PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION OF TRANSITIONAL

COUNTRIES
Anna Baranskaya1
Moscow State University, School of Public Administration, Russia
The paper is devoted to the widely used in the developed countries project-oriented approach. In transitional countries,
especially in the governmental sphere, this approach is used to the lesser extent. However, it is able to provide
transitional governments with effective tools for realizing changes. The paper is aimed at examining basic principles
of project management and its peculiarities in public administration, as well as at analyzing spheres of the project
management implementation in public administration, in particular in the transitional countries, at studying stages of
project management maturity and knowledge, which is necessary in project management, and at discovering benefits
and obstacles of project management in the transitional countries.
During the research preceding the paper there were analyzed theoretical and practical aspects of the project
management implementation both in business and governments. There were made interesting conclusions concerning
specific characteristics of project management in the governmental sphere, which touch upon legal norms, a wide
range of stakeholders, the usage of resources and establishing priorities. In the paper there was made a finding about
the specific character of applying this approach in realizing changes in different spheres of life, in the organizational
structure, in improvements of the infrastructure, of utilities, etc. There was made a significant conclusion about
organizational aspects of the implementation of management by projects in public administration concerning the
establishment of a coordination center – Program Management Office.
It seems to us that the most principle conclusion made in this paper refers to benefits and discovered obstacles of
applying project management in the transitional countries, i.e. knowledge, expensiveness and misunderstanding, as
well more contradictory and intricate barriers as the transitional character of the developing countries, where some
peculiarities of public administration display more evident than in the developed countries. There was emphasized
that the introduction of project management in the transitional countries should proceed together with other
transformations, what will give these countries an opportunity to achieve the same results as in the developed
countries.

During the last forty years project management gained popularity both in business and governmental spheres. While
companies do not hesitate whether they should use project management and the vector has shifted toward the
effectiveness of project management methodologies, in the latter sphere the situation is quite different and
heterogeneous. The developed countries have realized the importance of project management methodologies in terms
of effectiveness and productivity, in contrast to that the developing countries or transitional countries consider the
usage of project management as the spirit of new public management and believe that it does not bring so many
advantages for public administration.
In this paper we will discuss the implementation of project management in transitional countries. First of all, let us
consider the term “transitional countries”. There can be different conceptions what countries we are able to define as
transitional ones. It is obvious from the term that these countries are on a path leading to any goal. But it is also
apparent that every society both with the high standard of life or with the lower standard of life sets any goal and tries
to achieve it. In that case the question concerns the nature of this goal. Let us add to this discourse the concept dividing
countries into three clusters: the developed countries, developing ones and under-developed countries. The latter group
is treated as countries with the low quality of life, with the low economic development, etc. Societies of these countries
have been dealing with such problems as civil wars, epidemics and so on, so that it is quite difficult to speak about the
development, transitions and the movement toward a goal. Thus, under-developed countries cannot be included into
the group of the transitional countries.
As far as the developed countries are concerned they always move toward some goals, they always change a little bit
due to the dynamics of the environment, but at the same time their economic, political, social systems are stable, i.e.
basic elements do not change. The developed countries have reached high standards of life; they became some kind
of a reference point for many other countries. As for the developing countries they are really in the position of a
transformation striving to get high indicators in many spheres. Many of the developing countries have been changing
their economic, political and social systems. We mean above all former Soviet countries. The majority of them
accepted western democracies as a reference point. So that they benchmark systems and values of the developed
countries, as well as different management methodologies and techniques. One of these methodologies is project
management. Hence, by the transitional countries we would primarily mean the developing countries that have chosen
western democratic system as a guiding line and because of it benchmark their systems, models and in particular
management methodologies.
1. Project and project management and their peculiarities in public administration
According to PMI (Project Management Institute) - one of the largest and one of the most famous institutes dealing
with project management – project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service or result.
That is why we can mark out those characteristics that distinguish projects from processes, which are considered to

1
Post-graduate, Moscow State University, School of Public Administration, Moscow, Russia

1
be the basis of operational work. They are temporary character, producing unique results and progressive elaboration.
We can conclude that project management is the administration of project, but there is also a wider definition given
by PMI, according to which project management is the application of knowledge, skills, tools to project activities to
meet project requirements. Project management is realized thorough the application and integration of PM processes
of initiating, executing, monitoring, controlling and closing [1].
Projects are realized in all three spheres: in business, in the governmental sphere and in the non-profit one. But projects
in all these spheres possess their own peculiarities, which depend on specific characters of each sector. Due to the fact
that our paper is concentrated on the public sector, we will not mark out peculiarities of other sectors’ projects and
will dwell on projects dealt by governments.
Specific characters of governmental projects are in the direct relation with peculiarities of the government as the
specific subject of decision-making process. Apart from such characteristics as heterogeneous object of its impact,
public authority, the combination of double, triple and so on standards there is a specific context that should be taken
into account dealing with governmental projects:
 The existence of specific legal norms that determine activities of the whole society, on the one hand,
and of institutions which realize projects – on the other. There are far more such legal norms than
in business.
 The existence of a wide range of stakeholders and the accountability to the society, at that
stakeholders can be both within the accountability process and outside this process. The inner
stakeholders are governmental institutions, government agencies, public managers and so on. The
range of external stakeholders is wider – the mass media, citizens, interest groups, etc.
 The usage of public resources which governmental projects are financed through a state budget by.
That is why the responsibility of a public manager increases and it is complicated by the fact that it
is rather difficult to measure the success of a project as well as of manager’s work. Besides, it is also
very difficult to appraise project’s benefits for the society because sometimes it is not possible to
use such indicators as Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) and Return of Investment (ROI). Public
managers tend to estimate project’s effectiveness and benefits by qualitative indicators [2].
 Difficulties in establishing priorities and in the differentiation of governmental projects. This
characteristic follows from the previous one. While in business the system of projects’
differentiation is based on principles of cost and profit, these principles often cannot be applied to
governmental projects and it is necessary to establish the system which is quite different from the
business one and which considers interests of different groups of citizens.
Due to the fact that the government deals with complex problems rather than with single particular ones, the
government often tends to shift to more complex level of project management, in particular to program management.
Program is a group of related projects managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control not available from
managing them individually. Programs may include elements of related work outside of the scope of the discrete
projects in the program [3]. Exactly because of that tendency organizational aspects also shift to more complex level,
i.e. to the level of Program Management Office (it will be discussed below).
It is worth mentioning that for a long time project management was considered in business just as mechanisms of
technical support for business operations. That was reflected in the fact that project management was used not as some
kind of approach to doing business, but as a methodology related to planning activities. At the close of the XX century
the situation has changed and nowadays project management is considered as more than approach, it is considered as
the philosophy of both business and the whole society. And the attitude toward project management in public
administration of the developed countries is not the exception. Nevertheless, there is a difference in attitudes of
business and the government toward project management. The difference in the nature of their tasks is at the bottom
of different attitudes. While business strives for improvements and project management provides an organization with
techniques in order to realize a desired change, the government is aimed sometimes at the retention of a situation
rather than at the improvement, i.e. vectors of goals are in different directions. The point is that project management
works only in the direction of improvements; it is inefficient when the deal concerns the retention. That is one of the
main constraints of project management in public administration. We should pay a special attention to this constraint,
because it leaves a mark on spheres of the project management implementation in public administration.
2. The history of project management in public administration
To begin with, it is argued whether project management is really the spirit of new public management or in fact the
tendency of returning to methodologies that were in use few decades ago. To prove the latter we should not necessarily
remember the history of Ancient Egypt. The point is that the modern development of project management has begun
in the forties of the XX century exactly in public administration in the USA, in current opinion. In the USA project
management has formed into the separate knowledge area. However, project management also developed in other
countries, but probably in a latent form. Only after the development within public administration in the sixties of the
XX century business started adopting these techniques due to the tendencies in the environment such as the dynamics
of the environment and the complexity of tasks faced by business. We examine a tendency, which is opposite to the
modern situation, when the government adopts business management techniques. Before the sixties project
management existed in business in elements of management by objectives and results-based management, which
established the basic principles of project management.

2
At first project management was more contract management (the tendency toward contract management in public
administration we can examine nowadays). The development of project management itself began during the Cold
War, when the American government ordered in agencies armament, uniform and military equipment. For the first
time project management was used in American programs Navy's Complex Polaris and NASA Apollo in 50 – 60s of
XX century. NASA introduced project management in aerospace. Interested in the development of project
management the American government contributed to this process by developing the systems of planning, monitoring
and control for projects, creating the group of project auditors who were responsible for controlling the introduction
of project management [4]. The Manhattan Project of the creation of the first atomic bomb is considered to be the first
project realized on project management principles [5]. Undoubtedly, project management that was used in the past is
not the same as the modern one. That time projects were used as the tool of technical support of operations.
In 1960-1985 due to the high dynamics of environment and the complication of tasks business began searching for
new tools that can be effective in the new environment. It is project management that was able to solve problems faced
by business. At the same time there was the depression of project management development in public administration.
It is explained by the fact that government is considered to be a process-oriented organization, that is why it exhausted
potentialities of project management, which were seen in the past. In contrast to the government business is more
flexible and sensitive to innovations. Thus, project management took new opportunities for the development.
Nowadays, the tendencies of adopting business techniques by the government are opposite to those in the past, when
corporations tended to adopt governmental tools. Today governments adopt not only tools and techniques, but also
the spheres of the project management implementation. Project management is no longer considered as the supportive
tool, it is a powerful tool for realizing changes. Nowadays in the governmental sphere there appears the tendency of
outsourcing of different functions and project management plays a great role in this area.
3. Spheres of project management implementation in public administration
Project management is considered to be the powerful tool for realizing changes. We can distinguish four main groups
of relations where project management works, that are
 Changes in different spheres of life;
 Changes in the organizational structure of governmental bodies;
 Private-public partnership;
 Project-oriented branches of economy.

Changes in different spheres of life. By the term “spheres of life” we mean such spheres as economic, social, political,
etc. One cannot deny that it is essential to conduct the permanent development of these spheres. Depending on the
radical character of changes the government is able to use incremental or project-oriented approach. While the
government realizes changes gradual, it is more effective to apply the incremental approach. But when the changes
are considerable, the government should turn to the project-oriented one. It provides the government with effective
tools for realizing radical changes in the shorter period of time. Moreover, the changes in this context are under the
permanent monitoring and control of public managers, what in its turn contributes to the increase of quality of the
desired changes and of a management system.
Added to that, in the context of transitional countries the usage of this approach acquires a special importance. It is
reflected in the fact that these countries undergo significant changes. Mostly these changes are not incremental, but
drastic. Take us as the example the former Soviet Union countries. In these countries all spheres of life differed from
those in other countries. After the break-up of the Soviet Union countries that were its parts chose another model.
They needed to proceed to the new chosen model, so that to make a dramatic change. The best way to realize such a
change is to apply project management. Unfortunately, the project-oriented approach was not used by these countries
or used partially depending on the knowledge and competence of public managers and leaders and on political will.
Besides, project management is able to work effectively in less dramatic changes than the radical change of the system.
If a country is willing to conduct a reform in a particular sphere of life or to reach another level of the development in
a qualitative sense, the project-oriented approach would be also helpful. In this case the government is able to develop
a project (for a particular change) or the whole complex program in order to realize a considerable change. Let us take
as the example Russia. It tries to realize a set of changes based on the project approach. We can argue whether it is a
real project-oriented approach as it is understood by the developed countries or the process approach setting up for
the project one, but we can affirm that there is an attempt to use this approach or its elements. For instance, Russia
has been realizing four national projects in the spheres of public health, housing and communal services, education
and agriculture. These four projects are more strategic plans than strategic projects. Furthermore, each of them is so
complex that it should have been developed not as a project, but as a program, so that these four programs would have
been able to form a portfolio. But at the same time, these projects could be considered as the first step toward the
project management development.
In the Russian Federation programs are also developed in the R&D sphere, telecommunications and IT, transport,
aviation, culture, in the social sphere, education, etc. These programs are developed by Ministries.
From all mentioned above we are able to conclude that the transitional countries should pay more serious attention to
project management dealing with considerable changes in different spheres of life. The degree of the project
management usage in this group of relations should be higher than in the same group within the developed countries,
because the latter tend to realize incremental changes. At the same this does not mean that the developed countries
use project management to a lesser extend. The situation is that these countries are on the higher level of project

3
management culture and that it why the totality of projects realized in the developed countries is larger than in the
developing ones. Ideally proceeding from the nature of project management the situation should be reverse.
Changes in the organizational structure of governmental bodies. It is common knowledge that during the last forty
years structures of governmental bodies have changed in different countries to a greater or lesser extent. This was the
result of the development of concepts “New public management” and then of “Governance”. Due to the perception of
these concepts the government began to realize such changes in their organizational systems as the decentralization,
the privatization of many governmental functions, restructuring, etc. All of these transitions require the specific plan
of activities, which should include time frames, budget, systems of monitoring, evaluation and control. It seems to be
that the only instrument which is able to produce these transformations effectively is project management. So that
before realizing the changes in the organizational structure the government should develop a project or, in some cases
a program, when it concerns, for example, the transformations of the whole organizational structure.
As far as the developed countries are concerned most of them have overcome the period of these changes or are at the
end of such transitions. Many of these changes were made based on the project-oriented approach. After these reforms
during the stable period of the permanent development these countries would be able to implement the incremental
approach. Thus, it is clear that the developing countries should adopt the approach that the developed countries tend
to apply during the transitions due to the showed effectiveness and productivity. It is obvious that the transitional
countries should not adopt tools blindly, they must analyze all strengths and weaknesses, but it should be pointed out
that project management as a managerial instrument is neutral to cultural peculiarities.
On the whole project management is also a powerful tool for realizing changes in this sphere. It should be used more
actively in the transitional countries.
Private-public partnership. Projects based on principles of private-public partnership represent a special form of
collaboration between the government and business in order to realize long-term strategic investment projects. We
can name typical projects that include the construction/reconstruction of transport infrastructure (airports, highways,
railways, bridges, etc.), of a public real estate (hospitals, schools, museums), of utilities, as well as the management
of these objects. Besides, private-public partnership is widely spread in R&D and in non-manufacturing business.
Within this form of the collaboration the integration of resources of two main entities takes part. These entities are the
government with its huge potential of a real estate and business, which tends to use effective management
methodologies, possesses resources for investing.
We should bear in mind that not all forms of private-public partnership deal with projects. Economic classification of
these forms, accepted in the World Bank, includes such forms as:
 Contracts to management (in particular rent);
 Enterprises, which were created through the process of going public or on the basis of share holding
of both the government and business;
 Concession.

Most of private-public partnerships initiatives are processes rather than projects. First two forms represent processes
within the partnership. These forms are widely used in the transitional countries. For example, in Russia business
organizations tend to rent enterprises that are not going to be public ones. In 2004 the group “Industrial investors”
rented ice-boats of Far-Eastern sea steam navigation. There exist a huge number of examples of renting see berths,
terminals and other objects in airports, see ports, etc. Besides, there are many companies, where the government acts
through its part of a capital. For instance, in the Russian Federation the most famous are Gazprom (the Russian
Government controls 50, 002% of stock [6]2), RAO UES of Russia (52,6832% of joint stock belong to the Russian
Federation [7]3). As far as the organizational aspects of these forms of private-public partnership are concerned, there
were created special structures such as Federal agencies for the management of federal property and committees
created for the same objective.
The third form of private-public partnership concerns projects. Concessions are applied in huge strategic projects
especially in the spheres of construction of objects of infrastructure and in R&D. They contribute to the attraction of
private investments. In Russia, for example, there are not so many concession projects and the most famous ones are
the construction of railways between cities Berkakit-Tommot-Yakutsk, the construction of the branch line of the see
commercial port Olya, the construction of the port Gelezniy Rog, the construction of four train-ferries in Dagestan.
It is clear, therefore, that project management in public-private partnership should be used and in its turn it will raise
profitability due to the reduction of the period of the realization and the increase of quality and effectiveness. Some
developing countries have yet shown the effectiveness of projects based on private-public partnership; among them
are South Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, where the number of highways built within the partnership approximates to
100% [8].
We would like to mention that project in the transitional countries based on the partnership resolve not only economic
problems, but also political ones. The point is that such collaboration allows introducing the goal-oriented system of
the use of resources and may contribute to the reduction of the level of corruption, and these problems are among the
critical ones. A private investor is interested in the high return of the project and in receiving a legal profit. Moreover,

2
The information is for the date March 29, 2007.
3
The information is for the date March 29, 2007.

4
private-public partnership can help to reduce the negative perception of business and government in many transitional
countries.
We should pay attention to the fact that in order to realize an effective project and achieve desired results it is not
enough to develop a plan, it is necessary to manage this project. It is only a manager who possesses special knowledge,
project management knowledge and skills, is able to make it on the high level of quality.
What is more, in the case of private-public partnership there becomes apparent a transformation from project
management toward contract management. Thus, a public manager, who is responsible for such a project, needs to
possess skills from both professional areas. Knowledge in project management is essential, because the manager is
responsible from the part of the government for controlling the development and the realization of a particular project.
Undoubtedly, the public manager in this case should not possess the whole totality of project management knowledge,
but he should have enough basic knowledge and skills in order to exercise his responsibilities. As for the contract
management knowledge it should form the basis of public manager’s responsibilities, because he acts on behalf of the
government and should coordinate the relations between the parts of a contract.
Project-oriented branches of economy. This sphere of project-management implementation is similar to private-
public partnership. The only difference is the number of members of a project. In contrast to a partnership project
where there are at the minimum two parts – the government and business – in these projects the government operates
alone. The government is responsible for all aspects of the project. The difference also lies in the knowledge and skill
that should be possessed by a public project manager. In the case of these projects the public project manager should
be a professional project manager, who is responsible for developing and/or realizing the project.
4. The implementation of the maturity model in public administration
It will be interesting to examine conditions of project management in public administration of the developed countries
and of the transitional ones based on the maturity model. The project management maturity model is a widely accepted
concept in business. It shows different stages of the project management development in a corporation. The famous
theorist and consultant in project management Harold Kerzner emphasizes that “all organizations go through a
maturity process” [9] and to our point of view the government is not the exception. The maturity in project
management is the development of systems and processes that are able to contribute to success. It is worth mentioning
that these systems and process do not guarantee success, they just increase the probability of success [9].

Process
Improvement
Level 5
Continuous
Improvements
Process Control
Level 4
Benchmarking

Process Definition
Level 3
Singular
Methodology
Basic Knowledge
Level 2
Common
processes

Level 1
Common
Language

Figure 1 Project Management Maturity Model

Source: Kerzner, Harold. 2005. Using the Project Management Maturity Model: Strategic Planning for Project
Management. USA: John Wiley&Sons, Inc.
Further we would like to consider this model in public administration. It is worth being underlined that according to
the model the level of the project management development in public administration can be on another level than
business of this country. As a rule the level of the project management development in business is higher than in
public administration. Besides, different countries can be related to one level, but there necessarily exists a difference
between countries.
The first level – Common Language – is characterized by the recognition of project management importance and the
need for a good understanding of basic knowledge on project management and the accompanying terminology. On
our mind we can put CIS countries on this stage. As a rule business in these countries has already recognized the
importance of project management and began developing methodologies and the maturity. Governments tend to be
behind the business in this sphere. Moreover, there is a tendency of the discrete development of project management
in business, i.e. project management is used mostly in project-driven companies. Furthermore, such countries as

5
Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan are seen to be leaders in this sphere, nevertheless one cannot mark out the tendency
of shifting toward the next level of the maturity.
The second level – Common Processes – begins when an organization recognizes that common processes are
necessary to be defined and developed in order to repeat the achieved success.
The third level of maturity is the development of Singular Methodology. At this level an organization recognizes the
importance of combing all project management methodologies, what in its turn provides projects with synergistic
effects.
It is very difficult to assign different countries to two mentioned above groups. But it is obvious that the developing
countries, which have chosen the western democratic model as a reference point and interact with the developed
countries very closely, are at these stages. Moreover, such developing countries as China, South Korea, and Malaysia
can be ranked among countries at these two stages.
It is necessary to underline that in the developing countries project management is widely used in e-government
projects; perhaps it tends to be the most widespread application of project management in the transitional countries.
The fourth level – Benchmarking – is characterized by the recognition that it is essential to improve processes in order
to maintain competitive advantage. Many developed European countries can be placed here. Besides, Japan is known
for its high level of the project management development. It is very difficult to determine the place of Japan in this
classification, but from our point of view it has been shifting from the third level to the fourth.
The last level of maturity is Continuous Improvement, when an organization having recognized the importance of
project management develops permanently its methodologies and approaches [10]. The absolute leaders in project
management implementation in public administration are the USA, Great Britain and Germany.
The transitional countries are placed in this model on the lower stages. The thing is that in order to develop the maturity
in project management transitional governments have to pay attention to the maturity model, because their countries
will have to pass all stages described in the model.
5. Organizational aspects of project management implementation in public administration
When a corporation in business is at the high level of project management maturity, it establishes a special project
management center – Project Management Office. The governmental sphere is not the exception, but this tendency is
not pronounced in public administration. It was mentioned above that governments shift to more complex level of
project management – to the level of programs. Because the government is able to realize projects and programs in
different spheres, it is necessary to build them into one guiding line, at that within a governmental politics. To manage
this huge complex of programs and projects it is worth to establish a portfolio. While in business companies tend to
realize more projects than programs they form project portfolios and in its turn Project Management Offices; in
contrast to companies governments realizing the huge number of programs have to form program portfolios and that
is why have to establish Program Management Offices (PMO). This Office becomes both an institution which is
responsible for managing programs and the totality of norms that establishes legal principles of managing projects
within this institution. Offices are formed in order to avoid imbalance between all governmental programs, in order to
establish a system of prioritization of programs (strategic level) as well as for management (both strategic and tactical).
Ideally the government should establish the united Office for managing all projects and programs in a country. In
federative countries there should exist the set of offices subdominant like public authorities. Nevertheless, even in the
developed countries with the high level of project management maturity and project management culture in the
society, Offices exist within governmental institutions, i.e. ministries, agencies, etc.
In the transitional countries due to the lack of understanding of project management and its importance, due to the
underestimation of this instrument, governments form such institutions unwillingly. Even if a similar institution is
established, it is established for a one vitally important project (program). As usual projects or programs are performed
as a simple plan, what in its turn contributes to the reconsideration of a project and frequently to its transformation to
the plan with the title “project/program”. It happens not because of the ineffectiveness of the approach, but because
of the ineffective management. Transitional governments try to manage projects/programs on the same basis as
operations, what is followed from and leads further to the misunderstanding of the nature of the approach. The
transitional countries get to vicious circle.
6. Knowledge and skills necessary to manage projects
It is worth mentioning, that there is one more reason, which provides an explanation why the transitional countries
tend to introduce project management to lower extant. This reason relates to the sphere of competences. Many
knowledge areas which are now included in project management have been just developing nowadays and many
transitional countries have been adopting these skills and competences trying to catch up with the developed ones.
As for the skills, which a project manager should possess, due to the systematic character of project management itself
there is a wide range of professional and personal competences and skills. As Harold Kerzner puts it in his book
“Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling”, managing complex projects
and programs represents a challenge requiring “skills in team building, leadership, conflict resolution, technical
expertise, planning, organization, entrepreneurship, administration, management support, and the allocation of
resources”. To get results, the “manager must relate to(1) the people to be managed, (2) the task to be done, (3) the
tools available, (4) the organizational structure, and (5) the organizational environment, including the customer
community” [11].
As project management began to grow and mature it became more a managerial rather than a technical profession. In
the early days of project management it was assigned to technical-oriented spheres such as aerospace, R&D and

6
construction. There is one evident reason why it was so: the American government introduced project management in
these spheres and spread new approach to its subcontractors. All objectives within projects were defined in technical
terms and so that most project managers were selected from engineering ranks. This caused the business community
to view project management as a process applicable only to engineering-related projects [9]. This was enough for
restraining management by projects in both the government and business: in the former because it has natural
constraints as a process-driven organization and in the latter because of the misunderstanding. Only in the 1990s the
situation began to change, first of all in business, which is more flexible for innovations and had requirements and
then in the governmental sphere by means of adopting management techniques and in particular new opportunities of
project management from business. We observe some kind of spiral of the development and the interchange of
knowledge between two sectors.
Because of the engineering orientation of early projects a project manager had to possess technical education in order
to understand, what a consumer needs and wants. Besides, he was also responsible for managing this project, that is
why he also had to possess management knowledge and skills.
During the renaissance period of the 1980s, and because of the recession of 1979-1983 more organizations realized
the importance of business objectives, this tendency has developed and now organizations put only 10% of technical
objectives and 90% of business ones, according to Kerzner. The same facts relate to problems solved through projects,
planning and the definition of success [9]. So that a modern project manager should possess diverse management
knowledge. Because project management includes different management areas, the project manager (both in private
and governmental organizations) should be a specialist in planning, general management, change management,
stakeholder management, risk management, problem-solving and decision-making, resource management, quality
management, monitoring and evaluation, etc., as well as be informed in activities he deals with. We mean that if the
project manager dwells on manufacturing projects, for instance, he should also be aware of manufacturing
technologies, of course, not to the same extent as a functional manager. Nowadays project management is considered
to be a profession. It is taught in many universities and it has its certification programs and institutes, which develop
methodologies, practices, standards, etc.
So that a public project manager should possess a wide range of competences and skills, but the profundity of his
knowledge depends on his position: if he is a project manager controlling a project on the basis of private-public
partnership, he tends to be a contract manager well-informed about project management; if he is a project manager
managing a project within the system of public administration he should be a professional in project management.
7. Benefits and obstacles of project management implementation in transitional countries
Nowadays societies in the developed countries can be called project-oriented, that are societies, which consider
projects and programs as an important form to organize work, in which there exists a relatively high number of project-
oriented organizations, which has specific competences for the management of projects, programs, and project
portfolios, and which has structures, to further develop these management competences. Further projects and project
management are applied in local governments and in new social areas, such as (small) municipalities, associations,
schools and even families to an increasing extent. “Management by Projects” becomes a macro-economic strategy of
the society to cope with complexity and dynamics and to ensure quality of project results [12].
The developed countries have shown that project management is able to provide public administration with such
benefits as
o Results-oriented public administration;
o Improved productivity;
o Higher service user satisfaction;
o Reduced costs;
o Improved utilization of resources;
o Better management of risk;
o Projects delivered on time;
o Projects delivered on budget;
o An auditable methodology.
Apart from results-oriented public administration, projects delivered on budget and other direct advantages, project
management is able to produce such indirect benefits as the reduction of corruption, the increase of the level of trust
in public authorities, the increase of confidence in future due to management by objectives, what in its turn leads to
the improvement of the investment climate and other benefits. These advantages are of special importance for
transitional countries, since the lack of trust, confidence are common problems of these countries.
Nevertheless, there exists a set of obstacles that prevent the development of project management in the transitional
countries. At the surface there are such barriers as knowledge, expensiveness and misunderstanding. It was already
said above that due to the complex characteristic of project management, a project manager should possess a wide
range of professional and personal competences and skills. In itself the profession of the project manager is rather
complex and diverse. But in the transitional countries this peculiarity of project management intensifies. The reason
concerns both the relative newness of this profession and the level of management development as a whole (in some
transitional countries, i.e. former Soviet Union countries, management itself is a relative new profession), because this
countries adopt modern management technologies, and complexity, antipathy and transitional character of a situation
in one’s country. Project management is taught in a small number of universities and not in all transitional countries.
In many of these countries project management is so far considered not as the profession. So that there is a lack of

7
project managers both in business and governments. If a government wants to manage by projects, it has to develop
specialists. The government should develop project management education in universities, as well as develop present
public managers by providing them with special training courses. All of these measures are needed to be organized
and will require time and resources.
Besides, project management technologies and software are also expensive. All over the world the position of the
project manager is well-paid. Project management is really an expensive thing, but the game is worth the candle and
costs of project management are quick rewarded and it brings a wide range of advantages.
As for misunderstanding, it was already partly discussed. In the transitional countries there are many myths concerning
project management. These myths existed in the developed countries, but decades ago. According to these myths
project management requires more people and increases costs; decreases profitability; creates organizational
instability and increases the potential for conflicts; will end up creating more problems than usual; is applicable only
to large technical-oriented projects; increases power and authority problems, etc. [10] These myths are intensified in
public administration. Nevertheless, the practice of the developed countries has shown the opposite. Thus, there is no
basis for such myths. Moreover, because of myths and the misunderstanding of the nature of project-oriented
approach, the transitional countries tend to manage projects on the basis of managing operations, what arises a great
number of problems and the rupture with the approach.
We have discussed those obstacles, which concern project management directly and thus are on the surface. But there
are also such obstacles, which deal with the nature of the transitional countries and especially with barriers laid in the
sphere of opposite interests of the society and governments. The point is that in the developed countries the concept
of a government-servant is the basic one. In these countries the government serves the public and it is a stable
apparition. In the transitional countries the government searches for its role in the society. In these countries such
characteristics of the government as the existence of half-shady and shady forms of activities; double, triple standards
of activities become more apparent than in the developed countries. Furthermore, bureaucracy displays its
dysfunctions both as a social group and as an organization. That is why the government possesses its own interests
that mostly contradict public ones.
Governments in the transitional countries not always perceive such beneficial changes in public administration, which
project management brings, because they are contrary to their interests. Bureaucracy is afraid of these changes toward
more accountability, transparency, etc. However, these improvements in techniques of public administration are
necessary and inevitable if a country is aimed at the development.

In conclusion, project management is an effective tool for realizing changes. It possesses both advantages and
obstacles, aggravating the project management implementation in public administration, especially in the transitional
countries. However, it is able to provide governments with a means of achieving the desired goals, which cannot be
achieved on the principles of managing operations. It is true both for the developed countries and the transitional ones.
Project management is widely used in the former countries, but lesser in the latter ones. In this paper we tried to
explain those obstacles, which prevent the project management development in the transitional countries. These
barriers concern knowledge, skills, expensiveness of methodology, training courses, as well as the misunderstanding
of the approach, misgoverning and the transitional character of the developing countries, where some peculiarities of
public administration display. Furthermore, the complex character of the profession of a project manager is needed to
be taken into account by the transitional countries in order to develop their own specialists, who would be able to
manage governmental projects. Moreover, we have examined the spheres, where governments are able to use project
management, i.e. changes in different spheres of life, as well in organizational structures, in the sphere of private-
public partnership and in project-driven branches of economy. Transitional governments should pay special attention
to the first two spheres of the project management implementation, because during the transformations, which take
part in these countries, it is more appropriate to use project-oriented approach in order to conduct changes more
painless and in the shorter period of time. In order to receive efficiency from project management the transitional
countries should adopt technologies developed in other countries, which considered to be more mature in this sphere,
and should improve project management in their own countries, in series passing the stages of project management
maturity.
On the whole, it should be emphasized that all discussed above do not mean that the transitional countries should give
up other improvements in public administration and concentrate only on project management perceiving it as a
panacea. The introduction of project management methodologies should proceed together with other transformations.
Only in that case it will have such an effect as in the developed countries.

[1] A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). USA: Project Management
Institute Inc., 2006.
[2] The Government Extension to A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide).
USA: Project Management Institute Inc., 2006.
[3] The Standard for Program Management. USA: Project Management Institute Inc., 2006.
[4] Wideman, Max. The Future of Project Management. Project Management Wisdom. -
http://www.maxwideman.com/papers/future/intro.htm (accessed March 15, 2007).
[5] Verzuh, Eric. 2005. The Fast Forward MBA in Project Management. USA: John Wiley&Sons Inc.

8
[6] The information from the official web-site, http://www.gazpromquestions.ru/news/news27.html (accessed
March 29, 2007)
[7] The information from the official web-site, http://www.rao-
ees.ru/ru/investor/str_share/show.cgi?sc_struct.htm (accessed March 29, 2007)
[8] “Concessions as the platform of private-public partnership”, Metalsupply and sale, April 19, 2005, Section
of the economy of Russia, http://www.metalinfo.ru/ru/news/12679 (accessed April 05, 2007)
[9] Kerzner, Harold. 2004. Advanced Project Management: Best Practices of Implementation. USA: John
Wiley&Sons Inc.
[10] Kerzner, Harold. 2005. Using the Project Management Maturity Model: Strategic Planning for Project
Management. USA: John Wiley&Sons, Inc.
[11] Kerzner, Harold. 2003. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling.
USA: John Wiley&Sons Inc.
[12] Roland Gareis, Martina Huemann and Projectmanagement group. 2003. Assessing and Benchmarking
Moscow Region as a Project-oriented Society. Vienna: Roland University of Economics and Business Administration.

Projects and Programs: How

They’re Different
 Structure: A project is well-defined, with a Project Charter that spells
out exactly what the scope and objectives are for the project. A program
tends to have greater levels of uncertainty. (You can download a free
project charter template here.) The team is also bigger. The program
team are supervising and coordinating the work on a number of projects
so while the core team may not have that many people in, the wider
team includes the project managers and all the project team members.
 Effort: This is the most significant difference between projects and
programs. A project represents a single effort. It is a group of people
forming a team working towards a common goal. A program is different;
it is a collection of projects. Together all the projects form a cohesive
package of work. The different projects are complimentary and help the
program achieve its overall objectives. There are likely to be overlaps
and dependencies between the projects, so a program manager will
assess these and work with the project managers concerned to check
that overall the whole program progresses smoothly.
 Duration: Some projects do go on for several years but most of the
projects you’ll work on will be shorter than that. On the other hand,
programs are definitely longer. As they set out to deliver more stuff,
they take longer. Programs tend to be split into tranches or phases.
Some projects are also split like this, but not all projects last long
enough to be delivered in multiple phases.
 Benefits: A project team works towards achieving certain outputs, that
is, what you get at the end. For example, this could be a set of
deliverables that form a software package, or a new retail branch, or
whatever it is that you are working on. The benefits of a project tend to
be tangible: you get a ‘thing’ at the end of it. A program team works
towards delivering outcomes. Outcomes can be tangible but are often
not. The benefits of a program are the sum of the benefits of all the
different projects and this could amount to a policy or cultural change, or
a shift in the way an organization works.

9
Similarities Between Projects and
Programs
All that might make programs seem really different to projects. However,
while projects and programs do have differences, there are some
characteristics that are similar to both. Here are four traits that projects and
programs have in common.

o They are temporary: Projects and programs are not long term
endeavors. They exist for a while until the work is done, and then
the project or program structure and the team are disbanded. This is
part of what makes project and program work so interesting – you
can always see the end and you have the opportunity to work on lots
of different initiatives over your career!
o They have business cases: This is similar to all the work that a
company does, even the business as usual stuff. Projects and
programs should only start when they have a valid business case. In
other words, as project and program managers, we only work on
activities that will add some real value and that have already been
shown to make good business sense. There is no point in wasting
time working on something that isn’t going to benefit the company.
o They are aligned to strategic objectives: It should be easy to
see how the projects and programs you work on line up to the
company’s strategic objectives. If this isn’t specified in the business

10
 case, ask your project sponsor. It should be easy to see that the
work your team is doing on the project or program directly
contributes to the company’s goals. Otherwise, what’s the point?
o They deliver change: This is the big one – projects and programs
both deliver change. You do a project or a program and at the end
something is different. This could be something big, or something
small. Programs tend to have larger goals for changing the status
quo and often include an element of cultural change but the concept
is the same.
Do you now think that you can define projects and programs as two different
things? One definition of a program is a temporary organization created to
coordinate, direct the work, and supervise the delivery of a number of
related projects that all contribute to a particular outcome. A project, on the
other hand, is a temporary organization designed to deliver a particular
output.

Many people believe that the career path for a project manager ends up in
program management. You start off perhaps as a project coordinator,
become a project manager and then ‘graduate’ to managing programs. It
doesn’t have to be like that – you can manage bigger and bigger projects
and there is nothing wrong with staying in project management for your
whole career.

If you do want to branch out and work on programs, many of the skills you
use as a project manager will be very valuable to you as a program
manager. You should also be able to show that you are capable of seeing the
bigger picture and working across multiple strands of work. At a program
level people should be able to operate with an overview of what is happening
on each of the projects and help the project teams work together. Whether
you stay with projects or move into programs, you are sure to have a very
interesting job!

Whether you’re managing projects or programs, the right tools are required
to support your team and help you manage the effort. You need a way to
see across all your projects. ProjectManager.com can enable you to see your
resource allocation across all your projects with real-time dashboards and
reporting functions and help you keep your projects on track.

11
 Définition d’un Projet
Peut-être la différence clé entre un projet et un programme est la spécificité. Un projet se réfère à un
effort spécifique, singulier pour livrer une production tangible. Un chef de projet est donc
responsable d’assurer que son projet livre ce qui est demandé conformément à des délais et à un
budget définis.

Définition d’un Programme

Un programme se réfère à de projets multiples qui sont managés et délivrés comme un unique
ensemble. Un manager de programme est donc chargé de surveiller tous les projets compris dans le
programme pour s’assurer qu’il réalise ses résultats d’ensemble.

Partenaire de DantotsuPM
En quoi les Projets et Programmes diffèrent-ils ?
o Composition : les composants d’un projet sont spécifiques et

précis. La portée et les objectifs d’un projet sont bien définis alors
que les programmes sont typiquement moins tranchés. En outre, parce qu’un programme couvre des
projets multiples. Une équipe de programme a tendance à être plus grande car elle incorpore aussi
les chefs des projets et leurs membres d’équipes de projets.

o Effort : un projet représente un effort simple, concentré. Un programme est une collection de
projets et ensemble tous ces projets forment un ensemble de travaux connectés. Les différents
projets se complémentent les uns les autres pour aider le programme à réaliser ses objectifs
complets. Il est probable que différents projets dans un programme se recouperont. Le manager de
programmes évaluera les chevauchements et travaillera avec les chefs de projets appropriés pour
assurer la bonne progression du programme.

12
o Durée : Tandis que certains projets prennent plusieurs années, le projet typique ne prendra pas

trop longtemps pour être complété. En contraste, les programmes

prennent souvent une très longue période de temps pour s’achever car ils ont l’intention d’en livrer
davantage. Il est donc commun pour des programmes d’être organisés par phases ou tranches. Un
projet particulièrement long peut aussi être organisé en de multiples phases mais c’est moins
courant.

o Bénéfices : les Projets se concentrent sur la réalisation de productions tangibles, c’est-à-dire ce que
vous obtenez des bénéfices à l’achèvement du projet. Les programmes se concentrent sur des
résultats souvent moins tangibles. Les bénéfices fournis par un programme dépendent des bénéfices
collectifs de ses projets. Les exemples d’un résultat de programme incluent un changement culturel
ou politique dans une organisation ou un changement de la façon dont une organisation fonctionne.

Quels compétences et comportements sont nécessaires pour devenir un

manager de projet ou de programme ?
Les compétences exigées pour réussir dans ces disciplines sont différentes. Les managers de
programmes doivent être confortables à l’idée d’être moins sur le terrain et avoir une vision
des bénéfices que réalisera le programme. Les chefs de projet doivent se concentrer sur les
éléments à fournir par leur projet qui doit être réalisé dans un certain budget et avec
des contraintes de temps.
La meilleure chose pour l’organisation qui exécute programme et projets est que chacun comprenne
les différentes pressions subies par leurs collègues. Ainsi, si vous êtes un chef de projet, cela vaut la
peine d’en découvrir plus sur la gestion de programme et de la même façon les managers de
programmes bénéficieront de mieux comprendre les défis des chefs de projet.

13
 Projet ou Programme ? Il y a plus que la simple question
de la taille ! par Jeff Ball

5 MAR

Jeff Ball
Jeff Ball est un spécialiste du management de projets : En tant que Chef de Projet, Jeff a géré de bout
en bout des projets IT dans des environnements multiculturels ambitieux et stimulant. Jeff est un
formateur accrédité et certifié PRINCE2 – Management de Projets, MSP – Management de
Programmes, MoP – Gestion de Portefeuille- P3O – Gestion de PMOs pour QRP International.

Certains chefs de projet aiment encore utiliser le vieil adage qu’un projet ne devrait pas durer
plus de 9 mois. Ceci est du folklore de gestion de projet. Si un projet dure plus de 9 mois, dit ce
vieux folklore, alors il va en toute probabilité échouer. La meilleure approche étant de le découper en
plusieurs morceaux.
Comme beaucoup d’adages, celui-ci contient une dose de sagesse, mais sans être
rigoureusement prouvé. Les méthodes comme PRINCE2 aident à démontrer que la durée est
seulement un des facteurs susceptibles de causer l’échec d’un projet. Un projet de 9 mois
peut échouer pour de nombreuses raisons (comme un projet de 3 ou 6 mois) ; tandis qu’un projet de
2 ans qui est bien géré peut réussir (et c’est le cas pour beaucoup).
De plus, le vieil adage ignore l’apparition durant ces 20 dernières années de la gestion de
programme. Les programmes sont utilisés pour gérer de grandes initiatives et les changements
métiers, et typiquement se déroule sur plusieurs années plutôt que plusieurs mois.

Le vieil adage a-t-il besoin d’être réécrit ? Devrait-on dire « si votre projet prendra plus de 9
mois, alors gérer le comme un programme » ?
Regardons certaines des différences principales entre un projet et un
programme :
Un projet se fixe sur les livrables, et est généralement plus court et plus structuré. Quand les
livrables sont en place, le projet est fini.
Un programme est une initiative plus longue, qui est souvent plus flexible et livre un ou
plusieurs objectifs plus stratégiques. Le programme se focalise sur la livraison de
changements – quand les bénéfices du changement sont en place, le programme est fini.
Ceci nous apprend que les différences ne sont pas dues à la longueur du projet ou du programme.

Partenaire de DantotsuPM
Ce qui compte c’est ce qu’y est livré : la différence vitale entre les
programmes et les projets est liée à la nature du changement, pas à la
durée de l’initiative de changement.
Une façon simple de comprendre s’il faut utiliser la gestion de projet ou la gestion de programme est
de considérer la nature du changement.

La gestion de projet est bonne si vous changez des choses (ou fabriquez de nouvelles
choses) :
o logiciel et sites Web
o produits nouveaux ou améliorés

14
o nouvelle infrastructure informatique
o routes, bâtiments
La gestion de programme est meilleure si vous changez les personnes (ou leur façon de
travailler)
o restructuration, réorganisation, nouveaux processus
o amélioration des méthodes de travail
o globalisation
o augmentation, réduction des effectifs, externalisation, off-shoring
Donc ce vieil adage est un proverbe agréable. Comme tous les proverbes, il est parfois juste, mais
souvent il est incorrect et trompeur. Il est plus approprié dans le monde d’aujourd’hui d’utiliser un
autre adage :

« Si votre projet prendra plus de 9 mois, suivez un cours sur la gestion

de programme ».
Évaluez ceci :

15