政府投资工程项目代建制风险识别及其防范

代建制是对我国政府投资工程项目管理模式进行积极探索的一种尝试,新的管理模式在目前市场环境尚未成熟的条件下推行会产生众多风险,正确识别代建项目的风险,并对风险进行有效管理和分配是保证项目成功的重要措施。文章研究了代建项目风险因素的识别、阶段分布,提出代建项目阶段性风险规避措施,发挥代建制优势并促进代建制在国内政府工程领域的发展。     

大型综合交通枢纽项目建设的界面管理研究

文章阐述了建设工程项目实施过程中界面管理的必要性,并以大型综合交通枢纽项目为例,系统分析了可依据产权、专业系统、建筑区域等来划分建设项目的运营管理界面、投资界面、设计界面、施工管理界面等,基于界面管理理论研究了大型综合交通枢纽项目建设的界面划分方法及实施界面管理需注意的问题,并提出应尽可能的使外部界面转化为内部界面,以及通过合理的组织结构设计来实现有效的界面管理等建议.     

复杂界面关系的工程项目QHSE管理研究与应用

以某新型煤化工项目为例,分析了QHSE界面管理中机制缺失、文化差异、专业差异、信息黏滞、缺乏针对性等管理问题。从系统理论的角度出发,将项目QHSE管理与界面管理相结合,以体系管理的要求对工程项目进行系统化管理,对设计、采购、施工、中间交接及试运行中的QHSE风险进行全方位监控。阐明项目各阶段QHSE界面管理要点,从而提高项目QHSE风险的管控水平,保障项目的顺利建成。     

浅析EPCM模式在项目建设管理中的不足

对EPCM模式在项目建设管理应用中出现的合同界面确认、组织管理完善和全寿命周期的有机结合等问题进行剖析,提出了针对性解决方案.     

EPC项目设计界面管理研究——以上海国际金融中心项目为例

从界面管理基本理论入手,结合案例分析,详细介绍EPC项目的设计管理工作实践,探讨界面分析对于控制设计技术风险的运用形式,并在界面分析的基础上提出界面管理体系,为实现对EPC项目设计管理的全过程把控提供支撑。     

石油化工工程项目管理的核心要素分析

石油化工工程项目管理是一个高度专业化和资金密集的领域,涉及复杂的技术流程和多方利益相关者的协作。文章主要分析了项目管理在石油化工工程中的核心要素,包括范围、时间、成本、质量、风险、资源、沟通、采购和干系人管理,并结合实际案例探讨了其在项目成功中的重要性,探讨了信息技术在项目管理中的应用,重点关注项目管理软件、数字化、自动化及数据驱动决策,强调了专业知识、细致的规划和有效的团队协作在项目成功中的核心地位。     

优化管理模式与管理手段 提升重大工程项目管理水平

<正>项目建设是企业扩大规模、强化品牌效应、锻炼人才队伍、实现发展目标和经营利润的重要手段。成功的企业离不开成功的项目,成功的项目离不开成功的项目管理。通过实施科学的项目管理,可以保障项目进度、提高固定资产投资效益、降低项目成本、促进经济发展。重大工程项目管理主体一般包括业主和承包商,管理流程包括前期准备、设计、采购、施工、调试和试运营等诸多环节,每个环节又包括质量、进度、投资、合同、风险、人才等多方面管理内容,涉及技术、经济、组织和     

多项目管理:资源优化的艺术

施工企业是典型的项目型企业,随着项目管理由单项目管理阶段进入到多项目管理阶段,越来越多的施工企业面临着由于项目数量增加、规模扩大以及地域扩展所带来的新的管理问题,施工企业管理的难度和复杂性大大增加。在这种情况下,如何建立合理的多项目管理流程,以     

基建项目规范管理和风险防范 ——以人民银行为例

结合当前人民银行基本建设管理现状,探析基建项目实施与管理中存在的风险,从管理模式、建设标准、项目库建设、流程管理、投资控制等方面提出了规范管理和风险防范的建议.     

工程项目供电所属地化管理实践

<正>按照项目管理要求,配网工程一直由业主项目部负责组织实施及管理,供电所层面基本处于"边缘管理"状态,管理主动性差、现场管控乏力、安全风险问题突出。广东电网潮州潮安供电局结合多年来工程管理经验,制定出一套适用于潮安基建配网、技改及修理项目的全过程管理方案,重点通过建立供电所工程项目管理机构,组建现场安全监督专家库,以及采用"一个环境、两个到位、三个管控、四个分离"模式,确保项目管控真正落地,实现了工程管理到点到位。     

Exploring the Nonlinear Impact of Organizational Integration on New Product Market Success

This article explores the nonlinear relationship between organizational integration and new product market success (NPMS). The concept of organizational integration was measured by assessing the degree of integration among various groups of people involved in the development of new products including new product development (NPD) teams that are typically the focal points of NPD efforts. New product market success was measured by examining four often‐used measures of NPD success. The mail survey research approach was used to gather empirical data from NPD managers in three major industries. The data gathered from this survey process were used as the basis from which to extract information to address this study's major research questions, which include: (1) How is the degree of new product market success related to the nonlinear degree to which groups of people (including NPD teams) integrate during NPD processes? and (2) How is the degree of new product market success related to the nonlinear degree to which separate groups of people (e.g., customers, suppliers, and functional departments) integrate during NPD processes? This study found that high levels of organizational integration (overall organizational integration and supplier organizational integration) during NPD processes are associated with high levels of new product market success. Additionally, this study found that the relationship between new product market success and organizational integration (customer organizational integration and functional organization integration) during NPD processes exhibit nonlinear, U‐shaped relationships. Therefore, the first important finding of this study confirms that various forms of organizational integration impact in a positive way the market success of new products. This suggests that management responsible for all NPD projects should consciously integrate important groups of people to support such developments. This study's findings also confirm and imply that new product developers in the studied industries should integrate marketing and research and development (R&D) over the duration of the NPD process. This suggests that new product managers must be proactive to assure that members of NPD teams are actively engaged with groups of supporting people within and outside new‐product–producing organizations. Unlike prior research, a major finding of this study suggests that the association between organizational integration and new product market success does not form inverted U‐shaped relationships. Data from this research imply that new product market success is linearly influenced by overall and supplier organizational integration. However, this study's data suggest that new product market success is nonlinearly influenced by customer and functional organizational integration. This study's data suggest that when customer organizational integration and/or functional organizational integration is increased, new product market success can be increased at a rate which is greater than a linear rate.     

Linking learning and knowledge creation to project success in Six Sigma projects: An empirical investigation

This study investigates the impact of two organizational antecedents, (1) Six Sigma resources (technical) and (2) team psychological safety (social), on learning behaviour and knowledge creation and, in turn, on the success of Six Sigma process improvement projects. The paper proposes an integrated model to explain process improvement implementation success through two learning activities undertaken by Six Sigma project teams: Knowing-what and Knowing-how. The conceptualization of these knowledge types in this research is different from usual conceptualization as it represents the knowledge brought into projects through various phases of Six Sigma projects. The three hypotheses proposed in the model were tested using the data collected from 52 Six Sigma project teams from a single organization. Regression analysis showed psychological safety affects project performance through knowing-how. Regression and bootstrapping analyses showed resources influence project performance through the combined mediation of knowing-what and knowing-how.The paper provides an interdisciplinary treatment of knowledge management in process improvement teams, and offers a research model demonstrating how Six Sigma project teams promote deliberate organizational learning. By doing so, this study empirically establishes the notion that technical and social supports jointly impact the success of operations management initiatives such as Six Sigma through learning. The limitations of the study along with the future research directions are highlighted.     

Integrating R&D and Marketing: A Review and Analysis of the Literature

During the past 20 years, numerous studies have explored the R&D—marketing interface and its role in the new product development (NPD) process. Academics and practitioners (including a PDMA task force) have examined commonly used measures of success, the underlying reasons for the success or failure of NPD projects, and the effects of R&D—marketing integration on both project- and company-level success. Does this mean we have all the answers when it comes to ensuring the necessary level of cooperation and interaction between R&D and marketing? Of course not. Abbie Griffin and John R. Hauser note that prior research on R&D—marketing integration is being reassessed in light of the movement toward flatter organizational structures and cross-functional teams. To facilitate that reassessment, and to help guide future research in this area, they review recent research on the methods employed for integrating R&D and marketing, and they propose several hypotheses regarding those methods. They present their review and hypotheses within the framework of a causal map they have developed for studying functional integration. The causal map links cooperation to NPD success along situational dimensions, structural and process dimensions, and outcome dimensions. The desired outcome in any NPD effort is the timely commercialization of a profitable product. The situational dimensions address the amount and types of integration needed in a project, which depend on such factors as the project phase and the level of project uncertainty. The structural and process dimensions focus on the actions taken to achieve functional integration. These include relocation and physical facilities design, personnel movement, informal social systems, organizational structures, incentives and rewards, and formal integrative management processes. The proposed hypotheses focus on the methods for achieving functional integration—that is, the structural and process dimensions of the causal map. At first glance, these hypotheses seem to state the obvious. For example, few would challenge the notion that quality function deployment eliminates barriers to functional integration and improves information sharing between functions. However, achieving those benefits requires the presence of other factors such as senior management involvement. Rather than examine these hypotheses separately, researchers should explore the relative merits of the methods for achieving functional integration. In other words, future research must consider both the situational and the structural and process dimensions of this framework.     

Learning processes in municipal broadband projects: An absorptive capacity perspective

Effective knowledge management is important to the success of information technology projects. This research applies the integrated lens of the absorptive capacity theory and the social process model of information system development projects to examine the dynamic of knowledge activities concerning broadband infrastructure development in the context of municipal broadband networks. The research questions are: (1) What is the extent of the dynamic of knowledge activities involved in the development process?, (2) What are the events that trigger knowledge activities in municipal broadband development?, and (3) How does a city create and utilize new knowledge in the development process? This study examines municipal wireless projects in three cities (Chaska, MN; Hermosa Beach, CA; and Fredericton, Canada). Events that trigger knowledge activities are assignment of personnel, physical system construction, performance problems, resistance, and reassignment of organizational roles. Four factors that influence knowledge activities and project performance are the dynamic of technology development, partnership commitments, limitation of external knowledge and learning-by-doing, and political dynamics. The study has policy implications for cities that are in the process of planning and deployment. A good project planning, user expectation management, systematic performance evaluation, a careful partner selection process, and the use of service level agreements are important to project success. In addition, cities need to take into consideration that the technology is not a plug and play technology and that considerable efforts are needed to integrate the technology with other solutions to deliver broadband services as well as to configure the system according to topologies, street conditions, buildings, density of trees, among others.     

R&D validation planning: a methodology to link technical validations to benefits measurement

An important activity in many R&D departments is the internal development of new process technologies and practices to assist in the marketing, design and manufacturing activities of the enterprise. An integral part of this R&D development is the planning and management of validations of potential technology projects. These validations are necessary to determine the technical, financial and organizational feasibility of the projects and to develop data for benefits measurement for further funding of selected projects. This paper describes a methodology for validation planning of new process technologies and practices. The methodology allows for the explicit linkage of a validation to the identification of its financial and strategic benefits. These often diverse measures of worth are integrated using a proven multi-attribute justification approach within the planning methodology. The methodology and the multi-attribute approach also support the comparison of dissimilar projects having different benefits. The methodology acts as an organizational planning tool integrating the needs of the diverse constituencies involved in R&D planning. It also acts as a tool to aid engineers and scientists identify and present the benefits of the proposed technology.     

High-Technology Service Innovation Success: A Decision-Making Perspective

Successful innovation is crucial for firm survival in high-technology service industries. This article reports on an empirical study, exploring internal innovation success factors—success factors associated with the innovating firm's competencies—by taking a decision-making perspective. The likelihood of innovation success is associated with the systematic reduction of decision-making uncertainty, as a result of organizational information gathering, diffusion, and processing activities. Effects of interfirm differences are investigated in the new service development phase of the innovation process. Cross-sectional data were collected about 251 innovation projects from companies in Europe, the United States, and Japan. Innovation success is found to be related positively and directly to how well informed and knowledgeable decision-makers are. Furthermore, the study provides evidence that a market orientation contributes as an internal success factor: An organizational climate favorable to information sharing powerfully mediates the positive effects of intelligence gathering with respect to customers and technology. The effects of competitor orientation carry a negative sign, and managerial seniority appears not to play a major role in this turbulent business. Managerial and research implications are provided.     

Global R&D Project Management and Organization: A Taxonomy

This work studies the management and organization of global R&D projects, i.e. projects leading to innovations to be exploited in multiple countries. It provides a taxonomy of how firms conduct such projects. The empirical base is composed of twelve multinational companies, from the three major areas (Europe, Japan, North America), operating technology-intensive businesses. Two basic structures are identified: the specialization based, where one foreign lab (the firm's center of excellence) is assigned the responsibility for developing a new product, process or technology on the basis of a global mandate, and the integration based, where different units contribute to technology development programs and global innovations are the result of the joint work of these units. In each categories two sub-cases have been found: the center of excellence and the supported specialization, on the one hand, and the network and specialized contributor structures, on the other. The four structures have been studied in relation to: the key characteristics of the organization and management of global projects (in each phase, from conception to introduction into the market), the organizational factors affecting the success, the context conditions in which the structure is considered appropriate.     

From Experience: Linking Projects to Strategy

There is a dramatic rise in the use of project management as organizations shift to provide customer-driven results and systems solutions. Some implementations of project management have been successful, whereas others are spectacular failures. A common occurrence in many organizations is too many projects being attempted by too few people with no apparent link to strategy or organizational goals. Research and experience indicate that the support of upper management is critical to project success. This article reviews actions that upper managers can take to create an environment for more successful projects in their organizations. Specifically, the authors discuss practices for upper manager teamwork and offer a complete model for selecting projects that support a strategic emphasis. The article includes experiences from within Hewlett-Packard Company. © 1999 Elsevier Science Inc.     

Organizing for Radical Innovation: An Exploratory Study of the Structural Aspects of RI Management Systems in Large Established Firms

To escape the intense competition of today's global economy, large established organizations seek growth options beyond conventional new product development that leads to incremental changes in current product lines. Radical innovation (RI) is one such pathway, which results in organically driven growth through the creation of whole new lines of business that bring new to the world performance features to the market and may result in the creation of entirely new markets. Yet success is elusive, as many have experienced and scholars have documented. This article reports results of a three-year, longitudinal study of 12 large established firms that have declared a strategic intent to evolve their RI capabilities. In contrast to other academic research that has analyzed specific projects to understand management practices appropriate for RI, the present research reported explores the evolution of management systems for enabling radical innovation to occur repeatedly in large firms and reports on one aspect of this management system: organizational structures for enabling and nurturing RI. To consider organizational structure as a venue for capability development is new in the management of innovation and dynamic capabilities literatures. Conventional wisdom holds that RIs should be incubated outside the company and assimilated once they have gained traction in the marketplace. Numerous experiments with organizational structures were observed that instead work to manage the interfaces between the RI management system and the mother organization. These structures are described here, and insights are drawn out regarding radical innovation competency requirements, transition challenges, senior leadership mandates, and business-unit ambidexterity. The centerpiece of this research is the explication of the Discovery–Incubation–Acceleration framework, which details three sets of necessary, though not sufficient competencies, for building an RI capability.     

An Empirical Study of Platform and Derivative Product Development Projects

Many firms now realize the importance of planning product families and product platforms. However, little research addresses planning and execution of different types of projects within a product family platform series. This study investigates project characteristics, development challenges, typical outcomes, and success factors for product development projects at different locations in the product family spectrum. “Platform” projects result in products that initiate a new product family platform for a company. “Derivative” projects result in products consisting of extensions to an existing product family platform. Data on 108 new product development projects from a variety of assembled products industries were collected via a detailed survey and analyzed. Findings indicate that: (1) platform and derivative projects differ in project task characteristics (including the amount of new technology development undertaken and project complexity) and market newness; (2) platform and derivative projects generally do not differ in terms of project success (achievement of project objectives, level of company satisfaction, and perceived customer satisfaction) or smoothness of project execution; (3) both platform and derivative projects generally are executed in similar ways; (4) certain managerial approaches (including contingency planning, project-based evaluation of personnel, and overlap of design and manufacturing engineering) are associated with higher project execution success for both platform and derivative projects; and (5) use of interdependent technologies and novel project objectives are associated with project execution failure for platform projects. The results suggest that firms can continue to employ a single product development management process for both platform and derivative projects, as long as modest customization of the process is made for the given project type. Completely different management processes are not required. In all, the results presented in this article suggest specific managerial actions companies can take to significantly improve product development success. © 1999 Elsevier Science Inc.