Conceptualization and Synthesis of Key Research Concepts Order Instructions: After reading the article, respond with your own thoughts in an edited, three-paragraph, formal academic peer review.
At a minimum, be sure to include the following elements:
• Assess the conceptualization, analysis, and synthesis of key research concepts presented.
• Evaluate the extent to which a Presenter has addressed the elements from the Learning Objectives for this two-week pair.
• Does the presentation provide a cohesive summary of the assigned concepts with an effective evaluation of their implications for project portfolio management?
• Did the Presenter provide a meaningful academic argument or interpretation that demonstrated fluency with the material?
• Incorporate relevant scholarly resources in your posting.
I will send the article via email if I cannot upload it here.
Analysis and Synthesis of Prior Research
A disruptive technology can have a positive impact on the industry and a negative influence the technology it replaces (Carayannopoulos, 2009; Rimal, Choi, & Lumb, 2009). The risk is a key criterion when assessing the probability of program success (Archer & Ghasemzadeh, 2007). When using risk as a criterion, managers must first determine the categories and the amount of risk allowed per category (Archer & Ghasemzadeh, 2007). The same criterion organizations use to decide to take on a project can also be used to terminate a project (Thiry, 2007). The decision of taking on a project, managing a project, or terminate a project is not an easy decision and one that requires a retail management system.
Reasons for Individual/Organizational Reluctance to Terminate Projects
Many times a Project Manager has poured so much time and sweat equity into a project the Project Manager begins to feel the project has become an extension of that person. Therefore, when it comes time to terminate the project the Project Manager may take this as a personal attack on the individual. Other times the Project Manager may accept the termination of a project as a loss of a loved one. Therefore, management continues with projects, which should be canceled, often referred to as “escalation of commitment to a failing course” (Keil & Montealegre, 2012). Thiry (2007) defines the time of project cancelation as the dissolution phase. Some of the reasons for projects entering into the dissolution phase are cost-benefit ratio lower than expected, projects benefits realized by other means, and cost of the projects have escalated out of control (Thiry, 2007).
The nature of information technology lends itself to continuing many projects long after they should be canceled (Keil & Montealegre, 2012). Information technology projects usually involve high complexity, risk, and uncertainty, which then leads to high levels of resources being expended (Keil & Montealegre, 2012). Lewis (2012) states when organizations have a substantial investment in a project, there is a reluctance to cancel the project and lose the financial investment. When a project is deemed to no longer supportive the organizational goals, the best thing to do is to cancel the project and move the resources to a project, which supports the organizational objectives (Lewis, 2012). One method of determining whether an organization should pursue a project is through the cash-flow model (Lewis, 2012).
When selecting a project for the organization, the organization must first determine which project to pursue. Utilizing the cash-flow model a company can determine the return on investment (ROI) to determine the cash flow over the lifecycle of the project (Lewis, 2012). The ROI will show the managers whether a project’s cash flow will be positive or negative, therefore helping to determine if the returns or less then company costs or do they exceed company costs (Lewis, 2012). Lewis (2012) discusses several scenarios of how to determine cash flows. Some of the peculiarities of cash flows are market dynamics, shortened development times, reduction in investments, or when a product must be developed before a need has arisen (Lewis, 2012).
Selection and Evaluation Criteria Used in the Balanced Scorecard
Before 1992, the primary method of evaluating a company was through financial measurements (Kaplan & Norton, 2007). However, Robert s. Kaplan and David P. Norton saw the financial measures were not enough to provide the entire perspective needed by management (Kaplan & Norton, 2007; Balanced Scorecard Institute, 2011). The benefit of developing non-financial measures present predictability aspects to management (Norreklit, 2000). Previously managers looked at the financial measure, which told how the company had done in the past but, did little to predict how the company would do in the future (Kaplan & Norton, 2007). Whereas Kaplan and Norton (2001) depicted the balanced scorecard as a measurement system, the Balanced Scorecard Institute (2011) identifies the balanced scorecard as a management system.
The balanced scorecard is a strategic planning and management system, which goes beyond traditional financial measures (Norreklit, 2000). The balanced scorecard introduces three additional aspects of measurement, which are, from the customer’s perspective, internal business processes, and learning and growth (Kaplan & Norton, 2007). The learning and growth perspective represents the employee training and corporate cultural attitudes while setting the stage for the knowledge-worker foundation (Balanced Scorecard Institute, 2011). The business perspective is based on internal business practices and tells managers how well their business is running (Balanced Scorecard Institute, 2011). The customer perspective the customers are assessed to see if the company is meeting the customer demands by providing worthwhile products for the customer (Balanced Scorecard Institute, 2011). The fourth perspective is the oldest perspective, which is the financial perspective showing how the company has performed in the past (Balanced Scorecard Institute, 2011).
Within the four perspectives of the balanced scorecard, there are four processes (Kaplan & Norton, 2007). The translating the vision process takes the high-level corporate vision and mission statement and translate it thus every person in the organization can relate to it, furthermore, consensus can be built (Kaplan & Norton, 2007). The communicating and linking process is intended to provide a mechanism to communicate the company strategy up and down the organization while linking to other processes (Kaplan & Norton, 2007). The business planning process creates an integrated business and financial strategic plan to show where the company desire to be in future year groups (Kaplan & Norton, 2007). The feedback and learning process provides a structure to learn from the efforts the organization it ongoing while allowing for the unpredictable aspects of the real world and thus providing double-loop or strategic learning (Kaplan & Norton, 2001).
The selection and evaluation criteria used in the balanced scorecard for identifying projects that support strategic and operational initiatives are uniquely developed for each business since each business is unique (Balanced Scorecard Institute, 2011). There is no one size fits all for projects or the balanced scorecard (Balanced Scorecard Institute, 2011; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007). Shenhar and Dvir (2007) stated the Theory of Contingency alludes that different external conditions will warrant different organizational characteristics and the success of the organization is contingent on the fit of structure and environmental variables. An organization must use the four identified processes from each of the four perspectives to develop their unique balanced scorecard to support their unique business (Kaplan & Norton, 2007). The utility of the balanced scorecard is the structured processes, the identified perspectives to view the processes, and the uniqueness of the company; allow the organization to create a system that works for the company (Kaplan & Norton, 2007). Using the balanced scorecard will enable a company to identify projects that support the strategic and operational initiatives of the organization (Balanced Scorecard Institute, 2011).
Benefits and Limitations of Using the Balanced Scorecard
The balanced scorecard started as an enhanced way of accomplishing performance measurements; but has evolved into a common system of aligning an organization to its strategic objectives (Balanced Scorecard Institute, 2011). The benefits of using the balanced scorecard at a high level are organizations have an interactive tool which has evolved into a way to help managers identify what should be done to meet organizational objectives and how these steps should be measured (Balanced Scorecard Institute, 2011). Whereas Kaplan and Norton (2001) depicted the balanced scorecard as a measurement system, the Balanced Scorecard Institute (2011) identifies the balanced scorecard as a management system. Norreklit (2000) further depicts the balanced scorecard as a strategic control mechanism. The many gains from using the balanced scorecard, at a high level are organizations have an interactive tool, which allows managers to a better way to manage the organization (Seal & Ye, 2014).
The many benefits have been discussed thoroughly in the preceding paragraphs. While there are many advantages of using the balanced scorecard, there are some limitations of using the balanced scorecard (Seal & Ye, 2014). Organizational policies derived from the balanced scorecard do not translate to organizational profitable (Norreklit, 2000). Profitability of an organization, portfolio, or project depends on price and the cost structure of the firm (Seal & Ye, 2014). Organizations often mistake the completion of the steps in the process as the completion of the balanced scorecard (Seal & Ye, 2014). The balanced scorecard is a living process to flex and morph, as the organization learns and external environmental factors dictate (Seal & Ye, 2014).
The Herrmann Brain Dominance Model in Developing a Balanced Scorecard
Ned Herrmann read previous research, which indicated the two hemispheres of the brain controlled different aspects of thinking and reasoning (Lewis, 2005). However, Herrmann realized the differences in the brain did not explain everything about human thinking (Lewis, 2005). Therefore, Herrmann added a dimension based on cerebral/limbic thinking (Lewis, 2005). With the added dimension, Herrmann could now divide thinking in four distinct modes (Lewis, 2005). Herrmann’s models are referred to as the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI TM) (Lewis, 2005). The HBDI does not provide exact scores but rather ranges and acknowledges all people have representation all four modes of the instrument (Lewis, 2005). Although everyone as a little of all four modes, only five percent of people show a preference for a single mode of thinking (Lewis, 2005). The majority of people have a preference of two, three, or even four modes of thinking (Lewis, 2005).
Herrmann determined quad-quadrant domination is most likely for CEOs because most CEOs are well balanced in the four thinking modes (Lewis, 2005). The HBDI can also be used for organizations (Lewis, 2005). One of the primary uses in forming teams is to select individuals who are dominant in the modes of thinking desired by the organization (Lewis, 2005). However, organizations should strive to create a whole-brain team (Lewis, 2005). While induvial teams in the organization may represent single modes of thinking, the organization as whole should have representation across all modes, thus representing a whole-brain team (Lewis, 2005).
The HBDI is also useful in developing and implementing the balanced scorecard in an organization (Lewis, 2005). Management would be wise to use the HBDI to assess the organizations make up to construct and measure each process of the balanced scorecard (Lewis, 2005). Quadrant A thinkers would be useful handling the financial and statistical measures, and quadrant B thinking would be great for measuring the policies, procedures, and controls of the organization (Lewis, 2005). When dealing with the training, development, and maintaining ideal associations with customers, clients, and key suppliers; management should seek quadrant C thinkers (Lewis, 2005). Quadrant D thinkers are ideal for long-range planning and strategies (Lewis, 2005). When management uses the HBDI Model to develop and implement the balanced scorecard, they can be more assured that the correct thinkers are involved in the organizational strategy.
Companies That Have Been Successful, As Examples to Support Your Research
The balanced scorecard has been successfully implemented in roughly 57% of the business and industry, government, and nonprofit organizations worldwide (Balanced Scorecard Institute, n.d.). Mecklenburg County Government, adopted a new strategy and implemented many of the balanced scorecard processes (Balanced Scorecard Institute, n.d.). Mecklenburg County Government constructed a vision, which remains at the center of their process implementation (Balanced Scorecard Institute, n.d.). The balanced scorecard initiative was named Managing for Results, and the transformation principles were Understandable, Responsible, Sustainable, Affordable, Choices & Consequences, and Accountable (Balanced Scorecard Institute, n.d.). Implementing these principles the Mecklenburg County Government ensure all members and customers understood and abided by the principles (Balanced Scorecard Institute, n.d.). Mecklenburg County Government has become a benchmark for other county governments throughout the USA (Balanced Scorecard Institute, n.d.).
Veolia Water North America implemented an ISO 9000 framework, which has many of the balanced scorecard process embedded (Balanced Scorecard Institute, n.d.). The problem was that the company did not have a central set of strategies and key performance indicators (Balanced Scorecard Institute, n.d.). The ISO 9000 framework contained three strategic objects, which are Sustainable, Profitable High Growth; Innovative Solutions & Partnerships; and Operational & Technical Excellence (Balanced Scorecard Institute, n.d.). In 2012, due to Veolia Water North America success, the Balanced Scorecard Institute presented it with the Award for Excellence (Balanced Scorecard Institute, n.d.).
Federal Ministry of Health in Ethiopia sought to improve the health status of the country (Balanced Scorecard Institute, n.d.). Therefore, the Federal Ministry of Health recalibrated their previous scorecard (Balanced Scorecard Institute, n.d.). The system used is called The Institute Way, which contained Results Oriented Program Appraisal process, Business Process Reengineering, and Marginal Budgeting for Bottleneck (Balanced Scorecard Institute, n.d.). Due to the Federal Ministry of Health success in improving strategic direction, the Prime Minster of Ethiopia directed all Ministries in Ethiopia to embrace the balanced scorecard approach (Balanced Scorecard Institute, n.d.).
Conceptualization and Synthesis of Key Research Concepts Conclusion
Project management is an effective way to management project in an organization (Archer & Ghasemzadeh, 2007). However, organizations need management tools to determine when to take on a new project and when to terminate projects (Thiry, 2007). One tool that is in use by more than half of businesses is the balanced scorecard (Balanced Scorecard Institute, 2011). Through the integration of four processes into the vision and strategy, an organization can measure its performance along four different perspectives (Kaplan & Norton, 2007). In conjunction with the balanced scorecard, management should analyze their companies using HBDI (Lewis, 2005). The HBDI will allow management to align the thinking processes of individuals to the best fit in the balanced scorecard (Lewis, 2005).
Conceptualization and Synthesis of Key Research Concepts References
Archer, N., & Ghasemzadeh, F. (2007). Project portfolio selection and management. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley guide to project, program & portfolio management (2nd ed., pp. 94–112). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Balanced Scorecard Institute. (n.d.). The balanced scorecard – Who’s doing it? Retrieved from http://balancedscorecard.org/Resources/Examples-Success-Stories
Balanced Scorecard Institute. (2011). What is the balanced scorecard? Retrieved from
http://www.balancedscorecard.org/BSCResources/AbouttheBalancedScorecard/tabid/55/Default.aspx
Carayannopoulos, S. (2009). How technology-based new firms leverage newness and smallness to commercialize disruptive technologies. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 33, 419–438. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00297.x
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: Part I. Accounting horizons, 15(1), 87-104. doi:10.2308/acch.2001.15.1.87
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2007, July). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cb/pl/13961223/13961225/613e136a580ef2a0498f0bcf3579e2d0
Keil, M., & Montealegre, R. (2012). Cutting your losses: Extricating your organization when a big project goes awry. Sloan Management Review, 41(3). Retreived from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/cutting-your-losses-extricating-your-organization-when-a-big-project-goes-awry/
Lewis, J. P. (2005). Whole brain project management. In Project planning, scheduling, and control: A hands-on guide to bringing projects in on time and on budget (4th ed., pp. 103–131). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lewis, J. P. (2012). A cash-flow model for making project cancellation decisions. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/USW1 /201640_02 /DR_DDBA/DDBA_8570/artifacts/Weeks04_05_Lewis.pdf
Norreklit, H. (2000). The balance on the balanced scorecard a critical analysis of some of its assumptions. Management accounting research, 11(1), 65-88. doi:10.1006/mare.1999.0121
Rimal, B.P., Choi, E., & Lumb, I. (2009, August). A Taxonomy and Survey of Cloud Computing Systems. Paper presented at 2009 Fifth International Joint Conference on INC, IMS and IDC, Seoul, Korea. doi:10.1109/NCM.2009.218
Seal, W., & Ye, L. (2014). The balanced scorecard and the construction of a management control discourse. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 10(4), 466-485. doi:10.1108/jaoc-10-2012-0098
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). How projects differ, and what to do about it. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley guide to project, program & portfolio management (2nd ed., pp. 177–198). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Thiry, M. (2007). Program management: A strategic decision management process. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley guide to project, program & portfolio management (2nd ed., pp. 113–143). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Conceptualization and Synthesis of Key Research Concepts Sample Answer
Conceptualization, Analysis, and Synthesis of Key Research Concepts
As determined in the review, the writer synthesizes the accumulated knowledge on the topic and emphasizes the essential research questions that have not been sufficiently covered by other research inquiries. Additionally, the author of also develops theory, ensures that the knowledge of the i8s synthesized and an evaluation is provided for substantive methodological advances, a factor that develops inference into the analysis of the empirical study(Perdana, Robb, & Rohde, 2015). A critical summary of the previous studies in this area are also reviewed thus providing new conclusions into the subject area.
The presenter on the other hand addresses the elements of the learning objectives as determined in the two-week pair. In this, the presenter capsulates highlights the essence of conducting the review based on the specified research questions, the description the related variables and the manner in which the related variables in the study would be included in the research study(Plonsky, & Gonulal, 2015). This therefore determines that the presentation captures the cohesive summary of the required concepts within the paper. However, the presenter does not adequately provide an efficient evaluative approach for the implications of project portfolio management.
It is therefore essential to note that the presenter provides a meaningful academic argument in some areas that demonstrate the fluency of the comprehensive concepts identified in the study. Through the analyzed literatures, the presenter identifies some of the related hypothesis for the study that needed a careful approach into the application of an evaluation criterion(Seal, & Ye, 2014). It is therefore essential to determine that presenter needs to generate new approaches and ideologies on this area through the development of an effective evaluation method for this research study.
Conceptualization and Synthesis of Key Research Concepts References
Perdana, A., Robb, A., & Rohde, F. (2015). An Integrative Review and Synthesis of XBRL Research in Academic Journals. Journal of Information Systems, 29(1), 115-153. doi: 10.2308/isys-50884
Plonsky, L., & Gonulal, T. (2015). Methodological Synthesis in Quantitative L2 Research: A Review of Reviews and a Case Study of Exploratory Factor Analysis. Language Learning, 659-36.
Seal, W., & Ye, L. (2014). The balanced scorecard and the construction of a management control discourse. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 10(4), 466-485. doi:10.1108/jaoc-10-2012-0098
