INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 386–391
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Successful management of strategic intentions through

multiple projects – Reflections from empirical study
1
Perttu Dietrich *, Päivi Lehtonen
Helsinki University of Technology P.O.B. 9555, 02015 Helsinki, Finland

Abstract

This article focuses on how to implement strategies successfully through projects. Based on the literature we propose measures for
successful management of strategic intentions in a multi-project context. Empirical survey of 288 organizations is used to analyze
practices that organizations use in managing development projects. Correlations between management practices and success mea-
sures are examined and the success factors determined. Several success factors are found related to both single and multiple project
management. In addition, the linkage between strategy process and project management, as well as the availability of high-quality
information are identified as success factors.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Managing projects; Success and strategy; Multi-project environment

1. Introduction management, multiple project management and project

Projects and project management serve as primary
capabilities of an organization to respond to change
and thereby maintain a competitive edge [1]. Projects
may be considered as building blocks in the design
and execution of future strategies of the organization
[2]. Conventional efforts towards the effectiveness in
managing single projects, however, do not suffice in to-
dayÕs organizations. Therefore, the managerial focus of
firms has shifted towards the simultaneous management
of the whole collection of projects as one large entity,
and towards the effective linking of this set of projects
to the ultimate business purpose [3].
Variety of models and frameworks issuing different
managerial approaches with multiple projects are pre-
sented in the literature under the terms of multi-project
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 50 385 3490.
E-mail addresses: perttu.dietrich@hut.fi (P. Dietrich), paivi.
lehtonen@hut.fi (P. Lehtonen).
1
Tel.: +358 50 386 2763.
portfolio management [4–12]. The models and frame-
works vary depending on the purpose and focus of the
model. However, the common characteristic or objective
for all of the approaches is to deliver additional benefit
for the organization by introducing increased manage-
ability and coordination over the entity formed by mul-
tiple projects and by ensuring better linkage between the
current efforts conducted by projects and the intended
strategic aims of the organization.
Most of the models and frameworks presented in the
literature are theoretical constructions to solve or de-
scribe managerial problems with multiple projects.
Excluding only a few studies [13,14], current literature
lacks empirical evidence on the functionality of different
management approaches, formal or informal. In addi-
tion, testing and verification of suggested approaches
are too often neglected or based on the results of single
case studies. Consequently, described models are often
context-related, present often relatively local solutions
to related problems and thus the generalizability of the
results can seldom be confirmed.

0263-7863/$30.00 Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.03.002
 P. Dietrich, P. Lehtonen / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 386–391
The objective of this study is to identify the factors
correlating with success in managing strategic intentions
through multiple projects. In comparison to previous re-
search, we approach the phenomenon with a quantita-
tive approach and thus aim to provide more
generalizable results on how organizations can imple-
ment strategies successfully through projects.
2. Successful management from the strategy perspective
The use of concepts related to success is relatively
ambiguous in the literature. Success is a broad concept
that in a most straightforward sense simply means meet-
ing or exceeding expectations and goals. In the project
context, success is often conceptualized through success
criteria and success factors. Success criteria refer shortly
to the measures by which success or failure of a project
or business will be judged. Consequently, success factors
are defined as ‘‘those inputs to the management system
that lead directly or indirectly to the success of the pro-
ject or business’’ [15].
Various approaches and factors affecting project suc-
cess and project business success have been presented in
the literature [16–19]. Success is often evaluated through
criteria that emphasize the effectiveness in the manage-
ment of single projects and thus the fact that projects
do have connections to organizationÕs strategy and other
projects as well is neglected. We argue that in these stud-
ies projects are conceived as closed systems and success
factors, respectively, refer to the enablers needed to real-
ize a closed systemÕs (or projectÕs) strategy. However, in
many cases effective management of single projects does
not suffice to guarantee success in organizational level.
Project success should be understood as a multifaceted
strategic concept that goes far beyond meeting the time
and budget constrains [20,21]. Thus, in addition to crite-
ria indicating effectiveness in the management of single
projects, the success of projects should be evaluated
through their contribution to the organizationÕs
strategy.
From the strategy perspective success is ultimately
judged through the achievement of sustainable compet-
itive advantage [24]. Different theories and perspectives,
such as resource-based view of the organization [23,26],
organizational capabilities [25,27,28] and competencies
and learning in organization [29,30], are proposed to ex-
plain the sources of competitive advantage in organiza-
tions. These different perspectives argue that strategic
success is, in addition to environmental factors, also
dependent on intra-organizational variables [32], such
as organizational culture [22], organizational learning
[31] and knowledge [30]. In this respect success from
strategic perspective is dependent on the organizationÕs
ability to implement the desired courses of action. In this
study, we aim to examine how to enhance the effective
387
realization of strategic intention, and adopt the view
that organizational success in managing strategic inten-
tions refers to the organizationÕs ability to manage its
compliance to intended strategies. However, the exact
measurement of the organizationÕs ability to comply
with the intended strategy is rather complex as strategies
are dynamic in nature and change over time, and the
concept of strategy itself is ambiguous and rather ab-
stract in nature. Thus, we adopt the idea that strategy
can be broken down or seen to consist of specific goals
or objectives, which again can be reduced to sub-goals
[35], and that the goals and sub-goals rather precede
the actions than are formed as a result of those actions.
Based on these assumptions we conceptualize the suc-
cessfulness in managing strategic intentions to refer to
how well the objectives of the efforts placed to achieve
changes are in line with the guidelines of the intended
strategy.
For many organizations, various forms of develop-
ment projects are central vehicles to implement the in-
tended strategies [34]. Based on the discussion above
we choose to measure the successfulness in managing
strategic intentions in a multi-project context through
examining how well: (1) the objectives of the projects
are aligned with the strategy of the organization; (2)
the resource allocation to different projects is aligned
with the strategy of the organization; (3) the current
portfolio of projects implements the strategy of the
organization.
3. Managing successfully in a multi-project context
A variety of managerial approaches are identified to
have an effect on how well an organization operating
in a multi-project environment succeeds. Single project
characteristics and management activities are closely re-
lated to the overall success of the organization [36]. Sin-
gle projects need to be managed well in order to get the
most out of the group of projects [37]. Among others,
characteristics related to the decision-making activities
of single projects, and flexibility and formality of the
project management approach have been proposed as
variables partly explaining the differences in projectsÕ
outcomes [14,13,38]. The management approaches in a
multi-project environment generally distinguish between
management efforts directed to single projects and man-
agement activities that focus on group of projects
[13,39]. Systematic and purposeful evaluation and selec-
tion of projects has been observed to lead to better
results [13]. Moreover, literature proposes flexible man-
agement processes with explicitly defined rules and pro-
cedures as a source of success with multiple projects.
Some studies report that utilization of specific methods
and tools correlate with superior performance in
multi-project management [10].
388 P. Dietrich, P. Lehtonen / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 386–391
The role of projects has developed from a pure device
of delivery to an important vehicle in strategy realiza-
tion. Several authors have emphasized the importance
of linking projects and their management to strategy
and proposed different models describing how the man-
agement processes at project and multi-project levels can
be integrated with the organizational strategy manage-
ment process [4,9,11,12]. Finally, some authors have no-
ticed the importance of meaningful and reliable
information as a prerequisite of successful management
and high-quality decision-making [40]. Management in
multi-project environments involves many decisions,
and the quality of decisions is largely based on the qual-
ity of information the decision maker have.
Based on the discussion above we propose that suc-
cess in managing strategic intentions through multiple
projects is dependent on: (1) single project level charac-
teristics and activities; (2) multi-project level characteris-
tics and activities; (3) the linkage between projects and
strategy process; (4) the availability and quality of pro-
ject information.
4. Data collection and analysis
In the empirical study, we used the four above men-
tioned issues as a framework, in which each issue is
operationalized to include several individual variables
that potentially correlate with the successfulness of the
organization in managing its strategic intentions. These
present potential success factors and are presented in the
left-most column of Appendix A.
The data that was used to test the framework was
gathered with the help of a vast questionnaire survey
targeted to large and medium-sized Finnish organiza-
tions. The sample consists of organizations implement-
ing multiple simultaneous project-like development
activities, including product development and organiza-
tionsÕ internal development projects. The questionnaire
was sent to altogether 1102 private and public organiza-
tions employing more than 100 people. In organizations,
the respondents were persons responsible for develop-
ment activities. A total of 288 organizations returned
the questionnaire, thus making the response rate
26.1%. The responses were analyzed statistically with
the help of SPSS 11.5 (Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences) program.
OrganizationÕs successfulness in managing strategic
intentions in a multi-project context was mea-
sured through the following three statement-type
indicators:
 The objectives of the projects are aligned with the
strategy of the organization
 Resource allocation to different projects is aligned
with the strategy of the organization
 The current portfolio of projects implements the
strategy of the organization
Each of the three variables was measured with a stan-
dard five-point Likert scale, value 5 referring to
‘‘strongly agree’’ and value 1 being ‘‘totally disagree’’.
In order to validate the use of the three variables as a
common sum variable factor analysis was conducted.
The analysis revealed that all three variables above cor-
relate with the single sum variable that was found. Fac-
tor scores were calculated to indicate the ability of
organizations to manage strategic intentions successfully
in multi-project contexts, and organizations were cate-
gorized to five hierarchical groups according to the fac-
tor scores.
Analysis of variance was used to detect the variables
that correlate with the success of managing strategic ini-
tiatives in a multi-project environment. The categories
calculated based on the factor scores were used as a
dependent variable and each variable on Appendix A
was individually tested as an independent variable with
a one-way analysis of variance to determine, whether
the variables correlate with the organizationsÕ success
in managing strategic initiatives in a multi-project
environment.
5. Results of the empirical analysis: success factors
The results of the statistical tests are presented in
Appendix A. In the table, F values as well as the signif-
icance levels are presented along with the results of
whether or not a correlation was found between each
variable and success.
5.1. Single project level characteristics and activities
The organizations that succeed best in managing stra-
tegic initiatives in a multi-project environment have a
common project management process or project model
and they also use it in as many projects as possible.
These organizations also employ formal decision-
making practices related to the initiation of the projectÕs
execution phase, projectÕs proceeding during the execu-
tion phase, and projectÕs close up. However, the formal-
ity of decision-making related to conducting a feasibility
study on a project idea and initiating the planning phase
of the project did not seem to correlate with success.
These findings suggest that successful management ap-
proaches are characterized by formal decision making
practices in project execution phase. However, in some
organizations, more informal and unstructured deci-
sion-making activities may be more suitable during the
fuzzy front end phase of the project, i.e., project idea
emergence and project initiation. In addition, the most
successful organizations report that their management
 P. Dietrich, P. Lehtonen / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 386–391
style is flexible enough to accommodate different types
of projects and also commonly understood and accepted
throughout the organization.
5.2. Multi-project level characteristics and activities
The most successful organizations tend to organize
at least most of their development projects into pro-
grams or other fixed entities. They also evaluate and
compare their project ideas consistently when selecting
new projects to be implemented. Statistically signifi-
cant correlations were also found in examining the
methods used in the evaluation of projects and project
ideas. Regular use of discounting-based financial meth-
ods, structured discussion and group work methods
correlates positively with success. However, the corre-
lations detected could simply mean that some more
formal methods than just unstructured discussion is
needed. Our interpretation is supported by the notion
that structured discussion, e.g., with the help of a
check list, correlates positively with success. The use
of more sophisticated tools and methods, such as scor-
ing models and option or scenario thinking, was very
rare among respondent organizations, and it did not
correlate with success.
Reviewing the set of projects as an entity correlates
strongly with success. In reviewing a group of projects,
formality of the process in terms of whether the review
is based on predetermined rules and procedures seems
to have no correlation with success. Results of the study
suggest that the level of formality required is organiza-
tion-specific; some organizations succeed with formal
practices and some with more informal ones. Instead
of formality, the flexibility of multi-project management
practices seems related to success. Also the regularity of
reviews correlates positively with success, so apparently
some order is needed in the process.
5.3. The linkage between projects and strategy process
The results reveal that organizations which are the
most successful in managing their strategic intentions
in a multi-project environment tend to review the objec-
tives of their ongoing projects in linkage with strategy
formulation. In addition, the most successful organiza-
tions review their project portfolio in linkage with the
strategy follow-up process. The results clearly indicate
that the management of projects and group of projects
such as portfolios and programs should be included as
a part of the strategy process for the organization to
be able to implement its strategies successfully.
5.4. The availability and quality of project information
The quality of information the decision makers have
on projects is strongly related to the successfulness of
389
management. The strong statistical correlations in all
dimensions of information included in the framework,
the availability, topicality and validity of information,
indicate the importance of high-quality information in
decision making as an enabler or even a prerequisite
for the organizations to successfully implement its strat-
egies through projects.
6. Discussion
The objective of this article was to identify factors re-
lated to success in managing strategic intentions through
multiple projects. The framework consisting of potential
success factors was tested empirically. The success fac-
tors found include management activities both at single
project and multi-project level, as well as issues related
to the availability and quality of project information
and managing the linkage between strategy process
and projects.
Most of the findings of this study are in line with
prior studies representing existing body of knowledge
in managing multi-project contexts. However, some
differences were found. The literature has emphasized
the importance of formality in multi-project manage-
ment processes [41]. Still, the empirical study displayed
neither positive nor negative correlation between having
established rules and procedures for management in
multi-project environment and success. This indicates
that formal procedures are appropriate for some organi-
zations, while the others may yield better results with an
informal approach. Thus, the need for formal proce-
dures is an organization-specific issue.
The results of this study provide novel insights into
project management knowledge and serve as grounds
for further academic research on implementing
strategies in a multi-project context. In addition, from a
pragmatic point of view the results of the study can be
applied to benchmarking and developing activities for
organizations operating in multi-project environments.
Several implications for further research can be rec-
ognized. This study focused mainly on formal manage-
ment processes. However, decision making usually
includes informal and invisible processes, and there
can be a variety of different and even complementary
processes for managing multiple projects in an organiza-
tion. Thus, extending our framework to include these
informal practices can be considered as an interesting fu-
ture research agenda. In addition, in this study we have
made the daring assumption that the strategies are prop-
erly defined and lead to successful outcomes if imple-
mented as planned. Strategies also often include an
emergent component [33], which we have left out of con-
sideration. Further research could complete our study
by examining the role of projects as a source of strategy
renewal.
 390
Appendix A

Success factors
Factors and determinants within main categories Observed correlation with success F-value Significance (F-test) Significance level
(+/ /no correlation)
Single project level characteristics and activities
1. Use of project process/project model + 4.916 .008 **

P. Dietrich, P. Lehtonen / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 386–391

2. Decision-making practices
2.1 Formal decision making related to conducting a feasibility study on a project idea No correlation 2.471 .117
2.2 Formal decision making related to project planning phase initiation No correlation .939 .333
2.3 Formal decision making related to project execution phase initiation + 9.636 .002 **
2.4 Formal decision making related to projectÕs proceeding during project execution + 12.874 .000 ***
2.5 Formal decision making related to project close up + 6.655 .010 *
3. Management style commonly understood and accepted + 20.427 .000 ***
Multi-project level characteristics and activities
1. Number of projects No correlation 1.865 .101
2. Structural linkages between project + 3.763 .003 *
3. Comparison and evaluation of project ideas + 19.169 .000 ***
4. Methods in project and project idea evaluation
4.1 Use of discounting-based financial methods + 4.764 .030 *
4.2 Use of scoring model No correlation 2.081 .151
4.3 Use of structured discussion + 6.097 .014 *
4.4 Use of informal discussion No correlation .000 1.000
4.5 Use of group work method(s) + 7.543 .006 **
4.6 Use of option or scenario thinking No correlation 0.685 .409
5. Reviewing set of projects
5.1 The set of projects is reviewed as a whole + 17.583 .000 ***
5.2 The review of the set of projects is based on predefined methods and rules No correlation .057 .812
5.4 The management approach is flexible with different types of projects + 7.646 .000 ***
5.5 The set of projects is reviewed on a regular basis + 4.275 .040 *
The linkage between projects and strategy process
1. Ongoing projects and strategy process
1.1 The objectives of ongoing projects are revised in linkage with strategy formulation + 4.894 .028 *
1.2 The objectives of ongoing projects are revised in linkage with strategy follow-up No correlation 1.363 .244
2. Multiple projects and strategy process
2.1 The set of projects is reviewed in linkage with strategy formulation No correlation 1.364 .244
2.2 The set of projects is reviewed in linkage with strategy follow-up + 7.868 .006 **
The availability and quality of project information
1. Information sufficiency and validity + 23.132 .000 ***
2. Information reliability + 8.092 .000 ***
3. Information topicality + 10.888 .000 ***
* ** ***
Indicates that the result is significant at 0.05 probability level. Indicates that the result is significant at 0.01 probability level. Indicates that the result is significant at 0.001 probability level.
 P. Dietrich, P. Lehtonen / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 386–391
References
[1] Turner RJ. The handbook of project based management. 2nd
ed. London: McGraw-Hill; 1999.
[2] Cleland DI. The strategic context of projects. In: Dye LD,
Pennypacker JS, editors. Project portfolio management – selecting
and prioritizing projects for competitive advantage. West Ches-
ter, PA, USA: Center for Business Practices; 1999. p. 3–22.
[3] Artto K, Dietrich P. Strategic business management through
multiple projects. In: Artto Morris PWG, Dietrich Pinto JK,
editors. The Wiley guide to managing projects. New York: Wi-
ley; 2004.
[4] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmitdt EJ. Portfolio management
in new product development: lessons from the leaders – II. Res
Technol Manage 1997(November–December):43–52.
[5] Howell RA. Multiproject control. Harvard Bus Rev
1968(March–April):1–10.
[6] McFarlan FW. Portfolio approach to information systems.
Harvard Bus Rev 1981(September–October):142–50.
[7] Buss MDJ. How to rank computer projects. Harvard Bus Rev
1983(January–February):1–8.
[8] Wheelwright SC, Clark KB. Revolutionizing product develop-
ment-quantum leaps in speed, efficiency, and quality. USA: The
Free Press; 1992.
[9] Bridges DN. Project portfolio management: ideas and practices.
In: Dye LD, Pennypacker JS, editors. Project portfolio manage-
ment – selecting and prioritizing projects for competitive advan-
tage. West Chester, PA, USA: Center for Business Practices;
1999. p. 45–54.
[10] Archer NP, Ghasemzadeh F. Project portfolio selection tech-
niques: a reviesw and a suggested integrated approach. In: Dye
LD, Pennypacker JS, editors. Project portfolio management –
selecting and prioritizing projects for competitive advan-
tage. West Chester, PA, USA: Center for Business Practices;
1999. p. 207–38.
[11] Spradlin T, Kutolowski D. Action-orientated portfolio manage-
ment. Res Technol Manage 1999(March–April):26–32.
[12] Englund RL, Graham RJ. From experience: linking projects to
strategy. J Prod Innovat Manag 1999;16(1):52–64.
[13] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ. New product portfolio
management: practices and performance. J Prod Innovat Manag
1999;16(4):333–51.
[14] Loch C. Tailoring product development to strategy: case of a
European technology manufacturer. Eur Manage
2000;18(3):146–258.
[15] Cooke-Davies T. The real success factors on projects. Int J Project
Manag 2002;20(3):185–90.
[16] Baker B, Murphy D, Fisher D. Factors affecting project
management success. In: Cleland D, King W, editors. Project
management handbook. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold;
1983. p. 669–85.
[17] Pinto JK, Slevin DP. Critical factors in successful project
implementation. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 1987;34(1):22–7.
[18] Mikkelsen H, Olsen W, Riis JO. Management of internal projects.
Int J Project Manag 1991;9(2):77–81.
[19] Salminen A. Implementing organizational and operational change
– critical success factors of change management. Dissertation for
the degree of doctor in science, Helsinki University of Technol-
ogy, Acta Polytechnica Scandinavia – Industrial Management
and Business Administration Series No 7; 2000.
391
[20] Shenhar AJ, Dvir D, Levy O, Maltz AC. Project success: a
multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Plann
2001;34(6):699–725.
[21] Shenhar AJ, Levy O, Dvir D. Mapping the dimensions of project
success. Project Manag J 1997;28(2):5–13.
[22] Coase RH. The nature of the firm. Economica
1937;4(16):386–405.
[23] Barney JB. Organizational culture – can it be a source of sustained
competitive advantage. Acad Manage Rev 1986;11(3):656–65.
[24] Porter ME. From competitive advantage to corporate-strategy.
Harvard Bus Rev 1987;65(3):43–59.
[25] Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management. Strategic Manage J 1997;18(7):509–33.
[26] Wernerfelt B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic
Manage J 1984;5(2):171–80.
[27] Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA. Dynamic capabilities: what are they.
Strategic Manage J 2000;21(10–11):1105–21.
[28] Winter SG. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Man-
age J 2003;24(10):991–5.
[29] Prahalad CK, Hamel G. The core competence of the corporation.
Harvard Bus Rev 1990;68(3):79–91.
[30] Levinthal DA, March JG. The myopia of learning. Strategic
Manage J 1993;14(Winter):95–112.
[31] Spender JC. Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic
theory of the firm. Strategic Manage J 1996;17(Winter special
):45–62.
[32] Burgelman RA. Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making
and organizational adaptation: theory and field research. Organ
Sci 1991;2(3):239–62.
[33] Mintzberg H, Waters JA. Of strategies, deliberate and emergent.
Strategic Manage J 1985;6(3):257–72.
[34] Grundy T. Strategic project management and strategic behaviour.
Int J Project Manage 2000;18(2):93–103.
[35] Andrews KR. The concept of corporate strategy. IL,
Irwin: Homewood; 1971.
[36] Saravirta A. Project success through effective decisions: case
studies on project goal setting, Success evaluation and managerial
decision making. Dissertation for the degree of doctor in science,
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Acta Universitatis
Lappeenrantaensis 121, Finland; 2001.
[37] Levine HA. Project portfolio management: a song without words.
In: Dye LD, Pennypacker JS, editors. Project portfolio manage-
ment – selecting and prioritizing projects for competitive advan-
J tage. West Chester, PA, USA: Center for Business Practices;
1999. p. 39–44.
[38] Elonen S, Artto KA. Problems in managing internal development
projects in multi-project environments. Int J Project Manage
2003;21(6):395–402.
[39] McDonough III EF, Spital FC. Managing project portfolios. Res
Technol Manage 2003;46(3):40–6.
[40] Matheson J, Menke M. Using desicion quality principles to
balance your R&D portfolio. In: Dye LD, Pennypacker JS,
editors. Project portfolio management: selecting and prioritizing
projects for competitive advantage. West Chester, PA,
USA: Center for Business Practices; 1999. p. 61–9.
[41] Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ. Portfolio management
for new product development: results of an industry practice
study. product development institute. Available from: http://
www.prod-dev.com/pdf/Working_Paper_13.pdf, referred to on 20
August, 2003; 2001.