Assignment brief attached. You'll have to read 4 papers then build a reflection notes on it. Use the assignment questions and marking rubric as a guideline. All needed files attached.Note: there is a YouTube video link related to the first reading paper.
Master of project management Strategic Project Delivery - BUSM4413 Assessment Task 3 - Individual Review and Reflection Notes The aim of this Assessment Task is to help you to better understand the relationships between projects, programs and project portfolio management within their broader operating contexts. The Assessment Task is an individual task comprising the development of structured review and reflection notes for the four (4) Topic 3 Recommended Readings, with each reading reviewed and reflected upon, by addressing 1. Ideas that were completely new to me; 2. Ideas that reinforced my prior understanding of this topic; 3. Ideas that contradicted my prior understanding of this topic; 4. Quotes (including page number) that are worthwhile noting for possible future citation; 5. The relevance of this reading to my past/current/potential future work role/s; 6. The relevance of this reading to my past/current academic assignments. Word Count = 2000-2500 words (excluding Bibliography) Marking rubric: Marking rubric Criteria Ratings Pts Discussion of Ideas - New, Reinforced, Contradictory to my understanding 35.0 pts Quotes - (including page number) that are worthwhile noting for possible future citation; 10.0 pts Discussion of Relevance - to my work roles and academic assignments 35.0 pts Written Communications including Citation format 20.0 pts Total points: 100.0 Topic (3) Recommended readings: 1. A) Thiry M., Dalcher D., (2010) Program Management, Ashgate Publishing Ltd (http://www.rmit.eblib.com.au.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/patron/SearchResults.aspx?pu=53182) , Chapter 2 “Organizational Context”: 25-30 (only) (available from RMIT Library as an ebook) B) Thiry M., Program Management YouTube video (2 ½ minutes) Michel Thiry Program Management.mov: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO8WD85_GyA) Whilst this video is a summary of a Program Management subject taught by Thiry at UTS, he provides a good description of how Program Management practice differs from Project Management practice. 2. Levin G., Ward L J., (2011) Program Management Complexity : A Competency Model, Chapter 2 “A Competency Model for Program Managers” : 13-30 (available from RMIT Library as an eBook) 3. Shao, J., Müller, R. & Turner, R. J. (2012). "Measuring Program Success." Project Management Journal 43(1): 37-49 4. Padovani M. Carvalho M.M, (2016) Integrated PPM Process : Scale Development and Validation, International Journal of Project Management, 34 : 627-642 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO8WD85_GyA someTitle ChaPter � organizationaL Context Chapter 1 outlined how different people and organizations view programs in different ways; it also reviewed existing PgM standards and analysed them in regards of their suitability in different situations. chapter 2 completes this understanding of the usefulness and appropriateness of programs by examining the context of program management, more specifically, in the first section, it discusses different types of project-based organizations and how programs fit in. The relationship between programs and other project organization components like portfolios and projects are examined, as well as the relation between programs and the organization’s strategies and value. PROjECTS, PROGRAMS AND PORTFOLIOS in order to understand the objectives and characteristics of program management, it is essential to clarify the different views that exist concerning the different project-based components. Comparison Between Project, Program and Portfolio in order to clearly distinguish programs from projects, we need to understand the distinction between the european and the American approach to project management. Traditionally, the european view of Project Management has been wider ranging than the North American view. For european practitioners and project associations a project starts with an initiating idea and business justification and ends with the “operationalization” of its deliverables, often covering multiple smaller single projects. This links and often overlaps project management with change management. For example, the UK’s Association of Project Management’s Body of Knowledge (APM, 2006) has 52 knowledge areas, as compared with the nine of the Project Management Institute’s (PMI®) PMBOK® Guide (PMi, 2008). europeans, to some extent, describe a discipline rather than a process (iPMA, 2006; APM, 2006); in contrast, North Americans have mostly taken the view that project management is a process to manage single projects. The different views of Thiry, M 2010, Program Management, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Farnham. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [5 September 2018].Created from rmit on 2018-09-05 03:31:49. C op yr ig ht © 2 01 0. A sh ga te P ub lis hi ng L td . A ll rig ht s re se rv ed . Program management�� what a program is have definitely been influenced by each project perspective. In North America, traditionally, the term program was associated with large complex projects, whereas in europe, and especially the UK, it is associated with change management. When project management is limited to the processes between the attribution of a mandate to the project manager and the project closing, it is assumed that the project deliverables can be fairly accurately described and that any required handover or transfer period is outside the scope of the project (PMi, 1996, 2000, 2004; cMAA, 2002; DSMc, 1999; NASA, 1998). Theories aside, practice has shown, even in Europe (OGC, 2005), that, more often than not, the role of project manager is restricted to the management of the activities taking place between initiation and closure. The “directing” and operational integration roles are usually taken on by distinct people who often have authority over the project manager. Most practitioners and writers now agree that the discipline that oversees the role of the project manager and connects projects to the business and strategy is program management. Until recently, the boundary between programs and portfolios was often blurred; there was confusion and often divergence about what distinguished them. elonen and Aarto (2002) stated: “Terms closely related or in some contexts almost synonymous to project portfolio management include program management and multi-project management” (p. 2). For example, Dye and Pennypacker, (1999) were giving the following definition of portfolio: “A project portfolio is a collection of projects to be managed concurrently under a single management umbrella. each project may be related or independent of each other. The projects share the same strategic objectives and the same scarce resources.” At the same time, the PMI (2000) was defining programs as: “a group of projects managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits not available from managing them individually.” And the ccTA (1999) as: “The co-ordinated management of a portfolio of projects that change organizations to achieve benefits that are of strategic importance.” Additionally, as stated earlier, many endeavours called “programs” are in fact ongoing operations, which Sergio Pellegrinelli (1997) called “portfolio programmes” and “heartbeat programmes” and Murray-Webster and Thiry (2000) called “portfolio programmes” and “incremental programmes”. The 2000 version of the PMBOK® Guide,1 states: “This diversity of meaning makes it imperative that any discussion of program management versus project management be preceded by agreement on a clear and consistent definition of each term” (p. 10). 1 PMBOK® Guide: A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMi, 2004). PMBOK® Guide is a Registered Trademark of the Project Management Institute. Thiry, M 2010, Program Management, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Farnham. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [5 September 2018]. Created from rmit on 2018-09-05 03:31:49. C op yr ig ht © 2 01 0. A sh ga te P ub lis hi ng L td . A ll rig ht s re se rv ed . organIzatIonal Context �� At this point in time, there is relative agreement on the focus and purpose of projects, programs and portfolios. The current views can be summarized as: Projects generally deliver a single product or service. They are reasonably well defined and although they can be complicated, they are generally not complex. Their focus is tactical or operational. Programs deliver multiple deliverables which, together, produce business benefits. They are generally complex with frequent realignments required during their life cycle. Their alignment is with the business strategy and they are business focused. Portfolios can cover two areas: the organization’s projects or its whole investment portfolio. They have an overall corporate deliverable and are ongoing and recurrent. They are fairly predictable in terms of their outcomes, but require constant adjustments. They both have a mission focus and are aligned with the corporate strategy. Table 2-1 compares these three components of the organization on a series of elements: Table 2-1 Detailed comparison between projects, programs and portfolios (Thiry, 2008 in Gower Management Handbook 4th Edition, Chapters 3 and 4) Area Project Program Portfolios scope set, limited scope with clearly defined deliverables. broad scope with flexible boundaries to meet medium-term expected business benefits. Organizational scope adapted to corporate goals. Change Change should be avoided; baseline is key. Change is first seen as an opportunity. Monitor environmental changes that affect the corporate strategy. Success Measured through respect of cost, time, quality preset parameters: the Pm triangle. Measured in financial terms, value creation and benefits delivery. Measured in terms of overall portfolio performance: maximum results, minimal resources. • • • Thiry, M 2010, Program Management, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Farnham. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [5 September 2018]. Created from rmit on 2018-09-05 03:31:49. C op yr ig ht © 2 01 0. A sh ga te P ub lis hi ng L td . A ll rig ht s re se rv ed . Program management�� Leadership Transactional leadership, authority- based directive style, management of subalterns, conflict resolution. Rational decision-making. Facilitating style, management of powerful stakeholders, conflict resolution. Intuitive decision-making. Administrative style focused on adding value, power results from allocation of resources. Rational decision-making. role Task and parameters management; product (project output) delivery Pacing and interfacing of projects; business benefits delivery. Resource management across portfolio; deliver value to