Introduction
Project management (PM) is a crucial aspect in the modern world for the success of
organisations due to the growing and constantly evolving business environment. The fast
pace of technology development and globalisation have shortened development cycles for
projects and increased the types of activities that organisations need to remain competitive in
their industries (Kabeyi, 2019). According to Nicholas and Steyn (2020), although the project
development time has drastically reduced in recent years, the projects themselves have grown
big and complex hence requiring more integration across organisations. This integration of
projects across organisations suggests that a failed or an over-budget project can lead to
substantial cost, either financial and or reputational, which can be devastating to an
organisation (Nicholas and Steyn, 2020). This is reflected in studies which indicate that
project delivery failures are among the primary causes of poor organisational performance
and lost market share particularly in industries where being first to market matters (Vrchota et
al., 2020). However, as was discussed by Papke-Shields et al. (2010), even though the idea of
formal PM is still growing, the application of its principles has not become standardised or
systematic enough in organisations. This essay argues that the process of maintaining high
levels of PM and achieving consistent success cannot be effectively managed using a set of
rigid frameworks but instead should encourage the hybrid solutions that facilitate the
integration of the key elements of agile thinking and sound controls in PM.
Project management is a collection of distinct yet closely related activities that allow for
proper project planning and monitoring (Meredith, 2011). These can be grouped at the most
basic level into; scope, time, cost, quality, risks, human resources and communication
(Meredith, 2011; Herath and Chong, 2021). However, as respondents in a study undertaken
by Papke-Shields et al. (2010) indicated some project management practices were used less
often in organisations. From the study it was found that the practices concerning to the time,
scope and cost aspects were used frequently in comparison to the other components. These
components define the fundamental concept of project management often referred to as
classical project management (Gablas et al., 2018). On the hand, practices regarding
integration, human resources or personnel issues and procurement were used to a rather
limited extent and practices related to communication, quality and risk were used even more
sparingly. This indicates that organisations heavily focus on what have been termed the ‘triple
constraints’ of PM namely, time, cost and scope. These ‘core’ logistical elements receive a
great deal of attention whilst at the same time potentially, the other ‘softer’ aspects are
1
disregarded more often. Some scholars such as Burke (2013), Müller and Jugdev (2012) and
Tam et al. (2020) have argued that this is justified as these core elements form the basis of
PM and guarantee that projects are accomplished on time, on a set budget, and to certain
standards. According to Gablas et al. (2018), this traditional focus is exemplified by the
conservative approach to reducing risks, defined as tangible and measurable attributes to
achieve the goal of project success. PM has moved towards context-adaptive and people-
orientated methodologies since the standardisation of PM frameworks in the late 90s and
early 2000 (Samimi and Sydow, 2021; Inman and Milosevic, 1999). However, there could
still be some organisations that are slow in adopting these newer strategies.
In the current organisational environment, the emphasis on the three components of project
management discussed above can be explained by the following reasons. First and foremost,
accountability and control issues are important in project management, and these parameters
are easily defined making it easier to measure the results against specified goals and thus
enforce accountability on the project managers (tam et al., 2020). Moreover, stakeholder
satisfaction is mostly depending on the timely delivery, cost control, and project scope, which
are critical factors for stakeholder (Meredith, 2011). Nicholas and Steyn (2020) further
explain that the three aspects are used more because they are quantitative in nature and can,
therefore, be easily measured and reported.
As Papke-Shields et al. (2010) point out, project management practices beyond the traditional
‘triple constraints’ (scope, time, cost) are often underutilised. Such underutilisation of
integration, human resource and procurement practices causes several problems pertaining to
management of complex projects. For instance, misplaced focus on the any of the triple
constraint could result into limited control of integration where large and complicated
projects involve multiple stakeholders. Suppose a construction project, which has many
phases in one single large-scale project, for example, the design phase and procurement
phase, where the lack of interaction between the design team and procurement team can lead
to delays because of unavailability of certain materials or alterations in design needed.
Internal operations that are restricted by silos, ineffective communications, and the lack of
strong integration procedures often affect projects negatively (Hadi et al., 2022). Moreover,
the lack of attention to the HR practices have been deemed as counterproductive in
influencing project performance (Gaspars-Wieloch et al., 2021). Failure to determine these
aspects leads to complications such as low team morale, high staffing turnover, and poor
work skills. For instance, a software development project might experience delays or it might
2
not meet set quality standards, due to the fact that the team might be lacking some of the
skills or experience, this could be attributed to a lack of emphasis by HR in the development
of the team. Finally, efficient procurement practices provide support to the organisations in
securing the timely delivery of resources and services. The lack of emphasis on the
procurement function can result in issues in supplier relations, negotiation, and supply of
resources. This in itself may lead to project postponement and costs escalation particularly in
cases where the project has enormous requirements that cannot be fulfilled by the vendors for
a long time after the purchase (Müller and Jugdev, 2012).
However, such fundamental concepts as communication, quality, and risk management as
vital aspects of modern project management are still insufficiently researched. Bostan and
Saleem (2022) opine that in order to improve the probability of success in the projects
undertaken, it is necessary to move beyond the tools that are used for managing scope, time,
and cost dimensions. In support of this argument, Eskerod et al. (2015) note that project
success cannot be viewed from the purist sense of completing a project on time and within
the financial plan, and client satisfaction, and organisation value creation. These deliverables
are the most affected by ineffective communication between project members.
Communication is not limited to interaction between project members only but should also
include timely interaction with stakeholders which enables the elimination of confusion and
the enhancement of collaboration. Apart from poor communication low quality products can
leave customers dissatisfied requiring do-overs, thus increasing expense and reducing profits
for the company. Therefore, organisations need to have appropriate quality management as
part of their PM to prevent the production of poor-quality goods and services. Likewise,
unmanaged risk affects timeliness and cost, thereby reducing the effectiveness of traditional
controls. That is why risks have to be recognised in their onset in order to minimise and
mitigate them for maintaining project stability. Therefore, when combined and applied
systematically through comprehensive project management, rigorous communication, quality,
and risk management can address areas beyond the triple constraints to improve programme
and project success in complex contexts.
Managing projects in balanced manner improves an organisation’s flexibility and robustness
in an unpredictable business environment. Over the years emphasis has been placed in three
areas, that is time, cost and scope with little regard to integration, collaboration, HR practices
and risk management an approach which is not sufficient for today’s complex scenario as
projects need to be strategic and all-encompassing. A balanced strategy brings strong
3
cooperation between departments, complex role flexibility, and solid supply chain
relationships. Such integration allows organisations to maintain strategic resilience that
comprises of quick mobilisation, staff versatility, and adaptable relationships, thereby
promoting continued organisational competitiveness and innovation. Furthermore, by
integrating comprehensive risk management practices, organisations can identify and mitigate
potential threats before they become critical issues. This proactive approach ensures that
projects remain on track and within budget, even in the face of unforeseen challenges.
Additionally, prioritising robust HR practices enhances employee engagement and
productivity, fostering a culture of continuous improvement and innovation. Effective
collaboration tools and techniques facilitate seamless communication and coordination
among team members, leading to more efficient project execution and better outcomes.
Embracing a balanced project management approach not only addresses the immediate
demands of the project but also builds a foundation for long-term success and sustainability
in an ever-evolving business environment.
Critique and Analysis of Programme and Project Management at an Organisation
To situate the project management analysis of the project, this essay employs Intelligent IT
Hub (IIH) Pvt Ltd (trading as IIH Global), a small Information Technology (IT) consultancy
and software engineering firm based in the United Kingdom founded in 2013 (IIH Global, n.
d). The company performs multiple IT-based projects for its various customers at any given
time. Due to the ever-changing technology landscape, it is very important for consultancies
such as IIH Global to manage its projects successfully to ensure they bring the intended
impact to the clients. In this analysis, the focus will be the assessment of IIH Global’s
programme and project management best practices, which includes their comparison with
current practices and issues they experience. By applying the planning, delivery and the
closure stages of project management, the essay will determine IIH Global’s strengths and
weaknesses that may be indicative of areas of improvement.
In context with the IIH Global, programme management relates to the portfolio of several
interconnected initiatives in support of a strategic goal. Projects are grouped according to the
section because of the shared development areas in the project. These sections, focus on
specific segments of software creation such as areas website and web apps, mobile apps,
project consulting and other areas. This approach helps to maintain focus on specific
development areas, which are de facto programme management structures even though actual
4
“programmes” are not officially designated within the company. Resultantly, the company
does not have a dedicated Program Management Office (PMO) which sometimes presents
challenges for IIH Global’s programme management effectiveness. Due to this structure,
responsibilities are assigned to senior project managers to head each section, and this makes
it difficult to have consistent project management methods across the organisation.
Although this approach has its advantages, notably, decentralisation of processes, it presents
certain implementation issues when it comes to effective resource management (Nicholas and
Steyn, 2020). It means that similar resources can be assigned to different projects, which can
cause conflicts and waste time. For instance, the same or similar skills employed in web
development and mobile development may also be required in e-commerce development.
Thus, lack of sound resource management has at times led to some projects to experience
slow down or reduced quality, but not severely enough as to give the company a negative
image. While IIH Global has tried to rectify this through the use of resource management
software, it is possible that resource management has not been very effective because of the
lack of a PMO.
While traditional programme management literature emphasises a formalised and rigorous
approach (Meredith et al., 2017), early research by Vereecke (2003) suggests that many
organisations adopt a less centralised and formalised structure an argument which Nizma et al
(2024) agrees with. Nizma et al. (2024) opine that the most important thing for programme
management is the structure of the organisation is clearly delineated to show who heads what
and that the organisational culture is understood by the organisation’s employees. This aligns
with IIH Global’s section-based programme management, which lacks a dedicated PMO and
relies on senior project managers within each section. The ideal centralised PMO might offer
greater control, but IIH Global’s current structure might foster flexibility and responsiveness
within each development area (web vs. mobile development). Thus, the absence of a formal
PMO at IIH Global presents challenges, but research by Wang et al (2023) highlights the
concept of “programme orientation” as an organisational culture that fosters collaboration
even without a formal structure.
IIH Global’s programme management relies heavily on informal strategic alignment through
periodic senior manager meetings. While providing flexibility, this ad hoc approach risks
misalignment as the portfolio grows in complexity. Research indicates that clearly defined
governance structures better ensure project outcomes realise organisational objectives
5
(Miterev et al., 2015). A potential strategy as identified by Ahmad et al. (2017), is adopting
Lean Portfolio Management, which promotes continuous strategic alignment through
prioritising value delivery and collaborative decision-making. This framework directly
addresses IIH Global’s current challenges by fostering consistency and transparency lacking
in an informal approach. However, critics note LPM may add overhead requiring dedicated
resources that a growing mid-sized firm like IIH Global has yet to allocate. Alternatively, a
hybrid model incorporating LPM principles dynamically through role-based trainings could
minimise disruption while leveraging its benefits.
As a technology consulting firm dealing with dynamic client needs, IIH Global prioritises
agile project management approaches like Scrum and Kanban (IIH Global, n.d). This
approach offers flexibility and responsiveness, crucial for a technology consulting firm
navigating rapidly evolving client requirements. However, the iterative and adaptive nature of
agile planning, while fostering continuous refinement, can sometimes lead to insufficient
upfront planning, impacting project execution (Sithambaram et al., 2021). For instance,
inadequate risk assessment during the planning phase can manifest in unforeseen issues like
cost overruns, schedule delays, or scope creep during project execution. To overcome these
issues, IIH Global could complement their agile planning with rigorous risk management
procedures or integrate the efficiency of Agile with the conventional methods containing
detailed planning phase (Sithambaram et al., 2021). A risk management plan alongside the
spiral software development, which begins with the establishment of the initial requirements
and risk assessment and proceeds to the progressive development cycle, can help to achieve
both flexibility and control. Moloto et al. (2020) argue that while Agile reflects the
technology industry’s pace, if a project has clear objectives and needs to meet compliance
standards, it is better to use the waterfall model. The integration of agile and waterfall makes
it possible to have extra planning and assessment while making projects flexible and
adaptable, and thus, the combination of the two is highly effective to bring out the best results
(Moloto et al., 2020).
The delivery phase at IIH Global consists of short development cycles combined with fast
feedback loop and direct client engagement to ensure their needs are met and to be able to
adapt swiftly. But they also tend to focus on the speed and flexibility at the cost of reducing
the overall quality of the item. Incorporation of strict quality assurance measures in the Agile
method can therefore strike a balance between quality and agility. The most significant
processes of project closure at IIH Global are the final acceptance of deliverables, the
6
assessment and transfer of the project’s knowledge, and project postmortem activities. In the
overall, documenting lessons learned could be done with better precision although many of
them were well implemented.
IIH Global’s approach to programme and project management reflects a dynamic and flexible
methodology that aligns with contemporary practices in the technology sector. However, the
absence of a dedicated PMO, challenges in resource allocation, and the need for stronger
strategic alignment highlight areas for improvement. By adopting frameworks like Lean
Portfolio Management and integrating more robust planning, quality assurance, and lessons
learned processes, IIH Global can enhance its project management capabilities. A balanced
approach that blends agile and traditional methodologies can provide the structure needed for
thorough planning and risk management while still allowing the flexibility required to adapt
to changing client needs. Ultimately, these enhancements will enable IIH Global to deliver
projects more effectively, meet strategic objectives, and maintain a competitive edge in the
dynamic business environment.
7
References
Ahmad, M.O., Lwakatare, L.E., Kuvaja, P., Oivo, M. and Markkula, J., 2017. An empirical
study of portfolio management and Kanban in agile and lean software companies. Journal of
Software: Evolution and Process, 29(6), p.e1834. [Link]
Bostan, S. and Saleem, I., 2022. Influence of Inclusive Leadership on Project Success with
Moderating Role of Stakeholder Relationship Management. Jinnah Business Review, 10(2).
[Link]
Burke, R., 2013. Project management: planning and control techniques. John Wiley & Sons.
Eskerod, P., Huemann, M. and Ringhofer, C., 2015. Stakeholder inclusiveness: Enriching
project management with general stakeholder theory. Project management journal, 46(6),
pp.42-53. [Link]
Gablas, B., Ruzicky, E. and Ondrouchova, M., 2018. The Change in Management Style
during then Course of a Project from the Classical to the Agile Approach. Journal of
Competitiveness, 10(4), pp.38-53. [Link]
Gaspars-Wieloch, H., 2021. The assignment problem in human resource project management
under uncertainty. Risks, 9(1), p.25. [Link]
Hadi, A., Liu, Y. and Li, S., 2022. Transcending the silos through project management office:
Knowledge transactions, brokerage roles, and enabling factors. International Journal of
Project Management, 40(2), pp.142-154. [Link]
Herath, S. and Chong, S., 2021. Key components and critical success factors for project
management success: A literature review. Operations and supply chain management: An
International Journal, 14(4), pp.431-443. [Link]
IIH Global (2024) We Offer IT Services, Solutions, Support & Consulting UK & USA.
Available at: [Link] (Accessed: 1 July 2024).
Inman, L. and Milosevic, D., 1999, July. Project management standardization and its impacts
on project effectiveness. In PICMET'99: Portland International Conference on Management
of Engineering and Technology. Proceedings Vol-1: Book of Summaries (IEEE Cat. No.
99CH36310) (pp. 375-381). IEEE. [Link]
8
Kabeyi, M.J.B., 2019. Evolution of project management, monitoring and evaluation, with
historical events and projects that have shaped the development of project management as a
profession. Int J Sci Res, 8(12), pp.63-79. [Link]
Meredith, J.R., Shafer, S.M. and Mantel Jr, S.J., 2017. Project management: a strategic
managerial approach. John Wiley & Sons.
Moloto, M., Harmse, A. and Zuva, T., 2020. Impact of agile methodology use on project
success in organizations-a systematic literature review. Proceedings of the Computational
Methods in Systems and Software, pp.267-280. [Link]
6_21
Müller, R. and Jugdev, K., 2012. Critical success factors in projects: Pinto, Slevin, and
Prescott–the elucidation of project success. International journal of managing projects in
business, 5(4), pp.757-775. [Link]
Nicholas, J.M. and Steyn, H., 2020. Project management for engineering, business and
technology. Routledge.
Nizma, C., Bangun, R., Benhur, B., Cahyoginarti, C., Zuardi, M., 2024. The role of
organizational structure in Project Management, Jurnal Syntax Transformation, 5(2), pp.
590–597. [Link]
Papke-Shields, K.E., Beise, C. and Quan, J., 2010. Do project managers practice what they
preach, and does it matter to project success?. International journal of project
management, 28(7), pp.650-662. [Link]
Samimi, E. and Sydow, J., 2021. Human resource management in project-based
organizations: revisiting the permanency assumption. The international journal of human
resource management, 32(1), pp.49-83. [Link]
Sithambaram, J., Nasir, M.H.N.B.M. and Ahmad, R., 2021. Issues and challenges impacting
the successful management of agile-hybrid projects: A grounded theory approach.
International journal of project management, 39(5), pp.474-495.
[Link]
Tam, C., da Costa Moura, E.J., Oliveira, T. and Varajão, J., 2020. The factors influencing the
success of on-going agile software development projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 38(3), pp.165-176. [Link]
9
Vereecke, A., Pandelaere, E., Deschoolmeester, D. and Stevens, M., 2003. A classification of
development programmes and its consequences for programme management. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(10), pp.1279-1290.
[Link]
Vrchota, J., Řehoř, P., Maříková, M. and Pech, M., 2020. Critical success factors of the
project management in relation to industry 4.0 for sustainability of
projects. Sustainability, 13(1), p.281. [Link]
Wang, E.T., Chiou, H.C. and Tai, J.C., 2023. Unintentional programs: An interproject
orientation for Aligning IT with organizational strategy. Project Management Journal, 54(4),
pp.392-408. [Link]
10