The study by Nielsen et al. (2012), “Realizing sustainability in facilities management: A pilot study at the Technical University of Denmark,” focuses on the issue of integrating the existing sustainability parameters in the intended facilities. The background for the research study is provided by the case overview of pilot sustainability management. The outcomes of the practical analysis provide a consistent foundation for the future guidance of sustainability characteristics in program management of different facilities. The improvements, which have to be introduced so that the research findings could be considered reliable, concern the extension of the investigated case studies. Thus, the work is based exclusively on one pilot case description, which imposes certain situational limitations on the results of the investigation.
Consequently, it is recommended to align the research study with some additional explorations of sustainability principles. If the general platform for facility-dependent sustainability management is developed in relation to the multilevel integrating challenges, the stakeholders might receive a consistent framework for the realizations of sustainability principles in FM. An elaboration of the standard FM design assists professional research managers and organizations in the process of secondary sustainability development (Pelzeter 2012). Specifically, it opens up the opportunities for measuring, monitoring, and processing the fundamental indicators in sustainable facility management.
The benefits, which can be drawn from the operational procedures, may be verified against the benchmark indicators of FM success. The research groups, which supervise FM performance accomplishments, own the benefits of the investigation outcomes. They are equally responsible for delivering any operational changes to the systematic FM platforms. The representatives of research groups might develop some compulsory and optional alternatives for the FM verification. Additionally, the results may be assessed by the customers, who use the systems. Despite the clients can not alternate the benefits of the FM schemes, they can recount their experiences to the research groups, which introduce appropriate modifications.
The research paper by Hart and Milstein (2003), ‘Creating Sustainable Value,’ targets the creation of a common shareholder value, which defines multidimensional performance sustainability. The research argument presupposes that the development of sustainable value implies a range of social, environmental, and economic challenges, which impose their influence on business strategies of separate firms. The fundamental limitations, which hinder the complete estimation of the research benefits, regard the fact that a majority of businesses embrace multi-dimensional opportunities for value sustainable development instead of multilevel models. As a result, a range of managers creates negative equipment systems within their firms. Therefore, it is critical to elaborate a shareholder link to the strategies, which should be embraced by business managers.
The creation of a sustainable environment in business spheres creates new opportunities for multilevel development of the firms, which relate both to the customers’ needs and the internal economic and social implications. The improvements add value to the quality of management distributions as well as the quality of the produced materials. Therefore, the benefits, which may be derived from sustainability improvements, are assigned to the enterprise owners, the employee staff since the workers’ accomplishments are rewarded, and the clients of the specified business dimensions. The benefits of sustainability creation may be assessed along with the principles of brand selling, the customers’ feedback to the quality of production as well as the internal attitudes towards management operations (Cai & Wheale 2004). The responsibility for the accomplishment of sustainability value insurance must be controlled by the management of business firms. Specifically, the supervisors of working procedures must be accountable for aligning the strategies of company goals achievement and the parameters of value sustainability.
The study by Jonas (2010), ‘Empowering project portfolio managers: How management involvement impacts project portfolio management performance,’ dwells on the problem of controllability of the single projects, which are embraced by separate companies. The role of project portfolio manager has a short history, but the designed study reveals that projection landscapes may function more efficiently if a project portfolio manager takes up the critical renovation practices. The research investigation reveals a complex interaction between a project portfolio and senior management. Therefore, the outcomes of the study assist in outlining the planning of a re-distribution of portfolio management. The improvements, which may be imposed on the experiment, concern the designation of the study. The work is based on a literature overview, according to which the propositional scheme for project portfolio is developed. However, it is critical to introduce experimental design since it would help to examine communication models and interaction between various management structures.
If the investment objectives are achieved, and the position is differentiated, the profession may be profitable for project-organized companies. Thus, aligning the supervision of single projects to the particular management subdivisions may enhance the quality of performance as well as transference and the effectiveness of controlling. The aim may be achieved by the retribution of management involvement. Specifically, senior managers have to embrace the execution of certain complex systems, which do not involve individual project tasks. Such professionals should rather take control of the indirect accomplishments of the production. Moreover, they have to conduct supervision interventions and coordinate the work tasks, which may be performed by portfolio managers. The benefits, therefore, may belong to the business owners and the individual employees, who receive a chance for new promotional positions. The final outcomes of the improved projects may be verified by the use of profession-oriented questionnaires, which might estimate the appropriateness of the new post (Martinsuo & Lehtonen 2007).
The research paper Hope and Moehler (2014), “Balancing projects with society and the environment: A project, program, and portfolio approach,” relates to unsustainable use of resources, which is provoked by such external changes as poverty, discrimination, global climate change, etc. The initial suggestion of the investigation concerns the fact that program portfolio management represents an opportunity to combine strategic, operational sustainability and visionary approaches. In other words, the central strategy implies a separation of the portfolio, programming, and project with the aim of ensuring the accomplishment of projection objectives. The limitations of project design stem from the failure to find a consistent model for describing three components of sustainability system in separation. Thus, the investigation suggests the creation of multidimensional organizations within separate companies. Specifically, the development of the Project Management Office (PMO) or Portfolio, Program, and Project Office (P3O) was introduced.
At the same time, the implementation of the combined sustainability model envisions consistent benefits for both internal and external stakeholders. Thus, the creation of the platform for single projects’ treatment within a firm may contribute to the regulatory distribution of the workforce tasks. Still, several organizational mechanisms have to be put in action so that to reach a complete realization of the company goals (Kenny 2003). Specifically, the management groups of the firm have to establish a strong dialogue within an organization between the supervisors of three sustainability branches. Certain alterations have to be imposed on the research investigation so that to ensure distributional effectiveness and enhance the quality of sustainability. Mainly, it is acknowledged that every subdivision of projection sustainability requires specific professional qualities. Therefore, it is vital to match the communicative objectives of Project, Program, and Portfolio to the skills of the specialists, who work in the respective areas. The analysis may be supported by the experimental designation of the study.
The article by Turan et al. (2008), “Organizational sustainability: A new project portfolio management approach that Integrates financial and non-financial performance measures” focuses on the integration of financial and non-financial measurement of project portfolio performance. The study employs the use of the Tripple Bottom Line (TBL) with the application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). According to the study outcomes, certain prioritized decision-makers are outlined. Consequently, a balanced approach to portfolio development, which relates to certain environmental, social, and financial, organizational implications, is implemented. The limitations of the developed study relate to the one-dimensional area of investigation. Thus, the research study is based on the electric utility industry examination. Therefore, the results concern one branch of business relations. On the basis of this analysis, the respective capacities of green power absence, the supervision of emission control, as well as financial performance continuation, which characterize the elaboration of portfolio projects in the sphere of electricity control, were suggested.
The conception of Triple Bottom Line implies that the measurement tool may be used in relation to multiple areas of social responsibility, business advocacy, etc. (Norman & MacDonald 2004). Therefore, the improved research study has to be based on analyzing several dimensions of investigation since it would guarantee objectiveness of the research outcomes. The benefits of the elaborate research design may be related to both internal and external stakeholders, who may use the advantages of the Triple Bottom Line tool with an aim of disclosing new proactive decision concerns. The alterations have to be imposed by the specialists, who work within a specific business sphere and are able to ensure projection sustainability. It is vital to note that the application of the decision makers has to be implemented by the professionals, who can supervise projects, which concern specific environmental or social spheres.
The study by Too and Weaver (2014), “The management of project management: A conceptual framework for project governance,” dwells on the supervision of individual projects, which depends on business strategies of the companies. The investigation targets literature review, which describes the experiences of separate business firms. According to the outcomes of the study, four major constituents of project portfolio management are derived. First, the analysis claims that correct portfolio management strategies serve as a kind of filters, which have the power to terminate any existing projects that do not contribute to an organizational success of a company as well as to support the programs that improve the quality of operational functioning within a firm. Secondly, the research study differentiates a link between the directed project management and the executive supervision of projection activity. Third, the crucial role of establishing Project Management Offices with an aim of controlling the main program strategies is analyzed. Finally, the examination of an optimal management model, which measures the general success of project implementation, is provided.
The limitation of the investigation stems from the fact that poor guidelines for determination of successful and unsuccessful projects are given. Thus, since the analysis targets the issue of project governance, it might be beneficial to develop a multidimensional planning for projection efficiency (Munns & Bjeirmi 2006). Specifically, the internal stakeholders might benefit from receiving stable instructions on the verification of portfolio project effectiveness either orally from the management structures or in written/digital form, for such clarification would develop a focused approach to projection supervision. System alterations might be dictated by production managers, who are responsible for the single projects success. Thus, it is recommended to expose every business portfolio project to detailed analysis in terms of social appropriateness, environmental threats, and strategic advantages so that to elaborate some optimal verification guidelines that either improve the project, leave it untouched, or terminate its activity and develop a new one instead.
The research study by Brook and Pagnanelli (2014), “Integrating sustainability into innovation project portfolio management: A strategic perspective,” targets the concept of renovation, which evolves in the process of conducting successful project portfolio management. The study stems from the suggestion that professional literature on business management lacks clarity on the methods of portfolio innovation, which may be applied to the strategic analysis. Therefore, the complex research investigation differentiates a framework of sustainability renovation, which includes five stages. According to the research design development, the framework includes such critical steps as strategic analysis, a distribution of resources among innovation strategy items, a creation of the strategic buckets, which become responsible for the respective sets of projects, a sustention of prioritization of the efficient projects, and the evaluation of strategic performance, which relates to successful project findings. The study may be improved through the application of termination strategies. Thus, the theory of project portfolio management claims that there is a specific category of program projects, which can not be improved but should rather be substituted for efficiency-directed sustainability projections (Killen, Hunt & Kleinschmidt 2000).
In the analyzed work, three types of portfolio initiatives are developed. These include derivational projects, breakthrough projects, and platform projects. The classification stems from a complex estimation of projection success in the automotive industry. Since the area of research is limited, it does not provide any possibilities for the overview of the outdated projects, which may often be found in contrastive investigation domains. Therefore, internal and external stakeholders would benefit from the extension of research area since it would differentiate a category of portfolio projects, which are susceptible to substitution. The suggested alterations would create a new framework, which might assist in conducting high-quality investment retribution. In this context, the renovation would make it possible to relate the new projects to environmental, social, and economic sustainability parameters, which would determine portfolio platforms success.
The article by Silvius and Schipper (2014), “Sustainability in project management competencies: Analyzing the competence gap in project managers,” discloses the issue of professional responsibility and outlines specific knowledge resources, which belong to a successful portfolio project manager. Multiple practical estimations of projection success show that the factor of personal skills imposes a strong influence on projects’ functioning. The realization of portfolio project sustainability predetermines the future success of the business. That is why, it is critical to assign project governance responsibilities to the specialists, who manage to accommodate project developments to specific real-life firm needs. The research investigation is based on the qualitative overview of the professional literature, which covers the basic aspects that embrace sustainability goals. The elaboration of the study may be stimulated by the shortage of defining standards, which may characterize a good specialist in the sphere of project management. In this context, it is critical to point out that the specific skills, which should be demonstrated by a project manager include goal awareness, predictability abilities, and portfolio-oriented knowledge (Kasvi, Vartiainen & Hailikari 2003).
The ability to define the ultimate objectives of every functional activity, which is supported by a certain project implementation, belongs to the primary characteristics of a project manager since it assists in linking the results of installation to the primary investments. The skill of predicting the follow-ups of projection development is similar to the previous one, but it implies a wide knowledge of the external market as well. Thus, the experience of relating personal projects to the sustained experiences of the other firms may define a future success of a specific portfolio program. Finally, perfect knowledge of a particular project dimension assists in achieving the objectives of the business. Thus, the alterations, which may be embraced by internal stakeholders, in the study, should regard the platform for developing the specified skills.
The case study by Khalili-Damghani and Tavana (2014), “A comprehensive framework for sustainable project portfolio selection based on structural equation modeling,” describes the principles of projection selection, which eliminates the potential problems of portfolio implementation. Thus, the work suggests that project managers often face the complexity of projection objectives, which stem from contrastive disadvantages of portfolio implementation. Therefore, a set of specific issues, which assist in differentiating correct projects, is specified in the paper. The investigators outline strategic guidelines for portfolio selection with the implementation of structural equation modeling. The model is derived from a complex system of interrelations between latent variables, which define optimal projection analysis (Savalei & Bentler 2010). As a result, a general systematic performance effects are verified in the context of project sustainability, implementation, and post-implementation.
Moreover, the overall performance of portfolio projects is analyzed. The possible improvements, which would elaborate the outcomes of the research study relate to the extension of a target area. Thus, relevance project assessment is sustained in the sphere of banking investment, which embraces a limited system of algorithms and procedural functions that concern the dimension of finance and economy. However, it is clear that separate spheres of business relations have different portfolio problems. For instance, the dimension of IT business requires a focused approach to software elaboration and high-tech improvements. Therefore, it is a challenge for the internal stakeholders of any firm to conduct an internal research on the overall performance of specific projection systems. The final outcomes of individual studies should differentiate focused guidelines for portfolio project verifications, which must be implemented by the production managers in the course of sustainability maintenance.
The research paper by Siew (2015), “Integrating sustainability into construction project portfolio management,” aims at a constructive development of a new sustainability framework, which dwells on two-stage verification process of robust portfolio theories. According to the outcomes of the study, the process of projection implementation embraces two crucial steps. First, it relates to the process of complex screening, which is focused on the selection of an optimal project. On this level, a multidimensional framework for project sustainability is differentiated since the analyzed process of selection has a uniform character and can concern various business spheres. The procedure of project portfolio selection is based on the function of second choice thinking, which contributes to the elimination of any doubts about the quality of chosen projection. The second stage of verification includes an assessment of output results.
Therefore, the study design suggests a development of a frontier approach to projection implementation, which integrates the basic sustainability parameters. The follow-ups of framework development emphasize the idea of multirole project treatment. In other words, if management alterations are introduced by the internal stakeholders, the business firms may develop a new infrastructure of human resources. Thus, it is critical to assign the process of selection and verification of portfolio projects to several specialists, who can apply their skills to different functions of projects. The idea would bring benefits to the external stakeholders since the effective distribution of projection roles might reduce the initial investments in businesses (Heising 2012). The differentiation of project optimizations may be beneficial since a selection of portfolio parameters requires specific knowledge of the business concepts, which coincide with the area of project installation. In contrast to it, the experience of portfolio project verification demands focused awareness of the principles of projection functioning, its advantages, and the possibilities for improvement.
Reference List
Brook, J & Pagnanelli, F 2014, ‘Integrating sustainability into innovation project portfolio management: A strategic perspective’, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 1-12.
Cai, Z & Wheale, P 2004, ‘Creating sustainable corporate value: A case study of stakeholder relationship management in China’, Business and Society Review, vol. 109, no. 4, pp. 507-547.
Hart, S & Milstein, M 2003, ‘Creating sustainable value’. Academy of Management Executive, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 56-69.
Heising, W 2012, ‘The integration of ideation and project portfolio management – A key factor for sustainable success’, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 582-595.
Hope, A & Moehler, R 2014, ‘Balancing projects with society and the environment: A project, program and portfolio approach’, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 119, no. 19, pp. 358-367.
Jonas, D 2010, ‘Empowering project portfolio managers: How management involvement impacts project portfolio management performance’, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 818-831.
Kasvi, J, Vartiainen, M & Hailikari, M 2003‚‘Managing knowledge and knowledge competences in projects and project organizations’, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 571-582.
Kenny, J 2003, ‘Effective project management for strategic innovation and change in an organization’, Project Management Journal, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 43-44.
Khalili-Damghani, K & Tavana, M 2014, ‘A comprehensive framework for sustainable project portfolio selection based on structural equation modeling’, Project Management Journal, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 83-97.
Killen, C, Hunt, R & Kleinschmidt, E 2000‚‘Project portfolio management for product innovation‘, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 24-38.
Martinsuo, M & Lehtonen, P 2007, ‘Role of single-project management in achieving portfolio management efficiency’, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 56-65.
Munns, A & Bjeirmi, B 2006, ‘The role of project management in achieving project success’, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 81-87.
Nielsen, B, Moller, S, Jaschke, S & Alexander, K 2012, ‘Realising sustainability in facilities management: A pilot study at the Technical University of Denmark’, EuroFM Research Symposium, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-13.
Norman, W & MacDonald, C 2004, ‘Getting to the bottom of “Triple Bottom Line’, Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 243-262.
Pelzeter, A 2012, ‘Sustainability in facility management’, Implementing Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1-6.
Savalei, V & Bentler, P 2010, ‘Structural equation modeling’, General Psychology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 10-12.
Siew, R 2015, ‘Integrating sustainability into construction project portfolio management’, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineers, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-8.
Silvius, G & Schipper, R 2014, ‘Sustainability in project management competencies: Analyzing the competence gap of project managers’, Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 40-58.
Too, E & Weaver, P 2014, ‘The management of project management: A conceptual framework for project governance’, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1382-1394.
Turan, F, Scala, N, Kamrani, A & Needy, K 2008, ‘Organisational sustainability: A new project portfolio management approach that Integrates financial and non-financial performance measures’, Industrial Engineering Research Conference, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-6.