Perhaps the most critical element in the competitiveness and growth of organizations is project management (PM). Clearly, no organization can survive today without projects. Projects are the engines that drive innovation and change; they turn ideas and strategy into new products and services, and they make organizations better, stronger, and more competitive. Furthermore, in an increasingly dynamic and competitive world, the investment and effort in projects continue to grow.

However, in spite of the growing importance of projects and consequently, the increased investment in education and certification programs, most projects today are still showing poor performance. Most projects don’t meet their time and budget goals, and many do not deliver their expected business returns. In fact, new research recently suggested that project success is actually going down, not up [1Project Management Institute The Pulse of the Profession - Annual PMI Report. Newtown Square PA Project Management Institute 2013.], perhaps due to increased complexity, higher pace, and accelerated technological changes.

Paradoxically, however, organizations are often not seeing project management as a strategic competitive asset, and many CEOs perceive PM as simple, straightforward, and just operational. The rare combination of importance, weakness, and neglect, provides a unique opportunity for companies and executives to make a difference, and benefit from turning project management into a powerful competitive activity.

In this paper we describe the status of conventional project management and the opportunity for change. We will introduce the concept of Strategic Project Leadership, which was developed during years of research, consulting, and teaching, in order to help organizations and managers make this evolution. We will start by analyzing the reasons for weaknesses in the profession, present our research process and findings, and provide the framework for turning projects into powerful competitive assets. We conclude by describing a set of managerial implications and principles on how to implement SPL on top of the existing project management organizational practices.

Many organizations today are using a well-established approach and a set of universal techniques to manage their projects; yet they often find out that the traditional approach to project management is insufficient to deal with today’s dynamic business requirements. In fact, the truth is that even if you do everything by the book and precisely follow all the formal guidelines of PM, your project may still fail! The question is, why? And what is missing?

The traditional approach to project management is based on concepts that were established about 50 years ago. These concepts suggest that a project consists of a collection of activities that need to be planned and executed according to a predetermined plan, while the goal of the project is essentially to deliver time, cost, and scope goals - what has become known as the “Triple Constraint.” Following these concepts, the discipline of project management has developed standard tools and applications such as Work Breakdown Structures (WBS), Network Diagramming Techniques, Critical Path, Gantt Charts, Earned Value, Critical Chain, etc., mostly built for planning and managing the project in the most efficient way, namely to help meet the triple constraint.

In spite of dramatic technological development and accelerated learning in science, the project management discipline has not changed much over the years. The same basic concepts are still dominating the profession today. We believe it is time to face the new realities of business and organizations and advance project management to the next level, which will address these realities.

Many authors have discussed in recent years the reasons why the classical approach is insufficient [2Jugdev K, Muller R. A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project success. Proj Manage J 2005; 36(4 ): 19-31., 3Morris PWG, Pinto JK, Eds. Jamieson A, Morris PWG. Moving from corporate strategy to project strategy In: Morris PWG, Pinto JK, Eds. The Wiley guide to managing projects. Hoboken : NJ Wiley and Sons 2004; pp. 177-205.]. Two influential studies by Williams [4Williams T. Assessing and moving on from the dominant project management discourse in the light of project overruns. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 2005; 52(4 ): 497-508.] and Lenfile and Loch [5Lenfle S, Loch C. Lost roots how project management came to emphasize control over flexibility and novelty. Calif Manage Rev 2009; 53(1 ): 32-55.] have demonstrated specific shortcomings such as, sticking to an operational view based on the triple constraint, or the focus on excessive control of process, while neglecting to deal with uncertainty and change.

As Shenhar and Dvir [6Shenhar A, Dvir D. Reinventing project management In: the diamond approach to successful growth and innovation . Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press 2007; p. 288.] have shown, first of all, the conventional approach to project management is based on a predictable, fixed, relatively simple, and certain model. Furthermore, it is often decoupled from dynamic changes in markets, technology, or business environments. However, most projects today are unpredictable, changing, and involving a great deal of uncertainty and complexity. In addition, the current guidelines essentially treat all projects in the same way, and use a “one size fits all” approach. In reality, there are significant differences among projects and “one size does not fit all.” To succeed, project teams must recognize the differences that exist among projects and adapt their style to the specific project characteristics and context. Even agile project management (which was developed recently, mostly for software projects), is dealing with on going changes and adjustments during development, but does not address differences among projects and does not show how to adapt project management to a specific project environment.

Second, while almost all project launches are motivated by a business need or opportunity, the current project management approach is not designed to deal formally with the business side, focusing, as we mentioned, just on operational efficiency. The reality is that achieving the triple constraint is insufficient. It is only one aspect in a project’s success. Research shows that even if projects meet their time and budget goals, they may still end up in disappointing business results [6Shenhar A, Dvir D. Reinventing project management In: the diamond approach to successful growth and innovation . Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press 2007; p. 288.]; and often even late and costly projects turn out to become tremendous business successes. The real success of a project rests on meeting the business objectives that were determined when the project was conceived [7Cooke-Davies T. The “real” success factors in projects. Int J Proj Manage 2002; 20(3 ): 185-90., 8Baccarini D. The logical framework method for defining project success. Proj Manag J 1999; 30(4 ): 25-32.]. So if projects are started for business needs and expected results, why should they be managed just to meet time and budget goals? While many practitioners understand this paradox, it is not addressed by the formal traditional project management discipline. A more strategic and business-focused approach is needed.

Finally, and perhaps most important, traditional project management is looking at the operational part of planning and execution. But it is teams and people, not plans, that make projects successful, and managing a team requires more than just planning and controlling. To do their best work, team members must be motivated and inspired. This requires the project manager to act as a leader, who knows how to define a project’s vision and understand how to inspire and motivate his or her team. The traditional approach essentially ignored the role of leadership, assuming that only top executives are those that deal with vision and inspiration. Yet, according to research, the best teams often report that what made the difference was the vision and team’s spirit and not rewards or level of pay.

The conventional tools of project management provide a universal formal part of the profession – the “mechanics” or the “science.” Like in any profession, the science part is practiced around the world in a universal way and shared by professional associations (such as the Project Management Institute PMI^®) – as well as dozens of consulting groups who offer training and applications based on the classical concepts. But project management is also an art. The art part is not described in books or formal applications. It includes those aspects that are driven by personal experience and creativity of individual leaders. As we have seen in our research on over 600 projects, most of the reasons why projects succeed or fail today belong to the unwritten rules of the profession – the art part. The ratio is often perceived to be 20% science and 80% art. The art part includes many of the “weak spots” that were mentioned above, such as dealing with change, adapting to a specific context, and the lack of business focus during project execution (see Fig. 1). Ironically, however, it seems that project teams spend most of their time on the science structured parts, and only a small portion on the art parts [5Lenfle S, Loch C. Lost roots how project management came to emphasize control over flexibility and novelty. Calif Manage Rev 2009; 53(1 ): 32-55.].

Figure 1 The art and science of project management

We believe it is time to turn some of the critical elements in the “art part” into science and make them more accessible to project teams in a formal way. If we could teach project teams how to deal in a formal, structured way with change, adaptation, complexity, and business focus, project and organizational results will see substantial improvement.

Another retrospective study identified the seven most common factors to highly successful projects – called “Great Projects” [9Dvir D, Shenhar A. What great projects have in common. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 2011; 52(3 ): 19-21.] – see Table Table 1.

Table 1

The Common Elements of Great Projects [9Dvir D, Shenhar A. What great projects have in common. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 2011; 52(3 ): 19-21.].

As can be seen, the seven elements could be grouped into three major groups:

Business & Value Focus

Adapting to Dynamic Innovation

Inspirational Leadership

Ironically, however, traditional project management frameworks are rarely addressing any of these topics. This observation motivated the development of Strategic Project Leadership^®(SPL), which was designed as add on to traditional project management. By adding the formal missing components, the goal of SPL was to turn some of the art parts into science. It is important to note that SPL is not discarding or eliminating any of the traditional building blocks. Rather, it builds on the same foundations and using the fundamental tools and frameworks of the PM profession such as WBS and schedules. SPL is adding, however, three important components, as detailed below.

Strategic Project Leadership^®is based on a simple principle: Expanding the focus of project teams from the project’s output, that is, delivering the product on time and budget, to the outcome of the project, that is, the value created by the product, the business results, and the benefits to all stakeholders. Thus, instead of seeing project managers as responsible for “getting the job done,” (i.e., completing the project on time and budget, and meeting requirements), SPL transforms project managers into the business leaders of their projects, who are responsible, not only for getting the job done, but also for achieving the business results, and for inspiring and motivating the project team. They are also expected to adapt their style to the right context and innovation, and manage their project in a dynamic and flexible way. In other words, the main objective of Strategic Project Leadership^®is to focus a project’s activity on business results by creating value, competitive advantage, and winning in the marketplace. SPL combines the operational needs of getting the job done, the strategic, business-related aspects of projects, the need to adapt projects to innovation and context, and the leadership sides of inspiring and motivating the project team.

Exhibit 2 describes the additional topics offered by SPL on top of the traditional approach. The first component is the Business-Focus level, which addresses the strategic and business related plans and activities needed to achieve the business results of the project (Fig. 2). In the next sections we describe these components in more detail and briefly discuss project planning and implementation according to SPL. The second addition is called Dynamic Innovation. This part addresses the need to adapt project management to the specific project context and characteristics and to see change as a normal way of life in the modern project management world. The third level deals with Inspirational Leadership. This level deals with the soft sides of project leadership, which needs to develop a unique project vision and spirit of excitement and motivation.

Figure 2 SPL - The new science of project management

Managers and executives of projects must learn to expect change, and even embrace it. They must accept the reality that almost all their projects will undergo changes, and treat this as the normal way, rather than an exception. Planning should be seen as an on-going process, and re-planning should become common, not exceptional. Teams should use a flexible style of decision-making and employ a “rolling wave of planning” [6Shenhar A, Dvir D. Reinventing project management In: the diamond approach to successful growth and innovation . Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press 2007; p. 288.], or an “agile project management style” – understanding that not everything can be planned in advance. Changes and adjustments should be added as more information is collected and as the project moves on. And teams should also see this as an opportunity to redirecting the project toward maximizing end results revenues.

The Diamond of Innovation Model for Project Adaptation

Organizations should understand that “one size does not fit all projects” [16Shenhar A. One size does not fit all projects exploring classical contingency domains Manage Sci 2001; 47(3 ): 394-414.]. They should use frameworks that will help them distinguish between different project types, and adapt project management style to the right project. For example, projects should adapt to different levels of market, technology, and environmental uncertainties; different levels of complexity; or different constraints and limitations. They must also adjust the project to the unique business environment and industry. Shenhar and Dvir’s Diamond of Innovation Model [6Shenhar A, Dvir D. Reinventing project management In: the diamond approach to successful growth and innovation . Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press 2007; p. 288.] offers a framework for analyzing a project’s specific context and selecting the right style. The model includes the four dimensions of Novelty, Technology, Complexity, and Pace - see Fig. (3). Each dimension is divided into four different project types, and has a different impact on project management:

Figure 3 The diamond of innovation.

• Novelty – How new is the product to your market and users. Novelty represents the level of market uncertainty and it impacts the effort and time it takes to clearly define the product’s requirements. Novelty is divided into the following types:
• Derivative, Platform, New-to-the-Market, New-to-the-World
• Technology – How much new technology is used. Technology represents the level of technological uncertainty and it impacts the number of design cycles needed and the time it takes before design freeze. Technology has the following levels:
• Low-tech, Medium-tech, High-tech, Super High-tech
• Complexity – How complex is the product or the project organization. Complexity depends on the size and complexity of the product and the organization required to complete it. Complexity impacts the degree of formality and coordination needed to effectively manage the project. It has the following levels:
  Material/Component, Assembly/Subsystem, Sys-tem, Array/System of Systems
• Pace – How critical is your time frame. Pace represents the urgency to complete the project. It impacts the time management and autonomy of the project management team. It has the following levels:
• Regular, Fast/Competitive, Time-Critical, Blitz

A unique Project Diamond describes each project context, and the specific project diamond levels determine what is the appropriate style for this particular project. The Project Diamond can also help analyze project difficulties and put a troubled project back on track.

The Space Shuttle program mentioned earlier demonstrates how a wrong style may impact the success of a project. Due to budget limitations, the Shuttle was bound to freeze its design, configuration, and technology too early to what the program’s uncertainty required. The result was a non-optimal use of technology and a costly program to operate. Specifically, looking at the Diamond’s technology dimension, the Shuttle was managed as a High- or even Medium-Tech program (assuming it would use off-the-shelf technologies), while it really required a Super-High-Tech style. Such style would allow an extended development period for testing alternative new technologies on a small-scale prototype, before selecting the optimal technology and freezing the final design.

A more recent example of the Diamond’s power is Boeing’s development project of its new 787 Dreamliner commercial aircraft. Based on a backlog of 900 orders, the company made a commitment to deliver its first commercial plane in 2008. Yet, the program has suffered more than three years delays and billions of Dollars cost overruns because the company did not assess correctly the difficulties it encountered later. One problem was the unexpected level of uncertainty introduced with the new technology of building the aircraft’s body of composite materials. A second was the complexity of its wide network of suppliers to which the company delegated an unprecedented amount of design and development work. Using a Diamond Analysis would demonstrate that the program was initially managed as a Medium-Tech System project, while the preferred approach would require a High-Tech, Array style – see Fig. (4). In retrospect, the company had to add more design cycles and freeze the design much later than planned. There is no question that the 787 will eventually be a highly successful transporter, but Boeing could have saved much of the program’s pain and embarrassment, had it assessed the real uncertainty and complexity prior to making the final commitment to its clients.

Figure 4 The diamond analysis of Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner.

The third component that strategic project leaders must address formally is leadership and inspiration. Great leaders are known for their ability to define and nurture a vision that energizes and brings out the best in people. Inspirational and visionary leaders are often transforming and inspiring their people to achieve outstanding results and to overcome enormous difficulties. Great leaders do not just exist at the national or chief executive levels. In fact, they could be found everywhere, including in great projects [9Dvir D, Shenhar A. What great projects have in common. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 2011; 52(3 ): 19-21., 17Aronson Z, Shenhar A, Reilly R. Project spirit placing partakers' emotions, attitudes and norms in the context of project vision, artifacts, leader values, contextual performance and success. J High Technol Manage Res 2010; 21: 2-13.]. However, how could we train project managers (who are often technical people) to become great and inspiring leaders? We therefore introduce the concept of project spirit that would become a formal component developed by managers in project planning and execution for the purpose of inspiration and motivation.

Moving toward a more strategic project management world is both timely and necessary. It is also possible. As we described, Strategic Project Leadership^®provides an integrated framework to project management, with a clear goal of achieving business results by creating competitive advantage and value with the project. Implementing SPL in organizations may require changing the current paradigm of project management in the organization, and the most effective way to do it is should come from the top. Executives, who will adopt these realities earlier, will be tomorrow winners. The change will require cooperation between top management and project managers and teams, where executives entrust project leaders with higher autonomy and more power. However, even today’s project leaders (formerly managers) could realize that they could do more by embracing these ideas into their current projects and understanding that just meeting time and budget goals is not enough.

The author confirms that this article content has no conflict of interest.