Based on findings from five case studies, we discuss benefits obtained by using a common project management model. The case studies are part of an international research project aimed at determining the value of project management. All five companies applied a customized project management model. The five models are presented, and their characteristics, similarities, and differences are discussed. Based on interviews and comparisons with literature, the values obtained are identified. The values relate to efficiency, legitimacy, power and control, and stakeholder satisfaction. Further, the article points to necessary preconditions (both technical and human factors) in order to harvest the values.
Associations of Danish Project Management, Norwegian Association of Project Management, and Swedish Project Management Society. (2005). Competencies in project management— National competence baseline for Scandinavia.Hillerod, Denmark: Association of Danish Project Management.
3.
BlichfeldtB. S., & EskerodP. (2008). Project portfolio management: There's more to it than what management enacts. International Journal of Project Management, 26, 357–365.
4.
Cooke-DaviesT. J., & ArzymanowA. A. (2003). The maturity of project management in different industries: An investigation into variations between project management models. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 471–478.
5.
DaviesA., & BradyT. (2000). Organisational capabilities and learning in complex product systems: Towards repeatable solutions. Research Policy, 29, 931–953.
6.
EngwallM., KlingR., & WerrA. (2005). Models in action: How management models are interpreted in new product development. R&D Management, 35, 427–439.
EskerodP., & RiisE. (2008, July). Creating value by building an intraorganizational common frame of reference for project management. Presented at the PMI Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland.
9.
LundinR. A., SöderholmA., & WilsonT. (2001, August). On the conceptualization of time in projects. Paper presented at the 16th Nordic Conference (16:e Nordiska Företagsekonomiska Ämneskonferensen—Projekt, tid och organisering), Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
10.
MikkelsenH., & RiisJ. O. (1996). Grundbog i Projektledelse.Rungsted, Denmark: Prodevo.
11.
MulderL. (1997). The importance of a common project management method in the corporate environment. R&D Management, 27(3), 189–196.
12.
Project Management Institute. (2004). A guide to the project management body of knowledge—Third edition. Newtown Square, PA: Author.
13.
RäisanenC., & LindeA. (2004). Technologizing discourse to standardize projects in multi-project organizations: Hegemony by consensus?Organization, 11(1), 101–121.
14.
ThomasJ., & MullalyM. (2004). Understanding the value of project management. Research proposal submitted to the Project Management Institute in answer to the 2004 RFP Quantifying the Value of Project Management.
15.
ThomasJ., & MullalyM. (2007). Understanding the value of project management: First steps on an international investigation in search of value. Project Management Journal, 38(3), 74–89.
