پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 161 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,533 |
| تعداد مقالات | 70,506 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 124,125,925 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 97,234,097 |
شناسایی و اولویت‌بندی شاخص های اساسی در اثربخشی مدیریت سبد پروژه با هدف کاهش مخاطرات محیطی در پروژههای صنعت ساخت ایران | ||
| مدیریت مخاطرات محیطی | ||
| مقاله 3، دوره 6، شماره 4، دی 1398، صفحه 341-359 اصل مقاله (1.06 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: پژوهشی بنیادی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jhsci.2020.293553.521 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| نیما یزدانی* 1؛ محمود گلابچی2 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت پروژه و ساخت، دانشکدۀ هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2استاد دانشکدۀ هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| صنعت ساخت تأثیر زیادی بر محیط زیست دارد. فرایندهای احداث پروژههای صنعت ساخت‌و‌ساز از مهم‌ترین عوامل انسانی اثرگذار بر محیط زیست است. پژوهش حاضر به بررسی شاخص‌های مهم در اثربخشی مدیریت سبد پروژه به‌عنوان راهکاری برای کاهش مخاطرات محیطی در پروژههای صنعت ساخت می‌پردازد. مدیریت سبد پروژه(PPM) در بسیاری از سازمان‌ها به‌عنوان یک رویکرد، برای هماهنگی سبدی از پروژه‌ها یا برنامه‌ها به‌منظوردستیابی به اهداف سازمان خاص استفاده می‌شود. اثربخش بودن مدیریت سبد پروژه در سازمان‌ها اهمیت زیادی دارد و بی‌توجهی به آن، ممکن است به مخاطرات محیطی گسترده‌ای منجر شود. عوامل متعددی در اثربخشی مدیریت سبد پروژه مؤثرند که تمرکز این پژوهش بر شناسایی مهم‌ترین این عوامل است. در این پژوهش با رویکردی کیفی و کمی (آمیخته) به بررسی شاخص‌های مؤثر در مدیریت سبد پروژه در صنعت ساخت با هدف کاهش مخاطرات محیطی پرداخته شده است. طی بررسی و تحلیل‌های انجام‌گرفته به کمک روش فراترکیب و مصاحبه با خبرگان، ۳۷ شاخص مهم در اثربخشی مدیریت سبد پروژه در هفت گروه شناسایی شد و سپس به کمک پرسشنامه و تحلیل داده‌های پاسخ نمونه 159 نفری از جامعۀ آماری تحقیق از طریق روش تحلیل عاملی تأییدی مشخص شد که سه گروه شاخص راهبردی، عملیاتی و ساختار سازمانی از مهم‌ترین شاخص‌ها هستند. سازمان‌ها می‌توانند بستر خود را به‌منظور استفادۀ هر چه مؤثرتر از مدیریت سبد پروژه، با هدف کاهش مخاطرات زیستی در حین اجرای پروژههای صنعت ساخت بهبود بخشند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| پروژه؛ شاخص‌های کلیدی؛ صنعت ساخت؛ مخاطرات محیطی؛ مدیریت سبد پروژه | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Identifying key Factors Affecting Project Portfolio Management Effectiveness Model Aimed at Reducing Environmental Hazards in Iranian Construction Projects | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Nima Yazdani1؛ Mahmoud Golabchi2 | ||
| 1PhD Student, Department of Architecture, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Professor, Department of Architecture, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction The construction industry holds a major potential of hazards for the environment, and may impact it at different levels. Despite its potential threats to the environment, the construction industry plays a positive role in society as well. It is still necessary to find ways to conciliate industry development, especially active organizations in this industry, with environmental protection. Today, to survive in the global competition and acquire the competitive advantage, organizations and project-centered economic agents recognize their long-term and strategic goals in the true selection, full execution, and effective management of projects. Therefore, if the project portfolio management is based on an appropriate framework capable of planning, assessing, prioritizing, and selecting projects, it can carry out this mission as a proper approach and enhance the efficacy and effectiveness of the organizational projects. Furthermore, the establishment of a proper platform, in which an organization can better and more soundly manage a set of projects, can be reckoned as that organization’s factor of success. Project portfolio by the literature, is defined as a set of projects that are executed in an economic unit, under similar strategic goals, and common resources. The rate of physical and financial resources of these projects is often limited. Thus, the projects under the same management compete to attract these scarce and limited resources. Project portfolio management is a method for implementing the strategy the organization. Indeed, it is collaborative management of projects and more advantageous compared to the separated management of every project in traditional approaches. It is because portfolio management is a symbol operating as a communicational bridge between organizational strategies and projects. Indeed, the project portfolio management is an approach through which the organizational projects are adjusted and coordinated for the realization of prospects and missions. Moreover, it optimizes the time and costs of the projects’ execution and accelerates the achievement of respected goals and interests. Diverse attributes influence the accomplishment of project portfolio management. This paper endeavors to determine and measure the key attributes affecting project portfolio management so that organizations can take maximum advantage of their executed projects. Though in the literature that are many studies which have been focused on project portfolio management, limited studies have examined the attributes affecting PPM, and there are still many challenges to understanding the essential factors which affect the effectiveness of PPM in an construction organization, company or group. This paper focuses on attributes, which affects effectiveness of project portfolio management, from both theoretical and empirical viewpoints. We provide an integrative conceptual framework for organizing the literature on effectiveness of project portfolio management. Most of effective attributes are identified from the questionnaires filled out by 159 experts from Iranian construction companies. The obtained results reveal that strategic factors, operational factors and organizational structure have the most significant influence on effectiveness of PPM. Besides, we provided effective solutions for the organizations to improve their performance. Our findings can help practitioners develop a more focused approach in dealing with the most significant attributes. Materials and methods Regarding the lack of theoretical point of views, complete and better frameworks are essential to summery and conduct all attributes which are most effective project portfolio management. In this research, it would be realized by answering the following research question. Research Question: What are the most important attributes on effectiveness of project portfolio management within projects? The paper develops a conceptual framework for the analysis of effectiveness of PPM in projects. Based on this theoretical framework, the paper proposes research hypotheses and builds a causal model that links the constructs of the model. The factors regarding effectiveness of PPM in general are summed up from literature and then the issue is studied by conducting a survey in companies. Participants of the study included well-known and successful construction companies. Using in-depth data from Iranian construction Company, we study the attributes of effectiveness of PPM. After the data collection process, data were categorized using the Excel software and analyzed using the LISREL software package. The statistical methods involved descriptive and inferential parts, in which the frequency tables were used in the descriptive part, and confirmatory factor analysis was used in the inferential part. Discussion and Results Based on a systematic investigation of effective attributes in PPM currently available in the literature, a common frame of reference for effectiveness of PPM development is developed. This frame of reference consists of seven main factors. Besides, it will provide a good departure point for future work in ppm, both academically and practically. These factors including strategic factors, operational factors, stakeholders, quality, risk management, control and organizational structure. These factors have investigated in construction projects and it has been identified that these items are effective on ppm and there is a direct relationship between them. Organizations should attempt to maximize the effect of these attributes in order to increase effectiveness of ppm. In the structural equation modeling, the relationships between the latent variables, which are extracted by the theory, are examined based on the data. In this research, there are 37 observed variables (including items of the questionnaire) and seven latent variables. The significance model is used to test the significance, and the standard model is used to inspect the nature and intensity of the effects among the factors. Since the hypothesis testing is performed in the 95% confidence level, the results are significant when the absolute value of their respective t-value is greater than 1.96. Indeed, the values inside the interval (-1.96, 1.96) are considered as insignificance. Before the hypothesis testing, the model fitting should be confirmed. For this purpose, the confirmatory factor analysis was used. After investigating the standard estimation model, the results of the t-value obtained indicate that all the relationships between the constructs exist because they all have a significance coefficient larger than 1.96, showing the significance of the relationships between the constructs. Indeed, the results indicate that the questionnaire, as the research instrument, has realized the research purpose. A positive factor loading (path coefficient) indicates the strength of the relationship. A path coefficient below 0.3 shows a weak impact, and the values between 0.3 and 0.6 represent an acceptable impact. Finally, factor loadings larger than 0.6 imply a very desirable intensity of variable impact on the effectiveness of project portfolio management. Moreover, the minimum acceptable value for the t-value is 1.96. Table 7 represents the values obtained by the software for the factor loadings and t-value for seven concepts of the research. Conclusion A review of the studies in the area of project portfolio management showed that various researchers focused on the impact of a special factor on the success and effectiveness of project portfolio management. In this research, all the key factors were extracted, defined, and categorized into seven groups and 37 effective factors using the meta-synthesis approach and interviews with the experts. These factors were examined in Iran’s construction industry using structural equation modeling in order to reduce environmental hazards in construction projects. It was observed that all the factors directly affected the success of project portfolio management. The factors can be ranked based on the intensity of their impact as follows: (1) strategic factors, (2) operational factors, (3) factors related to organizational structure, (4) control factors (5), risk management factors, (6) quality factors, and (7) factors related to the stakeholders. Also, among the 37 observed variables, 21 factors have a very desirable impact, 12 factors have an acceptable impact, and four factors have a weak impact on the project portfolio management effectiveness in project-oriented organizations of Iran’s construction industry. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Project portfolio management, environmental hazards, key factors, construction industry, project | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
[1]. اردکانی، امیررضا؛ گلابچی، محمود؛ حسینی، سید محمود؛ و علاقمندان، متین (1396). «بررسی تأثیر فرم ساختمان‌های بلند بر پایداری سازه‌ای آنها با هدف کاهش مخاطرات زلزله؛ نمونۀ موردی: تأثیر پارامتر شکل پلان»، مدیریت مخاطرات محیطی، (۱)۴، ص 42-27. [2]. اسمیت، کیت (1382). مخاطرات محیطی، ترجمۀ ابراهیم مقیمی و گودرزی‌نژاد، تهران: سمت. [3]. بازرگان، عباس. (1391). مقدمه‌ای بر روش‌های تحقیق کیفی و آمیختۀ رویکردهای متداول در علوم رفتاری، چ سوم. دیدار. [4]. بختیاری، نوبخت (۱۳۸۹). بررسی تأثیر عملکرد پروژههای عمرانی در آلودگی محیط زیست، چهارمین همایش تخصصی مهندسی محیط زیست، تهران، دانشگاه تهران، دانشکدۀ محیط زیست. [5]. ترنر، رودنی (1394). راهنمای جامع مدیریت پروژه‌محور، ترجمۀ محمدحسین صبحیه و رضا، فلسفی: آریانا قلم. [6]. حافظ‌نیا، محمدرضا (1395). مقدمه‌ای بر روش تحقیق در علوم انسانی، تهران: سمت. [7]. حمیدی، مصطفی (1375). محیط زیست و اهمیت آن در پروژههای عمرانی، فصلنامۀ علمی سازمان حفاظت محیط زیست، (۱۰)۲. ص ۲۵. [8]. معین، محمد (1393)، فرهنگ فارسی، چ 27، تهران: امیرکبیر. [9]. مقیمی، ابراهیم، جعفربیگلو، منصور؛ مقصودی، مهران؛ مونیر، نولبرتو؛ و احمدی، امیر (1397). تأثیر مخاطرات ژئومورفولوژیک آبراهه‌ای بر خطوط انتقال انرژی با استفاده از مدل محور ریسک خط لوله)؛ مطالعۀ موردی: خط لولۀ گاز نهم سراسری»، مدیریت مخاطرات محیطی (2)5، ص: 216- 199. [10]. مقیمی، ابراهیم (1394). دانش مخاطرات، چ دوم، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران. [11]. وکیلی اردبیلی، علی؛ و شاطری، فائزه (1395). معیارهای مؤثر بر انتخاب مصالح ساختمانی با هدف کاهش خطرهای زیست‌محیطی. مدیریت مخاطرات محیطی، 3(3)، ص: 253-267. [12]. یزدان‌پناه، احمدعلی؛ گلدوست جویباری، یاسر؛ و محمدی بلبان‌آباد، صالح (۱۳۸۹). مدیریت پورتفلیوی پروژه (راهنمای عملی برای ارزیابی، انتخاب و اولویت‌بندی پروژه‌ها(، بهآوران. [13]. Beringer, C.; Jonas, D.; & Georg Gemünden, H. (2012). “Establishing project portfolio management: An exploratory analysis of the influence of internal stakeholders’ interactions”, Project Management Journal, 43(6), pp: 16–32. [14]. Cooper, R.G.; Edgett, S.J.; & Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1999). “New product portfolio management: Practices & performance”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16(4), pp: 333–351. [15]. Dietrich, P.; & Lehtonen, P. (2005). “Successful management of strategic intentions through multiple projects–Reflections from empirical study”, International Journal of Project Management, 23(5), pp: 386-391. [16]. Dye, L. D.; & Pennypacker, J. S. (1999). “Project portfolio management: selecting & prioritizing projects for competitive advantage”, Univerza v Mariboru, Ekonomsko-poslovna fakulteta. [17]. Gutiérrez, E. & Magnusson, M. (2014). “Dealing with Legitimacy: A Key Challenge for Project Portfolio Management Decision Makers”, International Journal of Project Management, 32, pp: 30–39. [18]. Hadjinicolaou, N.; & Dumrak, J. (2017). “Investigating association of benefits and barriers in project portfolio management to project success”, Procedia Engineering, 182, pp: 274-281. [19]. Kester, L.; Griffin, A.; Hultink, E.J.; & Lauche, K. (2011). “Exploring Portfolio Decision-Making Processes”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28, pp: 641–661. [20]. Kester, L.; Hultink, E.J.; & Griffin, A. (2014). “AnEmpirical Investigation of the Antecedents and Outcomes of NPD Portfolio Success”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31, pp:1199–1213. [21]. Kester, L.; Hultink, E.J.; & Lauche, K. (2009). “Portfolio Decision-Making Genres: A Case Study”, Journal of Engineering & Technology Management, 26, pp: 327–341. [22]. Killen, C.P. (2013). “Evaluation of Project Interdependency Visualizations through Decision Scenario Experimentation”, International Journal of Project Management, 31, pp: 804–16. [23]. Killen, C.P.; & Kjaer, C. (2012). “Understanding Project Interdependencies: The Role of Visual Representation, Culture and Process”, International Journal of Project Management, 30, pp: 554–566. [24]. Kock, A.; Heising, W.; & Gemünden, H.G. (2016). “A contingency approach on the impact of front-end success on project portfolio success”, Project Management Journal, 47(2), pp: 115–129 [25]. Kopmann, J.; Kock, A.; Killen, C.; & Gemuenden, H. (2014). “Business Case Control: The Key to Project Portfolio Success or Merely a Matter of Form? ”, European Academy of Management, EURAM, 4-7 June, Valencia. [26]. Kopmann, J.; Kock, A.; Killen, C. P.; & Gemünden, H. G. (2017). “The role of project portfolio management in fostering both deliberate and emergent strategy”, International Journal of Project Management, 35(4), pp: 557-570. [27]. Marnewick, C. (2015). “Portfolio management success, in Levin, G. ;& Wyzalek, J. (eds), Portfolio management: A strategic approach”, Auerbach Publications. [28]. Martinsuo, M. (2013). “Project Portfolio Management in Practice and in Context”, International Journal of Project Management, 31, pp: 794–803. [29]. McNally, R.C.; Durmus¸og˘ lu, S.S.; & Calantone, R.J. (2013). “New Product Portfolio Management Decisions: Antecedents and Consequences”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30, pp: 245–261. [30]. Meskendahl, S. (2010). “The influence of business strategy on project portfolio management and its success: A conceptual framework”, International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), pp: 807–817. [31]. Mosavi, A. (2014). “Exploring the Roles of Portfolio Steering Committees in Project Portfolio Governance”, International Journal of Project Management, 32, pp: 388–399. [32]. Patanakul, P. (2015). “Key attributes of effectiveness in managing project portfolio”, International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), 1084-1097. [33]. PMI, A. (2013), “guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) ”, In Project Management Institute, Vol. 5. [34]. Sandelowski, M.; & Barros, J. (2007). “Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. ”, Springer publishing company Inc. [35]. Shojaei, A.; & Flood, I. (2017). “Stochastic forecasting of project streams for construction project portfolio management”, Visualization in Engineering, 5(1), p: 11. [36]. Stettina, C.J.; & Hörz, J. (2015). “Agile portfolio management: An empirical perspective on the practice in use”, International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), pp: 140–152. [37]. Teller, J.; & Kock, A. (2013). “An empirical investigation on how portfolio risk management influences project portfolio success”, International Journal of Project Management, 31(6), pp: 817–829. [38]. Unger, B.N.; Rank, J.; & Gemünden, H.G. (2014). “Corporate Innovation Culture and Dimensions of Project Portfolio Success: The Moderating Role of National Culture”, Project Management Journal, 45, pp: 38–57. [39]. Voss, M. (2012). “Impact of customer integration on project portfolio management and its success: Developing a conceptual framework”, International Journal of Project Management, 30(5), pp: 567–581. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 814 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 504 |
||