Advertisement

Improving Project Portfolio Management (PPM) for Improvement Projects

  • Jan Pries-HejeEmail author
  • Peter Møller JakobsenEmail author
  • Morten KorsaaEmail author
  • Jørn JohansenEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 748)

Abstract

Project Portfolio Management (PPM) focus on the integration and alignment of projects with the business operation in order to achieve most value and cost-efficiency for the investment in projects. PPM is often a challenge and especially so for improvement projects where PPM is considerably underdeveloped. In this paper, we present an approach that combines the ImprovAbility model and assessment with a version of a CMMI assessment developed by the Danish company Whitebox. This approach was developed in the world-leading Wind Turbine Company Vestas. The paper presents and discusses this new way of evaluating a portfolio of improvement projects and combine this evaluation with the effect they have on the CMMI maturity level. Further, the paper demonstrates how the combination of a strong senior management requirement for improved maturity and the focus on getting the most value out of PPM made it possible for Vestas to become “better at getting better”.

Keywords

Improvement Maturity Process improvement Success with improvement CMMI ImprovAbility 

References

  1. 1.
    Levine, H.A.: Project Portfolio Management. San Francisco (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Daniel, E.M., Ward, J.M., Franken, A.: A dynamic capabilities perspective of IS project portfolio management. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 23(2), 95–111 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hunt, R., et al.: Project portfolio management for product innovation. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manage. 25(1), 24–38 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    PMI: The Standard for Portfolio Management, 3rd edn. Project Management Institute (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blichfeldt, B.S., Eskerod, P.: Project portfolio management–there’s more to it than what management enacts. Int. J. Project Manage. 26(4), 357–365 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martinsuo, M.: Project portfolio management in practice and in context. Int. J. Project Manage. 31(6), 794–803 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaiser, M.G., El Arbi, F., Ahlemann, F.: Successful project portfolio management beyond project selection techniques: Understanding the role of structural alignment. Int. J. Project Manage. 33(1), 126–139 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beringer, C., Jonas, D., Kock, A.: Behavior of internal stakeholders in project portfolio management and its impact on success. Int. J. Project Manage. 31(6), 830–846 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO: ISO/IEC/TR 33014, in Information technology – Process assessment – Guide for process improvement, Geneva, Switzerland (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    CMMI: CMMI® for Development, Version 1.3, Improving processes for developing better products and services. No. CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033. Software Engineering Institute (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pries-Heje, J., Johansen, J. (eds.) ImprovAbility: Success with process improvement. DELTA, Hørsholm, (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO/IEC_33001: Information technology – Process assessment – Concepts and terminology. Geneva, Switzerland. (the first of the ISO/IEC 330xx serie of standards) (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Roskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark
  2. 2.PMO DepartmentVestas WindsystemsAarhusDenmark
  3. 3.WhiteboxHørsholmDenmark

Personalised recommendations