Some insights on the future of project management in public administration
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5585/gep.v14i3.25043Keywords:
Project management, Public administration, Citizens, Politics, Standard, ResearchAbstract
Public project management, as in other sectors, will develop intensively due to the general tendency to projectification of many areas of the organization's activity. In deciding on the implementation of public sector projects, the influence of interested communities should increase to the detriment of politicians. The role of governments should change: from concluding contracts and enforcing their implementation on an arms-length basis, organizations will be created to support contractors in carrying out their work, and especially in solving the problems they encounter. Public projects will be implemented for ever smaller groups of recipients, even for individual citizens. Project management communities and associations will be more focused on the needs of public administration, which will result in the creation of specialized methodologies and standards for the public sector. The project management community will take a more significant account of cross-sectoral differences in its research. As a result, knowledge about project management will be popularized in the public administration environment, which in turn will contribute to more effective implementation of public projects for the benefit of their individuals, communities, and whole societies.
References
Australia DISER (2021). Major Projects Facilitation Agency. Canberra: Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. www.business.gov.au/expertise-and-advice/major-projects-facilitation-agency. Accessed May, 2021.
Dye, T. R. (2013). Understanding Public Policy. 14th Edition. Pearsons, Boston, MA, USA.
Gasik, S. (2016). Are public projects different than projects in other sectors? Preliminary results of empirical research. Proceedings of International Conference on Project MANagement, Porto, Portugal, October 5-7, 2016, Procedia Computer Science 100 (2016) 399 – 406.
Gasik, S. (2023). Projects, Government, and Public Policy. Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis.
Godenhjelm, S., Lundin, R. A., & Sjöblom, S. (2015). Projectification in the public sector – the case of the European Union. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 8 (2) 324–348. Doi: 10.1108/IJMPB-05-2014-0049.
Gosling F. G. (2010). The Manhattan Project. Making the Atomic Bomb. National Security History Series, DOE/MA-0002 Revised, Washington, DC: US Department of Energy.
India CSID (2014). Online Projects Management System User Manual (Version 2.0). New Delhi: Cabinet Secretariat Informatics Division.
Kerzner, H. (2018). The future of project management. Revista de Gestão e Projetos, 9 (3) 151 – 166. Doi: 10.5585/GeP.v9i3.10685.
Midler, C. (1995). Projectification of the firm: the Renault case, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4) 363-376.
Morris, P. W. G. (1994). The Management of Projects. London: Thomas Telford.
NSW Government (2017). Unsolicited Proposals. Guide for Submission and Assessment. Sydney, Australia: NSW Government.
Pells, D. (2018). Project Management Is a National Competence. Project Management Review. Accessible at http://www.pmreview.com.cn/english/Home/article/detail/id/78.html.
PMI (2006). Government Extension to the PMBOK® Guide Third Edition, Project Management Institute, Newtown Square.
Premfors, R. (1999). Det historiska arvet – Sverige, in P. Lægreid, O. K. Pedersen (eds.): Fra opbygning til ombygning i staten. Organisationsforandringer i tre nordiske lande. Copenhagen: DJØF Publishing.
Rolland, V. W., & Roness, P. G. (2009). Mapping Organizational Units in The State – Challenges and Classifications, Paper presented at COST-CRIPO Meeting 20-21 April 2009, Brussels, Belgium.
Rose, R. (1976). On the Priorities of Government: A Developmental Analysis, European Journal of Political Research 4: 247-89.
Schoper, Y-G., Wald, A., Ingason, H. T., & Fridgeirsson, T. V. (2018). Projectification in Western economies: A comparative study of Germany, Norway and Iceland. International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018). 71–82 doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.07.008.
Scott, P. G., Falcone, S. (1998). Comparing public and private organizations. An exploratory analysis of three frameworks. American Review of Public Administration, 28(2), 126-145.
Susen, S. (2018). Jürgen Habermas: Between Democratic Deliberation and Deliberative Democracy. In: Wodak, R. & Forchtner, B. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics. (pp. 43-66). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. ISBN 9781138779167.
US Congress (1993). Government Performance and Results Act. Washington, DC: US Congress.
USA Congress (2010). GPRA Modification Act, GPRA MA. Washington, DC: US Congress.
USA Congress (2015). Program Management Improvement and Accountability Act, PMIAA. Washington, DC: US Congress.
USA Congress (2018). Foundations for Evidence-Based Policy-making Act of 2018. Washington, DC: US Congress.
USA GSA, DoD, NASA (2019). Federal Acquisition Regulations. Washington, DC: General Services Administration.
Wainwright, H. (2003). Making a People's Budget in Porto Alegre. NACLA Report on the Americas. 36(5): 37–42.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Stanisław Gasik
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
