MOVING FROM CORPORATE STRATEGY
TO PROJECT STRATEGY
ABSTRACT
Much of the management writing around
strategy tends to cover the practices at
the corporate and business level; there is
a dearth of writing about how corporate
strategy gets implemented by projects
and programs and translated into pro-
gram or project strategies. This paper
reviews evidence from four case studies
together with questionnaire data from
PMI Europe members, which shows that
the processes, practices, and people
issues involved in moving from corporate
strategy to programs and projects is done
in a much more systematic way than is
generally recognized. The findings point
to areas that future revisions of the
PMBOK® Guide should be looking at.
Keywords: corporate strategy; project strat-
egy; portfolio management; program
management; project management; value
management; risk management; leader-
ship; competencies
©2005 by the Project Management Institute
Vol. 36, No. 4, 5-18, ISSN 8756-9728/03
PETER W. G. MORRIS, Professor of Construction and Project Management
School of Construction and Project Management, The Bartlett School of
Graduate Studies, University College London
ASHLEY JAMIESON, Research Fellow, School of Construction and Project
Management, The Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London
Introduction
orporate strategy is one of the most actively researched and taught subjects
C in business today. Projects and project management are often quoted as
important means of implementing strategy, but there is some confusion in
the literature on how this happens and, in any case, the topic has not been the sub-
ject of detailed review.
This paper reports on research funded by PMI, industry, and academia that
addressed the way corporate strategy is developed and implemented via the man-
agement of portfolios, programs, and projects. It does so by detailing the key find-
ings from four case studies, together with data from a survey of PMI members.
Developing Corporate Strategy
Corporate strategy is a means of thinking through and articulating how an organi-
zation’s corporate goals and objectives will be achieved. This strategy is then typically
operationalized at a “strategic” business unit [SBU] level; strategic initiatives are then
often clustered into portfolios of programs and projects for implementation. (The
distinction between programs and projects – and portfolios – is defined shortly.)
Much of traditional management writing tends only to cover the strategic man-
agement processes that formulate and implement strategy at the corporate level (for
example, Thompson, 2001; Mintzberg & Quinn, 1996; Hill & Jones, 2001); there is
a dearth of writing about how corporate strategy gets translated into implementa-
tion, particularly at the program or project level. Yet, in practice, the two sets of activ-
ities are well connected; projects and programs are important ways for strategy to be
implemented in the enterprise and we ought to understand much better how this
occurs.
Strategic management is often ambiguous and complex, fundamental and
organization-wide, and generally has long-term implications (Johnson & Scholes,
1997). While the typical corporate planning process is generally ordered and ana-
lytical, strategy management is also a dynamic process. Mintzberg (1996) has dis-
tinguished “deliberate” strategy from that which is “emergent” – that is, becomes
evident as it, and events, emerge with time (Mintzberg & Waters, 1994). This emer-
gence suggests a more incremental approach to strategy formulation and imple-
mentation where results are regularly appraised against benefits and changes are
made and managed against the evolving picture of performance.
D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal 5
 Similarly, the interaction between
projects or programs and the enter-
prise’s strategy may be both “deliber-
ate” (as formal vehicles for strategy
implementation, as in capital expendi-
ture projects, for example), and “emer-
gent” (in that when they are
implemented, they create new condi-
tions that, in turn, influence and shape
the intended strategy) (Grabher,
2002). Consequently projects and pro-
grams often have a two-way relation-
ship with the corporate environment
in which they evolve. And though
there may be formal strategy planning
processes and practices, strategy may
not be realized in as rigid or formal a
manner as many planners assume. This
said, however, a formal strategy
process is important – it brings clarity
and discipline.
But the role of project manage-
ment in implementing such strategy is
often not clear. Crawford (2005), for
example, found that senior managers
believed project managers should not
be involved in strategy formulation.
Thomas, Delisle, Jugdev, and Buckle
(2002) found that project manage-
ment is seen as strongly execution ori-
ented and as such is not perceived as
strategically important by senior man-
agers. Bourgeois and Brodwin (1984)
proposed that project managers
should be involved in strategy formu-
lation but are not competent to carry
out implementation effectively since
they will not have been exposed to the
factors that initiate change in projects,
a view echoed by Englund and
Graham (1999). And there is a grow-
ing view, at least in the UK, that busi-
ness and organizational change
projects are really managed best by
program management, as defined, for
example, by the Office of Government
Commerce (OGC, 2003), rather than
by project management (Bartlett,
1998; Partington, Pellegrinelli, &
Young, 2005; Reiss, 1996).
It is important that organizations
understand properly their business
management model and the position
of project, or program, management
within it; and hence for project man-
agement to see how they are sit along-
side – and are perceived by – the
6 D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal
business management functions.
Research shows, for example, that one
of the reasons new product innovation
projects often fail is because they lack
wider organizational support
(Wheelwright & Clark, 1992). While
project management practitioners may
think their function is central to the
success of a company, it may have little
meaning within the enterprise unless it
is clearly established and embedded
within the enterprise’s structure and
business management models and
processes.
The involvement of some disci-
pline explicitly concerned with the
management of projects in strategy
implementation seems a priori to be
sensible, if only because of the need of
senior management to have some con-
trol over expenditure and intended
action. McElroy (1996) emphasizes
the need for senior management
involvement if project management is
to be successful in strategy implemen-
tation, a view shared by Broner,
Ruekert, and Walker (2002). And good
governance practice now explicitly
requires, among several things, formal
alignment between business, portfolio,
program and project plans, and trans-
parent reporting of status and risks to
the Board (Association for Project
Management [APM], 2004).
Senior management involvement
may also be needed for quite opera-
tional issues. Not all strategy imple-
mentation is just downwards from the
corporate level through portfolios to
programs and projects. Just as in strate-
gic planning there is upward flow from
Strategic Business Units (SBUs), so in
implementation there is, as we have
seen, management information and
action bearing up from programs and
projects onto portfolio, business unit
and corporate strategy. For example, a
fundamental responsibility of project/
program management is to manage
the resources needed to define and
deliver its programs and projects effec-
tively. We shall see that resource man-
agement becomes a critical factor in
moving from corporate strategy into
project implementation.
Hierarchy is usually important in
any discussion of implementing strate-
gy. A hierarchy of objectives and strate-
gies can generally be formed as a result
of using a strategy planning process;
this can be a highly effective means of
structuring and managing strategy, and
communicating it to the organization.
One such model is Archibald’s hierar-
chy of objectives, strategies and projects
(Cleland, 1990; Archibald, 2003). This
model proposes that objectives and
strategies are developed at the policy,
strategic, operational and project levels
and cascaded down, thereby ensuring
alignment and continuity of strategy.
Similarly, Kerzner (2000) shows a hier-
archy where strategic plans are cascad-
ed from corporate strategy to SBUs and
from SBUs to supporting plans.
Another model is the Stanford Research
Institute’s “System of Plans”
(Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel,
1998).
Partington (2000), in distinguish-
ing the three levels of strategy as corpo-
rate, business and operational, suggests
that operational level strategies tend to
focus on programs and projects
(though Shenar and Dvir [2004] define
the levels slightly differently). However,
the implications of Archibald’s work
(2003) and Kerzner’s (2000) is that the
linkage often starts – or can start – even
higher: something we shall, in fact, find
confirmed in the research reported
here.
Turner (1999) proposes a cascade
to show how organizations position
programs and projects to achieve their
development objectives. As a result of
our research we have adapted this
model to include business strategy and
portfolios, as shown in Figure 1. This
said, the model should be treated with
caution for it reflects the intended
“deliberate” sequencing of movement
from corporate strategy to projects and
fails to capture the iterative nature of
emergent information and strategy
modification described above.
Artto and Dietrich (2004) outline
a number of practices for managing
the strategic-portfolio-project linkage
in multiple project environments.
Grundy (1998) too has proposed a
number of techniques to move corpo-
rate strategy into portfolios, programs
(and projects), such as scenario plan-
 Business Portfolio
Strategy Objectives
Context Portfolio
Strategy
Figure 1: Linking corporate and project strategy
ning, force-field analysis, stakeholder
analysis, and “attractiveness/imple-
mentation difficulty” analysis. Indeed,
as the case studies reported below
show, many companies have, in fact,
developed structured approaches for
creating and managing strategy via
portfolios, programs, and projects in
ways which are integrated with busi-
ness strategy.
Portfolios, programs, and projects
Turner (2000) points out that the
majority of projects take place as part of
a portfolio of several projects or pro-
grams. Project portfolio management is
the art and science of applying a set of
knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques
to a collection of projects or programs
to meet or exceed the needs and expec-
tations of an organization’s investment
strategy (Dye & Pennypacker, 1999).
According to Platje, Seidel, and
Wadman (1994), a project portfolio is
a set of projects that are managed in a
coordinated way to deliver benefits that
would not be possible if the projects
were managed independently, a view
shared by Artto, Martinsuo, and Aalto
(2001). A slightly different – but wide-
ly accepted – view is that a project port-
folio is a collection of projects to be
Program
Objectives
Project
Program Objectives
Strategy
Project
Strategy
STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR PROJECTS
Source: The Handbook of Project-Based Management, 2nd ed.
J.R.Turner © 1999 Reproduced by kind permission of the Open University Press / McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
Adapted by Morris and Jamieson (2004).
managed concurrently under a single
management umbrella, where each
project may be related or independent
of the others (Thiry, 2004; Martinsuo &
Dietrich, 2002). Archer and
Ghasemzadeh (2004) stress that port-
folio management is pre-eminently
about selecting – or prioritizing – the
best projects or programs to proceed
with. Project portfolio management,
then, is predominantly about “choos-
ing the right project,” whereas project
management is about “doing the proj-
ect right” (Cooke-Davies, 2002, 2004).
Archer and Ghasemzadeh (1999)
have provided a general framework for
project portfolio selection that demon-
strates the need for strategy to be set at
the corporate level and then filtered
down to the project level.
Subsequently, they emphasized the
importance of aligning resource
demand with resource availability to
achieve a set of strategic goals (Archer &
Ghasemzadeh, 2004). Knutson (2001)
points out that the project portfolio
management process provides a means
of consistently and objectively evaluat-
ing each proposed project that is vying
for a limited pool of resources, thereby
aiding the process of making the most
effective strategic use of the resources.
D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal
Phase
Objectives
Team
Phase Objectives
Strategy
Individual
Team Objectives
Strategy
Individual
Strategy
Linking company strategy to port-
folio development is critical, particular-
ly when company strategy involves both
a high degree of innovation and a high
rate of growth (Wadlow, 1999).
Advances in portfolio selection and
management practice have been
notably strong in new product develop-
ment (Archer & Ghasemzadeh, 2004;
Cooper, Edgett, & Kleinschmidt, 2001),
whereas there is evidence that the top
performing businesses display strong
management support for portfolio
selection and management, using for-
mal portfolio management methods to
manage their portfolio strategy within
the context of the enterprise business
strategy (Cooper, Edgett, &
Kleinschmidt, 1999). Other examples of
portfolio management practice
employed by a diversity of major com-
panies are given in Cooper, Edgett, and
Kleinschmidt (1998). Artto and
Dietrich (2004) provide examples of
portfolios of different project types and
an outline of the major types of
methodologies used in portfolio selec-
tion. Shenhar and Dvir (2004) propose a
strategic portfolio classification frame-
work that is based on the need to select
projects due to their strategic impact and
to form a policy for project selection.
7
 Archer and Ghasemzadeh (2004)
identify risk and outsourcing as having
a particularly strong impact on portfo-
lio selection and management. They
point out that a key criterion for suc-
cessfully applying risk evaluation in
portfolio selection is that risk assess-
ment and quantification be uniformly
applied across all projects and teams, a
requirement now mandated by good
governance (APM, 2004).
Programs
Program management is a powerful
way of coordinating projects that have
a shared business aim and, according
to Thiry (2004), is the most suitable
methodology for ensuring the success-
ful implementation of strategies, since
it is subtler and more able to respond
to emerging data. Both portfolio man-
agement and program management
focus on prioritizing resources and
optimizing the business benefit
(Bartlett, 1998; Partington, 2004; Reiss,
1996). Program management is more
involved in day-to-day implementation
management than portfolio manage-
ment, which is more periodic and is
strongly analytical. Pellegrinelli,
Partington and Young (2003) see
implementing strategy through pro-
gram management as involving contin-
uous re-formulation and adjustment.
There is some confusion in the lit-
erature – and a variation in practice –
over just what really is involved in pro-
gram management. Most commenta-
tors define program management as
involving the management of a collec-
tion of interrelated projects. Several
perspectives exist on the optimal ways
to configure programs to achieve
strategic objectives and deal with
change (Murray-Webster & Thiry,
2000). Some emphasize the technolo-
gy base, as in platform projects
(Wheelwright & Clark, 1992). Others,
particularly those coming from
Information Technology, also empha-
size the importance of business benefit
(OGC, 2003). Pellegrinelli (1997) and
Murray-Webster and Thiry (2000) have
proposed a more generic portfolio and
program typologies.
Programs are often ongoing or
long-term and are subjected to both
8 D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal
uncertainty and ambiguity (Thiry,
2004). Programs and program man-
agement are frequently used in large
organizations to implement strategic
initiatives. The UK Office of
Government Commerce (OGC), for
example, considers the alignment
between strategy and projects to be
one of the main benefits of program
management (OGC, 2003) – though
this seems rather dated in light of the
more recent guidance on good gover-
nance (APM, 2004): they require a
decision management paradigm which
takes into account the appropriate
strategic perspective. Programs often
have to strive for the achievement of a
number of conflicting aims whereas
projects aim to achieve single predeter-
mined results (Wijen & Kor, 2000).
Projects on the other hand are more
typically seen as concentrating on
achieving one single particular result
within set time and cost constraints
(Görög & Smith, 1999). Many com-
mentators position projects as more
appropriate for implementing “delib-
erate” (planned) strategies, while see-
ing programs for both deliberate and
“emergent” (unplanned) strategies.
(However, in the research to be report-
ed here, we found this to be so for the
aerospace case, but not for the drug
development or construction cases.)
Projects
Projects, in distinction to programs,
have a “unique” objective and follow a
single development “life cycle.” PMI’s
PMBOK® Guide (2004) is cursory in its
treatment of the linkage between the
organization’s business requirements
(there is no real discussion of business
strategy) and the project (via its charter
[4.1], project plan [4.3], and scope
[4.2; 5.1.1]). Turner (1999) is better,
by advocating the development of a
comprehensive definition of a project
at the start of the project, in which
business plans are aligned with project
plans containing key elements of proj-
ect strategy. Simister (2000) shows the
development of business cases and
strategic briefs as part of the project
definition process. Gardiner (2005)
provides an authoritative text with sev-
eral case studies on project strategy.
Morris (1997) summarizes the elements of
a project strategy based on an analysis of
many projects in his historical account of
the development of project management.
The Association for Project Management
Body of Knowledge (APM BOK) (Dixon,
2000) gives fuller recognition to the busi-
ness context within which the project
resides, as well as recognizing portfolio and
program management, and requirements
management. (The business and operating
requirements of a project frequently affect
project strategy significantly and, for this
reason, the APM BOK identifies require-
ments as a key project management
process (Davis, Hickey, & Zweig, 2004;
Stevens, Brook, Jackson, & Arnold, 1997).
Work by the authors in integrating
what the PMBOK® Guide and the APM
BOK have to say about the way strategy
shapes project definition shows the large
number of factors involved in creating
project strategy at the front-end of a proj-
ect (Morris & Jamieson, 2004). This high-
lights the need for an effective way to
manage project strategy creation, covering
not only the front end of a project, but the
entire project life cycle.
As the case studies reported below
show, many companies have, in fact,
developed structured approaches for creat-
ing and managing project (and program)
strategy that cover the entire project life
cycle and are integrated with the business
strategy development processes.
Competencies, roles, responsibilities and
accountabilities for moving strategy
Corporate strategy is not translated into
project strategy by process alone. Moving
strategy through such processes and prac-
tices as we have just reviewed requires an
extensive range of personal competencies
and a clear definition of roles, responsibil-
ities and accountabilities.
Following Boyatzis (1982), several
definitions of competence (and capability)
have been offered. Hornby & Thomas
(1989) for example defined competency
as the knowledge, skills and qualities of
effective managers, and pointed to the
ability to perform effectively in a specific
work situation.
The UK Institution of Civil Engineers’
competency framework (2000) comprises
12 key management roles and approxi-
mately 140 associated competencies.
Elements of strategy management are
covered in both the corporate and
business management roles, and proj-
ect management is shown as having
responsibility for project strategy.
Crawford (2000) reveals a number of
knowledge, skills and personal attrib-
utes of project managers, including
that of strategic direction although, as
we noted above, her later survey
(Crawford, 2005) found that senior
managers did not consider that project
managers should be involved in proj-
ect strategy. Morris, Jamieson, and
Shepherd (2005) have suggested that
this might be a result of her having
used the PMBOK® Guide (Project
Management Institute, 2004) for her
conceptual definition of project man-
agement: the PMBOK® Guide, as we
have seen, assumes no real involve-
ment of project management in front-
end definition, including strategy
formulation (Morris, 2005).
Examples of core competences
related to project strategy are provided
in the case studies in Morris &
Jamieson (2004). We shall also see evi-
dence in the case studies that project
leadership is increasingly being recog-
nized as a key competence in shaping
and implementing project strategy.
(See the drug development and trans-
portation case studies.)
Research methodology
The literature on how corporate strate-
gy gets implemented via portfolios,
programs, and projects is thus diverse
and patchy. While that on portfolio
management is quite thorough, the
treatment is primarily from an analytic
viewpoint. There is little on implemen-
tation issues (although there is more in
the more recent material; for example,
Archer & Ghasemzadeh, 2004). The lit-
erature on program management, as
we have already seen, is often quite
confused, not least on what indeed
program management is. There is a lack
of detail in the APM BOK (Dixon,
2000) on how corporate strategy influ-
ences project strategy while the subject
is not addressed in the PMBOK® Guide
(PMI, 2004). New guidelines on proj-
ect and corporate governance, however,
stress the importance of clear align-
ment between corporate and project
strategy (APM, 2005).
This research project was, there-
fore, set up to explore and illustrate in
more rigorous detail how corporate
strategy is implemented by project,
program, and portfolio management.
Given the availability of funding
and time available, the research was
designed to be exploratory. That is, it
was recognized that only a limited
number of case studies and survey data
could be undertaken, and that the find-
ings, therefore, could not be, and
should not be, taken as either exhaus-
tive or conclusive. (There is much room
for additional research in this area.)
The case study method is particu-
larly appropriate for exploratory
research since cases are descriptive and
explanatory. Case studies were selected
from four different but important
areas: the aerospace, financial, phar-
maceutical and transportation (con-
struction) sectors (though admittedly
all from the sponsoring organization’s
perspective: that is, from the perspec-
tive of the company making a capital
investment).
Semi-structured interviews were
conducted with senior managers using
a questionnaire-based approach. Data
and information gathered from the
interviews, and documentation from
each company, were analyzed and syn-
thesized to develop models of how
corporate strategy was formulated and
implemented through portfolios, pro-
grams, and projects. The results and
findings of each case study were vali-
dated by the appropriate company
before a cross analysis of all the results
and findings was carried out.
A full report on the research was
published by PMI in the fall of 2004
(Morris & Jamieson, 2004). This publi-
cation contains full details of the four
case studies, the highlights of which
are as follows.
Four case studies of moving from corpo-
rate to project strategy
We studied four companies to provide
evidence and insight into the way cor-
porate strategy is created and moved
into programs and projects – a global
aerospace company, a division of a
D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal
global pharmaceutical company, a
group within a global financial servic-
es company, and an international
transportation facility owner and oper-
ator – for our purposes, a leading con-
struction client [owner]. A summary of
some of the key findings are summa-
rized below.
Aerospace company
The company is a Tier 2 supplier. It
requires all of its business activities to
be assigned to a program. Each pro-
gram has to have a client. There is a
hierarchical cascade of objectives from
the corporate level, through SBUs, to
programs and projects. Orders are pro-
gressed through a stage-gated develop-
ment process. Eleven key project
management topics are reviewed at
each gate, one of which is project strat-
egy. Project strategy is managed, in
considerable detail, by project teams
throughout all the stages and all the
associated phases of the project man-
agement process, as illustrated
schematically by Figure 2.
The company also has a specific
process for managing a rapid response
to changes impacting strategy.
The company’s highly integrat-
ed, structured approach used to
translate corporate and business
strategies into project strategy, and
then to manage it through the entire
project management process and
project life cycle, illustrates the
importance it gives to project strate-
gy and its management, as well as
the level of priority which should be
given; it provides a good model of
how this can be done.
Global financial services company
The company has a highly structured
process of developing and approving
its corporate plan but the role of
project management in its imple-
mentation is not made explicit. The
program and project processes are
self-standing and begin with refer-
ence to the business unit’s vision,
mission, strategies and objectives.
Once an initiating “letter of intent”
is authorized for the project, work
begins on defining the business case.
This defines, inter alia:
9
• The program operational vision
• The relationship with the business
strategy plan
• Program/project organization structure
• Risk and resource plans
• Delivery plan
• Project briefs
• WBS
Upon approval of the business
case, the project is prepared for execu-
tion using a ”Mobilize Program”
process, which takes the results of the
previous planning processes and incor-
porates them into the project manage-
ment plan. “Project strategy” as a term
and activity is not mentioned in the
project management process from this
point onward. However, the way in
which the project is to be managed is
covered in detail in the following sec-
tions of the project management plan:
• Project objectives
• Project schedule
• Project budget
• Resource plan
• Risk management plan
• A complete set of project briefs.
The strategy for the project is man-
aged and maintained through the
operational vision within the business
case, and is in force until the close of

Business Process Model

Managing Major Projects Process

Project Management Process

Concept Execute In-Service

Phases of
Each Process
Stage

Key Tasks of
Each Phase

Strategy Strategy

Key Topics of
Each Key Task

Scope Scope

Risk Risk

Figure 2: A structured approach to creating and moving project strategy

10 D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal

the project. The lack of a single coher-
ent project strategy document, clearly
related to the business case, can lead to
loss of business rationale in some
cases. It is recognised that there could
be a tighter linkage between business
strategy and project implementation.
Global drug development company
Drug development involves the pro-
gression of chemical entities discov-
ered in the laboratory through a highly
structured series of tests in animals and
humans for clinical efficacy and com-
mercial attractiveness. In a “big phar-
ma” like the one studied here there
will be several dozen chemical entities
(“candidates”) being progressed
through the pipeline at any one time.
The management of this development
activity involves a complex matrix of
functional “lines” and projects and
programs, clustered under therapeutic
areas (Foulkes & Morris, 2004).
Most compounds prove not to
work in the way hoped and the attri-
tion rate is thus enormously high, cer-
tainly in the earlier stages of the
pipeline. However, large pharma com-
panies typically have many more com-
pounds in hand than they have
resources available to work on them.
Hence there is an on-going dialogue
between senior management working
at the therapeutic governance level on
portfolio prioritization and resource
allocation and project-level status and
outlook.
Portfolios are very important: they
essentially form “the hand” from
which the future of the company is
being played. The term “programs” is
less well embedded. Programs are seen
as constituting a technical platform – a
particular type of drug – of which there
may be various versions (slightly dif-
ferent indications, dosages or delivery
mechanisms, for example). Projects, in
effect, have two meanings. One is the
major project of developing “a com-
pound” from discovery to regulatory
approval and into the marketplace.
The other is the activity of getting the
compound to the next milestone
review point in its development.
The company uses a very struc-
tured project management process to
manage projects. The process is geared
to each of the phases of the life cycle
and utilizes a “plan, form team, moni-
tor and replan” structure. It is also
linked to a series of project manage-
ment methodologies, which identify
the actions to be taken by the project
team at any point in the project or
phase of the development life cycle.
Project strategy is identified as one of
the topics that need to be implement-
ed by the project team during the
“plan” phase and there is a standard
list of contents for the project strategy.
Because of the high rate of attri-
tion, spending too much time detail-
ing long-term project strategy is not
seen to be useful. However, it is still
considered essential to develop and
maintain a flexible strategy for the suc-
cess of the project. Thus project strate-
gy is aligned with the portfolio strategy
and is revised as the project progresses.
Most pharmaceutical project man-
agement organizations distinguish
between a Project Leader (or Director)
role and the Project Manager.
Typically, the former has a strong feel-
ing for the science of the development;
the latter is more concerned with the
operational management of the proj-
ect. The project leader/director typical-
Corporate CIP
SBUs & Other
ora te
Functions CIPs Corp
(Inc AM) er
s/Oth
SBU
ss Go vernance
B usin e
ject Governance
Pro
ect Board
Proj
jects P
Pro
r
M aj o
Minor
Projects
Process
Figure 3: Corporate, business unit, and project environments
D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal
ly assumes a much more prominent
role in shaping project strategy, though
this is not always the case. The split is
reminiscent of Kotter’s distinction
between leadership and management
(Kotter, 1990; Morris, 2004).
Transportation (construction) company
The company is one of the largest and
most efficient airport operators in the
world. It applies the “OGSM” method-
ology developed in Procter and
Gamble for defining objectives, goals,
strategies, and measures in a sequen-
tial manner cascading these down
through business units to programs
and projects.
Figure 3 shows that the strategic
business units, capital investment plans
(CIPs), business governance, project
governance and major and minor proj-
ects are all set within the “environ-
ment” of the corporate OGSMs, and
that each level determines that of the
next in descending order.
The company does not use the
term “portfolio” but does use a process
for measuring the strategic contribu-
tion, uncertainty/complexity, and
value-for-money of its capital invest-
ments at the SBU levels and for evalu-
ating, selecting and prioritizing its
OGSMs
OGSM
s
AM
Process
r
oc
ess
Project
Environment
SBU/Project
Environment
11
programs and projects. Program man-
agement is seen as the management of
a group of projects with similar aims.
Projects are managed via a stage
gate process with a project board
responsible to project governance for
the day-to-day running of the project.
The project is split into two stages:
development and project delivery. The
former is managed by a development
manager, the latter by a project leader
(not “project manager” – this term is
deliberately avoided by the company,
since, to some, it seems too bureau-
cratic and does not sufficiently empha-
size the required level of leadership: a
view reminiscent of the preceding
pharma case and Kotter).
The gated review process ensures
that projects are aligned to business
strategy (and corporate strategy) as they
are set up, authorized and executed. A
project management process is used to
develop the project definition and key
project management plans, a summary
of which is considered to encapsulate
project strategy. However, “project strat-
egy” as a term and practice is not used
in the company. The performance of
the project team is not measured
against the objectives of the project,
expressed in terms of project strategy,
but only in terms of business strategy.
Cross-cutting findings
The following general findings can be
drawn from the case studies.
Business models
Some companies had project manage-
ment clearly embedded in their busi-
ness model; others did not. The
aerospace company had a very power-
ful business process model in which
program management (and project
strategy) played a prominent part. The
international transportation compa-
ny/construction owner also had a
strong business process model, though
project management, as a formal disci-
pline had a less visible role. The phar-
maceutical company had a process
model that was dominated by the drug
development process – this is not the
same as a business model per se, but is
common to all drug development
being driven by regulatory require-
12
ments and was clearly the major busi-
ness process. Project and portfolio
management (and program manage-
ment to a lesser extent) are important
aspects of this process. The financial
services company had a high-level
business process but this was less visi-
ble than the aerospace and transporta-
tion business models.
Cascading corporate strategies into proj-
ects and strategy plans
All the companies created corporate
objectives, goals and strategies using
processes like the strategic manage-
ment processes described by Mintzberg
and others. As in Turner’s model, these
objectives, goals and strategies were
cascaded to the SBUs or equivalent
organizational entities, which, in turn,
and in conjunction with corporate
strategy planners, developed their own
objectives, goals, and strategies. The
SBUs subsequently developed objec-
tives, goals, and strategies with and for
their respective program and project
teams, again in some instances using
fully interconnecting business and
project management processes. The
importance of project portfolio man-
agement was recognized by all the
companies.
In all four cases the program
and/or project teams developed project
strategies that aligned with the SBU and
corporate strategy using project strategy
or similar processes. The outputs of the
processes containing the objectives,
goals, and strategies included strategy
plans, business plans, deployment
plans and project plans, the hierarchy of
which, in most cases, was similar to
Archibald’s hierarchy of objectives,
strategies and projects, as reflected in
the aerospace case in Figure 2.
The pharmaceutical development
company reviewed and rebalanced its
portfolios frequently – formally, every
six months. The interaction of emerging
trial results data on the therapy area
portfolio strategy was strongly evident,
and project managers (and project
directors) took a leadership role in
shaping the next phase of implementa-
tion. This required new proposals for
project or program strategy and these
influenced portfolio strategy.
D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal
The aerospace company formally
reviewed project strategy as a p.m.
topic alongside a dozen or so other
prescribed aspects of project manage-
ment at each “phase gate” review, very
much as good governance practice
now recommends. The drug develop-
ment company did the same thing at
major gate reviews (going into
Exploratory Development and then
into Full Development).
Portfolio management
The importance of project portfolio
management was recognized by all the
companies. The pharmaceutical com-
pany had a dedicated project portfolio
management practice that played a very
important part in project development.
Within the companies, portfolio man-
agement was used primarily to select
and prioritize programs and projects,
not to manage programs or projects.
Corporate and business units assem-
bled a strategic portfolio of programs
and projects, or measured the strategic
contribution of a program or project,
using a number of strategic and project
management processes, tools and tech-
niques. Company management boards
or committees of senior managers
adopted or rejected projects based on
this information. (This was in almost
the identical manner described in Artto
& Dietrich, 2004.)
Program management
Program management was practiced
by all the companies primarily in the
sense of managing a group of high
value projects sharing a common aim
and/or of delivering regular benefits
over a protracted period of time.
In the aerospace company pro-
gram management was positioned as
the management of a number of inter-
related projects but critically also cov-
ering operations and maintenance.
This is crucial in this company since
much of the product margin is in oper-
ations and logistics support rather
than initial capital sales. In the finan-
cial services company there was much
more emphasis in program manage-
ment on managing multiple, interre-
lated projects for business benefit. In
the pharmaceutical case the emphasis
was on “asset” management, in the
sense that the program represented a
basic chemical entity (a technology
platform in Wheelwright and Clark’s
phrase [1990]), which can be promot-
ed as a brand. Program management
in the transportation/construction case
was used to manage multiple, interre-
lated projects.
Program management and project
management activities were carried out
in all cases using the same set of com-
mon processes, variously called inte-
grated program management, program
management, or even project manage-
ment. The development of program
strategy and its alignment with corpo-
rate and business strategy was, as a
consequence, achieved in a similar way
to that for projects. (This aligns with a
finding by the authors from a later
piece of work, on updating the APM
BOK (Morris, Jamieson, & Shepherd,
2005), where we found program man-
agers identified the same practices as
being needed as project managers,
though in some cases by a slightly
reduced amount.)
Project strategy
The business case was the key element
of the corporate and project manage-
ment interface in all the companies. An
outline project strategy was developed
early in all the projects and was aligned
with corporate and business strategies.
Subsequently, business strategy, in
most of the companies, was turned into
a comprehensive project strategy fol-
lowing project management processes
and incorporating many of the usual
project management practices.
It is important to note that good
governance practice now clearly
requires that projects and programs
have an approved implementation
plan which is aligned with the overall
business strategy – and that this be
reviewed at pre-defined authorization
points (APM, 2005). Many companies
now do this on a routine basis.
Two of the companies used a very
structured approach to create and
manage project strategy. The aerospace
company had institutionalized a proj-
ect strategy management practice that
was equivalent to, for example, risk
management or technical manage-
ment. The pharmaceutical company
had identified specific project strategy-
related issues for each phase and stage
of the project development life cycle.
Both companies assigned roles and
responsibilities for managing the exe-
cution of these processes. The other
two companies used a less structured
approach. Though they developed
management plans for their projects,
they tended to neither summarize the
plans nor develop a single project strat-
egy statement from them. The compa-
nies also tended not to use the term
“project strategy” in their project man-
agement processes. (There is a research
issue left open here, namely whether it
would be beneficial to manage project
strategy as a more formal, single docu-
ment – and process.)
The aerospace and pharmaceutical
companies managed project strategy
for effectively the entire project life
cycle and not just at the front-end of a
project. The other two companies
managed the project strategy as part of
managing the business case for the
project.
Processes and procedures
The processes that were most consis-
tently used were those in which the
structure and content were described
at a practical level (e.g., flowcharts
with inputs and outputs for key
processes) and those that identified
who was accountable and responsible
for carrying out the process activities.
Conversely, when the procedures were
described in too much detail staff
tended not to use them. The best
examples of the deployment of the
business models and associated
processes were those that were fully
documented and incorporated within
the company’s Quality Management
System, and were web-based and
available online throughout the
organization (see also Artto &
Dietrich, 2004). Where this approach
was not used, companies, neverthe-
less, linked the activities of their busi-
ness units and projects to ensure
alignment of strategy.
Strategy was consciously and sys-
tematically “value managed” in the
D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal
pharmaceutical company. The trans-
portation/construction company had a
strong “value-for-money” (VM) orien-
tation, but did not use VM as a special
practice.
All the companies integrated other
key project development practices into
their strategy development processes,
such as risk management, technical
and commercial management, and
safety management.
Roles, responsibilities and accountabilities
In the pharmaceutical and transporta-
tion/construction companies, project
strategy was developed and main-
tained by governance and project lead-
ership teams through business related
processes and not exclusively through
project management processes. In the
pharmaceutical case this was driven by
the characteristics of the regulated
development process and by gover-
nance review of the “emerging” portfo-
lio and individual project data. Project
managers focused more on the sched-
uling, follow-up and general “control”
activities in support of the project lead-
ers’ strategy-shaping activities. In the
transportation/construction case, strat-
egy was developed using the OGSM
method cascaded down through SBUs
in classical “deliberate” manner.
Competencies and frameworks
In general, project management resources
and capabilities figured highly in creat-
ing, deploying and maintaining enter-
prise, portfolio, program, and project
strategies. All the companies specified the
roles, responsibilities and accountabili-
ties of those involved in the business
management and project management
processes, some using comprehensive
sets of tables and matrices – for example,
“RACI” tables (Responsible, Accountable,
Coordination/Consultation,
Information) that were linked directly to
the processes. These covered in detail all
the phases and stages of the project man-
agement process and project life cycle,
including those for creating and main-
taining project strategy or for implement-
ing enterprise strategy within the context
of the project business case, these RACI
tables identifying “who” does “what” and
“when” at any point along the process.
13
Roles, responsibilities and accountabilities
The companies also employed a num-
ber of other methods to identify and
specify the skills, knowledge, behaviors
and experience required to develop
and manage project strategy. These
included competencies for senior proj-
ect management staff, such as manag-
ing vision and strategy; and project
management functional competencies
covering knowledge and experience of
strategy-related areas like scope man-
agement.
Survey data on how companies move
strategy from the corporate level to
projects
The case studies provided a rich quali-
tative context in which to explore how
companies moved from the corporate
level to program and project strategy.
But the data sample was obviously
small. To provide more evidence we
carried out a survey of members in a
number of PMI Chapters in European
countries. A series of 32 multiple-
choice questions were developed and
used to examine the processes, prac-
tices, and people issues involved in
moving strategy from the corporate
level to projects.
Seventy-five responses (about
50% from UK) were received from
people at various levels of seniority, in
small, medium, and large enterprises
in a diverse range of business sectors
such as aerospace, automotive, IT,
telecommunications, pharmaceuticals,
retail, transportation and publishing;
and academia and consultancy. The
response rate – about 2% – is too
small for the results to be considered
as statistically valid, but can be taken
as indicative: the research is, as we have
said, at best only “exploratory.” The
results are as follows.
How business management models are used
67% used a generic business model.
50% of those believed they had exten-
sive processes for moving corporate
goals into project strategy; 90% had
adequate or better interconnection
between corporate, business and proj-
ect management processes. Over 53%
recognized a hierarchy of objectives
and strategies.
14
BOX 1: Project Management and Project Strategy
POPULATION %
1. Organizations had extensive or partially integrated project Almost all
management processes to help manage project
strategy, which contained:
Project strategy management 85
Requirements management, project strategy, project 75
definition, and project scope management
Requirements management, project definition, and 85
project scope management
2. Organizations had specific strategy inputs to integrated project Most
management processes, which included:
Corporate strategy 75
Corporate strategy and business strategies 65
Corporate, business, and portfolio strategies 50
Corporate, business, portfolio, and program strategies 45
Portfolio and program strategies only 55
Program strategy 75
3. The integrated project management processes delivered
the following outputs:
A project or program plan and strategy plan 50
Other project management plans 75
A project or program plan, strategy plan and other plans 45
4. Organizations with integrated project management processes 65
managed project strategy dynamically
5. The roles and responsibilities for developing, implementing, and
updating project strategy were specified in:
Project management procedures 60
Project plans 55
6. Project plans were formally reviewed at project “gates” 85
Those who did not and thought they should 85
7. Peer groups formally reviewed project plans 75
Those who did not and thought it would be sensible to do 65
8. It was clear who approved and signed off project strategy 75
9. Strategy was expected to be upgraded and reviewed:
During the development of the project 65
Systematically as projects develop from concept to execution 55
Of which:
It was systematically undertaken at project review gates 85
Program management and portfolio Project management and project strategy
management 85% used extensive or partial project
50% used some form of portfolio man- management processes to manage proj-
agement, of which 95% used some ect strategy; most (75%+) had specific
form of program management (with strategy inputs into project manage-
75% having business benefit manage- ment, and 65% did this in an “emer-
ment as an explicit part of this). gent” manner; 85% used a gate review
D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal
 tencies defined, of which 75% includ-
BOX 2: Survey Findings – Value Management
ed those for managing the strategy
POPULATION % development process. (See Box 3.)
A combined analysis of the find-
1. A process was used for optimizing the value of proposed 55 ings of the case studies and survey was
project/program strategy. then carried out, the results of which
Of which: are reflected in the findings and con-
Value was expressed as a benefit over resources used 80 clusions below.
The process was formalized as value management 55
Value management workshops were held 40 Overall findings and conclusions
at strategic stages in the life of the project Before reviewing the overall conclu-
Those not using a process for optimizing the value of 55 sions of the research, a number of
project/program strategy, but believed they should caveats and cautions should be made
regarding the reliability and generaliz-
2. Value engineering was practiced on programs and projects. 25 ability of the research findings.
Of which: There is clearly a limitation on the
Value engineering (optimizing the value of the technical 80 generalizability due to:
configuration) was distinguished from value management • The size and scale of the investigation;
Those not practicing value engineering on programs and 56 • The sample of case studies;
projects thought they should • The size of the survey;
• The types of programs and projects; and
3. The value optimization process was integrated with risk management 75 • The effectiveness and performance of
Those that thought it should not be done 40 the processes, practices and compe-
tencies surveyed.

All the companies were at differ-

BOX 3: Survey Findings – Project Management Competencies
ent stages of developing, implement-
POPULATION % ing or improving their business
models and the information therefore
1. Project management skills and knowledge competencies 80 was time-specific.
required to manage programs or projects were formally defined The scope of the survey was
Of which: broad and therefore the number of
Those required to develop program and project strategy 75 questions per topic was relatively
Linking the competencies to personal appraisal 80 small. Consequently the coverage
and development systems and depth of some topics such as
Linking personal objectives to project objectives 65 value management and competencies
were limited. A few respondents to
2. Those that did not formally define the project management skills 50 the questionnaire indicated that
and knowledge competencies incorporated the management of some questions were ambiguous and
project strategy in job descriptions or job specifications. could be interpreted differently. Also,
some of the terms may not be well
3. Organization-wide behavioral competency frameworks were used 60 known, for example Value
Those that did not use them, but believed they should 45 Management. The survey analysis did
not take account of different business
4. Competency support programs for program and project managers 70 sectors.
were provided. Overall, the response rate was
Of which: too small for the results to be statisti-
Covered support for project strategy development 66 cally valid and to be treated as any-
thing other than indicative.
Despite these caveats, we neverthe-
process with clear sponsorship respon- value of the project, of which 75% less feel a number of conclusions can
sibilities, and 65% upgraded strategy as combined it with risk management. be drawn from the research.
the project progressed. (See Box 1.) Only 25% used Value Engineering.
(See Box 2.) Moving from corporate to project strategy
Project value management and its link to Project and program management is
project strategy. Project management competencies. widely used as a means of implement-
55% had a process for optimizing the 80% had project management compe- ing corporate and business strategy

D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal 15

and is a key business process.
Normatively, we should expect strate-
gies to be aligned and moved from the
corporate level through portfolios,
programs and projects in a systematic
and hierarchical manner that provides
cohesion, visibility and an effective
means of communication. Not all is
“deliberate,” however; there is emer-
gence and iteration. Project strategy is
managed dynamically.
Business management and strategy
Enterprise-wide business models are
seen to play an important part in
effecting this transformation. Business
models are used widely by organiza-
tions and the business units within
many of these organizations apply
them collectively. The models may dif-
fer in size and complexity but most
appear to incorporate project/program
management processes as key business
management processes. Processes hav-
ing a high interconnectivity between
corporate, business and project levels
are an important means of translating
corporate goals, objectives and strategy
into programs and projects; and of
ensuring that continuity of strategy is
achieved in a systematic and structured
way. Hierarchies of objectives and
strategies allow organizations to cas-
cade strategy in a systematic way.
Project and program strategy is
not always managed as a formal
process. Often it is developed and
maintained by project or program
leadership teams and governance
through business case processes and
not exclusively through project man-
agement processes.
Portfolio management and program
management
Some form of portfolio management
is implemented by many organizations
but most survey respondents perceived
it to be about managing projects
around a common theme rather than
maintaining a balanced portfolio or
selecting the right project (contrary to
the literature). In contrast, three of the
case study companies implemented
portfolio management mainly as a
process for selecting and prioritizing
“the right projects.”
16
Programs are important vehicles
for implementing corporate strategy
and for implementing change. Most
companies considered that program
management emphasizes the manage-
ment of business benefits (as well as
the ideas of product, brand or platform
management). There is broad agree-
ment that program management
includes the management of a portfo-
lio or groups of projects using integrat-
ed project teams, managing resources
in an integrated manner, together with
the management of benefits and of
aggregated risk. Some organizations
use a single fully integrated project
management process for managing
both programs and projects.
Project management and project strategy
Project strategy management is widely
recognized as an important project
management practice that systemati-
cally relates project definition and
development to corporate goals and
strategies. Project management
approaches are now being used by
organizations at all stages of the proj-
ect life cycle with project strategy
development, review and optimization
occurring at specific points. A combi-
nation of program or project plans and
other management plans are most
commonly used to manage programs
and projects, parts of which describe
how the project is to be undertaken –
in other words, its strategy. These parts
may not be summarized in a single
project strategy document. Value
Management is quite widely used in
optimizing the strategy, often in com-
bination with Risk Management.
Project resources and capabilities
are key factors in creating, deploying
and maintaining program and project
strategies. The project management
roles, responsibilities and accountabil-
ities required for this are generally well
defined. And, as the survey showed, a
high percentage of organizations
define the personal project manage-
ment competencies required to devel-
op project strategy.
Several organizations stressed the
leadership qualities that they expected
of their executives in shaping and
delivering strategy, at both the project
D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal
level as well as the corporate level.
It can be concluded, therefore,
that although project strategy manage-
ment is an underexplored and insuffi-
ciently described subject in the
business and project literature, it is, in
fact, a relatively well-trodden area,
deserving of more recognition, formal
study, and discussion.
References
Archer, N. P., & Ghasemzadeh, F.
(1999). An integrated framework for
project portfolio selection. International
Journal of Project Management, 17,
207–216.
Archer, N. P., & Ghasemzadeh, F.
(2004). Project portfolio selection and
management. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K.
Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley guide to manag-
ing projects. New York: John Wiley &
Sons Inc.
Archibald, R. (2003). Managing
high-technology programs and projects (3rd
ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Artto, K. A., Martinsuo, M., & Aalto,
T. (2001). Project portfolio management,
PMA Finland.
Artto, K. A., & Dietrich, P. H.
(2004). Strategic business management
through multiple projects. In P. W. G.
Morris & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley
guide to managing projects. New York:
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Association for Project
Management (2004). Directing change:
A guide to governance of project manage-
ment. High Wycombe, UK: Association
for Project Management.
Bartlett, J. (1998). Managing pro-
grammes of business change. Wokingham,
UK: Project Manager Today
Publications.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The compe-
tent manager: A model for effective per-
formance. New York: John Wiley & Sons
Inc.
Bourgeois, L. J., & Brodwin, D.
(1984). Strategic implementation: Five
approaches to an elusive phenome-
non. Strategic Management Journal, 5,
241-264.
Broner, J. M., Ruekert, R. W., &
Walker, O. C. (2002). Upper manage-
ment control of new product develop-
ment projects and project
performance. The Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 19, 233-245.
Cleland, D. I. (1990). Strategic
design and implementation. Blue Ridge
Summit, PA: TAB Books Inc.
Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2002). The
“Real” Success Factors on Projects.
International Journal of Project
Management, 20(3), 185-90.
Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2004). Project
success. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto
(Eds.), The Wiley guide to managing proj-
ects. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., &
Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1998). Portfolio
management for new products. Reading,
MA: Perseus Books.
Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., &
Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1999). New prod-
uct portfolio management: Practices
and performance. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 16, 333-351.
Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., &
Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2001). Portfolio
management for new products.
Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
Crawford, L. (2000). Profiling the
competent project manager. In D. P.
Slevin, D. I. Cleland, & J. K. Pinto
(Eds.), The frontiers of project manage-
ment research PMI, 2002: PMI research
conference, Paris, June 2000.
Crawford, L. (2005). Senior man-
agement perceptions of project manage-
ment competence. International Journal
of Project Management, 23(1) 7-16.
Davis, A. M., Hickey, A. M., &
Zweig, A. S. (2004). Requirements
management in a project management
context. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto
(Eds.), The Wiley guide to managing proj-
ects. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Dixon, M. (2000). Project manage-
ment body of knowledge (4th ed.). High
Wycombe, UK: Association of Project
Management.
Dye, L. D., & Pennypacker J. S.
(1999). An introduction to project
portfolio management. In L. D. Dye &
J. S. Pennypacker (Eds.), Project portfolio
management: Selecting and prioritizing
projects for competitive advantage. West
Chester, PA: Center for Business
Practices.
Englund, R. L., & Graham, R. J.
(1999). From experience: Linking proj-
ects to strategy. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 16, 52-64.
Foulkes, J., & Morris, P. W. G.
(2004). Pharmaceutical drug develop-
ment project management. In P. W. G.
Morris & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley
guide to managing projects. New York:
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Görög, M., & Smith, N. (1999).
Project management for managers. Sylva,
NC: Project Management Institute.
Grabher, G. (2002). Cool projects,
boring institutions: Temporary collab-
oration in social context. Regional
Studies, 36(3), 205-214.
Grundy, T. (1998). Strategy imple-
mentation and project management.
International Journal of Project
Management, 16(1), 43-50.
Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, G. R.
(2001). Strategic management: An inte-
grated approach (5th ed.). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co.
Hornby, D., & Thomas, R. (1989).
Towards a better standard of management.
London: Pan Books
Institution of Civil Engineers
(2000). Management development in the
construction industry – Guidelines for the
construction professional. London:
Institution of Civil Engineers.
Johnson, G., & Scholes, K. (1997).
Exploring Corporate Strategy (4th ed.).
Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall
Europe.
Kerzner, H. (2000). Applied project
management: Best practices on implemen-
tation. New York: J. Wiley & Sons Inc.
Kirkpatrick, D., McInally, S., &
Pridie-Sale, D. (2004). Integrated
logistic support and all that: A review
of through-life project management.
In P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto (Eds.),
The Wiley guide to managing projects.
New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Knutson, J. (2001). Succeeding in
project-driven organizations: People,
processes and politics. New York: John
Wiley & Sons Inc.
Martinsuo, M., & Dietrich, P.
(2002). Public sector requirements:
Towards project portfolio manage-
ment. Proceedings of PMI Research
Conference 2002, July 2002, Seattle WA,
Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
McElroy, W. (1996). Implementing
strategic change through projects.
International Journal of Project
D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal
Management, 14(6) 325-329.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., &
Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari.
London: Pearson Education Ltd.
Mintzberg, H., & Quinn, J. B.
(1996). The strategy process: Concepts,
contexts and cases (3rd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Morris, P. W. G. (1994). The man-
agement of projects. London: Thomas
Telford.
Morris, P. W. G. (2004). Moving
corporate strategy to project strategy:
Processes, practices and leadership. In
D. P. Slevin, D. I. Cleland, & J. K. Pinto
(Eds.), Innovations: Project management
research 2004. Newtown Square, PA:
Project Management Institute.
Morris, P. W. G. (2005). Managing
the front-end: How project managers
shape business strategy and manage
project definition. In Proceedings of
the 2005 Project Management Institute
EMEA Symposium, Edinburgh.
Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Morris, P. W. G., & Hough, G. H.
(1987). The anatomy of major projects.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Morris, P. W. G., & Jamieson, H. A.
(2004). Translating corporate strategy
into project strategy: Achieving corpo-
rate strategy through project manage-
ment. Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Morris, P. W. G., Jamieson, H. A., &
Shepherd, M. M. (2005). Updating the
APM Body of Knowledge. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Morris, P. W. G., & Pinto, J. K.
(Eds.). (2004). Wiley guide to managing
projects. New York: John Wiley & Sons
Inc.
Murray-Webster, R., & Thiry, M.
(2000). Managing programmes of proj-
ects. In R. Turner & S. Simister (Eds.),
The Gower handbook of project manage-
ment (3rd ed.). Aldershot, UK: Gower
Publishing.
Office of Government Commerce
(2003). Managing successful programmes.
Norwich, UK: The Stationery Office.
Partington, D. (2000). Implementing
strategy through programmes of projects.
In R. Turner & S. Simister (Eds.), The Gower
handbook of project management (3rd ed.).
Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing.
17
 Partington, D., Pellegrinelli, S., &
Young, M. (2005). Attributes and levels
of programme management compe-
tence: An interpretive study.
International Journal of Project
Management. 23, 87-95.
Pellegrinelli, S. (1997). Programme
management: organizing project-based
change. International Journal of Project
Management. 15(3), 141-150.
Pellegrinelli, S., Partington, D., &
Young, M. (2003). Understanding and
assessing programme management
competence. In Proceedings of the PMI
Europe Congress, The Hague.
Platje, A., Seidel, H., & Wadman,
S. (1994). Project and portfolio plan-
ning cycle: Project based management
for multi-project challenge.
International Journal of Project
Management. 12(2), 100-106.
Project Management Institute
(2004). A Guide to the Project
Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOK® Guide)—Third Edition.
Newtown Square, PA: Author.
Reiss, G. (1996). Programme manage-
ment demystified. London: E & F N Spon.
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2004).
How projects differ, and what to do
about it. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto
(Eds.), The Wiley guide to managing proj-
ects. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Simister, S. J. (2000). Proposal,
initiation and feasibility. In R. J. Turner
& S. J. Simister (Eds.), The Gower hand-
book of project management (3rd ed.).
Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing.
Stevens, R., Brook, P., Jackson, K., &
Arnold, S. (1997). Systems engineering.
Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall.
Thiry, M. (2002). Combining
value and project management into an
effective programme management
model. International Journal of Project
Management, 20(3), 221-228.
Thiry, M. (2004). Program man-
agement: A strategic decision manage-
ment process. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K.
Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley guide to manag-
ing projects. New York: John Wiley &
Sons Inc.
Thomas, J., Delisle, C., Jugdev, K.,
& Buckle, P. (2002). Selling project
management to senior executives: The
case for avoiding crisis sales. Project
Management Journal, 33(4), 9-28.
Thompson, J. L. (2001). Strategic
management (4th ed.). London:
Thomson Learning.
Turner, R. J. (1999). The handbook of
project-based management. Maidenhead,
UK: McGraw-Hill.
Turner, R. J., & Simister, S. J. (Eds.).
(2000). The Gower handbook of project
management (3rd ed.). Aldershot, UK:
Gower Publishing.
Ward, J., & Peppard, J. (1999).
Strategic planning for information systems.
London: John Wiley & Sons.
Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B.
(1992). Revolutionizing New Product
Development. New York: The Free Press.
Wijen, G., & Kor, R. (2000).
Managing unique assignments. Aldershot,
UK: Gower Publishing.

DR. PETER MORRIS is Professor of Construction and Project Management at University College London (UCL) and Visiting
Professor of Engineering Project Management at the University of Manchester. He is also Executive Director of INDECO, an
international projects-based management consultancy. He has written over 120 papers on project management as well
as the books The Anatomy of Major Projects (Wiley, 1987) and The Management of Projects (Thomas Telford, 1997); he is
the editor, with Jeffrey Pinto, of the Wiley Guide to Managing Projects (Wiley, 2004) and co-author with Ashley Jamieson
of Translating Corporate Strategy into Project Strategy: Achieving Corporate Strategy Through Project Management (PMI,
2004). In 2005, he received the PMI Research Achievement Award.

ASHLEY JAMIESON worked for many years as a business manager, senior program manager, and project manager with
global aerospace and defense companies. For the last few years, he has been working with Peter Morris on a variety of
research projects. At Manchester, he carried out research into design management in major construction projects, and
was a visiting lecturer in project management. At UCL, he recently completed the PMI-funded research project on how
corporate strategy is translated into project strategy, which forms the basis of this paper. He was recently Research Fellow
on a project updating the APM BOK. He holds an MSc in Engineering Business Management. In addition to this PMI
publication, he is a contributor to the Wiley Guide to Managing Projects (Wiley, 2004).

18 D E C E M B E R 2005 Project Management Journal