|
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management |
| By: | Marx, Susanne |
| Abstract: | Drawing on experiences of the author in Interreg co-operation projects, this paper relates project management practice in two case study projects to selected key topics of project management theory, resulting into a series of recommendations primarily based on personal reflection. The case study projects were both funded by the South Baltic Cross-border Co-operation Programme 2007 - 2013. This paper presents the strategic environment of the case study projects. The framework of public requirements, the geographic distribution of the project team and the concept of a multi-organisational project set-up, lead to increased complexity. In assessing this specific project environment, the paper evaluates the relative importance of the project management knowledge areas of the PMBOK® and in doing so, putting a focus on project sustainability management as a significant area for further efforts towards enhancing project management standards and indeed, long-term project success. The balanced matrix of the multi-organisational structure required management awareness of the lead partner for enacting non-formal authority and empowerment, resulting in the importance of building trust. Since stakeholder influence and needs were critical for project success, this paper presents a process for analyzing stakeholders to prioritize and develop individual strategies. The concept of the project lifecycle is established in the PM standards of the PMI® and APM. In transferring these standard project lifecycles to the considered Interreg-projects, a major distinction noted, is the timespan between an application for funding and (in case of success) the start of project implementation. This period can take several months, in which the project risks to lose momentum. Another critical, yet largely neglected phase is after the project closure, a time when promised benefits for stakeholders potentially materialize. This paper recommends strengthening the role of the 'program' in terms of project management qualification, continuous improvement and cross-project learning. Finally, the project management maturity is assessed, recommending the following areas for further development: Benefit, Stake-holder and Risk Management. |
| Date: | 2017 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:simata:0917031&r=ppm |
| By: | Marta Allegra Ronchetti |
| Abstract: | A recent amendment to the European Regulation on credit rating agencies (CRA) requires CRAs to disclose any issuers' request of initial reviews (ie preliminary ratings). This paper constructs a model of preliminary ratings and uses it to investigate the effect of contact disclosure. A CRA issues a preliminary rating. After receiving this confidential rating, the entrepreneur has the opportunity either to purchase an official rating at a cost or to remain unrated. I identify a trade-off between the fee and the CRA's reputation. When the project is likely to be good, the CRA issues a good preliminary rating because the risk of losing reputation is extremely low whereas when the project is likely to be bad the CRA prefers to issue a bad preliminary rating avoiding to risk reputation. I show that when there is disclosure of the contact between the CRA and the entrepreneur, the CRA issues more good preliminary ratings than when there is no evidence of preliminary contact. Disclosure results in a lower probability of stopping high quality projects but also in a higher probability of financing low quality ones. |
| Keywords: | rating agencies, preliminary ratings, reputation, disclosure. |
| Date: | 2018 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:not:notcfc:18/02&r=ppm |
| By: | Jakub Sawulski |
| Abstract: | The paper is a preliminary evaluation of the offshore wind innovation system in Poland. The analysis is based on the Technology Innovation System concept. The paper includes the two first steps of the procedure: the structural analysis and the technology stage of development analysis. We found that, although there are not any offshore wind farms in Poland yet, Polish industry has broad experience in implementing offshore wind projects and can cover a large part of the offshore wind farm investment. However, knowledge area is not a strong point of the innovation system. Also the institutional (political) uncertainty, as well as inadequate public system of support for RES, may be significant barriers for the development of the technology. So far, the Baltic Sea has remained weakly explored in terms of offshore wind deployment. Poland, with its large sea space and good wind and soil conditions, may play a pivotal role in kick-starting the offshore market in this area. |
| Keywords: | RES, offshore wind, innovation system, TIS |
| JEL: | O31 O33 Q42 Q55 |
| Date: | 2017–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ibt:wpaper:wp062017&r=ppm |
| By: | Elisabetta Marinelli (European Commission - JRC); John Edwards (European Commission - JRC); Cosmina Mironov (Bucharest University) |
| Abstract: | This report synthesises the findings of the project Higher Education and Smart Specialisation (HESS) in North East Romania, a region that has been examined as one of the case studies. The project analyses the links between the higher education (HE) system and the development and implementation of Smart Specialisation Strategies (S3). On the one hand, the report identifies the challenges that S3 and the shift towards place-based innovation raise for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the region; on the other, it explores how HEIs' activities can best support S3 in a region with an early-stage regional innovation system. The case of North East Romania is particularly interesting, as the region hosts well-established universities , that are anchored to their traditional missions of teaching and research, while facing critical questions posed by S3. In particular the report explores how HEIs can contribute to knowledge-based regional development, not only through locally-relevant teaching programmes, but also through territorially grounded research, technology transfer and societal engagement. The case study has employed participatory and qualitative research methods, which have been complemented by desk based research on the policy and socio-economic context. |
| Keywords: | Smart specialisation, higher education |
| Date: | 2017–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ipt:iptwpa:jrc107475&r=ppm |
| By: | Nikitinsky, Nikita; Shashev, Sergey; Kachurina, Polina; Bespalov, Aleksander |
| Abstract: | In this paper, we present the Expert Hub System, which was designed to help governmental structures find the best experts in different areas of expertise for better reviewing of the incoming grant proposals. In order to define the areas of expertise with topic modeling and clustering, and then to relate experts to corresponding areas of expertise and rank them according to their proficiency in certain areas of expertise, the Expert Hub approach uses the data from the Directorate of Science and Technology Programmes. Furthermore, the paper discusses the use of Big Data and Machine Learning in the Russian government project. |
| Keywords: | government project, Big Data, Machine Learning, expert evaluation, clustering |
| JEL: | O38 |
| Date: | 2016–07–18 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:82865&r=ppm |
| By: | Pilon, André Francisco |
| Abstract: | The ecosystemic approach favours the development of healthy societies, that invest in each other rather than in mega-projects with intensive use of resources, it extends to environmental problems, quality of life and the state of the world a larger conceptual framework that includes ontological and epistemological issues, in view of the isomorphy and transfers of concepts, laws and models in various fields; it relates to how taken for granted worldviews, values and perceptions affect the definition and treatment of the problems by public policies, research and teaching programmes in the contemporary world. |
| Keywords: | Public Policies, Ecosystems, Education, Ethics, Economics |
| JEL: | I0 I2 I25 I28 I3 O21 Q5 Q56 Q57 Q58 |
| Date: | 2018–01–28 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:84224&r=ppm |