Siew, Karyne Cheng (2018) Multi-stakeholder perspectives of value in project portfolios. PhD thesis, University of Technology Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
This study explores multiple stakeholders' perspectives on the value delivered by project portfolios and reveals a new way of understanding value. When organisations invest in projects, they expect to create value. From a project portfolio perspective, a key goal of project portfolio management (PPM) is to maximise this value across the project 1 portfolio for the organisation. It is easy to agree that value is an important concept, yet it is hard for scholars and practitioners to agree on what it entails. Value is an especially challenging area due to its subjective, intangible and emotional aspects. The value generated by projects has long been understood to be more than just the direct financial value. Yet, financial and tangible value appears to be the dominant way that a project portfolio value is viewed.Research highlights the complexities of project and portfolio 'value' due to the multiple and sometimes contradictory expectations demanded by different stakeholders who participate in and influence the ways that PPM decisions incorporate value. While researchers are extending the understanding of value for project portfolio environments, PPM research into the complex and multi-faceted aspects of value is still quite limited. To better understand value, the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders is important as value is perceived in different ways by different stakeholders.This thesis is a collection of six published papers that bring together the theoretical concepts of value, stakeholder theory and sensemaking in a research investigation about value in multistakeholder project portfolio environments. The research sheds light on the overarching question: 'How is value understood in practice by different stakeholders in different project portfolio contexts?'By studying how value is expressed, understood and used to influence decisions in multistakeholder PPM environments, the research reveals deeper insights into the wide range of value perspectives at play in project portfolios. The study includes a diverse group of organisations from the public, private (profit) and non-profit sectors in its exploration of project portfolio value. The exploratory research follows a pragmatic mindset and incorporates sensemaking concepts in the research design. It comprises two overlapping qualitative methodologies incorporating multiple case studies and a series of expert panels.The findings demonstrate how an understanding of value is built from many micro-constructs of value emanating from a variety of stakeholders. Sensemaking concepts applied to the study reveal how stakeholder perceptions of value are based on time and space, and are dynamic and non-linear in nature. As a result of the investigations, a typology of multi-stakeholder value perspectives that aims to improve PPM decision-making is derived from the findings and presented in this thesis.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Killen, Catherine and Sankaran, Shankar |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | case studies; stakeholder |
| Index terms: | exploratory research, investigation, case study, portfolio management, non-profit, research design, practitioner, methodology, exploration, decision-making, stakeholder value, complexity, sensemaking, profit, mindset |
| Subjects: | participation process, data collection methods, research design and methodology, systems engineering, decision analysis, economic analysis, environmental resource management, practitioner, health behaviours and lifestyles, organization, cognitive psychology, research methods |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here