Success Factors of Project Portfolio Management · Project Portfolio Management Project Portfolio...
Transcript of Success Factors of Project Portfolio Management · Project Portfolio Management Project Portfolio...
Success Factors of Project Portfolio Management
Expert Workshop at ESG UQUAM
Montreal, 6th of May 2010
Prof. Dr. Hans Georg Gemünden
TU Berlin - Technische Universität Berlin
TIM - Chair of Technology and Innovation Management
Research Areas at TIMChair for Technology and Innovation Management
Technology & Innovation Management
Innovation Service Entrepre-neurship
Project Management Technology
What are success factors for managing complex landscapes of projects?
What are the instruments of a strategic, future-oriented technology management?
InnovationManagement
How can companies manage innovation in order to achieve long-term innovation success?
Service Innovation
How can innovative services be stimulated, implemented and supported?
neurship
What are the driving forces of successful start-ups in high tech industries?
Management TechnologyManagement
2
Source: TIM TU Berlin 2009
The Project Management Research Group @ TIM
Prof. Dr. Hans Georg GemündenHead of Chair
Prof. Dr. Eric SchottLecturer Strategic Project Management (lecture and seminar)
Dr. Alexander KockSuccess of highly innovative projects and project portfolios
Sascha MeskendahlStrategic planning and prioritization of project portfolios
Daniel JonasRoles & responsilibilities in MPM and project portfolio controlling
Barbara UngerInfluence of cultural factorsiMPM internationalization of MPM study
Wilderich HeisingMPM forecasting & opportunity management
Juliane TellerRisk management on project portfolio level
3
Agenda
Goals and Design of iMPM Study XX
Success Criteria: Measurement of Project Portfolio Performance XX
Quality of Project Portfolio Management Process 19
Aggregated Measures of Single Project Success 19
Portfolio Level Measures (Timing, Fit, Synergies, Balance, Timing) 19
Business Success Measures (Value Creation) 19
Goals and Design of iMPM Study 5
Success Criteria: Measurement of Project Portfolio Performance 18
4
Success Factors: Definition and Impact on Performance XX
Business Success Measures (Value Creation) 19
Strategy 30
Actors (Roles) 42
Processes (Tactical and Operative Level) 55
Conclusions & Outlook on iMPM study 2010 & MPM 2011 69
Success Factors: Definition and Impact on Performance 29
Benefits and Costs of Project Portfolio Management 64
Content
Goals and Design of iMPM Study
5
Goals and Design of iMPM Study
Definition of Multi-Project Management
Project Portfolio-Management
Program-Management
Project-Management
Multi-Project Management
6
Management
FunctionalManagement
Source: TU Berlin
Multi-Project Management is defined as a ...
„holistic management of project landscapes - applying an aligned
management system comprising organizational actors, strategies, structures,
processes, methods (including IT), and cultures (including incentives) – to
reach defined performance criteria of relevant stakeholders.“
iMPM Diamond – A Research Program onSuccess Factors of Project Portfolio Management
Co
nte
xto
fP
PM
Co
nte
xto
fP
PM
STRATEGYSTRATEGY
ACTORSACTORS
STRUCTURESTRUCTURE
PROCESSPROCESS
Inte
rna
l Co
nte
xt
MATURITY LEVEL OF SINGLE PROJECT-MANAGEMENT
7Source: TU Berlin iMPM-team
Exte
rna
lCo
nte
xt
CULTURECULTURE
ACTORSACTORS
METHOD /METHOD /ITIT
PERFORMANCEPERFORMANCECRITERIACRITERIA
Research Questions of iMPM Study
there are very few quantitative
empirical studies on
Project Portfolio Management
Project Portfolio Management
is a pivotal concept to manage
complex project landscapes ..
Research Gap
but …
Our scholarly research addresses the following Research Questions:
(1) Which practices are used in PPM and how do they develop over time?
(2) Which factors influence the usage and quality of practices?
(3) Which factors influence execution and business success of PPM?
(4) How do the success factors interact with each other and with context variables?
(5) Which elements should be used in a maturity level model of PPM?
8Source: TU Berlin
The Berlin MPM Studies have a Long TraditionSince 2003 Initiation of Research on Multi-Project Management at TU Berlin
Since 2005 First Benchmarking Study on Multi-Project Management in Germany
Since 2009 iMPM: Internationalization of MPM Benchmarking Study
Each two years a new iMPM is planned !
Initiation of Multi-Project Management as field of
5th Benchmarking Study2011/2012
2003 2004 2006
Interview Study
1st & 2nd Benchmarking Study2005 / 2006
3rd Benchmarking Study2007/2008
2007
4th Benchmarking Study/ iMPM2009/2010
Management as field of research at TU Berlin
2005
MPM-Benchmarking-Studies:With more than 1200 participants from different industries
2008 2009 2010 2011
9Source: TU Berlin
Research Program of the Berlin MPM Benchmarking Studies
First & Second Study2005/2006
• MPM-Success
• MPM-Processes, MPM Tools and IT Support
Third Study2007
• MPM-Success
• MPM-Processes, MPM Tools and IT Support
• Actors in MPM (initial measurement)
10Source: TU Berlin IMPM-Team
Fourth Study & iMPM2009-2010
• MPM-Success & Business Success
• Strategy and Portfolio Structuring
• Decision Culture and Portfolio Steering
• Actors in MPM (elaborated measurement)
Fifth Study2011-2012
• MPM-Success & Business Succes
• MPM Processes and Actors in MPM (short Version)
• Opportunity Management and MPM
• Risk Management and MPM
Design with two Informants Secures Independency of Performance and Success Measurement
Decision MakerDecision Maker
Overview of strategic goals and attainment of performance goals
Decision Makers typically are:
• Management Board
• CEO
CoordinatorCoordinator
Overview of implemented practices and levels of maturity
Coordinators typically are:
• Portfolio-Managers
• Multi-Project Managers • CEO
• Divisional Directors
• Head of PM
• CIO
• CTO
• Director of IT-Strategy
• Director of Strategic Management Accounting
• Multi-Project Managers
• Program-Managers
• Director of PMO
• Head of Department
• Project-Controller
• Quality Managers
• Head of PM
• HR Director
Source: TU Berlin 11
Questionnaires made for two Informants Structure and Scope of Benchmarking Questionnaires
Thematic BlocksThematic Blocks
1. Importance of Multi-Project Management
2. Strategic Orientation
3. General Information on Company
4. Characteristics of Project Landscape
CoordinatorCoordinatorDecision MakerDecision Maker
10 Items
25 Items
9 Items
16 Items
12
5. Roles and Responsibilities
6. Structuring of Project Portfolio
7. Control of Project Portfolios
8. Success Assessment
9. Innovation Culture Assessment
73 Items
78 Items
57 Items
31 Items
9 Items
∑ 100 Items ∑ 284 Items
15 Items
7 Items
28 Items1
1. Enquiry made to increase comparability for future internationalization of MPM Study Source: TU Berlin
Coordinator assesses control of project portfolio –Decision Maker assesses success of project portfolio
13 Items 13 Items
3013
High Interest in Study in all IndustriesStructure of Participants of 4th MPM & iMPM Benchmarking Study
Participants of previous studiesParticipants of previous studies Participants 2009/2010 by industry1Participants 2009/2010 by industry1
441
Particpating
Portfolios
44 9 %
11 %
12 %
21 %
21 %
Electric/Electronics 9 %
Services 12 %
IT/Telco 13 %
Banking/Insurances 18 %
Automotive/Engineering 24 %
85
Planned
143 154
2009/201020072005
13
1. Based on 262 evaluated companies; 2. . Finland: 85, Switzerland: 44, Germany/Austria: 164, other: 8 Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study and iMPM Study 2010
Participation reflects high practical relevance of project portfolio management
441 44 9 %
5%
5%
2 %
3 %
4 %
Others 10 %
Science
Consumer Goods
Healthcare
Pharma/Chemicals 5 %
Electric/Electronics 9 %
172
2010/2011
Share of portfolios
Projects and Multi-Project Management with continuously Growing Importance
Projects will play an even greater role for us in future.
Projects will play an even greater role for us in future.
Multi-Project Management will become even more important for us in the future.Multi-Project Management will become
even more important for us in the future.
Share of portfolios
12%15%
1%1%1%
7
34%
6
37%
54321
Fully Agree
16% 16%
1%2%
1%
14
72
32%
61
31%
543
Fully disagree
Fully Agree
Remark: Estimation of decision makerSource: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH)
Fully disagree
Focus of 4th MPM Study and iMPM Study on R&D and IT Project Portfolios
Focus of considered project portfolios1
Focus of considered project portfolios1
29%
R&D
Number of projects in considered portfoliosNumber of projects in considered portfolios
17 %
25 %
28 %
Ø 143
15
1. Assignment to a category with focus > 60%; 2. No project focus > 60%; 3. Investment, organization and other project portfoliosSource: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study and iMPM Study 2010 (N=301; D, CH, FIN)
18%
32%
22%IT
Mixed2
Other3
Number Portfolios: 276
Number Projects: 40.000
Whole year budget: € 39,3 billion
20 %
9 %
17 %
5 %
17 % 32 %
5%
5 %
10 %
17 %15 %
Number of Projects in Portfolio
≥ 500< 500< 250< 100≤ 20 < 50
Significant Differences in Size of Total Budget of considered Portfolio Types
Ø Total budget by portfoliotype1Ø Total budget by portfoliotype1 Planned budget by portfolio type2Planned budget by portfolio type2
150
200
250
Total budget [Mio. €]
-6%
60%
80%
100%
Share of total budget
16
1. What was/is the total budget of the project landscape? 2. Which proportion of the total project budget is usually already planned for ongoing projects? Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH) All Mixed PortfoliosIT-PortfoliosR&D-Portfolios
64 56
185164
0
50
100218
185
Budget 2008
211
Budget 2009
174
56%61%
0%
20%
40%
MixedAll ITR&D
62%68%
Analysis of MPM Performance and Success FactorsStructure of Benchmarking
MPM Performance
MPM
Quality
Project Portfolio
MPM Success Factors
Strategic Level
Operational Level
17
1. MPI = Multi-Project Management Performance IndexSource: TU Berlin
The assessment and evaluation of the MPM performance is
based on the 20% top- and low-performers
Project Portfolio
Success
Business
Success
MPI1RolesLevel
TacticalLevel
Content
Success Criteria: Measurement of Project Portfolio Performance
18
Success Criteria: Measurement of Project Portfolio Performance
MPI as Central Success Measurement for Assess-ment of Multi-Project Management Performance
PPM Execution Quality
Termination quality
Cooperation quality
Information quality
Allocation quality
Timing
Coordinator
Decison Maker
Assessed by:
MPM Performance
Multi-Project Management Performance Index1
(MPI)Project Portfolio Success
Business Success2
Use of Synergies
Strategy Fit
Portfolio Balance
∅ Single-Project Success
Economic Success
Future Orientation
1. Assessment on a scale of von 1 to 7 2. Business success as additional MPI factor included after 3rd studySource: TU Berlin 19
Measurement Concept of PPM Execution Quality
Terminationquality
MPM Performance
Informationquality
Cooperationquality
Allocationquality
PPMActors
Source: TU Berlin 20
Top-Performers
(top 20%)
Number Participants
MPI as the Central Benchmark MetricComparison MPM Performance Top- and Low-Performers
Low-Performers
(lower 20%)
Ø MPI-Score1
MPM Performance
25
11
1619
27
40
29
2421
13
4132
21
1 765432
MPI-Score
5,5
3,6
LowAll
4,6
Top
1. Scale 1-7Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH) Low-PerformersTop-Performers All
Good PPM Creates Value!These KPI‘s were not included in measuring MPI
40
50
Time overrun[%]
Average Percentageof Time OverrunsAverage Percentageof Time Overruns
40
50
Budget overrun [%]
Average Percentageof Budget DeviationAverage Percentageof Budget Deviation
80
100
Share of economicallysuccessful projects in portfolio[%]
Share of Projects withEconomic SuccessShare of Projects withEconomic Success
MPM Result
22Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH)
37 %
15 %
0
10
20
30
Top Alle Low
24 % 25 %
11 %
0
10
20
30
LowAlle
16 %
Top
51 %
82 %
0
20
40
60
Alle Low
69 %
Top
Low-PerformersTop-Performers All
One MPI-Scale Point equals ca. 11 % Time overrun, 7% Budget overrun and 15% Success Probability
Performance along the Dimensions of PPM Execution Quality
5,9
5,0
3,9
Allocation4,3
Information quality
4,9
Score1
Score1
PPM Execution Quality
MPM Performance
23
5,2
4,8
3,5
3,7
3,2
Terminationquality
4,1
Cooperationquality
4,4
Allocationquality
4,3
5,2
3,5
LowAll
4,5
Top
Low-PerformersTop-Performers All1. Assessment on a scale of von 1 to 7Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH)
Performance along the Dimensions of Project Portfolio Success
5,2
5,9
3,3
4,0
Strategy fit 5,1
Timing 4,2
Score1
Project Portfolio Success
Score1
MPM Performance
24
5,4
5,6
5,9
4,0
4,0
3,8
3,8
Ø Single-projectsuccess
4,9
Portfolio balance 4,8
Use of synergies 4,6
1. Assessment on a scale of von 1 to 7Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH)
5,7
3,8
LowAll
4,8
Top
Low-PerformersTop-Performers All
Comparison of Economic Success and Future Orientation
5,6Economic
4,5
Score1
Business Success
Score1
MPM Performance
25
5,5
3,3
3,8
Economicsuccess
4,5
4,7Future
orientation
3,6
4,7
5,6
Top All Low
Low-PerformersTop-Performers All1. Assessment on a scale of von 1 to 7Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH)
The Average MPI is 4.6Comparison MPI Factors with Benchmarks
Score1
5,2
3,4
4,5
5,7
4,8
Score1
Score1
Multi-project Management
Performance Index (MPI)
MPM Performance
PPM Execution Quality
Project Portfolio
26
5,5
3,6
LowAll
4,6
Top
3,8
4,8
5,6
3,6
Business Success2 4,7
All
Score1
1. Scale 1-7 2. . Business success as additional MPI factor included after 3rd studySource: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH)
No differences in MPI between portfolio types and industries
Project Portfolio Success
Top-Performers Low-Performers
No significant differences of PPM Performance in Different Types of Project Portfolio
4
5
6
7
Ø MPI-Score
∅∅∅∅ 5,5
∅∅∅∅ 4,6
MPM Performance
1. Assignment to a category with focus > 60% 2. No project focus > 60% 3. Investment, organisation and other project portfoliosSource: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH) 27Top-Performers All Number of companies
5,5 5,6 5,4 5,6
3,6 3,6 3,44,0
1
2
3
4
Other Foci
4,8
No dominant focus
4,5
IT
4,7
R&D1
4,6
∅∅∅∅ 3,6
63 51 73 30
Low-Performers
Industry Analysis shows no Differences in MPM Performance either
4
5
6
7
Ø MPI-Score
∅∅∅∅ 4,6
MPM Performance
28
1. In case of sufficient number of comparable companiesSource: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH)
1
2
3
Other
4,7
Consumer Goods
4,7
Research
5,0
Pharma-ceutical/ Chemical
4,9
Healthcare
4,5
Services
4,5
IT/Telco
4,6
Electrics/ Electronics
4,8
Banks/ Insurances
4,4
Automotive/ Mechanical Engineering
4,6
Number of companiesAll
Evaluation of Top-/Low-Performers by industry1 shows no significant differences either
46 45 25 23 20 10 10 5 7 26
Content
Success Factor: Definiton and Impact on Performance
29
Success Factor: Definiton and Impact on Performance
Deficits in Strategic Management of Project Landscapes
Previous MPM Studies of the TU Berlin identify the following problems:
• Missing transparency in Top-Management decisions and strategies**
• Implementation problems with the enforcement of priorities **
• Only 12% of firms execute the right number of projects ***
• Only 19% of firms abolish inefficient projects consequently ***
• Only 23% of forms allocate resources according to their strategy ***
30
Central topic of MPM Study 2009: Strategy and MPM
(1)Which demands exist regarding strategy?
(2)How can MPM contribute to better implementation of strategy?
.** MPM Study TU Berlin 2004, *** MPM Study TU Berlin 2007
Success Factors related to Strategy
Strategic Level
OperationalLevel
Str
ateg
icP
lan
nin
g Decentralization
Co
rpo
rate
Str
ateg
y
Clarity
Sustainability
Analysis
Roles
Level
TacticalLevel
Str
ateg
icP
lan
nin
g
Coordination
Pro
ject
P
rio
riti
zati
on
Formalization
Participation
System
Efforts
31Source: TU Berlin
Top-Performers with a Clear and Well Communicated Corporate Strategy
5,9
6,2
4,9
5,5
5,5
Fully disagree Fully agree
Strategy ClarityWe have a written mission,
long-term goals and strategies for implementation.
Goals and strategies are communicated.
Score1
Strategic Level – Corporate Strategy
32
5,8
4,9
4,4
5,2
5,5
6,0
4,7
LowAll
5,4
Top
communicated.
Our long-term competitive strategy is
clear and understandable.
Low-PerformersTop-Performers All1. Scale 1-7Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH)
Top-Performers with a LongtermSustainable Corporate Strategy
5,7
5,4
4,1
4,4
5,0
Strategy Sustainability
Our corprate strategy is very long-term oriented
compared to our industrial sector.
Our present corporate strategy has a long
Score1
Fully disagree Fully agree
Strategic Level – Corporate Strategy
33
4,0
3,6
3,3
3,7
4,4
5,0
3,7
LowAll
4,4
Top
strategy has a long tradition.
Our corporate strategy is rarely subject to changes.
1. Scale 1-7Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH) Low-PerformersTop-Performers All
Top-Performers with a Systematic Strategic Analysis
5,8
5,2
3,9
4,5
5,0
StrategySystematic Analysis
We analyze our environment systematically in order to ensure future competitive
advantage.
We continously test the adoption of new technologies for our
Score1
Fully disagree Fully agree
Strategic Level – Corporate Strategy
34
5,1
3,7
3,2
4,1
4,5
5,3
3,6
LowAll
4,5
Top
of new technologies for our unit.
Through the analysis of our project portfolio we receive
valuable impulse for our strategy.
1. Scale 1-7Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH) Low-PerformersTop-Performers All
Success Factors related to Strategy
Strategic Level
OperationalLevel
Str
ateg
icP
lan
nin
g Decentralization
Co
rpo
rate
Str
ateg
y
Clarity
Sustainability
Analysis
Roles
Level
TacticalLevel
Str
ateg
icP
lan
nin
g
Coordination
Pro
ject
P
rio
riti
zati
on
Formalization
Participation
System
Efforts
35Source: TU Berlin
Top-Performers with higher Decentralization of Strategic Planning
5,4
5,0
5,2
4,8
5,5Strategic planning is conducted centrally at the head quarters.
Strategic planning is conducted decentralized within our
Score1
Fully disagree Fully agree
DecentralizationofStrategy Planning
Strategic Level – Strategic Planning
36
5,4
4,0
4,1
4,7
4,8
4,33,6
LowAll
4,0
Top
decentralized within our divisions.
We try to delegate authority as much as possible to those who
are responsible for the execution.
1. Scale1-7Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH) Low-PerformersTop-Performers All
Top-Performers with Better Integration of Strategic Planning and Project Portfolio Planning
5,6
5,7
4,1
4,6
4,9
Integration of Strategy and Portfolio Structuring
Portfolio planning and strategic planning are closely
linked with each other in our
We put down the general guidelines for the portfolio via
our strategic planning.Score1
Fully disagree Fully agree
Strategic Level – Strategic Planning
37
6,0
5,3
3,6
4,2
3,6
4,5
5,0
5,7
3,9
LowAll
4,8
Top
linked with each other in our company.
The goals of our project portfolio are derived from our
unit‘s goals.
Our strategic planning is harmonized with the product-/
technology cycles of our industry.
Low-PerformersTop-Performers All1. Scale1-7Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH)
Success Factors related to Strategy
Strategic Level
OperationalLevel
Str
ateg
icP
lan
nin
g Decentralization
Co
rpo
rate
Str
ateg
y
Clarity
Sustainability
Analysis
Roles
Level
TacticalLevel
Str
ateg
icP
lan
nin
g
Coordination
Pro
ject
P
rio
riti
zati
on
Formalization
Participation
System
Efforts
38Source: TU Berlin
Top-Performers with higher Formalization of Project Prioritization
5,0
5,3
3,3
4,5
4,4
Formalization of Project Prioritization
For the prioritization definedprocesses and rules exist.
We use a standardizedprocedure for the prioritization
of projects.
Score1
Fully disagree Fully agree
Strategic Level – Project Prioritization
39
4,5
4,7
3,5
3,3
3,4
4,0
4,04,9
3,4
LowAlle
4,2
Top
processes and rules exist.
Projects are summarized into categories and compared
before the prioritization process.
Also ongoing projects are reprioritized alongside new
projects in each cycle of prioritization.
1. Scale 1-7Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH) Low-PerformersTop-Performers All
Top-Performers with high Involvement of all Functional Areas during Prioritization Process
Participation of Project Prioritization
5,1
3,9
4,9
4,6
4,4
All functional areas concerned (e.g. marketing, controlling) are
adequately represented during the prioritization process.
Different points of views of the funtional areas are considered
Score1
Fully disagree Fully agree
Strategic Level – Project Prioritization
40
4,8
3,8
LowAll
4,3
Top
4,4
4,1
3,4
3,9
4,6considered during the
prioritization process.
All functional areas involved share equal power during the
prioritization process.
1. Scale 1-7Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH) Low-PerformersTop-Performers All
Top-Performers with Systematic Use of Project Evaluation Criteria
4,8
4,4
3,2
3,3
4,0
4,2
Systematic Project Prioritization
The evaluation criteria are adapted occasionally to new
requirements.
The evaluation criteria for the prioritization of projects are defined and well known.
Score1
Fully disagree Fully agree
Strategic Level – Project Prioritization
41
5,8
5,8
4,9
4,7
5,1
3,8
4,5
5,6
5,3
5,2
4,0
LowAll
4,7
Top
We use strategic criteria for project evaluation.
We use financial criteria for project evaluation.
We use risk criteria for project evaluation.
1. Scale 1-7Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH) Low-PerformersTop-Performers All
Success Factors related to Roles
Strategic Level
OperationalLevel
42
Level
Roles
TacticalLevel
Level
Source: TU Berlin
Score1
5,7
4,65,2
Top-Performers perform all MPM Tasks More Intensively
Roles
Tasks along the four Phases of the Project Portfolio Management Process
43
Strategic Planning
Definition of long term target portfolio
Generation of project ideas
Collection and consolidation of project ideas
Evaluation of projects
Selection of projects
1. Scale 1-7Question: To which extent is this task performed in your company?Source: TU Berlin
Portfolio Structuring
Low-PerformerTop-Performer All
Score1
5,7
4,65,2
5,7
4,65,1
Roles
Top-Performers perform all MPM Tasks More Intensively
Tasks along the four Phases of the Project Portfolio Management Process
44
Strategic Planning
Definition of long term target portfolio
Generation of project ideas
Collection and consolidation of project ideas
Evaluation of projects
Selection of projects
1. Scale 1-7Question: To which extent is this task performed in your company?Source: TU Berlin
Portfolio Structuring
Cross-project resource allocation planning
Individual allocation of employees to projects
Release of project resources
Conflict management in case of resource conflicts
Resource Management
Low-PerformerTop-Performer All
Score1
5,7
4,65,2
5,7
4,65,1 5,3
3,84,6
Roles
Top-Performers perform all MPM Tasks More Intensively
Tasks along the four Phases of the Project Portfolio Management Process
45
Strategic Planning
Definition of long term target portfolio
Generation of project ideas
Collection and consolidation of project ideas
Evaluation of projects
Selection of projects
1. Scale 1-7Question: To which extent is this task performed in your company?Source: TU Berlin
Portfolio Structuring
Cross-project resource allocation planning
Individual allocation of employees to projects
Release of project resources
Conflict management in case of resource conflicts
Resource Management
Controlling of project portfolio
Monitoring of the strategic alignment of the portfolio
Development of corrective actions in case of deviations
Cross-functional coordination of projects
Identification of synergies between projects
Identification of short-, middle-, long-term portfolio opportunities
Portfolio Control
Low-PerformerTop-Performer All
Score1
5,7
4,65,2
5,7
4,65,1 5,3
3,84,6 4,6
3,14,0
Roles
Top-Performers perform all MPM Tasks More Intensively
Tasks along the four Phases of the Project Portfolio Management Process
46
Strategic Planning
Definition of long term target portfolio
Generation of project ideas
Collection and consolidation of project ideas
Evaluation of projects
Selection of projects
1. Scale 1-7Question: To which extent is this task performed in your company?Source: TU Berlin
Portfolio Structuring
Cross-project resource allocation planning
Individual allocation of employees to projects
Release of project resources
Conflict management in case of resource conflicts
Resource Management
Controlling of project portfolio
Monitoring of the strategic alignment of the portfolio
Development of corrective actions in case of deviations
Cross-functional coordination of projects
Identification of synergies between projects
Identification of short-, middle-, long-term portfolio opportunities
Portfolio Control
Evaluation of project results
Maintenance and reuse of knowledge after project closure
Ex-post control of projects
Portfolio Sustainability
Low-PerformerTop-Performer All
Project Management Offices Receive Increasing Acceptance
Is there a central point of contact for the project management?1
Is there a central point of contact for the project management?1
Number of Employees in a Project Management Office (PMO)
Number of Employees in a Project Management Office (PMO)
Share of portfolios [%]Share of portfolios
90 %
80 %
70 %
34 %28 %
52 %
100 %
Nein∅∅∅∅ Top: 7,4
∅∅∅∅ Low: 5,4
Roles
47
10%15%
25% 25%21%
4%
≤ 2≤ 1 ≤ 5≤ 3 ≤ 4 >10≤ 10
1. Comparison with 2nd and 3rd MPM-Benchmarking StudySource: TU Berlin
Number Employees
Yes AllNo
60 %
50 %
70 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
10 %
2007
66 %
0 %
2005
48 %
72 %
2009
Ja
Top Management and MPM Coordinator with High Share of MPM Tasks
Relative allocation of tasks along the hierarchical levelsRelative allocation of tasks along the hierarchical levels
Share of tasks
34%80%
100%
Absolute mentioning of task fulfillment along the hierarchical levels1
Absolute mentioning of task fulfillment along the hierarchical levels1
1.938
1.102
Ø 1.495
Division Head
Board ofManagement/CEO
Roles
1. Please indicate, who is mostly responsible for the following tasks in your unitRemark: Evaluation of task matrix along the project portfolio management process (multiple answers possible)Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study & iMPM Study 2010 (N=301; D, CH, FIN) 48
60%
40%
20%
0%11%
33%
22%
MPM Coordination Project ManagementLine ManagementTop-Management
Number of mentions
1.938
PMO 990
MPM Coordinator 1.653
Project Leader 1.315
Department Head 1.970
Division Head
Large Shifts in Task Responsibility over the PPM Process Stages
39 %
18 %24 %
15 %
100%
Share of Tasks
80%
60%
24 %
24 %45 %
Roles
1. Please indicate who is mainly responsible for the following tasks.Comment: Assessment of task matrix along project portfolio management process (multiple answers possible)Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH) 49
40%
20%
0%Portfolio Sustainability
38 %
22 %
Portfolio Control
20 %
32 %
Resource Management
24 %
13 %
45 %
Portfolio Structuring
12 %
18 %
31 %
Top-Management
Project Management
MPM Coordination
Division/Line
Top-Performers with Strong Top-Management Support in PPM
4,8
5,0
3,4
4,2
4,0
Our Top-Management adheres to the defined rules of MPM.
Our Top-Management invests a lot of time in steering the
project portfolio.
Top-Management Support
Score1
Fully disagree Fully agree
Roles
50
5,5
4,4
3,7
4,3
3,1
3,7
4,9
to the defined rules of MPM.
Our Top-Management deliverstimely decisions when
problem situations arise.
There are sufficient resourcesavailable for the management
of the project portfolio.
1. Scale 1-7Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH)
4,9
3,6
LowAlle
4,2
Top
Low-PerformersTop-Performers All
Top-Performers with Clear Assignment of Roles in PPM
5,6
5,0
4,2
4,2
4,9
Roles Clarity
Each task in the context of MPM is exclusively carried out by the
person responsible.
The tasks of the stakeholders in MPM are clearly and formally
differentiated.
Score1
Fully disagree Fully agree
Roles
51
5,1
4,7
3,6
3,7
3,5
4,1
4,4
5,1
3,7
LowAll
4,4
Top
person responsible.
The role of the multi-project coordinator is clearly defined.
Clear objectives exist for the role of the line management within
the MPM.
Low-PerformersTop-Performers All1. Scale 1-7Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH)
Combined Influence of Roles & Strategy
Strategic Level
OperationalLevel
Roles
Level
TacticalLevel
52Source: TU Berlin
Impact of Senior Management on Strategy and Portfolio Performance - Framework
Integration of Strategy &
Clarity ofStrategy
H4.1: +
H2.1: +
H4.2: +
H4.3: +
H2.2: +
53
Senior Management Involvement
PortfolioPerformance
H1a): +H1b): ∩∩∩∩
PPM-ProcessH4.1: +
Sustainability of Strategy
H4.4: +
H3.1: + H3.2: +
53
Impact of Senior Management on Strategy and Portfolio Performance Results
Integration of Strategy &
Clarity ofStrategy
+ 0.49 + 0.40
n.s.
R**2 = 0.50
R**2 = 0.34
54
Senior Management Involvement
PortfolioPerformance
n.s.
Strategy & PPM-Process
+ 0.40 + 0.57
Sustainability of Strategy
+ 0.19
+ 0.30 + 0.43
R**2 = 0.52
R**2 = 0.09
54
Success Factors related to Tactic
Strategic Level
OperationalLevel
55
Roles
Level
TacticalLevel
Source: TU Berlin
Top-Performers Validate Portfolios more Frequently
Frequency of Portfolio ValidationFrequency of Portfolio Validation
Share Portfolios [%]
How Often do you Validate your Entire Project Portfolio?How Often do you Validate your Entire Project Portfolio?
6
7
Validations [per year]
Tactical level
56Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH)
2%
> 6
9%
0
30%
≤ 6≤ 5
7%
≤ 4≤ 2
5% 3%
≤ 3≤ 1
23%26%
Validation [per year]
5,0
2,8
0
1
2
3
4
5
Top LowAll
3,6
Low-PerformersTop-Performers All
Top-Performers Respond Quickerto Changing Requirements
5,3
5,3
3,5
4,5
4,5Portfolio AdjustmentWe adapt our project portfolio
quickly to changed customer needs.
We adapt our project portfolio quickly to changed competitive
conditions.
Score1
Fully disagree Fully agree
Tactical level
57
4,9
5,1
3,4
3,3
3,4
4,2
4,3
5,2
3,4
LowAll
4,4
Top
conditions.
We adapt our project portfolio quickly to changed
technologies.
We adapt our portfolio quickly to changed economic conditions.
1. Scale 1-7Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH) Low-PerformersTop-Performers All
Top-Performers Communicate Portfolio Decisions Clearer, Quicker, and Broader
Communication of Decisions
4,5
5,6
3,4
4,2
The communication of important portfolio decisions to affected
employees takes place in a planned and uniform way. Score1
Fully disagree Fully agree
Tactical level
58
5,2
3,8
LowAll
4,6
Top
5,6
5,5
3,8
5,0
4,7
4,3
Important portfolio decisions are communicated immediately after
they are made.
Important portfolio decisions are communicated immediately to all affected employees regardless
of hierarchy.
1. Scale 1-7Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH) Low-PerformersTop-Performers All
Top-Performers Control Project Portfolios Tighter and more Responsively
4,3
4,3
3,2
3,6
4,0
Project Portfolio Controlling
We examine plan vs. actual project performance analytically
We frequently examine the targets for our portfolio.
Score1
Fully disagree Fully agree
Tactical level
59
4,7
4,6
3,4
3,6
3,9
4,2
4,34,5
3,5
All
4,0
Top Low
project performance analytically for our portfolio.
We systematically examine the individual projects in detail for
our portfolio.
If deviations from the portfolio plan occur, we invest a lot of time in preparing countermeasures in
detail.
1. Scale 1-7Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH) Low-PerformersTop-Performers All
Top-Performers with Portfolio Decisions of Higher Quality
5,4
5,7
3,9
3,9
4,8
4,6Quality of Portfolio Decisions2
Portfolio decisions are implemented consistently.
Once portfolio decisions are
Portfolio decisions are usually transparent and
comprehensive.
Score1
Fully disagree Fully agree
Tactical level
60
5,0
2,3
2,5
3,6
3,6
4,0
3,3
2,7
4,5
5,5
4,0
LowAll
4,8
Top
Once portfolio decisions are made, they are binding and
change only rarely.
Portfolio decisions are frequently made by one
person alone.3
Portfolio decisions are made by referring to gut-
feeling rather than by assessing the facts.3
1. Scale 1-7 2. Inverse elements recalculated for score calculation 3. Inverse questionnaire elementSource: TU Berlin Low-PerformerTop-Performer All
Roles
Identification of MPM Success Factors on Operational Level
StrategicLevel
OperationalLevel
MPM Success Factors
61
Roles
TacticalLevel
Source: TU Berlin
Top-Performers have also Higher Standards in Single-Project Management
Single-Project Management Standard
Score1
6,8
6,6
6,3
5,0
5,9
6,5Every project has a defined
project manager.
Every project has a definedproject budget.
Operational LevelMPM Success Factors
Fully disagree Fully agree
62
5,8
4,8
Top LowAlle
5,4
1. Scale 1-7Source: TU Berlin
6,3
5,9
3,3
5,0
4,9
2,8
3,3
5,5
5,6
All our project manager are certified according to a
common standard.
We follow a standardized procedural model for the
project management.
Every project has a defined project steering committee
Low-PerformerTop-Performer All
Top-Performers have also Better Project Planning in Single-Project Management
Project Planning in Single-Project Management2
6,0
2,5
5,1
5,5A detailed project
plan is provided for each project.
Score1
Operational LevelMPM Success Factors
Fully disagree Fully agree
63
5,5
4,5
Low
5,0
Top All
2,5
3,0
3,8
4,0
3,3
3,1The actual goals of a projectare often vague at the start of
the project.3
The composition of the project team is often vague at the start
of the project.3
1. Scale 1-7 2 . Inverse elements recalculated for score calculation 3. Inverse questionnaire elementSource: TU Berlin Low-PerformerTop-Performer All
Content
Benefits and Costs of Project Portfolio Management
64
Benefits and Costs of Project Portfolio Management
Good PPM Creates Value!These KPI‘s were not included in measuring MPI
40
50
Time overrun[%]
Average Percentageof Time OverrunsAverage Percentageof Time Overruns
40
50
Budget overrun [%]
Average Percentageof Budget DeviationAverage Percentageof Budget Deviation
80
100
Share of economicallysuccessful projects in portfolio[%]
Share of Projects withEconomic SuccessShare of Projects withEconomic Success
MPM Result
65
37 %
15 %
0
10
20
30
Top Alle Low
24 %
1. Fragestellung: Wie hoch ist die durchschnittliche Terminüberschreitung in Prozent?Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH)
25 %
11 %
0
10
20
30
LowAlle
16 %
Top
51 %
82 %
0
20
40
60
Alle Low
69 %
Top
Low-PerformersTop-Performers All
One MPI-Scale Point equals ca. 11 % Time overrun, 7% Budget overrun and 15% Success Probability
Top-Performers put more Effort in Preparation and Realization of Portfolio Meetings...
6,94,6
Low
6,1
Top All
How frequently does your management meetfor portfolio meetings?
Per year
9,9 8,8
LowAll
10,7
Top
How many persons participate in a typical portfolio meeting on average?
Persons
MPM Result
66
4,43,5
Top All
3,9
Low
How long does a portfolio meeting usually last?
Hours
9,65,7
8,4
Top All Low
How long does it usually take to prepare a portfolio meeting?
Man days
Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH) Low-PerformersTop-Performers All
Top-Performers put more Effort in Preparation and Realization of Portfolio Meetings...
6,94,6
Low
6,1
Top All
How frequently does your management meetfor portfolio meetings?
Per year
9,9 8,8
LowAll
10,7
Top
How many persons participate in a typical portfolio meeting on average?
Persons
MPM Result
Man days
Effort
67
4,43,5
Top All
3,9
Low
How long does a portfolio meeting usually last?
Hours
9,65,7
8,4
Top All Low
How long does it usually take to prepare a portfolio meeting?
Man days
Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH)
105,1
43,1
LowAll
83,5
Top
Low-PerformersTop-Performers All
But: It is NOT just more Effort –but a Superior Decision-Making Culture
2,2
3,6
3,1
4,0
2,8Efficiency ofPortfolio Meetings2
Frequently no decisions are taken on resources in portfolio meeting.3
The people responsible forcommitting key project resourcesare frequently not represented in
the portfolio meeting.3Score based on inverse scales
Fully disagree Fully agree
MPM Result
68
1,7
2,8
4,5
2,7
3,5
2,9
2,1
5,4
4,5
LowAll
5,1
Top
on resources in portfolio meeting.3
Our portfolio meeting exists only for the sake of having one.3
Unscheduled ad hoc portfolio meetings take place frequently.3
1. Scale 1-7 2. Inverse elements converted for score calculation 3. Inverses questionnaire elementSource: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH) Low-PerformersTop-Performers All
Content
Conclusions & Outlook on iMPM study 2010 & MPM Study 2011
69
Conclusions & Outlook on iMPM study 2010 & MPM Study 2011
Top Performers have a Better Strategy Process,Integrate PPM Better and Prioritize Better.
Their strategy is communicated in a clearer and better way. Their strategy is based on a more thorough analysis and pursued more sustainably.
More autonomy is given to the units, all units have
CorporateStrategy
Strategic
Conclusion (1)
What we can learn from Top-Performers...What we can learn from Top-Performers...
More autonomy is given to the units, all units have equal saying in the coordination of strategic planning.
The prioritization is carried out within a well structured, formalized process in which the units are involved closely.
The greater effort for these process is more than paid back by much better results – also in times of crisis.
70
Strategic Planning
Project Prioritization
Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH)
Cost/Benefit
Top-Performers have a better Distribution of Tasks and control with much more Intensity
Top management investments more time,
delivers committed decisions, when they are needed,
and also complies more strictly to the rules of the PPM.
Senior Management
Behaviour
Conclusion (2)
What we can learn from Top-Performers...What we can learn from Top-Performers...
Roles are more clearly defined, stakeholders are
more specialized and professionalized.
Line executives are more integrated, already in earlier
phases. The PPM Coordinator has more influence.
Project portfolios are examined more frequently,
adjustments to changes takes place faster, measures are
better communicated and pursued more intensively.
71
Cooperation of Actors
Projekt Portfolio
Controlling
Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH)
Participate in the iMPM Study 2010!Ta
rget
Gro
up
Big and medium-size, public and private organisations, that face the challenge ofmanaging complex project portfolios. These portfolios characteristically consist of at least 20
projects, that need to be handled simultaneously. Respondents are typically project portfoliocoordinators such as multi-project managers, portfolio managers, program managers and
responsible persons of project management offices (PMOs), as well as project portfoliodecision-makers like CEOs, Division Heads or Heads of Business Unit.
Participants
72
Ben
efit
s fo
r P
arti
cip
ants
Your benefits of participating in the iMPM study 2010
�Participate free of charge in the biggest cross-cultural MPM study
� Questionnaires are available in French, English and Spanish language
�Receive an individual report on your project portfolio management performance
�Receive benchmarking to a pool of international (i.e. German, Austrian, Swiss, Finnish, Canadian, US-American) top and low performing companies
�Learn about best-practices, global trends and developments in Multi-Project Management
Participate in the iMPM study 2010!
You receive two questionnaires, which need to be filled in by different persons:�The Decision-Maker questionnaire is 3 pages long and requires 10 to 15 minutes for
completion. Target group is the Top Management of the evaluated enterprise, that makes decisions on project selection, prioritization and termination.
� The Coordinator questionnaire is 10 pages long and requires about 60 minutes for completion. Target group are persons, that manage the project portfolio and thus have a sound knowledge of the project landscape.
Your Contribution...
73
sound knowledge of the project landscape.
�Sign up for study now with Monique Aubry at [email protected]
�Receive questionnaires to be filled in asap
�Return questionnaires by 31st of May 2010
�Receive report by 31st of August 2010
Next Steps to take...
iMPM Study: Research Rationale and Focus
Traditionally, the project management researchers at the Chair of Technology and Innovation (TIM) ofthe Berlin Institute of Technology (TU Berlin) have been researching success factors in single projectmanagement. In 2003, while building on this former research, a new question was put forward: “How dofirms manage project portfolios?”
Project portfolios are rather long-term endeavours within the landscapes of projects and thus in strongcontrast to single projects, that are temporary ventures. As such the management of project portfoliosbecomes a permanent organizational issue, and also success factors are distinct from single projectmanagement.
In 2005 and 2007 surveys have been conducted in German-speaking countries. Since the beginning of
Res
earc
h R
atio
nal
e
In 2005 and 2007 surveys have been conducted in German-speaking countries. Since the beginning of2010 data collection has started in selected countries around the globe.
74
Fo
cus
In the iMPM study we ask: “How are project portfolios managed reflecting on their contexts?” Whileconsidering aspects of problem-context like different characteristics (i.e. innovativeness andinterdependency) and types of project portfolios (i.e. R & D portfolios, IT portfolios, Organizational changeportfolios, mixed portfolios) specifically system-context dimensions like different types of firms, industriesand countries, as well as management styles are examined.
iMPM Participants and Academic Partners
3M ESPE AG, ABB Schweiz AG, ADC Konzern, Amt für Hochbauten, ATLAS Elektronik, Austrian Airlines, AXA Winterthur, AZO, Basler & Hofmann, BaslerVersicherungen, Basler Vision Technologies, Bauerfeind, Bayer Animal Health GmbH, Bayer Schering Pharma, Beiersdorf Shared Services GmbH,Bombardier Transportation, Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH, Bundesamt für Landestopografie swisstopo, CADFEM (Suisse) AG, Citibank PrivatkundenAG & Co. KGaA, Claas KGaA, Clientvela GmbH, Continental Automotive Switzerland AG, ContiTech Techno Chemie GmbH, CSS Versicherungen, DaimlerAG, DAK, DB Projektbau GmbH, Delta Lloyd Deutschland AG, Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Lufthansa, Deutsche Telekom Technische Service, DFSDeutsche Flugsicherung GmbH, DLR, Dornier Consulting GmbH, Dr. Acél & Partner AG, E.ON IS GmbH, EPI-USE Africa (Pty) Ltd., Festo, Flughafen ZürichAG, Förde Sparkasse, Gallus Ferd. Rüesch AG, Generali Deutschland Holding AG, Gothaer Versicherung, Graubündner Kantonalbank, HamburgerSparkasse, Harting Electronics Gmbh & CO KG, Helsana-Versicherungen AG, Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Hilti Befestigungstechnik AG, ICS, IE EngineeringGroup AG, Immobilien-Bewirtschaftung der Stadt Zürich, INPRO, Inselspital Universitätsspital Bern, IPI GmbH, Komax AG, Landert Motoren AG, LeicaGeosystems AG, Lufthansa Technik AG, MAN Nutzfahrzeuge, Manor AG, MATEC SERVICE GmbH, MBDA / LFK-Lenkflugkörpersysteme GmbH, MotorolaGmbH, Münchener Verein Versicherungsgruppe, NetCologne, Neue Aargauer Bank, Novartis, NÜRNBERGER Versicherungsgruppe, OMICRON electronicsGmbH, Otto Bock HealthCare GmbH, Parexel Intl., PLDS Germany GmbH, Postbank Systems AG, Primondo GmbH, proventis GmbH, Putzmeister SolidPumps GmbH, Raiffeisen Informatik GmbH, Raiffeisen Schweiz, rlc AG (Holding), Robert Bosch GmbH, ROSEN Group, RWE Innogy, RWE Power AG,Salzgitter Mannesmann Forschung GmbH, Sartorius AG, SBB Cargo AG, SBB Personenverkehr, Schreiner Group GmbH & Co. KG, Schweizer Electronic,
Sel
ecti
on
of
Par
tici
pan
ts
Senatsverwaltung für Inneres und Sport, SIEMENS AG, Siemens Enterprise Communications GmbH & Co. KG, St. Galler Kantonalbank, StädtischesKlinikum München GmbH, Sulzer Mixpac AG, SV Sparkassenversicherung, Symrise, Telefonica 02 Germany GmbH, THALES Electron Devices GmbH,Thomas Magnete, ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG, ThyssenKrupp Steel AG, T-Mobile Deutschland GmbH, UK Hamburg, UK Münster, Valora AG, VDI/VDE-innovation+Technik GmbH, VHV Holding AG, Volkswagen AG, VR LEASING AG, Wincor Nixdorf International GmbH, WITTENSTEIN AG, Wolff & MüllerGmbH & Co. KG, Zimmer GmbH, to be continued* …
75
Sel
ecti
on
of
Par
tici
pan
tsA
cad
emic
Par
tner
s
* Annotation: There are only participants listed, that agreed to be reference for the 4th MPM wave/2009. Source: TU Berlin
Aalto University School of Science and Technology Stevens Institute of TechnologyProject Business research group Project Management Research GroupBIT Research Centre USAFinland
Université du Québec à Montréal Zurich University of Applied Sciences Chaire de Gestion de Projet School of Management and Law Canada Switzerland
MPM Opportunity ManagementMPM Opportunity Management
5th Berlin MPM Benchmarking Study with two new Foci
MPM Risk ManagementMPM Risk Management
Organization of the "Fuzzy Front Ends“ of project portfolios
Structuring of ideas management and the Deal Flows of project proposals
Identification of search fields for strategic initiatives and ideas campaigns
Autonomy and entrepreneurial liberties of the project
Risk Management on project portfolio level
Analysis of risk management methods and their organisational embedding
Analysis of maturity levels of risk management systems in MPM
Communication and processing of „bad news“, learning from mistakes Autonomy and entrepreneurial liberties of the project
manager
Identification of critical success factors of opportunity management systems in MPM
from mistakes
Identification of critical success factors of risk management systems in MPM
Wilderich HeisingForesight and Opportunity Management
[email protected]+49 (0)30 314 28337
Juliane TellerRisk Management
[email protected]+49 (0)30 314 78812
The 5th MPM Study starts in January 2011.Be part of it!
76
Top-Performers use systematic Methods to generate “good” Project Ideas
4,6
5,1
3,8
4,7
4,2
Identification of strategic gaps(e.g. gap analysis
Analysis of mega-trends(society, politics, technology,
biosphere)
We generate sufficiently „good“ and/or „right“ project ideas.
How strongly does your unit use the following methods to increase the quality of fresh ideas and to generate sufficiently "good“ project ideas?
Score1
77
4,4
4,7
4,7
4,0
3,7
3,8
3,74,1
4,4
4,3
4,7
Very rarely Very strongly
5,4
4,0
LowAll
4,8
Top
(e.g. gap analysis
Definition of strategic search fields
Continuous technology scouting
Utilization of lead users (trend-prominent users/customers)
1. Scale 1-7Source: TU Berlin 4th MPM Study, April 2010 (N=217; D, CH) Low-PerformerTop-Performer All
Thank you for your Attention !!!
Questions?
78