ization. llowever, radica l change projects are not suited to Bates, A.W. (2000). Man aging technological change.

micromanagement and narrow reporting criteria.
Accountability needs to be met through reporting proce-
dures that fit with the nature of such projects. These proce-
dures are based on inputs and outputs at key stages in the
project lifecycle. The strategic goals and resourci ng of th e
projects are the inputs from management. The outputs from
the team are reports addressing three key questions: What
has been achieved duri ng this cycle? What has been learned
during this cycle? What is planned for the n ext cycle? Based
on this in fonnation, senior management decides if the proj-
ect is still viable.
Organizational projects o ccur withi n the prevai ling cul-
tural environment. The cu lture of a n orga n ization h as a
great bearing on its ability to successfully implement rad ical
change. It is the role of senior management to establish and
foster the cu lture, organizational processes, and structu res
that promote in nova tion and learning. l11e organizational
processes, p romotional systems, a nd reward mechan isms
are key mechanisms for doing th is. In a Learni ng
Organization, the cu lture a nd institutional processes serve
the purpose of maximizing learning opportu nities and pro-
moting personal and professional growth . A cuh ure of risk-
taking and en trepreneursh ip is fos tered. The communica-
tion processes enable the free now of information and learn-
ing is shared with the organization as a whole. The value of
organization processes is not to microma nage and contro l,
but to provide the conditions and resources to enable proj-
ect effectiveness.
References
Alexander, S., McKenz ie, )., & Geissinger, H. (1998). An
evalumion of informmion technology projecl5 for university team-
ing. Committee for Unive rsi ty Teach ing an d Staff
Development. Canberra: Australian Government Publish ing
Service.
Strategies for college and university leaders. 1st Edi tion. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cra bo-Ljungma n, L. ( 1997) . Multifunction project
management-A new profession . International Journal of
Teclrnology Management 13 (7/ 8), 853-864.
De Wi t, B., & Meyer, R. ( 1999). Strategy syntlresis-reso/v-
ing strategy paradoxes co create competitive advantage. London,
Intern ational Tho mso n Business Press.
Laurillard, D. (I 997). Applying systems thinhing to higher
education. Positio n pap er, Mil ton Keynes: Open University.
Lester, D.H. ( 1998). Critical success factors for new
prod uct development. Research Technology Mmwgement 41
(1), 36-43 .
Mi n tzberg, II., & Westley, F. ( 1992). Cycles of o rganiza-
tional cha nge. Strategic Mant1gement Journal (Winter).
Phelps, R., Ledgerwood, T., & Bartlett, L (2000). Managi ng
the transition to online teaching: The role of project manage-
ment methodo logy in the leamjng o rganization. Proceedings of
the Moving Online Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, 18-19
(August).h ttp:ffwww.scu.edu.aufschoolsfsawdfmoconf/ mocab
stractsfmoc24ab.htm l
Project Management Institu te. (2000). A Guide to the
Project Management Body of Knowledge, (PMBOJ< Guide ),
2000 edition. Newtown Square, PA: Project Managemen t
Lnsti tute.
Senge, P.M. ( 1990). The fifth discipline-The art & practice
of the teaming organization. Sydney: Random House.
Sheasley, W.O. (1999) . Leading the tech no logy d evelop-
ment process. Research Technology Management 4 2 (3 ),
49- 55.
Shenhar, A.) ., and Dvir, D. (1996). Toward a typological
theory o f project ma nagement. Research Policy 25 ( 4 ),
607-632.
Verwey, A., & Com ninos, D. (2002). Business focused
project management. Institute of Management Se1vices.

JOHN KENNY obta1ned a BSc and a graduate Diploma of Education from Monash University in
Melbourne, Australia. He is nearing completion of his PhD at RMIT University in Melbourne, where he cur-
rently works on a number of educational development projects. He has a varied background in training,
education and staFf development and has worked on several ma jor projects involving the implementation
of new technology in both the educational sector and the private sector.

March 2003 Project Management Journal 53