Multi-stakeholder perspectives of value in project portfolios

Ang, KCS; Killen, C

Multi-stakeholder perspectives of value in project portfolios

Ang, KCS

Killen, C

Permalink

Publisher:: European Research and Management Conference 2016
Publication Type:: Conference Proceeding
Citation:: Proceedings of EURAM 2016, 2016
Issue Date:: 2016-06-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	1837-Multi-stakeholder perspectives of value in project portfolios.pdf	Published version	549.52 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Ang, KCS https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5202-0036	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Killen, C https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2370-7856	en_US
dc.date	2016-06-01	en_US
dc.date.available	2016-03-16	en_US
dc.date.issued	2016-06-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Proceedings of EURAM 2016, 2016	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	2466-7498	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/47686
dc.description.abstract	Organisations invest in projects to create value. One of the key goals of managing multiple projects from a project portfolio perspective is to maximise this value across the portfolio. The value generated by projects has long been understood to be more than just the direct financial value, and researchers are actively working on extending the understanding of value for project portfolio management (PPM) environments. However, value is a complex phenomenon – value is not a fixed entity, but rather it varies in the ways it is perceived by each stakeholder, and in how value perceptions are translated into practice. This paper explores practices for understanding value by different stakeholders in various contexts and identifies seven perspectives through which value is identified in project portfolio environments. A typology of value perspectives is presented that aims to guide and improve practice by extending the range of values that are perceived, anticipated and considered for PPM decision making.	en_US
dc.publisher	European Research and Management Conference 2016	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Proceedings of EURAM 2016	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	16th Annual Conference of the European Academy of Management (Euram) Conference 2016	en_US
dc.title	Multi-stakeholder perspectives of value in project portfolios	en_US
dc.type	Conference Proceeding
utslib.location	Paris	en_US
utslib.location.activity	Paris	en_US
utslib.for	150307 Innovation and Technology Management	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building/School of Built Environment
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.consider-herdc	true	en_US
pubs.finish-date	2016-06-04	en_US
pubs.place-of-publication	Paris	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.start-date	2016-06-01	en_US

Abstract:

Organisations invest in projects to create value. One of the key goals of managing multiple projects from a project portfolio perspective is to maximise this value across the portfolio. The value generated by projects has long been understood to be more than just the direct financial value, and researchers are actively working on extending the understanding of value for project portfolio management (PPM) environments. However, value is a complex phenomenon – value is not a fixed entity, but rather it varies in the ways it is perceived by each stakeholder, and in how value perceptions are translated into practice. This paper explores practices for understanding value by different stakeholders in various contexts and identifies seven perspectives through which value is identified in project portfolio environments. A typology of value perspectives is presented that aims to guide and improve practice by extending the range of values that are perceived, anticipated and considered for PPM decision making.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/47686