PAPERS Government and Governance:
The Value of Project Management
in the Public Sector
Lynn H. Crawford, Bond University, Sydney, Australia; ESC Lille, France; Human Systems
Asia Pacific Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia
Jane Helm, Human Systems Asia Pacific Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia
ABSTRACT ■
Governance is an emerging theme that has
been associated in the public sector with a real
political need to satisfy stakeholders by demon-
strating accountability and transparency while
effectively implementing policy. Many initia-
tives relating to governance are generated by a
need for improvement of organizational per-
formance and ability to implement and adapt to
change. These generally take the form of proj-
ects and programs encouraging a variety of
project management implementations in the
public sector. This article reports on examina-
tion of the expectations and realization of value
from investment in project management in four
Australian public-sector organizations with par-
ticular reference to the government context, the
perspective of public value management (PVM),
and the support that project management pro-
vides in meeting the demands of public-sector
governance.
KEYWORDS: public sector; governance;
value; project management
Project Management Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1, 73–87
© 2009 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com)
DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20107
INTRODUCTION ■
emonstrable ability to deliver results is an increasing challenge for
D both public- and private-sector organizations. In the private sector,
regulation of corporate governance following numerous high-profile
corporate collapses has heightened shareholder demands for
accountability, transparency, and ability to implement strategy. The public
sector, after two decades of public-sector reform and concern with perfor-
mance improvement (Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Develop-
ment [OECD], 2004), is under similar pressure to satisfy stakeholders by
demonstrating accountability and transparency while effectively implement-
ing policy and adapting to change (Edwards & Clough, 2005; Forbes & Lynn,
2005). Whether it is strategy or policies that must be implemented, the vehi-
cles for delivery generally take the form of projects and programs, and effec-
tive project management is promoted as improving the ability to achieve
outcomes while providing traceability, transparency, and accountability.
Developing and maintaining governance and delivery capability through
projects and programs requires investment, and those responsible for proj- Visión
top-down:
ect management implementation in organizations are regularly called upon cuál es el
beneficio que
to justify this investment leading to significant interest in providing “evi-
queremos
dence of the value organizations recognize when project management is generar?
appropriately implemented” (Thomas & Mullaly, 2007, p. 74). As Thomas
and Mullaly explained, the value of investment in project management
capability will be dependent upon fit between the nature of the project man-
agement implementation and its context.
The government context is characterized by “uncertainty, ambiguity, and
stakeholder management issues that are multifaceted and complex”
(Crawford, Costello, Pollack, & Bentley, 2003, p. 443) and is subject to political
pressures, and issues of public scrutiny and accountability that provide
points of differentiation from the private sector and place specific emphasis
upon governance. This article draws on the findings of four case studies of
government organizations in Australia, conducted as part of a major interna-
tional research project designed to provide insight into the value of project
management. The specific aim of this article is to examine expectations and
realization of value of project management in the government context with
particular reference to meeting the demands of public-sector governance.
Project Management in the Public Sector
The importance of project and program management capability in the public
sector has been recognized in government initiatives in various countries in
March 2009 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 73
PAPERS
The Value of Project Management in the Public Sector
most cases associated with increasing
public scrutiny and a need for assurance
of value from public expenditure. The
U.S. government has invested signifi-
cantly in project and program manage-
ment, notably in Defense acquisition,
the Department of Energy, and NASA
(NASA, 2008). In the United Kingdom,
the Office of Government Commerce
(OGC), was established to “help Govern-
ment deliver best value from its spend-
ing” including the “delivery of projects
to time, quality and cost, realizing bene-
fits” (Office of Government Commerce,
2008a). The OGC works with public-
sector organizations to help them
improve their efficiency, gain better
value for money from their commercial
activities, and deliver improved success
from programs and projects. They pro-
vide considerable support for manage-
ment of projects and programs, including
well-known and widely used methodolo-
gies and guides such as PRINCE2 (Office
of Government Commerce, 2007b) and
Managing Successful Programmes (Office
of Government Commerce, 2007a).
Governance is an overt theme
throughout the OGC’s guidance for proj-
ect and program management, as evi-
denced by the OGC Gateway process,
which provides an external review of
programs and projects to examine pro-
gress and likelihood of successful deliv-
ery (Office of Government Commerce,
2008b). Encouragement and support for
improved project management is evi-
dent at various levels of the U.K. gov-
ernment, including the National Audit
Office, which reports on the economy,
efficiency, and effectiveness of public
spending (National Audit Office, 2008)
and initiatives such as that of the
Communities and Local Government
(CLG) and the Local Government
Association (LGA), which, as part of a
Capacity Building Programme (Commu-
nities and Local Government, 2008),
has developed considerable support to
encourage local authorities and other
public-sector organizations to establish
a project and program organizational
74 March 2009 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
culture and to increase their overall
capacity to deliver change.
In Australia, effective use of re-
sources, timely delivery, and mainte-
nance of public confidence were key
drivers behind a review of problems
associated with major Defense acquisi-
tion projects (Kinnaird, Early, & Schofield,
2003). Responding to this review and to
considerable political pressure to mini-
mize adverse publicity and demon-
strate delivery capability, the CEO of
the restructured Defence Materiel
Organisation (DMO) stated an aim of
making the DMO “the premier project
management and engineering services
organization in the country” (Fitch,
2005).
Responsible utilization of public
funds in implementing policy and
delivering services and infrastructure
across the whole of government is sub-
ject to media attention, which can be
politically damaging. Reflecting this, in
October 2003, the Commonwealth
Government of Australia established
the Cabinet Implementation Unit
(CIU), within the Department of the
Prime Minister and Cabinet. The aim of
the CIU was to encourage earlier and
more effective planning for implemen-
tation of public policy decisions through
greater utilization of good project
management principles and practices
(Department of Prime Minister and
Cabinet, 2005). The Australian Federal
Government has also established a
Gateway Review Process, modeled on
that of the OGC, with the aim of
improving the “on-time and on-budget
delivery of major projects” (Australian
Government, 2008). Other examples of
initiatives in the Australian public sec-
tor that support good governance and
improved implementation through
project management are the Victorian
government’s Gateway Review Process
aimed at improving infrastructure and
ICT project delivery and ensuring best
value for money in achieving strategic
objectives of business and government
(The Gateway Unit, 2008); a decision by
the Queensland government to recom-
mend widespread adoption of the OGC’s
PRINCE2 and MSP methodologies in the
interests of more effective governance
and risk management (Service Delivery
and Performance Commission, 2006);
and extensive provision of project
management resources by various state
governments, notably those of the
Tasmanian government (Inter Agency
Policy and Projects Unit, 2008).
The significant initiatives of gov-
ernments around the world to provide
encouragement and support for
improved project management indi-
cate expectation of value in the public
sector. The stated expectation of the
value of project management to gov-
ernment is in contribution to effective
governance including transparency
and accountability, efficiency and
effective use of resources, improved
implementation of policy and change,
and maintenance of public confidence.
Governance in the Public Sector
As the Australian National Audit Office
(2003, p. iii) argues: “good public sector
governance is important to provide
adequate accountability to its many
stakeholders, including taxpayers, and
to encourage performance improve-
ment while satisfying control and com-
pliance requirements.” The term gover-
nance is essentially associated with
accountability and responsibilities; it
describes how an organization is
directed and controlled and pays par-
ticular attention to organizational
structure, management and policies
(OGC, 2008c). Considine and Lewis
(2003) offered a useful framework of
types of governance that correspond
broadly to phases in the development
of public administration and manage-
ment in OECD countries (see Table 1).
Under the traditional public-sector
management model, public-sector gov-
ernance was centered on procedural
governance. The public-sector shift to
new public management (NPM), from
the early 1980s to the early 2000s, was
 Traditional Public
Management
Mode of Operation Planning and policy
Theoretical Focus Policy studies
Model of Governance Procedural
Performance Objective Managing inputs
Goal of Managers Respond to political
direction
Accountability Upwards through
departments to politicians
to parliament
Role of Community Little community
involvement
Note. Adapted from Smith and Weller (2000), Hess and Adams (2002), and Kelly and Muers (2002), as cited in Smith (2004) and Considine and Lewis (2003).
Table 1: Approaches to public administration and public management.
accompanied by a shift in public-sector
governance heavily toward corporate
and, to a much lesser extent, market
governance due to their consistency
with the market-based values of NPM.
Public-sector interest in project man-
agement can be seen as very strongly
associated with NPM (Crawford et al.,
2003), which responded to a focus on
“reducing expenditures while at the
same time improving government
operations” (Caiden, 1998). According
to the OECD (1995), catalysts for
change included:
• need for increased efficiency and
cost-effectiveness to control and
reduce public spending;
• reduction in national differences in
public sectors and increasing desire to
enhance competitiveness of national
economies as a result of globalization;
• rising service quality expectations
from individuals and business need to
respond flexibly and strategically to
external changes; and
• opportunities offered by new infor-
mation technologies.
New Public Management
(NPM)
Management and contracts
Management and economics
Corporate
Managing inputs and outputs
Meet agreed performance
targets
Upwards through performance
contracts; sometimes outward
to customers through market
mechanisms
Increased consultation
From the early 1980s, common
themes emerged in the responses by
national public sectors to the need for
change, including (Peters & Savoie,
1998):
• emphasis on strategic management
and planning;
• increased public consultation in
design and execution of policy;
• introduction of performance measure-
ments associated with emphasis on
and accountability for results;
• attempts to replace the “tradition of
predictability and regularity that was
the trademark of old public adminis-
tration” (p. 35) with adaptability and
flexibility; and
• efforts to increase service quality and
become more responsive through
“debureaucratization,” allowing initia-
tives such as integrated service delivery
(Aucoin, 1998, pp. 311–312; Caiden, 1998,
p. 265; Rockman, 1998, p. 37).
The influence of corporate gover-
nance and NPM on project manage-
ment implementations in government
March 2009 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Public Value Management
(PVM)
Knowledge fields
Governance philosophy
Network
Multiple objectives: service
outputs; satisfaction; outcomes;
trust and legitimacy
Respond to citizen preferences,
renew mandate and trust
through quality services
Multiple: citizens as overseers
of government; customers as
users of services; taxpayers
Community enablement and
involvement
remains strong, but the corporate and
market focus of NPM has more recently
been seen as having overlooked com-
plexities in governance and expec-
tations of the public sector that are
not applicable to the private sector
(Wettenhall, 2005, cited in Howard &
Seth-Purdie, 2005, among others).
Marsh (2002) believes that globaliza- MUY
IMPORTANTE.
tion, changes in information technolo- La satisfacción
gy, and more active citizenship and de los
ciudadanos no
interest groups are leading public- es considerada
sector governance away from the cor- dentro de los
esquemas de
porate governance framework. Citing incentivos.
the increasing amalgamation of admin-
istration and politics, he demonstrates
a shift in public-sector administration
to what Considine and Lewis (2003)
would term “network governance.”
Network governance is “a particular
framing of collective decision making
that is characterized by a trend for a
wider range of participants to be seen as
legitimate members of the decision-
making process in the context of consider-
able uncertainty and complexity” (Stoker,
2006, p. 41) and is associated with a new
75
PAPERS
The Value of Project Management in the Public Sector
approach to challenges in the public
sector, beyond NPM, referred to as pub-
lic value management (PVM; Moore,
1995), which “bases its practice in the
systems of dialogue and exchange that
characterize networked governance”
(Stoker, 2006, p. 41). In comparison to
NPM, which placed technical efficiency
and fiscal considerations (“value for
money”) as the overwhelming objective,
PVM extends the concept of value to
encompass objectives of democracy and
citizen participation (Stoker) with
increasing amalgamation of administra-
tion and politics (Considine & Lewis,
2003). In NPV, politics, which in tradi-
tional public administration and NPM
are ideally restricted to initial input and
final judgment, are seen as central to the
whole process, facilitating concepts of
value that go beyond market forces and
providing flexibility to deal with uncer-
tainty, ambiguity, and change. From the
NPV perspective, the legitimacy of a
wider range of stakeholders is recog-
nized, there is commitment to a public
service ethos, and an adaptable, learn-
ing-based approach to public service
delivery (Stoker).
As project management implemen-
tations in government are so closely
aligned with governance, it may be
expected that the trend from NPM and
corporate governance toward NPV and
network governance will be reflected
in changing expectations and realization
of the value of project management in
the government sector. While the NPM
related importance of value for money,
efficiency, and effectiveness may be
expected to prevail, a trend toward
public participation and consultation,
political responsiveness, and flexibility
may be expected.
The Government Context
Value is contingent upon context and
will be delivered on a number of levels.
As previously outlined, in the public sec-
tor, investment in project management
has been closely aligned with gover-
nance, with the aims of achieving trans-
parency, accountability, efficiency, and
76 March 2009 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
effective use of resources; improving
implementation of policy and change;
maintaining public confidence; and
facilitating the delivery of public value.
Specific drivers of value in the gov-
ernment context are as follows:
• need to satisfy multiple stakeholders
by demonstrating accountability and
transparency while effectively:
° implementing policy,
utilizing resources, and
° delivering services.
°
• focus on improvement of organiza-
tional performance and ability to
implement and adapt to change
(Edwards & Clough, 2005; Forbes &
Lynn, 2005).
Politics are a significant factor in the
operating environment of the govern-
ment sector, which is subject to minis-
terial appointment processes with a
resulting impact in the form of changes
in government and political direction.
Ministers act as highly influential
and often unpredictable stakeholders
and sponsors to whom it is necessary to
respond as a priority. This requires the
flexibility as well as a degree of redun-
dancy to be able to provide instant turn-
around in response to requests.
There are many levels of account-
ability, including accountability to
parliament, to taxpayers, to the com-
munity, and to business. In the light of
public accountability, the community
and voting public are significant stake-
holders and the activities of govern-
ment are subject to intense media
scrutiny. Government operations are
conducted within complex legal and
legislative frameworks and subject to
significant compliance issues.
The Value of Project Management
in the Government Context
The foregoing review of the literature
reveals a number of issues in public-
sector governance and management
that project management has been
implemented to address and that char-
acterize the government context. These
issues, as summarized next, will there-
fore be used as a basis for analysis of
the value of project management in the
public sector.
Accountability and transparency
are understandably dominant themes
and are associated with providing evi-
dence to multiple stakeholders of con-
trol, compliance, risk management,
consistent ability to implement policy
and change, and commitment to per-
formance improvement. Delivering
value for money is associated with effi-
ciency and effectiveness, as well as the
NPM-related goal of expenditure reduc-
tion. Efficiency and effectiveness are
considered important in terms of deliv-
ery of public value and maintaining
public confidence. Engagement with
stakeholders including public consul-
tation, responsiveness to political pres-
sures, a desire to minimize adverse
publicity, and associated aspects of risk
management are themes indicative of
the trend toward NPV. A further theme
is the need for flexibility to respond to
environmental complexity and uncer-
tainty.
Research Methodology
Thomas and Mullaly (2007, p. 81) sug-
gested that “investing in a particular
form of project management provides a
specific type of benefit in a specific con-
text.” The government sector can be
seen as a specific context with distinc-
tive characteristics that might be expect-
ed to seek and derive specific types of
benefit from investment in project
management. Therefore, the aim of this
article is to provide insight into expecta-
tions and realization of the value of proj-
ect management in the public-sector
context, with particular reference to
alignment with the demands of public-
sector governance.
To address the research aim, four
case studies of Australian government
agencies were analyzed. The data for
these case studies were collected as part
of a major international research project
supported by the Project Management
Institute and led by Dr. Janice Thomas
and Mark Mullaly, investigating the
value of project management. Data-
collection methods were consistent with
those of the wider study and included a
variety of methods and instruments
such as document analysis, interviews,
and questionnaires (described in detail
in Thomas & Mullaly, 2008). For the
study reported here, the nature of the
project management implementation in
each agency was examined, and a total
of 39 interviews were conducted, com-
prising a minimum of nine interviews
within each of the four case-study
organizations. These interviews were
conducted with representatives of sen-
ior management, managers of project
management, human resource man-
agers, sponsors, and project managers
(see Table 2).
From these interviews, the strategy,
purpose, and specific context of each
agency, and a history of project man-
agement initiatives and implementa-
tions, were abstracted and the perceived
value of project management identi-
fied. Using the following themes, drawn
from the preceding literature review,
the text of the interviews was analyzed
to provide insights into the nature of
the context and specific expectation
and realization of project management
value from a public-sector governance
perspective:
1. Accountability and transparency;
2. Control and compliance;
3. Risk management;
4. Consistency in delivery;
5. Ensuring value for money; and
6. Stakeholder engagement.
For each of the four cases, the
agency context, the history, and current
status of project implementation, chal-
lenges, and specific issues are de-
scribed. This is followed by discussion
of the results of the analysis against the
six themes previously identified.
Case Descriptions
Case A: Context
Case A is an internal service agency of
one of the largest social housing agen-
cies in the world. As the housing
agency’s internal service provider, Case
A’s primary client base is the agency’s
five public and community housing
divisions, which account for the major-
ity of Case A’s work and revenue. Case
A’s core business is the provision of asset
solutions through project management.
It performs roughly 2,500 projects a
year, 90% of which are construction
projects, with the remaining 10% deal-
ing with business systems and strategy.
Case A also provides services to other
asset-related stakeholders within the
agency, and parallel asset services to a
small base of clients external to the
agency, managing assets utilized for
social and special needs accommoda-
tion.
Substantial change is characteristic
of the industry reflecting the housing
needs of the socially and financially
disadvantaged. As a service agency
delivering programs, projects, and
services defined by others, Case A
needs to anticipate change, be adapt-
able, and add value to its parent organi-
zation’s pursuit of solutions. It has to
“plan to be responsive,” as it cannot
self-determine the work it will under-
take. Its major competitors are another
government agency and the consultant
industry, including major project man-
agement firms. In the past the parent
organization has outsourced part of its
work to test Case A’s competitiveness.
Case A has always performed well in
these comparisons.
Case A: History and Current Status of
Project Management Implementation
Case A was created in the early 1990s as
part of an organizational restructure,
replacing functional units with a proj-
ect management organization based
on a commercial model, funded only
by the fees it could earn by selling its

Case Studies
C
Planning, design,
B construction, and D
A Accommodation maintenance Delivery of
Social housing and services for services for public major transport
Interviews solutions disabled people infrastructure infrastructure Totals
Senior Management 1 1 2 1 5
PM Management 1 1 1 1 4
Human Resources 1 0 1 1 3
Sponsors 1 1 0 1 3
Project Managers 5 9 5 5 24
Total 9 12 9 9 39
Table 2: Summary of cases and interviews conducted in each agency.

March 2009 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 77

PAPERS
The Value of Project Management in the Public Sector
services. This new project-based orga-
nization represented a dramatic shift
from previous ways of doing work, and
the new management was advised that
they had to develop their project man-
agement capability. Subsequently, a
stable management team has consis-
tently pursued a project management
approach, developing and continuous-
ly improving their systems and the
capability of their personnel in an envi-
ronment characterized by significant
social, political, commercial, and struc-
tural change.
As demonstration of commitment
to development and maintenance of
delivery capability and continuous
improvement, Case A has for the last
ten years been a member of a project
management benchmarking network.
They have actively benchmarked them-
selves against and sought support of
other organizations in both the public
and private sectors, especially when
they are embarking on new initiatives
such as establishing a project manage-
ment support office or investigating
new project management systems.
They have made long-term invest-
ments in career development of their
professional staff, including tailored
subjects in degree programs, signifi-
cant training, and development of a
specialized assessment center.
With the change in demography
since the postwar years, smaller house-
holds and a different type of communi-
ty, the parent agency has embarked on
a massive program of replacing assets:
selling, buying, redeveloping, and
building. This has resulted in a vast
increase in projects for Case A.
The most recent project manage-
ment initiatives have been in partial
response to this situation, an attempt to
increase capability and process consis-
tency by replacing a suite of information
technology (IT) tools with a single proj-
ect management system that integrates
timesheeting, access to the financial sys-
tem, job authorization, project schedul-
ing, and resource allocation. This inte-
grated management tool was developed
78 March 2009 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
internally to address the specific chal-
lenges of managing multiple small
projects and has delivered the tangible
benefit of all projects being managed
consistently across the organization.
Case A: Perceived Value of the
Organization’s Project Management
Implementation
Case A, as a service agency, provides
project management to projects deter-
mined by its clients. Project management
is therefore central to the organization’s
functionality; it is its reason for being.
The consistent driver for all the improve-
ment efforts is the need to have a high
quality of project management service,
because that is our business. The quali-
ty of the service is as important as the
outcome because they’re the client’s
projects. (Senior Management, Case A)
The current project management
approach was implemented in
response to a period of enormous
growth in the organization, and all
interviewees saw the value to the
organization and to themselves in
responding to this growth with a rigor-
ous, integrated project management
approach. While senior management
considers the structure, rigor, and con-
sistency now applied to all projects as
necessary for management of project
delivery and transparency of projects, a
small number of project managers
think there is “too much bureaucracy
and too much unnecessary reporting”
for very small projects, and they recog-
nize that it “is part of the nature of a
government organization” (Project
Manager, Case A).
While rigor and consistency are
important, Case A also needs to be agile
and provide innovative service solu-
tions in response to client needs
and significant change. Demographic
changes and refocusing from generic
housing needs to the complex needs of
those in most extreme circumstances
calls for major change, remapping the
asset portfolio to the client needs pro-
file. At the same time, public funding for
housing has steadily declined and
financial sustainability of social hous-
ing has been threatened. Through reap-
praisal of its approach, Case A has
encouraged clients to review outcomes
against objectives and increased the abil-
ity to deliver high-quality client-focused
projects in a competitive environment.
This has led to increased business and
improved staff morale. Overall, the dra-
matic improvement in quality of project
process and product and the validation
of this through benchmarking with
other organizations has confirmed that
Case A is “heading in the right direction”
and had a very positive impact on staff
satisfaction.
While demand is high, resources are
scarce, and this has been a driver for
development of robust project manage-
ment methodologies and approaches.
Working to very specific social issues in
providing public housing to the under-
privileged and those in need means that
project management approaches need
to be flexible, and soft skills are espe-
cially critical when dealing with clients
and stakeholders in the wider commu-
nity. Flexibility is also required to cope
with the impact of ministerial requests
on their work.
Case B: Context
Case B is a state-based government
human service organization. The orga-
nization is the second-largest provider
of accommodation and services for dis-
abled people within the state. In its role
as purchaser, it funds A$600 million of
service providers. It delivers around 150
projects a year, with many projects tak-
ing at least three years to complete. Its
projects vary considerably, covering
process development, software devel-
opment, and organizational change, as
well as an increased number of con-
struction and engineering projects fol-
lowing greater government investment
in infrastructure. In existence in its cur-
rent form for only four years, the
department operates in a complex
environment characterized by high lev-
els of change. The department works in
the disability sector within the services
industry, the final safety net for a group
of extremely disempowered stakehold-
ers, and as such has no real competi-
tors. Project staff work in conjunction
with other government departments
and nongovernment organizations to
meet the needs of their stakeholders.
Case B: History and Current Status of
Project Management Implementation
Historically, this organization has had a
very limited project management
capacity. The organization was formed
by the amalgamation of several differ-
ent agencies, and as a result approaches
to project management and other orga-
nizational practices differed according
to which agency project staff came from.
To counteract this, a portfolio office was
established, and a highly qualified team
is now leading the improvement of proj-
ect management across the depart-
ment. There is now a growing awareness
of the need to continue developing the
organization’s project management
approach. The portfolio office provides
advice and mentoring on project man-
agement best practice; is developing a
community of best practice; and is
encouraging a performance culture
around an emerging project manage-
ment capability.
Project management implementa-
tion, when initiated four years ago,
used simple templates based on the
PMBOK® Guide (PMI, 2004). Regular
improvement initiatives have been
conducted since then, and more sophis-
ticated tools are now in use. Largely to
align with a whole government approach
to project management, Case B’s proj-
ect management approach has moved
toward the OGC’s PRINCE2 and Manag-
ing Successful Programmes methodo-
logies. The most recent improvement
effort was a response to increasing
complexity and increased levels of risk,
including the risk of embarrassment
to the Minister. Its objectives were
around increasing project and program
management capability and quality
assurance. This effort has resulted in
increased accessibility of tools and
templates and a panel of external
providers for training and certification.
While the level of project management
skill still varies across the organization,
senior management expects an inte-
grated project management approach
to be consistently deployed.
Case B: Perceived Value of the
Organization’s Project Management
Implementation
As this is a human services organiza-
tion where outcomes are often intangi-
ble, project management is providing
the organization with an accountable
methodology and approach that hasn’t
always existed. This is particularly
important, as a recent injection of
government funds has brought with it
increased levels of accountability.
Provision of an integrated tool set for
project staff has streamlined the report-
ing processes, improving the quality of
project reporting while reducing dupli-
cation of effort in data collection. There
is evidence that the increased con-
sistency of the approach to projects
across the organization has improved
the success rate of projects: “A tangible
business improvement has resulted;
projects have become measurably
more efficient” (PM Management,
Case B).
The business environment in which
the organization operates today is con-
sidered measurably more complex than
it was ten years ago, and the depart-
ment itself is characterized by high lev-
els of change in structure, direction,
and emphasis. An aspect of project
management that has had the most sig-
nificant impact on project performance
is an increased capacity to support
change in a methodical way. Project
management allows the organization
to demonstrate outcomes clearly, man-
age the investment of government
funding, and manage the expectations
of the Treasury. Project management
has facilitated the increasing involve-
ment of stakeholders who are often
disabled and have significant commu-
nication problems and has proved
March 2009 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
valuable in planning and scoping for
complex stakeholder management.
Project management is now consid-
ered “a way of life in the central part of
our organization” and is “utilized to an
increasing level,” but there is a degree
of tension between the human services
work being carried out and the require-
ment to use project management
approaches:
People who work at this organization
value the human services work they do
more than project management, but the
work we do tends to be framed as proj-
ect management. Staff are attracted by
the intrinsic nature of the work rather
than project management (Project
Manager, Case B).
As “people tend not to have a proj-
ect management background . . . there
is a greater need for project manage-
ment guidance” (Project Manager,
Case B).
Some project management staff
have adopted project management
fully, while some see project manage-
ment as extra paperwork:
In the human services area we’ve needed
to dilute this ( PRINCE2-based methodol-
ogy); otherwise people will be very reluc-
tant to use it. That’s a reflection of the
current capability and understanding
of project management. Some see it as
corporate overhead. (PM Management,
Case B)
A significant challenge for the
organization is a very limited pool of
resources.
Project management gives us a meas-
ured approach but can’t solve the actual
problem of lack of staff. (Senior Manage-
ment, Case B)
Variation in skill and experience of
existing project staff and the diversity
of the work undertaken present further
challenges. Staff are employed from
very different backgrounds and organi-
zational cultures, with a resulting
impact on the current organization’s
culture and project management
deployment:
79
PAPERS
The Value of Project Management in the Public Sector
Project management is not an ingrained
part of the culture yet. There is no com-
mon language yet. There is such a
diverse group of people involved and it’s
such a big organization. Two distinct
cultures exist—social work, involving
case work, and information systems.
Sometimes they talk very different lan-
guages. (Project Manager, Case B)
However, despite the reservations
of some staff about the process require-
ments and perhaps as a result of the
varying levels in project management
experience, the introduction of a project
portfolio office where project manage-
ment knowledge, advice, and mentor-
ing are available, combined with the
improvement in tools and support, has
resulted in a demonstrable improve-
ment in morale.
Project management has proved
valuable in the planning and scoping
for complex stakeholder management
and has facilitated the increasing
involvement of stakeholders who are
often disabled and have significant
communication problems.
Case C: Context
Case C is a major division of a large
state-based department with 900 staff
that provides a range of services pri-
marily to government, and few com-
petitive organizations of this scale exist
in the state. The organization delivers
around 10,000 projects a year primarily
on behalf of government clients. Many
are large projects of around a billion
dollars each, the majority of which are
construction and engineering projects.
The overall market in state infrastruc-
ture is about A$2.5 billion, with about
20% of its business in local govern-
ment. It also has a role in providing pol-
icy to guide industry and government
agencies in conducting such functions
as construction, procurement, and
asset management.
A recent change in procurement
has resulted in a fundamental shift in
the competitive landscape. Increasing
numbers of projects procured through
private partnerships mean that the
80 March 2009 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
department has had to reassess its
client base. There is no longer a man-
date for Case C to deliver government
projects, so it has become necessary for
them to compete for these projects
with the private sector.
Case C: History and Current Status of
Project Management Implementation
Case C has a long-standing role in proj-
ect delivery on behalf of the state gov-
ernment, which has continued in the
face of the many changes in name,
structure, and focus that are typical of
the government context. It has tradi-
tionally had a professional engineering,
design, and construction basis and cul-
ture and attempts to move this toward a
more integrated project management
focus that began in the 1980s. Delivery
of services extends across a number of
regional offices.
In 1999, Case C also joined a project
management benchmarking network
and has remained involved in this net-
work, periodically benchmarking its
project management capability and
drawing upon the resources of the net-
work of public- and private-sector
organizations to support the continu-
ous improvement of its capability.
In 2002, the Project Support Centre
was established, which defined a set
methodology for management of proj-
ects through an intranet accessible
road-map process defining project
methodology through four phases: initi-
ation, development, implementation,
and finalization. It also describes gover-
nance and training. The aim was
improved consistency and the stream-
lining of project processes across the
geographically distributed organization.
Dissemination and adoption of the
processes have been both encouraged
and audited for compliance. A sustained
period of senior management stability
has been beneficial for the continuous
improvement of their project manage-
ment capability. A recent initiative was
the implementation of an enterprise
resource planning (ERP) system with
extensive utilization of the project man-
agement module. As the organization is
project-based, this provides a very
close alignment of business and project
systems.
Due to the nature and history of the
organization, there is a predominance
of staff qualified in project-based disci-
plines. They have a well-developed
graduate trainee scheme, and project
management training forms part of
their induction process. However, the
organization is currently dealing with
significant levels of competition for
staff. As a government organization not
driven by profit, it cannot offer its staff
equivalent private-sector salaries.
There has been a major infrastructure
boom in resourcing, further exacerbat-
ing the level of difficulty in recruiting
and retaining quality project staff.
Case C: Perceived Value of the
Organization’s Project Management
Implementation
The majority of those who work in the
project management branch of Case C
believe that their organization has
received a high degree of value from
their implementation of project man-
agement. The organizational culture
emphasizes training and career devel-
opment, and these were cited as areas
of value by several project staff mem-
bers. The department believes it pro-
vides consistent project management
processes that deliver high-quality
projects with clarity and consistency.
As supporting evidence for this
belief, the department is one of only four
government agencies accredited for pro-
curement. The Project Support Centre
performs regular statewide audits of the
organization’s compliance with project
management procedures and develops
responses to any gaps in compliance,
regularly updating procedures. Monthly
meetings of the Project Support Centre
determine issues within the manage-
ment system and present internal solu-
tions, thus ensuring the department’s
project management approach is con-
stantly evolving and responding to new
challenges.
 As there is no longer a mandate for
Case C to deliver government projects,
it has become necessary for them to
compete for these projects with the
private sector, and the level of competi-
tion is increasing. Their major competi-
tors are private-sector consultants and
specialist private consultancies and the
mining boom, and an increasing num-
ber of water infrastructure projects in
the state have prompted the establish-
ment of more of these private companies.
Demonstrably good project manage-
ment is of value in attracting and
retaining clients:
We don’t have a captive client base
any more. But some clients come to us
on a regular basis anyway. Clients don’t
have to come to us, so if they do it
means they are happy. We have to keep
improving though and continually
monitor our performance. Our salaries
are paid by clients. (Project Manager,
Case C)
A 2005 benchmarking exercise
measured the department’s perfor-
mance with other major organizations
and found it to be highly successful in
its project management capability. This
result was supported by the interviews
and document analysis conducted
as part of this study. The recent ERP
implementation is regarded within the
organization and beyond as extremely
successful and has made project man-
agement demonstrably more efficient
across the entire organization. As one
project manager said, “Evidence is
the lack of evidence of problems. There
have been no issues of note with the
system since (it was implemented)”
(Project Manager, Case C).
The fully integrated set of project
management tools, covering planning,
communication, risk, stakeholder man-
agement, and other functions for every
stage of the life cycle, has been seen to
vastly improve levels of consistency and
transparency, simplifying project tasks
and increasing staff satisfaction. The
positive feedback from benchmarking
of their project management capability
has also had a positive impact on staff
morale and confidence.
The organization’s project manage-
ment approach was implemented in
response to changing market pressures,
focusing on streamlining and standard-
izing project procedures and improving
client satisfaction. Their approach is
adaptable and continually evolving;
while there are potential areas of im-
provement that are currently being
addressed, the organization’s project
management implementation allows the
organization to stay current and survive
in a challenging competitive situation.
Case D: Context
Case D is a large, project-based organiza-
tion that delivers major infrastructure
projects to a widely dispersed state pop-
ulation that has undergone a rapid
increase in recent years. It is a large
regionally dispersed organization with
over 4,000 employees and a multibillion-
dollar infrastructure development pro-
gram to be implemented over the next
five years. The projects managed and
delivered range between hundreds of
thousands and hundreds of millions
of dollars, and between several months
and several years in duration, the vast
majority of which are construction and
engineering projects. There is consider-
able variation in the quality of the project
management implementation across the
regions. As one interviewee said, “It’s
such a big organization it would be diffi-
cult to summarize the culture. There’s a
wide spectrum, and there’s much varia-
tion” (Project Manager, Case D).
The wider community, who uses
the infrastructure and the responsible
government minister, functions as both
the organization’s customers and its
stakeholders, and aspects of the stake-
holder relationship are seen as impact-
ing on project success. The organization
regularly liaises with major infrastruc-
ture user groups.
A significant concern for Case D is
employee turnover, which falls into two
distinct groups: lower turnover in older
employees with a 20- to 30-year track
March 2009 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
record and higher turnover in younger
employees lost to private enterprise.
Case D: History and Current Status of
Project Management Implementation
Case D, although a project-based orga-
nization, has a traditional, engineering
culture. There was a low-level revolution
in the organization’s attitude toward and
awareness of project management
methodologies in the 1990s when they
developed and implemented their own
internal project management method-
ology, based on the PMBOK® Guide.
Prior to that, projects existed but were
not always formally recognized as such
and were managed using traditional
engineering approaches:
There’s been an ad hoc history. I think
we actually weren’t particularly con-
scious of what we were doing when we
used to manage projects. We became a
lot more conscious of it a few years ago
and put more effort into it and things
started to improve. (Sponsor, Case D)
In an extremely challenging, resource-
scarce and competitive environment,
Case D is attempting to implement con-
sistent project management processes
characterized by clarity and transparency.
However, it appears that project man-
agement has been only partially imple-
mented across the organization; gaps in
project histories suggest that the depart-
ment has a number of very highly skilled,
committed project managers who man-
age large, complex projects without the
benefit of fully integrated reporting
practices and consistent deployment of
the project management methodology.
Although almost a decade has passed
since they introduced their custom-built,
methodology based on the PMBOK®
Guide, an ongoing commitment to project
management training and engagement
with other organizations in a project
management benchmarking network,
internal benchmarking reveals consider-
able variation in deployment across the
many parts of the organization.
Some attribute the inconsistency in
deployment of the project manage-
ment approach to increased demand
81
PAPERS
The Value of Project Management in the Public Sector
for infrastructure in the state as a result
of increasing population. Others con-
sidered that this has combined with a
statewide staff shortage to produce less
than adequate project deployment in
some areas. The staff shortage has been
partially attributed to low government-
level salaries losing potential employ-
ees to private enterprise.
A high level of competition exists
for resources, both staff and materials.
The organization is in competition for
these resources with the private sector;
its major competitors are consultants
and contractors. Competition for proj-
ects is less marked. Unlike Case C, Case
D is not required to compete with the
private sector for project work.
Communication with politicians
is a further area of challenge. Several
interviewees said that the incidence
of projects delivering over budget
was sometimes directly attributable
to pressure on senior executives or
project managers to give politicians
a budget estimate without time for
adequate supporting research, and
the project being locked into that esti-
mate and falling short in the final
budget. The organization is currently
attempting to find a solution to this
issue.
Case D: Perceived Value of the
Organization’s Project Management
Implementation
The inconsistency of deployment of the
project management implementation
across the widely dispersed operations
of Case D reflects a diversity of opinion
about its value. Some staff are resistant
to the organizational project manage-
ment approach, and this is associated
with the older staff and the strength of
the engineering culture. “There’s been a
focus on doing rather than planning.
Often managers don’t see developing a
business case as real work” and although
a “lot of staff do recognize the value of
project management” there is “difficul-
ty in making those activities the norm,
so in a crisis they abandon the processes
and just scramble” (PM Management,
82 March 2009 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Case D). The problem is exacerbated by
the shortage of resources:
There are different resourcing levels at
different parts of the state, and if you
don’t have enough people to manage
projects, the demand to deliver projects
on time means that some things give.
(Project Manager, Case D)
Overall, staff value their project
work highly and find it very satisfying,
and some staff are highly supportive of
the project management implementa-
tion, while senior management consid-
ers it to be essential and worth the
ongoing effort to increase its consistent
adoption across their operations. They
continue to invest project management
development of their people and
processes while addressing the chal-
lenge of “an organization that’s been
resistant to change.”
Comparing the Four Cases
Context
There are both differences and similar-
ities in the specifics of the context for
the four organizations and of the
expectation and realization of the value
of project management.
For instance, two of the organiza-
tions (Cases A and C) are required to
compete with the private sector for
project work. These two organizations
see demonstrably good project man-
agement capability as a core compe-
tence essential to their survival in a
competitive environment. This is espe-
cially so for Case C:
We don’t have a captive client base any
more. But some clients come to us on a
regular basis anyway. Clients don’t have
to come to us, so if they do it means they
are happy. We have to keep improving
though and continually monitor our
performance. Our salaries are paid by
clients. (Project Manager C)
Three of the organizations (A, C, and
D) are essentially project-based and
have a long tradition of project work
and a workforce, many of whom are
from engineering and construction
backgrounds and are familiar with proj-
ect management approaches. For these
organizations, project management is a
given, although the geographically dis-
persed nature of the organization, a
shortage of skilled staff, and an engi-
neering-based culture that is resistant
to change present a challenge in terms
of consistent implementation for Case
D. Case B, as a human services agency,
has a workforce for whom project man-
agement is largely a new concept and
one that is seen as less important than
his/her substantive roles. This has
resulted in a different and in many ways
more flexible and gradual approach to
project management implementation,
although it is highly valued as providing
an accountable methodology and
approach and basis for reporting that
hasn’t always existed within the organi-
zation. Leadership has been particularly
important in affecting the project man-
agement implementation, as it requires
a significant change in the way of doing
things.
Common Issues
Staff shortages are a challenge for all
four organizations. The impact of this
is greatest for Case D, which is an
engineering-based organization and is
suffering from a systemic shortage of
engineers at a time when there is increased
demand, largely driven by an infrastruc-
ture and mining boom, and competition
for engineers who are being attracted to
the private sector both locally and over-
seas. However, even Case B, which is not
so highly dependent upon people with
engineering and construction qualifica-
tions, has insufficient resources:
Project management gives us a meas-
ured approach but can’t solve the actual
problem of lack of staff. (Senior Manage-
ment, Case B)
None of the organizations, being in
the public sector, have the budgets or
flexibility of employment conditions to
attract and retain staff in competition
with the private sector. An interesting
finding, however, is the degree of
dedication of many of the staff who are
attracted by and committed to the pub-
lic service ethos. Another difficulty in
terms of resources, shared by all organi-
zations, but particularly A, C, and D, is
an aging workforce with a large gap
between older and more experienced
staff approaching retirement and high
turnover of less experienced staff in their
20s. This is a challenge facing the public
sector throughout Australia that is
shared with their counterparts through-
out the world.
All four organizations operate in
complex multistakeholder environ-
ments requiring effective communica-
tion, consultation, and responsiveness
to the wider community, users, clients
and customers, other government
agencies, regulatory bodies, politicians,
the press, industry, and others, many of
whom have competing objectives,
interests, and demands.
All organizations operate in the
political arena and are subject to the
impact of ministerial requests on proj-
ect work:
Things change quickly on a minister’s
whim. If a new minister comes in with a
new agenda, your successful project may
get shelved. (Project Manager, Case B)
The attitude of responsiveness to
political agendas, and facilitation of pub-
lic participation, is consistent with con-
cepts of NPM and network governance.
Common Themes
As mentioned earlier, a surprising
common theme evident in all organi-
zations, despite staff shortages, was
the commitment and dedication of
staff to their work and to a public serv-
ice ethos:
. . . employees tend to be very commit-
ted and devoted professionals. They
have the freedom to perform to very
high standards. Because this is a state-
owned department project managers
are allowed to be very good instead of
focusing exclusively on profit at the
expense of excellence. (Project Manager,
Case A)
(The organization) has a very strong
ethos of going the extra mile for clients
in delivering their projects, particularly
long term as an organization, it’s a fun-
damental part of our culture to take
pride in our work. (Project Manager,
Case C)
Both Case A and Case B have imple-
mented portfolio management. Case A
claims that they are using it to effective-
ly manage their overall investment in
projects across the organization in order
to maximize benefits delivered and
maintain alignment to strategy. Case B
has implemented a project portfolio
office and is simultaneously addressing
project, program, and portfolio manage-
ment. They consider that this is having a
“significant, although not yet fully meas-
urable, impact on the organizational
culture” (PM Management, Case B).
Cases A, B, and D refer to application
of program management. As they are
government organizations, this may be
a result of the influence of the OGC’s
Managing Successful Programmes
(2007a). Case A, which does large num-
bers of small projects for clients, claims
efficiency benefits from program man-
agement such as the use of shared
resources across multiple projects. Case
B, which operates in the human services
field with a requirement to deliver ser-
vices and implement change, considers
that program management locates proj-
ects within their environment and helps
to ensure that they are embedded. Case
D delivers large infrastructure projects
and claims that program management
enables them to group and manage col-
lections of projects more formally and
effectively than in the past.
Public-Sector Governance
and the Value of Project
Management
These four case studies provide an
interesting spectrum for considering
the value of project management
through a lens of public-sector gover-
nance. Using the following themes,
drawn from the preceding literature
review, the text of the interviews was
March 2009 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
analyzed to provide insights into the
nature of the context and specific
expectation and realization of project
management value from a public-sec-
tor governance perspective:
1. Accountability and transparency
Sound processes and systems that
support and enhance accountability
are critical for good governance with-
in the public sector, which operates
under scrutiny from a diversity of
stakeholders with complex and often
conflicting interests. All four organi-
zations had a strong awareness of the
need for effective accountability and
reporting mechanisms. This was a
predominant theme throughout the
interviews.
In the area of project governance, we
have a much better transparent report-
ing regime than we’ve had in place over
the last couple of years. This helps
to put the finger on where there might
be problems developing. (Sponsor,
Case D)
Audits and reviews are prevalent
in government in order to ensure
accountability for utilization of pub-
lic funds, and project management
is seen as assisting in providing
organizations with the processes
and documentation necessary to
satisfy auditors.
Senior management sponsorship
of projects is a fundamental aspect of
governance (Crawford et al., 2008) in
terms of accountability and trans-
parency of process, and this was
understood in the organizations:
If the senior management isn’t show-
ing an interest in this stuff, you’ll find
it won’t happen. And that’s not an
autocratic thing, it’s just that the
senior management uses the whole
project management approach to dis-
cuss the projects with their project
managers, with the project team, they
use the schedule, they check against
processes and those sorts of things,
ask questions, show effort, all those
good things. And they make it visible
at a higher level. (Project Manager,
Case D)
83
PAPERS
The Value of Project Management in the Public Sector
2. Control and compliance
Allied with accountability are control
and compliance. All these government
organizations are under constant
scrutiny from the Treasury, politicians,
the public, and the media and need to
be able to exercise and demonstrate
control over their projects in order
to manage and meet expectations.
Monitoring of performance extends
beyond time and cost expectations to
encompass delivery of services, deliv-
ery of value, and client and user satis-
faction.
We undertake thousands of projects
each year. We are committed to ensur-
ing that we achieve our targets and
deliver value. . . . On a quarterly basis,
we have ongoing monitoring of KPIs
in terms of how we achieve on the orig-
inal budget and timeframe and the
client satisfaction survey. (Senior
Management, Case C)
Compliance is associated with
audit and review. Control, when
mentioned by the organizations, is
often associated with managing risk,
especially of adverse media expo-
sure, in the face of increasing com-
plexity. A “more rigorous project
management practice” is seen as
providing greater control of projects
and avoiding them going “off the
rails” as they had done in the past
(PM Management, Case B). Another
interviewee commented, “We have
better governance and better con-
trol” (Sponsor, Case D).
3. Risk management
Strongly linked to interface man-
agement, risk management was an
important governance issue facing
each of the four organizations. The
following is a typical comment
across all four cases:
Government organizations tend to be
more risk averse. We’re limited in how
many risks we can take. . . . because the
government is dealing with the public’s
money we have to be much more care-
ful. We can’t waste it or take major risks
with it, and the media will pull us up if
84 March 2009 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
we do, so it’s not worth it. (Senior
Project Manager, Case C)
This reference to risk of media
exposure and political embarrass-
ment is a recurring theme for all four
organizations:
. . . improved reporting and trans-
parency is . . . designed in part to min-
imize the potential risk of unwanted
media attention causing embarrass-
ment to the [Minister] by enabling the
organization to reassure stakeholders
6. Stakeholder engagement
and the wider community that it can
deliver large complex projects which
meet stakeholder needs on time and
cost. (Senior Management, Case D)
4. Consistency in delivery
Evidence of the capability to
implement policy and change and
commitment to performance im-
provement are important aspects of
governance for both public- and pri-
vate-sector organizations. This is
well recognized by all case organiza-
tions. Project management is valued
as enhancing the ability to consis-
tently and predictably deliver results.
For example:
I believe that these quality processes
help us tremendously to have consis-
tency in the delivery of projects. . . .
There is an increasing emphasis on
customer service, including delivery
on time and within budget. There is
attention, because of the global energy
crisis, on more energy efficiency con-
struction and housing. The PM culture
is changing all the time, and kept in
line by internal processes.” (Project
Manager, Case A)
5. Ensuring value for money
This is a strong theme in the
espoused rationales for project man-
agement in the public sector (e.g.,
OGC) and is fundamental to respon-
sible management of public funds.
However, in line with the trend away
from NPM and corporate gover-
nance approaches toward NPV and
network governance, the focus in
these case studies is more on man-
agement of expectations and deliv-
ery of public value than on reducing
expenditure per se. For instance:
We build to a budget, but we also work
to special social needs; by definition,
these can be in opposition. The budget
cannot be our single point of reference.
(Project Manager, Case A)
Although costs must be justified at
the outset and controlled within
budgets, for all organizations delivery
of benefits is the driver, not the cost.
In the public-sector context, gover-
nance functions as boundary manage-
ment, working at the interface of pub-
lic, private, and community sectors to
facilitate effective relationships and
help make sense in the face of com-
plexity. A commitment to the wider
community and the interests of the
public emerged in interviews with all
organizations and is associated with
the strength of the public-sector ethos,
as mentioned earlier. Comments like
the following were typical:
Sharing the organizational values for
social justice helps in overcoming
many obstacles in project delivery.
(Project Manager, Case A)
The projects that we do are our rea-
son for being, and the whole reason
that we’re here doing this job is to do
something that matters . . . the projects
that we build are things that make the
lives of [people] better. So to me, those
projects matter. And I think a lot of
people that work in my area feel the
same way, that the work that we do is
the real work of the government, and
so to us the stuff that we do, our proj-
ects, are most important stuff. So we
feel very privileged to be doing the stuff
that really matters. (Project Manager,
Case D)
Each organization that took part in
the research cited its complex rela-
tionship with government ministers
as a significant governance issue.
Each government organization is
accountable to a minister of
Parliament; it appears from the inter-
views that this relationship varies
 according to the style of the individ-
ual minister. An effective governance
framework is necessary to allow the
organization to successfully manage
this relationship. However, it became
clear that all four organizations
found challenges with this:
My customer is the director general
who is a representative of the minister.
(HR Manager, Case D)
I could see our director general
being risk adverse due to the attitude
of our minister at the moment. (Project
Manager, Case D)
An external focus on service user
and public needs through improved
accountability and risk management
is critical in order to produce greater
ownership among stakeholders.
Conclusions
The findings of this study support the
proposition by Thomas and Mullaly
(2007, p. 81) that “investing in a par-
ticular form of project management
provides a specific type of benefit in a
specific context.” As government orga-
nizations, the four case-study organiza-
tions share many contextual issues and
concerns, and the project management
implementations in which they have
invested all draw on the same sources,
primarily the PMBOK® Guide, and the
OGC’s PRINCE2 and Managing Suc-
cessful Programmes. Expectation and
realization of value is similar, as all four
organizations report that project man-
agement has provided benefits of
enhanced accountability, transparency,
reporting, risk management, and con-
sistency of delivery; increased control
and support for compliance, including
effectiveness and efficiency in manage-
ment of public funds and ensuring
value for money; and a framework for
enhanced stakeholder engagement.
There was evidence in all organiza-
tions that their project management
implementations had been beneficial for
staff morale and satisfaction even though
in some cases project managers consid-
ered the requirements of compliance
with project management methodolo-
gies too time-consuming and bureau-
cratic, particularly for small projects,
human services projects, and where
staff shortages and increased demand
impacted their workload. Nevertheless,
the project management methodolo-
gies, systems, and support were seen as
streamlining processes and assisting
time-constrained staff in doing their
work, and in all cases there was recog-
nition, however reluctant, of the
accountability and transparency that
the systems provided were a require-
ment of government.
Dealing with political issues and
using project management to mitigate
the risk of adverse media coverage were
characteristics of context and value
specific to the public sector and shared
by these four organizations.
There were many similarities but
also some differences in both context
and expected and realized value. Those
organizations that manage projects on
behalf of clients and are required to
compete for project work see specific
value in project management as a com-
petitive differentiator benefiting the
relationship with their clients and cus-
tomers and securing repeat business.
While all organizations are experienc-
ing shortages of skilled staff, those that
are not essentially project-based and
do not have a critical mass of profes-
sionally qualified staff experienced in
project work need to account for this by
adapting their methodologies and pro-
viding appropriate support.
The results of the study not only
demonstrated that project management
supports public-sector governance but
also provided evidence of the trend
toward public value management and
network governance proposed in the
public administration literature reviewed
earlier in this article. All organizations
are increasingly working in complex and
shifting networks that span organiza-
tional and sector boundaries and
involve legitimacy of a wider range of
stakeholders than in the past. The
boundaries between administration and
March 2009 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
politics are increasingly permeable,
requiring the organizations to be flexible
and responsive to ministerial direction
and public consultation throughout
their projects. This requires the ability to
deal with uncertainty, ambiguity, and
change while continuing to exercise
control, manage risk, and demonstrate
accountability and transparency. This
was mentioned on a number of occa-
sions in a number of ways.
While responsible and accountable
management of public funds and ensur-
ing value for money were fundamental
for all four organizations, there was a
common understanding that while cost
expectations must be managed, delivery
of benefits is of primary importance.
Recognition of concepts of value beyond
market forces, characteristic of PVM
approaches, was clearly evident.
Also evident was the public service
ethos, reflected in the dedication of
staff, their professionalism, and their
commitment to serving the public
interest and making a difference.
Despite staff shortages and other diffi-
culties, there is a high level of satisfac-
tion just because of the essential nature
of the work, and staff value project
management when it helps them pro-
vide better service to the public. An
adaptable, learning-based approach to
both public-service delivery and proj-
ect management implementation is
also evident. Project, program, and
portfolio management in all four
organizations is evolving, and even
where deployment is variable, and in
some cases resisted, there are parts of
the organization and the project man-
agement community that remain com-
mitted to continuous improvement
and see value in project management.
An obvious opportunity for further
research arising from this study is the
comparison of results across all public-
sector case studies developed in the
course of research into the value of
project management led by Dr. Janice
Thomas and Mark Mullaly with the
financial support of the Project Manage-
ment Institute.
85
PAPERS
The Value of Project Management in the Public Sector
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the
financial support of the Project
Management Institute, and of the four
Australian organizations that took part
in this study. They also wish to acknowl-
edge the donation in kind support of
all the organizations that participated in
the whole set of value case studies, and
the intellectual stimulation of all the
Value Project team members involved
in the wider study. They particularly
wish to acknowledge the leadership of
Dr. Janice Thomas and Mark Mullaly
who coordinated a global team of
researchers to produce valuable
answers to a challenging but important
question. They have demonstrated a
remarkable ability to herd cats. ■
References
Aucoin, P. (1998). Restructuring govern-
ment for the management and delivery
of public services. In G. B. Peters & D. J.
Savoie (Eds.), Taking stock: Assessing
public sector reforms (pp. 310–347).
Montreal, Canada: Canadian Centre for
Management Development, McGill-
Queen’s University Press.
Australian Government, Department
of Finance and Regulation. (2008).
Gateway review process. Retrieved
November 23, 2008, from http://www.
finance.gov.au/gateway/index.html
Australian National Audit Office.
(2003). Public sector governance better
practice guide: Framework, processes
and practices. Canberra: Australian
National Audit Office, Commonwealth
of Australia.
Caiden, N. (1998). A new generation of
budget reform. In G. B. Peters & D. J.
Savoie (Eds.), Taking stock: Assessing
public sector reforms (pp. 252–284).
Montreal, Canada: Canadian Centre
for Management Development,
McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Communities and Local Government.
(2008). Capacity building. Retrieved
November 21, 2008, from http://www.
communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/
efficiencybetter/capacitybuilding/
86 March 2009 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Considine, M., & Lewis, J. M. (2003).
Bureaucracy, network, or enterprise?
Comparing models of governance in
Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, and
New Zealand. Public Administration
Review, 63(2), 131–140.
Crawford, L., Costello, K., Pollack, J., &
Bentley, L. (2003). Managing soft
change projects in the public sector.
International Journal of Project
Management, 21, 443–448.
Crawford, L. H., Cooke-Davies, T. J.,
Hobbs, J. B., Labuschagne, L.,
Remington, K., & Chen, P. (2008).
Situational sponsorship of projects and
programs: An empirical review.
Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Department of Prime Minister and
Cabinet. (2005). Cabinet Implementation
Unit. Retrieved November 13, 2005,
from http://www. dpmc.gov.au/
implementation/ index.cfm
Edwards, M., & Clough, R. (2005).
Corporate governance and performance:
An exploration of the connection in a
public sector context: Issues Series Paper
No. 1. Canberra: University of Canberra
(Corporate Governance ARC Project).
Fitch, K. (2005, April). Reflecting on
reform. Defence Magazine. Retrieved
November 23, 2008, from http://www.
defence.gov.au/defencemagazine/
editions/20050401/features/feature01.htm
Forbes, M., & Lynn, L. E., Jr. (2005).
How does public management affect
government performance? Findings
from international research. Journal of
Public Administration Research Theory,
15, 559–584.
Hess, M., & Adams, D. (2002). Knowing
and skilling in contemporary public
administration. Australian Journal
of Public Administration, 61(4),
68–79.
Howard, C., & Seth-Purdie, R. (2005).
Governance issues for public sector
boards. Australian Journal of Public
Administration, 64(3), 56–68.
Inter Agency Policy and Projects Unit,
Department of Premier and Cabinet.
(2008). Government project manage-
ment. Retrieved November 23, 2008,
from http://www.egovernment.tas.gov.
au/themes/project_management
Kelly, G., & Muers, K. (2002). Creating
public value. London: Strategy Unit,
Cabinet Office.
Kinnaird, M., Early, L., & Schofield, B.
(2003). Defence Procurement Review
2003. Retrieved November 23, 2008,
from http://www.defence.gov.au/
publications/dpr180903.pdf
Marsh, I. (2002). Governance in
Australia: Emerging issues and choices.
Australian Journal of Public
Administration, 61(2), 3–9.
Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public
value: Strategic management in govern-
ment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
NASA. (2008). Academy of
Program/Project & Engineering
Leadership. Retrieved November 23,
2008, from http://appel.nasa.gov/
National Audit Office (NAO). (2008).
About us: The role of the National
Audit Office. Retrieved November 23,
2008, from http://www.nao.org.uk
Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD).
(1995). Governance in transition:
Public management reforms in OECD
countries. Paris, France: Author.
Organisation for Economic Co-opera-
tion and Development (OECD). (2004)
OECD principles of corporate gover-
nance (Revised ed.). Paris, France:
Author.
Office of Government Commerce
(OGC). (2007a). Managing successful
programmes (3rd ed.). London: The
Stationery Office.
Office of Government Commerce
(OGC). (2007b). Managing successful
projects with PRINCE2 Manual
2005 (6th ed.). London: The Stationery
Office.
Office of Government Commerce
(OGC). (2008a). About the Office of
Government Commerce. Retrieved
November 21, 2008, from http://www.
ogc.gov.uk/
Office of Government Commerce
(OGC). (2008b). OGC gateway review for
programmes & projects. Retrieved
November 21, 2008, from http://www.
ogc.gov.uk/what_is_ogc_gateway_
review.asp
Office of Government Commerce
(OGC). (2008c). Successful delivery
toolkit. Retrieved November 23, 2008,
from http://www.ogc.gov.uk/resource_
toolkit.asp
Peters. G. B., & Savoie, D. J. (1998).
Taking stock: Assessing public sector
reforms. Montreal & Kingston, Canada:
Canadian Centre for Management
Development, McGill-Queen’s
University Press.
Project Management Institute. (2004).
A guide to the project management
body of knowledge (PMBOK ® Guide)—
Third edition. Newtown Square, PA:
Author.
Rockman, B. A. (1998). The changing
role of the state. In G. B. Peters & D. J.
Savoie (Eds.), Taking stock: Assessing
public sector reforms (pp. 20–44).
Montreal & Kingston: Canadian Centre
for Management Development.
McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Service Delivery and Performance
Commission. (2006). Report on review
of ICT governance in the Queensland
government. Brisbane, Queensland:
Service Delivery and Performance
Commission, Queensland Govern-
ment.
Smith, R. F. I. (2004). Focusing on pub-
lic value: Something new and some-
thing old. Australian Journal of Public
Administration, 63(4), 68–79.
Smith, R. F. I., & Weller, P. (2000). The
impossibility of party government—A
comment. Presented at the Australian
Political Science Association Conference.
Stoker, G. (2006). Public value manage-
ment: A new narrative for networked
governance? The American Review of
Public Administration, 36(1), 41–57.
The Gateway Unit, Department of
Treasury and Finance. (2008).
Gateway review process. Retrieved
November 23, 2008, from http://www.
gatewayreview.dtf.vic.gov.au/
Thomas, J., & Mullaly, M. E. (2007).
Understanding the value of project
management: First steps on an inter-
national investigation in search of
value. Project Management Journal,
38(3), 74–89.
Thomas, J., & Mullaly, M. E. (2008).
Researching the value of project man-
agement. Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Wettenhall, R. (2005). Statutory
authorities, the Uhrig Report, and the
trouble with internal inquiries. Public
Administration Today, 2, 62–76.
March 2009 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Lynn H. Crawford is involved in project manage-
ment practice, education, and research and is a
professor of project management at both the Lille
Graduate School of Management (ESC Lille),
France, and Bond University, Australia. Through
Human Systems, she works with leading corpora-
tions that are developing organizational project
management competence by sharing and devel-
oping knowledge and best practices as members
of a global system of project management knowl-
edge networks. In addition to her participation in
the Value of Project Management research, she
has also been involved in two recently completed
research projects—“Exploring the Role of the
Executive Sponsor” and the “Impact of Complexity
Theory on Project Management.” Results of a pre-
vious study have been published in a book titled
Project Categorization Systems: Aligning
Capability with Strategy for Better Results. She
has been actively engaged in the development of
global standards for project management since
the late 1990s and has been instrumental in the
formation of the Global Alliance for Project
Performance Standards (GAPPS).
Jane Helm is a research manager for Human
Systems Asia Pacific Pty Ltd. In addition to her
participation in the Value of Project Management
research, she has also been involved in two
recently completed research projects undertak-
en with the support of the Project Management
Institute—“Exploring the Role of the Executive
Sponsor” and “Investigating the Role of the
Project Sponsor in Complex Projects.”
87