工程管理外文文献翻译---项目组合管理——远非现今管理所制定的方案

工程管理外文文献翻译---项目组合管理——远非现今管理所制定的方案内容摘要：

s seem obvious:(1) Enacting more, . having PPM embrace all projects.(2) Allocating more resources to a pool of looselycontrolled resources for the unenacted projects to draw on.5. Research implicationsThe empirical study elaborates on the ‘‘significant shortage of resources devoted to NPD’’ that Cooper and Edgett argue is the fundamental problem ‘‘that plagues most firms’ product development efforts’’. Our work especially suggests that the shortage of resources devoted to enacted projects is not a problem that primarily arises in relation to top management’s PPM. On the contrary, ingoodfaith top management dedicates resources to enacted projects on the basis of sound PPM. However, what top managers do not do is take into account the host of smaller projects that individuals initiate and – more importantly – top managers ignore (or at least heavily underestimate) the amount of resources that these smaller projects tie up. Hence, we argue that especially the crunch in resources may be attributable to the unenacted petition for resources that smaller projects subject enacted projects to. Consequently, the key contribution of our empirical work to research is that it emphasises that if we wish to study PPM (and especially if we wish to relate PPM to project performance), we might be better off taking into account the entire range of projects that actual (not enacted) portfolios are prised of. Thus, if we as researchers only enact the projects that are neatly listed by top management, then our research will neglect the host of projects that are not subject to PPM, projects that nonetheless take up valuable, and scarce, resources. The fact that the empirical study includes interviews with managers, . those who do PPM, and interviews with personnel at lower organisational levels, . those whose work is subject to PPM, is the reason why we were able to identify unenacted projects. Thus, researchers interested in PPM should be careful not to rely too heavily on a management perspective.6. Conclusion and limitationsThe main conclusion is that as long as some projects are unenacted, panies may experience a drain on resources that reduces the time and resources actually devoted to projects subject to PPM. Hence, each individual pany should decide whether or not all projects should be part of PPM and if the end result of such a decision is not to make prehensive project lists (. lists that include all minor projects), then management should decide how many resources should be set aside for the plethora of small projects that do not appear on the project list. One way in which the crunch in resources can be reduced is by ensuring that smaller projects do not take up a critical portion of the resources that are – officially – set aside for the pletion of projects subject to PPM. However, due to the exploratory nature of the study accounted for in this paper, our findings relate far more to what panies actually do (positive theory in Hunt’s terms), rather than to what they ought to do (normative theory in Hunt’s terms). Although generating positive theory is indeed a crucial first step – especially in relation to the future of PPM theory – positive theory cannot, and should not, stand alone. Hence, the key challenges for PPM theory in the future are to produce normative theory that offe。