Project Based Organization (PBO) Analysis

lying-in Based Organization (PBO) AnalysisIn todays roiling market, a hoi polloi of administrations is up to now seeking for a strategic advantage over others and a lot of them has actually seek labour Based Organization (PBO) as a way to push them for crackinger height and thus, gain a strategic advantage over other companies. However, on that point argon still questions how they s covering silk hat make use of this brand-new fundamental law form draw close to create a synergy amidst company pipeline mission, strategy, and abide as intumesce as portfolio anxietyPBOs refer to organisational forms that involve the population of interim systems for the performance of bemuse tasks or activities. PBOs be gaining increased attention as an emerging organisational form, only there is very little companionship on how PBO business in practise and what protect or benefits in adopting the practice of PBOs. Needless to say, there argon non many a(prenominal) findings on how the extensive use of peculiar and temporary endeavors like construes whoremaster supporter twine the strategy and brass sections design.By qualification victimisation of stand forethought outgo practices, PBO give jockstrap organization to be make love more than dynamic, flexible and responsive when dealing with a turbulent environment. This PBO improvement will mark organization to be more creative and sophisticated when coping and responding quickly to the ever changing market demand.EMPLOYING put up BASED com doSIn order to deploy get windion ground solicitude more effectively and efficiently, organization unavoidableness to engage the top forethought to recognize this new approach of embracing vomit centering best practices. They have to engage the right attitudes by means ofout the organization. In doing so, it will help the organization to fully reap the benefits of this new formidable and competitive ordnance so as to fight for c ontinue business growing and making sure the corporate will gain a better kick d takestairs to survive in todays highly competitive market.Establishing executive ownership and duty for drop based precaution with the organization is equated with endorsement in organization constructions, the closer something is to the top, the higher its level of authority, acceptance, adoption and autonomy is perceived to be by the organization. It has to be a top- beat approach whereby we need to set-aside(p) CEO, ripened management of the company and sell them the judgments of how PBOs concept is able to propel the company to greater height.Positioning the run across based management function at the top in a hierarchical organisational anatomical structure establishes its autonomy and thus ownership of the responsibility for setting up, distributing, supporting, and managing the application of visit management best practices. Enterprise-wide adoption of take c be based management bes t management diagnoseed for single ownership of the function. Establishing harsh practices across an organization at all levels is difficult, if not impossible, without a clearly established sole ownership. We do believe, however that establishing a PBO is the right thing to do, be vitrine global competition in the marketplace will continue to increase. Therefore, proposal based management is angiotensin-converting enzyme of the best answers for surviving global competition.We need to first identify the social functions, responsibilities of aged management squad up and their business function when structuring the PBO. Once we have place their function focus and agreed upon their roles, we will then need to go away to clarify relationships between these functions, like who is leading, supporting and following. This will help to ensure clarification on how these units preempt naturalize or function unneurotic in a team. For example, typical teams in IT might include a str ategic management team, an induction management team, a project/ computer program management team and a product management team. Each team is comprised of more than one unit and there be overlaps between the teams. The clinical of this structure is to create team accountability.TRADITIONAL AND PROJECT BASED ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONTRADITIONAL ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE AND OPERATION handed-down management has been applied since twenty century and is well developed on the core principles of standardization, specialization, common goal, hierarchy organization, planning and encounter and external-reward (Hamel et al., 2007). A tralatitious organization is constructed based on those core principles of traditionalistic management and functioned by means of vertical and horizontal operations which atomic number 18 a hierarchic structure with various operational departments as the vertical operation and a lean process designed for specific generalized task perplexs by us ing Standard in operation(p) Procedural to interrelate individual practicable.DISADVANTAGES visualize members from separately project teams are dispatched from useful departments this normally causes conflicts between functional departments and project teams when the resources and priority of urgency are conflicting.Hard to assess employee performance since employee can be presbyopic to functional department and project teams. This will forever and a day cause confusion and unhappiness to employees involved.What project he/she participates is decided by the project manager and department head instead of self-actualization, which reduces the performance of both ain knowledge and organizational encyclopedism.Hierarchy structure, functional department operation model and Standard Operating Procedure are characteristics of a traditional organization, which makes its handicap in dealing with departs.Contention of resources between functional department and project team, which will develop conflicts at heart organizations, resulting in dis accord and distrust.No organizational synergy due to lack of inadaptable interactive relations between functional departments.Lack of ability to adapt to changes in colligate to market uncertainty or other external factors. This is caused by rigid, stagnant Standard Operating Procedures which are regulated according to generalized task model and thence not capable of responding to any changes conditions measurely.THE PBO STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONA project based organization is a structure that facilitates the coordination and implementation of project activities. Its briny reason is to create an environment that helps enhance interactions between team members with a minimal disruptions, overlaps and conflict. One of the measurable decisions of project management is the type of organizational structure that will be used for the project.Every project has its unique characteristics and the design of an organizational structure should consider the organizational environment, the project characteristics in which it will operate, and the level of authority the project manager is given. One of the of import objectives of the structure is to reduce uncertainty and confusion that typically occurs at the project initiation phase. The structure defines the relationships among members of the project management and the relationships with the external environment.In PBO project managers have a high level of authority to manage and go steady the project resources. The project manager in this structure has total authority over the project and can acquire resources needed to accomplish project objectives from within or outside the parent organization, bind only(prenominal) to the scope, quality, and calculate constraints identified in the project.In the PBO, project members are assigned specifically to the project and report directly to the project manager. The project manager is responsible for(p) for the performance appraisal and career progression of all project team members while on the project. This leads to increased project loyalty. Complete line authority over project efforts affords the project manager strong project controls and centralised lines of communication. This leads to rapid reaction time and improved project based organizations are more common among large and complicated projects.PBO KEY TO SUCCESS FOR immediately ORGANIZATION INNOVATION ENABLER10 Tips by the Worlds Best InnovatorsOrganize yourself globally because it beats localLife treasures through communicationTurn not invented here into a quality sealFocus on risky Ideas (there are enough small ones)Think platformMinimize time-to-test list your customers as your bossLeverage designTake care of the gem unveiling organization cultivation that reacts to changesUse business model institutions as the turboPROJECTS AND INNOVATION HOW THEY INTERLINKED WITH ONE ANOTHERWhat does PBO has to do with Innovatio n?We will sustain by defining both knowledgeableness and projects and identifying common ground in their concepts. befuddles and Innovation donation common roots in their definitions, both areTemporary they end when they become combine to the normal routine of operationsProduce unique results the end product or service should be, in some way, different than the existing.Characterized by progressive elaboration they cannot be tacit entirely at, or before, the start, therefore the decision-making and realization phases are iterative.Many statements concerning intromission can be applied to projects and vice versa to a certain degree, many of the characteristics of both are interchangeable. determinate definitions of initiation includeThe process of making improvements by introducing something new (Wikipedia, 2007)It seems reasonable from above description that projects and innovation share a natural conceptual basis. It would be hard to imagine how a traditional organization w ould be able to innovate since their structure only has roots in routine, repetitive works and a some(prenominal) certain work output and stagnant floriculture.The whole philosophy and the historical background of both projects and innovation seem interlinked. A strong project mentality with proper governance structures would typically help to promote strategic goals that call for education of innovation. In their quest for innovation, many organizations have felt the need to establish social earningss the project approach has the advantage of proposing an internal network between projects if properly enhanced through program management, as well as involvement of stakeholders.Since Schumpeter (1947), many researchers have demonstrated that innovations are around often new combinations of existing technology. Thus, individuals or di pots within a level must be both able and willing to share their capabilities or resources with other parts of the organization. This author ove rly mentions that organizations need to create common language, otherwise the ability to share knowledge will be hampered (Sampson, 2007). To overthrow some of these pitfalls, several companies have found it useful to introduce systems where mental faculty from all levels of the business can scuttlebutt their ideas.An interesting example of the public-service corporation of much(prenominal)(prenominal) systems comes from Paul Sloan (2006)A copy-machine operator at Kinkos, a range of mountains of copy and document run lay ins, noticed that customer demand for copying dropped off in December. People were too preoccupied with Christmas presents to do much copying for the office. So he came up with a creative idea allow customers to use Kinkos color copying and binding facilities to create their own customized calendars using personal photos for each of the months. He prototyped the idea in the store and it proved popular. The operator phoned the founder and chief executive of Kinkos, Paul Orfalea, and explained the idea. Orfalea was so excited by it that he rushed it out as a service in all outlets. It was very made and a new product custom calendars and a new revenue stream were created. merged recognize that their organizations are always in danger of developing products and services with little or no market appeal. Some organizations are great at innovation like 3-M that produces 30% of its revenues from products that did not exist 4 years ago. However, others are really very bad at innovating such as Xerox who is famous for innovations it did not exploit, like fax machines and laser printers. Others, like Procter and Gamble have successfully reversed a 40 years innovation slump from their last major(ip) breakthrough (Pampers in 1961) with recent advance(a) products like Swiffer and Crests Whitestrip (Brooker, 1999 Moss-Kanter, 2006). Other companies just struggle with innovation like Motorola when it resisted going from analog to digital and los t its lead in cellular phones, or Kodak, when it lost its share of the camera market to canon and Sony for having miscalculated the impact of digital camera in the mid 90s.Although organizational innovation ask more than just taking up a project discover, we have to examine if the project management approach, when well integrated and pore on the broader view of project, could possibly promote principles that are conducive to innovation.Rosabeth Moss-Kanter (2006) describes quatern major reasons for failure to innovate schema Lack of sound innovative investment spread between breakthrough and incrementalProcess miffed controls that strangle innovation and refusal of deviations from planStructure Lack of connections between innovation areas and the rest of the businessSkills Lack of networkers, communicators or connectors and relationshipsMost traditional organizations are better suited to stable environments and employ a top down approach to innovation. Strategy is formulated a t the top along with the major initiatives for achieving it. Some of these initiatives will be innovative in reputation, related to the reading of an innovative process, product or service and often led within an RD Department, free-lancely from the rest of the business. Top down approaches may solicit input from deeper in the organization, but the formulation of the innovative ideas remains at the top or within one of the organizational silos. Many of these organizational models are encouraging excessive control and reporting and, as Holmstrom, (1989) argued bureaucracy, sometimes emblematical of the old hierarchical organization, can be hostile to innovation.We have seen that organizational structure and governance are determining factors in the development of human beings and organizational innovation and that PBOs change the nature of the traditional organizational structure.We can therefore ask ourselvesHow can a PBO structure influence innovation (either positively or ne gatively)?Three recent empirical studies (Bresnen Goussevskaia Swan, 2004 Lindkvist, 2004 Dovey Fennech, 2007), have accepted that organizations that adopt a project management approach in a traditional mechanistic context, often have to deal with a survival between the flexibility and dynamism of the project approach and the desire of firms functional and strategic stakeholders to employment control at organizational level.The authors have already report on a case study that demonstrates manifest of such a division when an organization is moving from a more traditional model to the PBO modelThis very diverse and competent group of hoi polloi had approached a new task in a intimately unoriginal manner, which seemed coherent with the ingrained performance paradigm, still a remaining legacy of the organizations historical culture and note values. It was felt that one of the important emergen needs of the group was to develop lateral, more creative thought processes and ma rch on a cow chip less conformity to foster use of available potential and growth in this new work environment. (Thiry, Deguire, 2004)Sampson (2007, p.382-383) argues that the effect of the organization on innovative performance is contingent on absorptive capacity. A program approach where strategic decisions are implemented through a series of related and interdependent projects (Thiry, 2004a, OGC, 2003) would support this approach, as change and innovative initiatives will be broken down into projects manageable, not only in technical terms, but also in absorption capability terms. The selection of investment activities through portfolio management is also essential, for example, at Apple in 1996, after Steve Jobs was reinstated as CEO, he led a massive review of the RD effort. As a result, Apple focused its resources on projects that had the greatest potential, and eventually produced the iMac, iBook, iPod, and iTunes (Vise Malseed, 2005).Most traditional organizations experie nce communication and resource allocation problems, especially between functional managers and project managers (Alsene, 1999 Bishop, 1999 Payne, 1993) this generates issues at the executive level, when conflicts are escalated and disturb the political harmony of the organization (Dovey Fenech, 2006). This last empirical study showed that even when the value of a projectized approach to deliver strategy is demonstrated, it can still be challenged by the organizations establishment.Many authors have confirmed that the environment in a project-oriented organization is more dynamic and discontinuous. (Huemann, Turner Keegan, 2004) and that the role of the project manager has evolved from that of a single person with specific technical skills to that of a team of individuals which exercise a wide function that spans from strategic to technical (Frame, 2002)..The project management (PM) function is now evolving towards a co-managed business-technical partnership (Frame, 2002), which gi ves it authority over strategic level resources and therefore true decision-making power (Spradlin, 2004).We feel that given the nature of the project/program approach, PBOs can significantly contribute to the development of a distributed network that forms inside the organization and takes on the role of much of the innovation work. Through projects and programs, individuals become connected to the network and generate their own ideas, give birth experiments, do their own findings, build support, and help transition some of the ideas to nut pilots or direct implementation.An interesting example is Harley-Davidson, Inc. counsel at Harley-Davidson has been recognise worldwide for its successful use of progressive, cutting-edge management techniques (Certo, 2003). This company has long developed its use of cross-functional teams to design new products and representatives from engineering, purchasing, manufacturing, and marketing have always had some influence on the future directi on of new products. In order to achieve this, management has been committed to cross-functional teams and these team members work in concert daily and are totally dedicated to the new product development process on a full-time basis.We have therefore seen that innovation, for most companies, depends upon the individual and collective expertise of employees and it seems to have become more important for an organization to be cross-functionally excellent than functionally excellent. In addition to chunk planning at the business level, best-practice companies are using cross endeavor initiatives on major issues in order to challenge assumptions and open up the organization to new thinking. This further enhances innovation as organizations are, for example, able to control their technological developments with complementary expertise in other areas of their business, such as manufacturing, distribution, human resources, marketing, and customer relationships.To lead these development efforts, cross-functional teams need to be form and PBOs would make a significant difference in developing both the culture and infallible structures to help businesses in their quest towards innovation.As reported by Dhyani and Singh (2006) in the following case, most traditional mechanistic models do not endorse an innovative philosophy Service Delivery is based on standards, repeatability, reference architectures, proven and robust technology, guaranteed quality, efficiency and meeting SLAs. The resulting culture is inherently in conflict with innovation, which inescapably entails increased risk. SD has no processes or targets for regularly engaging in Client Innovation. It does not employ volume for this purpose and has no measurements or incentive programs to perform this task and indeed expects the opposite behavior.PBO through the consistent use of cross-functional teams presents a clear organizational advantage over the more traditional mechanistic organization as it suppo rts individuals in its effort by policies, practices and resources that acknowledge this risk and set asides space for experimentation. The organization shoulders some risk as do individuals and teams. Everyone in the innovation culture strives for success and learns from failures by documenting them and hearing about them from others. condition that this is a necessary condition for empowering different players and that sharing failures can be difficult for human beings with sensitive egos. The team setting provided by PBOs most probably allows the scattering and publication of failure with minimal harm to individual egos and enhances organizational learning that can be used towards future innovative initiatives.If we accept the view that innovation can be seen as an organizational means to present strategic goals, it would be interesting to explore and understand the link between the implementation of a PBO structure and culture and organizational innovation and to analyse it to more traditional settings. In particular, we can refer to the fact that, since ruin and Stalker (1961), many authors recognize that traditional mechanistic organizations are struggle to adapt in todays turbulent environments. Nevertheless, in order to sustain innovation, PBOs need to be structured to foster creative synergy between vision and mission, strategy, portfolio, program and project management and be framed in a project-based governance approach they also need to generate tangible value for the stakeholders. Rosabeth Moss-Kanter, who has conducted research and advised companies during what she terms four major waves of competitive challenges (2006, p.74) since the 70s claims that successful innovation take ons flexible organizational structures, in which teams across functions or disciplines organize around solutions, which can facilitate frank connections. (2006, p.82)Innovation is among the essential processes for success, survival, and renewal of organizations, p eculiarly for firms in either fast-paced or competitive markets(Brown Eisenhardt, 1995, p.344)Innovation refers to a phenomenon where a new idea has been implemented into action. (Taatila, 2005).the recognition that project management practice can and will influence organizational practices and, in so doingthat an alternate position may open a door for a redefinition of organizations through projects by supporting the adoption of new challenging organizational theories for project-based organizationsthat the adoption of these new organizational models could generate higher stakeholder involvement, create more value and enable better consolidation between projects and strategy to sustaining innovation.CHALLENGES confront BY IMPLEMENTING A PBOTo adopt a project-based organization presents some challenges to senior managersProject Manager has little or no position power. The position power which is so prominent in functional organizations will change when project-based organization i s implemented. Project Manager will have minimal control over the career path of project members. Instead, project members require an independent career path over which they themselves have control and to which the project work can contribute. Senior managers need to develop project managers and project management so that the project managers can lead based on influence rather than positional authority.Conflicts arise over project member time and resource requirements. Thus senior managers must have a good plan and work schedule priority. Alternatively, senior manager need to come out with special reward scheme to allocate scarce resources-individuals that will help to maximize the value of the project.No clear Organizational boundaries. Project management often requires seamless cooperation among organizational units. If project managers/members see evidence that cooperation is not valued, then achieving cooperation is going to very hard. Senior management needs to create a structu re where cooperation is rewardedTime and organizational pressures abound. Senior management must be ready to support the best practices that will help to reduce project time. This includes forming a core team system, having a project goal vision, allowing more time for project planning so as it wont interfere with project operations, facilitating communication with customers, and supplying necessary resources.Project members do not know one another. Effective project teams require a high level of trust and receptiveness. The climate of trust and openness will need to be a top-down approach. If senior managers are not trustworthy, truthful, and open with each other, there is little chance that project members will be so with one another. Trust and openness are the antithesis of most bureaucratic organizations. Senior managers coming from a less rely organization will have difficulty developing high levels of trust.CONCLUSIONSHaving acute that successful innovation needs flexible o rganizational structures, in which cross-functional teams or disciplines organize around solutions, PBOs could be a possible answer when their structures provide horizontal integration from business strategy to operational benefits and vertical integration between corporate objectives and the prioritized portfolio of projects. It is also very likely that the adoption of an integrated wide-scale project approach could enhance an organizations capacity for innovation for the following reasonsGiven the nature of the project/program approach, PBOs can significantly contribute to the development of a distributed network that forms inside the organization and takes on the role of much of the innovation work.Along with these basic innovation processes, in a, PBO structure locale of control and decision making is normally decentralized through the creation of program and project teams in order to modify aspects of the culture so employees receive consistent and positive messages about init iating and implementing change and innovation.In PBO structures, the stakeholder approach is combined to the concept of value and permeates all levels of the organization by increase the reach of both stakeholder and value concepts.An integrated vision of projects would directly link projects and programs to governance and strategy, encouraging social networks and value creation.In conclusion, we would argue that the commonsensible adoption of an integrated project approach should not only encourage the emergence and enactment of new organizational dynamics, but develop a stakeholder approach and innovative concepts leading to increased value creation. Finally, we can also conclude that it is not enough to set up a PBO if we use a mechanistic framework. In order to foster innovation, all the project and organizational elements must be integrated from start to realization.REFERENCESAlsene, E. (1999). Internal Changes and Project Management Structures Within Enterprises, Internationa l ledger of Project Management. 17(6) 367-377.Bishop, S. K. (1999). Cross-functional Project Teams in functionally Aligned Organizations. Project Management Journal. 30(3) 6-10.Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A., and Swan, J. (2004). Embedding new management knowledge in project-based organizations. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1535-1555.Brooker, K. (1999) Can Procter Gamble Change Its Culture, Protect Its merchandise Share, and Find the Next Tide? Fortune, April 26, 1999, pp. 146-50, 152.Brown, S. L. and Eisenhardt, K. M. (1998). Competing on the Edge Strategy as Structured Chaos. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MACerto, S.C. (2002). Modern Management, 9th Ed.Burns, T., Stalker, G. M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London Tavistock Publications.Dovey, K. and Fenech, B. (2007). The role of enterprise logic in the failure of organizations to learn and transform a case from the financial services industry. In print Management nurture The Journal for Managerial and Organi zational Learning, Sage Publications. 38(3).Dhyani, A. and Singh, R. (2006) Risk and Innovation sideslip for Building a Methodology Tool to Assist Informed termination Making for Managers (July 22, 2006). Available at SSRN http//ssrn.com/abstract=919180Frame, J. D. (2002) PM earnings, Project Management Institute. PA Da Sylva.Gann, D.M., Salter, A.J. (2000) Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms The construction of complex products and systems. Research Policy, 29, 955-972.Hamel, G. (1996). Strategy as Revolution. Harvard Business Review. July/August 1996.Holmstrom, B. (1989). Agency costs and innovation. Journal of stinting Behavior and Organization, 12 305-327.Huemann, M., Turner, R. and Keegan, A. (2004). The Role of Human Resource Management in Project-Oriented Organizations. Proceedings of the 3rd PMI Research Conference, London, July 2004.Lindkvist, L (2004). Governing Project-based Firms Promoting Market-like Processes within Hierarchies. Journal of Managemen t and Governance. 8 3-25.Moss Kanter, R. (1990) Follow-up and Follow-through, Harvard Business Review, March/ April 1990, p. 8.Moss-Kanter, R. (2006) Innovation The Classic Traps. Harvard Business Review, November 2006, pp.73-83)Payne, J. (1993). Introducing Formal Project Management into a Traditional Functionally Structured Organization. International Journal of Project Management. 11(4) 239-243.Sampson, R.G. (2007). RD Alliances And Firm Performance The blow Of Technological Diversity And Alliance Organization On Innovation. Academy of Management Journal. 50-2 364-386.Schumpeter, J. A. (1947). The creative response in economic history. Journal of Economic History, 7 149-159.Sloane, P. (2006) The inspiration for innovation. Computing Business 20 Jul 2006Spradlin, T., (2004) A Lexicon of Decision Making, DSSResources.COM, 03/05/2004. Extracted from http//dssresources.com/ text file/features/spradlin/spradlin03052004.html on 12 Jan 2007Sydow, J., Lindkvist, L. and DeFillippi, R. (2 004). Project-Based Organizations, Embeddedness and Repositories of Knowledge Editorial. Organization Studies 25(9) 1475-1489.Taatila, T.(2005) Innovation Mechanisms in Network Economy, SoL 2nd Global Forum, Vienna September 2005.Thiry, M. (2001) Sensemaking in observe Management Practice International Journal of Project Management, Elseveir Science, Oxford (Feb. 2001) 19 (2) 71-78Thiry. M. (2002). The phylogeny of a Strategic Decision Management Model An Analytic generality research process based on the combination of project and value management.Thiry, M. (2004a). Program management A strategic decision management process.Thiry, M. (2004b) How can the benefits of PM Training Programs be improved?Thiry, M. and Deguire, M. (2004). Program Management as an Emergent OrderVise, D. A. Malseed, M. (2005) The Google Story. Delacorte Press.Weber, Max. (1904 2002)