change solutions;
. analyse value of alternatives:
 business benefits; critical success factors;
 cost; time; quality/performance; resources;
 contractual commitments and contingencies;
 recommend corrective measures;
. prepare change requests (if needed).
3. Conclusions
For all those programme managers who believe that
programmes are more than just bigger projects or a
portfolio of projects, there is a need to acknowledge
that the main difference between programmes and pro-
jects is the complexity and ambiguity of the issues. As I
have demonstrated in this paper, performance-based,
uncertainty-reduction project tools and techniques are
better suited to deal with complicated, uncertain situa-
tions than complex, ambiguous ones.
I have therefore suggested that value management, as
defined in the new VM Standard BS EC 12973:2000,
can offer the methods and techniques suited to complex
and ambiguous situations. I have proposed a pro-
gramme management model, which integrates a learn-
ing/value loop with a performance/project loop to form
a full programme management framework. I have also
suggested that the learning loop should be part of both
project reviews and programme appraisals in order to
achieve strategic benefits and stakeholders’ satisfaction
at delivery.
References
[1] PMI. Guide to the PMBOK#. Sylva, NC: Project Management
Institute, 2000.
[2] APM. Body of knowledge. In: Dixon M. High Wycombe, UK:
Association for Project Management, 2000.
[3] CCTA (Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency)
(1999) Guide to programme management ‘HMSO Publications’
Norwich.
[4] Murray-Webster R, Thiry M. Managing programmes of projects’
Gower handbook of project management, 3rd edition. In:
Turner, Simister, editors. Chapter 3. Aldershot, UK: Gower
Publishing, 2000.
[5] Gareis, R. (1999) ‘‘May the PMBOKTM guide be challenged by a
new project management paradigm? Proceedings of the 30th PMI
Seminars and Symposium, PMI HQ Publishing, Newton Square,
PA.
[6] Patrick (1999) ‘‘Program Management—Turning many projects
into few priorities with TOC’’, PMI-99 30th annual seminars and
symposiums proceedings, PMI HQ Publishing, Newton Square,
PA.
[7] Becker M. Project or program management?, PM Network,
Vol.13- No.10. Drexel Hill, PA: PMI Communications, 1999.
[8] Pellegrinelli S. Programme management: organising project-
based change. International Journal of Project Management
1997;15:141–9.
[9] Reiss, G. (1996) Programme management demystified, Spon
Press, London.
[10] Bartlett J. Managing programmes of business change. Woking-
ham: Project Manager Today Publications, 1998.
[11] Reiss, G. and Rayner, P. (2001) ‘‘Programme management
maturity model’’, lecture presented on 22 February through the
APM Programme Management SIG.
[12] Partington D. Implementing strategy through programmes of
projects’ Gower handbook of project management, 3rd edition.
In: Turner, Simister, editors. Chapter 2. Aldershot, UK: Gower
Publishing, 2000.
[13] Wateridge JF. IT projects: a basis for success. International
Journal of Project Management 1995;13(3).
[14] Pinto JK, Millet L. Successful information systems implementa-
tion: the human side, 2nd Ed. Sylva, NC: Project Management
Institute, 1999.
[15] Mintzberg H, Ahlstrand B, Lampel J. Strategy safari. London:
Prentice Hall, 1998.
[16] Weick KE. Sensemaking in organizations. London: Sage Pub-
lications, 1995.
[17] Senge PM. The fifth discipline—the art & practice of the learning
organization. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday, 1994.
 M. Thiry / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 221–227
[18] Porter M. Competitive advantage. New York: Simon and Schus-
ter, 1985.
[19] Thiry M. Sensemaking in value management practice. Interna-
tional Journal of Project Management 2001;19 2001:71–7.
[20] Görög M, Smith N. Project management for managers. Sylva,
NC: Project Management Institute, 1999.
[21] Thomas, J., Delisle, C., Jugdev, K, Buckle, P. (2000) Selling
Project Management to Senior Executives: What’s the hook?
Project management research at the turn of the millennium: pro-
ceedings of PMI Research Conference 2000. PMI HQ Publishing,
Newton Square, PA.
[22] Winch G, Usmani A, Edkins A. Towards total project quality: a
gap analysis approach. Construction Management and Econom-
ics 1998;16:193–207.
[23] Johnson G, Scholes K. Exploring corporate strategy (4th Ed.).
Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall Europe, 1997.
[24] Wijen, G. and Kor, R. (2000) Managing unique assignments.
Gower Publishing, Aldershot, UK.
[25] Hurst DK. Crisis and renewal: meeting the challenge of organi-
zational change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1995.
[26] Kirk D. Managing expectations, PM Network, August 2000.
Sylva, NC: Project Management Institute, 2000.
[27] Thiry, M. (2000) Successfully integrating value and project man-
agement into a complete strategic decision making-implementing
cycle. Proceedings of the international business and corporate
strategy and planning congress 2000, Amsterdam.
[28] Thiry. M. (2001b) Strategic decision management in organisations:
towards an integrative model of decision making and implementa-
tion. Unpublished Research, Birkbeck College, London.
[29] Mintzberg H, Waters JA. Of strategies, deliberate and emergent.
Strategic Management Journal 1985;6-3:257–72.
227
[30] Bramley P. Evaluating training effectiveness. 2nd Ed. London:
McGraw-Hill, 1996.
[31] Nevis, E. C. Di Bella, A. J. and Gould, J. M. (1997)
Understanding organizations as learning systems. The Society
for Organizational Learning Website/Working Papers http://
www.solonline.org/res/wp/learning-sys.html.
[32] SoL (The Society of Learning) (1999) About SoL, reflections: the
sol journal on knowledge, learning and change. MIT Press Jour-
nals, Cambridge, MA. Vol.1–1, p. 2.
[33] Kaufman, J. (1998) Value management: creating competitive
advantage. Crisp Management Library, Crisp Publications, Bal-
dock, UK.
[34] Louis M. Surprise and sensemaking: What newcomers experience
in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative
Science Quarterly 1980;25:226–51.
[35] Quinn JJ. The role of ‘good conversation’ in strategic control.
Journal of Management Studies 1996;33(3):381–4.
[36] CEN (European Committee for Standardization). Value man-
agement, European standard BS EN 12973:2000. Chiswick: Brit-
ish Standards Institution (BSI), 2000.
[37] Thiry M. Value management practice. Sylva NC: Project Man-
agement Institute, 1997.
[38] EFQM (1999) The EFQM#excellence model. European Foun-
dation for Quality Management, Brussels.
[39] Burns J. Leadership. New-York: Harper and Row, 1978.
[40] Bennis W, Nanus B. Leaders: the strategies for taking charge.
New-York: Harper and Row, 1985.
[41] Argyris C, Schon DA. Organizational learning: a theory of action
perpective. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley, 1978.
[42] Neal RA. Project definition: the soft-systems approach. Interna-
tional Journal of Project Management 1995.