Project, Program, Portfolio Governance Model Reference

Architecture in the Classic Approach to Project Management

Gonçalo Cordeiro, André Vasconcelos

and Bruno Fragoso

INESC-ID, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Avenida Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal

Keywords: Projects, Programs, Portfolios, Project Management, Governance, Reference Architecture, Enterprise

Architecture, Competences, Layers, Roles.

Abstract: This paper presents a reference architecture on projects, programs and portfolios (PPP) governance model.

Projects support organizations in the achievement of the planned objectives. The governance model of a

project, program or portfolio has a direct relation with the PPP outcome. A PPP governance model is defined

as the use of systems, structures of authority, and processes to allocate resources and coordinate or control

activities in a project, program and portfolio. The required roles, responsibilities, and performance criteria

should be an integral part of the governance model for projects, programs, and portfolios. This research adds

to the knowledge base of PPP management a proposed reference architecture, that verifies deviations between

different PPP governance models at competences and roles levels. The reference architecture is organized in

five layers (business governing, steering, directing, managing, and performing) identifying the roles, the roles

concerns, and their competences. The reference architecture is modelled using ArchiMate. Finally, the

proposed architecture is demonstrated and evaluated in a government owned company.

1 INTRODUCTION

Projects should bring value to organizations as well

as the expected return of investment.

Organizations have projects, programs and portfolios,

where project is understood as “a temporary effort to

create a unique product, service or result” ((PMI),

2017); program is defined as a “temporary structure

of interrelated projects managed together that

provides advantages and contributes to the

achievement of objectives” (ISO 21503, 2017); and

portfolio is a collection of programs and projects

grouped together to facilitate their management to

meet organization objectives (ISO 21504, 2015).

For the success of projects, programs and portfolios it

is necessary a proper projects, programs and

portfolios (PPP) management. “Project management

performance explained 44,9% of the variance in

project success”, (KPMG, 2003) and follow a correct

PPP governance model, “approximately 6.3% of the

variation of project success correlates with the

stakeholder-orientation of the governance structure”

(Joslin & Müller, 2016).

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0038-7199

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4901-0157

A governance model is the establishment of rules,

policies, procedures, standards, relationships,

systems and processes that influence how an

organization's objectives are defined and achieved,

how risks should be monitored and addressed, and

how to optimize organizational performance ((PMI),

2017). This research, emphasis the governance

models on PPP management systems, PPP

governance model - policies, processes, procedures,

guidelines, boundaries, interfaces, roles,

responsibilities and accountabilities required for PPP

management (ISO 21505, 2017). Considering the

permeability of projects, programs and portfolios to

the environment, several roles can be considered

when referring to PPP governance models that

promote the existence of different PPP governance

models.

In order to PPP governance contribute to the

organization success, it is necessary that the roles

associated with the PPP governance model has the

competencies associated with them. A competence is

defined as the “application of knowledge, skills and

abilities to achieve desired results”; knowledge is

Cordeiro, G., Vasconcelos, A. and Fragoso, B.

Project, Program, Portfolio Governance Model Reference Architecture in the Classic Approach to Project Management.

DOI: 10.5220/0009155706190630

In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2020) - Volume 2, pages 619-630

ISBN: 978-989-758-423-7

619

defined as the “collection of experiences that are

possessed by an individual”; the “technical skills

allow an individual to perform a task”; and ability is

defined as the “use of knowledge and skills in a given

context” (IPMA, 2018).

The line of research proposed by Sauer and Horner

(Winter, Smith, Morris, & Cicmil, 2006), aim to

“highlight the criticisms of the project management

knowledge base, (…) provide a set of possible

research directions that can be followed in order to

enrich and increase the project management

knowledge base” (Winter et al., 2006). The

knowledge base that was criticized at the time is still

used in many organizations and is considered in this

research as a classical approach to project

management, which is characterized by:

 Project and Project Management Lifecycles -

There are simple models based on the project

lifecycle and there is a dominant model in project

management, assuming there is a model that

indicates the best way of action and is common

to all types of projects.

 Projects as Instrumental Processes - The project

lifecycle is considered as a linear sequence of

tasks to be performed.

 Focus on Product Creation - Concepts and

methodologies focus on product creation,

development or improvement through temporary

activities. These activities are controlled and

monitored considering quality, cost and time.

 Restricted Project Conceptualization - Concepts

and methodologies share the restricted

conceptualization that projects start from a well-

defined objective and fall into unique areas.

 Practitioners as Trained Technicians - Training

and development produce project management

practitioners who follow detailed procedures

previously described by project management

methods and tools.

This research creates a reference architecture, which

is expected to allow comparisons between PPP

governance models, highlighting potential alignment

or deviations between models. The reference

architecture is also expected to present guidelines for

the identification of a model that best suits the context

of each organization (assuming that it uses a classic

approach to project management).

This reference architecture is expected to: i)

provide input for a better understanding of failing

elements (roles and competences) in PPP governance

models; ii) highlight additional roles and

relationships, allowing for exploring patterns or roles

redundancy, better understanding the value offer of

one methodology over another; iii) verify how

competencies required for proper PPP governance are

addressed when roles are added or removed; and iv)

allow access to a reality that comprises only one

project, or one project ecosystem and its associated

methodologies, including programs and portfolios.

Next section presents this research related work.

In section 3 the governance model reference

architecture is proposed. The demonstration and

evaluation are performed in sections 4 and 5,

respectively. Section 6 presents the conclusions and

the future work.

2 RELATED WORK

This chapter introduces the main areas relevant for

the development of this research.

2.1 PPP Governance

The concept of governance is understood in this

research as “a formal or informal model that

determines how decisions are made and how actions

are taken, with a view to maintaining organizational

values in the face of change, whether caused by

problems, changes in actors or changing

environments”- OECD (Guria, 2015).

An effective PPP governance model “ensures that the

project portfolio is aligned with the organization's

objectives (…) and will align the interests of

directors, project team and other stakeholders”

(Association for Project Management, 2006). The

governance model gains importance regarding the

alignment between projects and organizational

objectives and the delivery of project results in an

efficient and sustainable manner.

“Roles, responsibilities and performance criteria

should be clearly defined in the PPP governance

model” (Association for Project Management, 2006).

“Role” in an organization is defined within this

research as a “function or something someone has”

(Priberam, n.d.). In various existing governance

models studied ((PMI), 2016) (Association for

Project Management, 2006) (ISO 21505, 2017), it can

be noted that different roles are required for correct

PPP governance. In the context of this research, ISO

21505 is the model adopted. ISO 21505 roles are used

as reference in other variant on the governance

models (Fragoso, Vasconcelos, & Borbinha, 2018).

It is therefore essential that PPP governance is aligned

with organizational governance, respecting its

principles, decisions and processes ((PMI), 2016).

Organizational Governance is a model that includes,

“rules, processes, norms, relationships, systems and

ICEIS 2020 - 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

620

procedures” ((PMI), 2017). This model allows to

steer an organization(ISO 21505, 2017) by

influencing how the organization's objectives are

defined and achieved, how risk is monitored and

evaluated, and hoe performance is optimized ((PMI),

2017).

In the governance model present in ISO 21505 (ISO

21505, 2017), four key roles and their responsibilities

related to PPP governance and two related

Organizational Governance are presented. The roles

are identified in Table 1.

Table 1: Roles related to PPP Governance and

Organizational Governance.

PPP Governance Organizational Governance

PPP Governing Body Governing Body

Project Governing Body Organizational Governing Body

Program Governing Body

Project Governing Body

2.2 PPP Management

Project management gains importance in

organizations, enabling strategy implementation,

business transformation and the development and

continuous improvement of new products (KPMG,

2003).

The “Rethinking Project Management (RPM)

(Winter et al., 2006) research line contributed to

“complement the classic approach to project

management represented in PMBOK ((PMI), 2017)”

(Sauer & Horner, 2009) and similarly in ISO 21500

(ISO 21500, 2012), 21503 (ISO 21503, 2017), 21504

(ISO 21504, 2015) in PM2 (Edition, 2016) and

APMBoK (Association for Project Management,

2006).

Knowing that there are several PPP management

models, each with their own defined set of roles, it

was decided to use as reference in this research the

model presented in ISO's, namely ISO 21500 (ISO

21500, 2012), for project management related roles,

ISO 21503 (ISO 21503, 2017), for program

management related roles and ISO 21504 (ISO

21504, 2015) for portfolio management roles,

because the set of roles presented is referenced in

different methodologies such as (Association for

Project Management, 2006) ((PMI), 2017), and is

summarized in Table 2.

To help organizations compare their practices with

the best ones, project management maturity models,

“enable an organization to evaluate and compare its

own practices with best practices and purpose

improvements. A maturity model is a framework that

describes the optimal progression using various levels

Table 2: Roles related to PPP Management.

ISO 21500

(Projects)

ISO 21503

(Programs)

ISO 21504

(Portfolio)

Project Sponsor Program Sponsor Portfolio Manager

Project Manager Program Manager

Portfolio

Management Team

Project Management

Team

Program

Management Team

Project Team

until the desired improvement is achieved” (Man,

2007). Examples of project management maturity

models are: i) the Organizational Project

Management Maturity Model (OPM3) (Foundation,

n.d.); ii) the Capability Maturity Model Integration

(CMMI) (SEI, 2010); and iii) the IT Score for

Program & Portfolio Management (Gartner, 2019)

(Mieritz, 2017).

2.3 Organizational Layers

“Structuring an organization is important because it

defines how tasks are divided and how organizational

resources will be implemented” (Daft, 2008). The

organizational structure is defined as, (1) “the set of

tasks assigned to individuals and departments”; (2)

“dependency relationships within organizations,

including lines of authority, decision-making

responsibility, number of hierarchical levels, and the

number of people that managers are responsible for

controlling”; (3) and finally the “systems used by the

organization to ensure coordination among

departmental officials” (Child, 1984).

For PPP governance and management, the PM2

methodology (Edition, 2016) creates a layered

structure where it is possible to relate each role to its

layer, taking into account the characteristics of both.

These layers are Business Governing Layer, Steering

Layer, Directing Layer, Managing Layer and

Performing Layer. Other methodologies indirectly

also present a layered structure. For example the ISO

suggests for governance a layered structure where

there is a main Organizational Governance layer,

which encompasses PPP Governance which in turn

encompasses portfolios, programs and projects. For

PPP management the ISO suggests a similar structure

for projects, programs and portfolios, with a

sponsorship layer, managing layer and developing

layer.

2.4 PPP Management Competences

IPMA ICB is a “global standard that defines the

competences required of individuals working in the

Project, Program, Portfolio Governance Model Reference Architecture in the Classic Approach to Project Management

621

field of project, program and portfolio management”

(IPMA, 2018).

Regarding projects, programs and portfolios, the

competencies in IPMA ICB are divided into three

domains: i) “People competences”, the personal or

interpersonal skills required to successfully

participate or lead a project, program or portfolio

(IPMA, 2018); ii) “Practice competences”, specific

methods, tools and techniques used in projects,

programs or portfolios to make them successful

(IPMA, 2018); and iii) “Perspective Competences”,

specific methods, tools and techniques by which

individuals interact with their surroundings and lead

organizations to initiate and support projects,

programs or portfolios (IPMA, 2018).

2.5 Reference Architecture of the PPP

Governance Model

“A reference architecture captures the essence of

other existing architectures, as well as their vision and

evolving needs to provide guidance in developing

new architectures” (Cloutier et al., 2010). Reference

architectures “allow to be effective, (…) discuss

future modifications and extensions” (Cloutier et al.,

2010), however this type of architecture must “be

based on proven concepts” (Cloutier et al., 2010) and

is considered a “standard method (…)” in line with

best practice in the area ” (Cloutier et al., 2010).

There are already investigations aimed at building a

reference architecture of the PPP governance model,

one of which is (Too & Weaver, 2014) that propose

four key elements for improving project performance

and therefore create value for organizations. These

four elements are: (1) Portfolio Management; (2)

Project Sponsor; (3) Project Management Office

(PMO); (4) Project and Program Support. Also the

research (Müller, Zhai, Wang, & Shao, 2016), with

the aim of creating a framework that is useful for

project governance, clarifies the various dimensions

that the governance concept can acquire: 1)

sovereignty, a popular dimension of governance often

found in the general management literature, which

describes the levels of external autonomy and internal

control granted to projects by the governance system;

2) governance mechanisms, predominantly control

oriented; and 3) the number of governance models as

an indicator of the complexity of project governance

implementation.

2.6 Enterprise Architecture

“An organization-level architecture is called

Enterprise Architecture” (Garcia, 2017), which by

definition, according to Lankhorst, consists of “a

coherent set of principles, methods and models used

in the design and realization of the organizational

structure of a company, business processes,

information systems and infrastructure” (Lankhorst,

2009). ArchiMate (The Open Group, 2017), is a

language that provides a uniform graphical

representation of Enterprise Architecture (Lankhorst,

2009).

This research uses the Implementation and Migration

Elements as well as the Business Actor, Business

Role, Business Process and Business Function,

business elements and Capability, strategy element,

of ArchiMate (The Open Group, 2017).

3 SOLUTION PROPOSAL

Due to the increasing number of existing PPP

governance models and the different contexts in

which they can be applied, there is a need to create a

reference architecture to the PPP governance model.

This architecture is expected to provide a baseline to

identify the differences between different PPP

governance models in a classical approach to project

management.

The reference architecture is divided into layers,

where one can have access to the roles and

competencies associated with each layer. Its creation

is presented in this section and is done through 7 steps

next described.

Figure 1: Constitution of Reference Architecture.

3.1 Define Architecture Layers

In order to choose layers for the reference

architecture, the different existing layers are

analysed. The PM2 methodology (Edition, 2016)

introduces the division of the project management

organization in layers that allow a clear relationship

between the definition of functions and the roles

associated with them and the level that they integrate

within organizational structures and processes. More

ICEIS 2020 - 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

622

specifically the PM2 layers, allow a more

organizational-related approach that integrates the

Business Governing Layer while the other layers are

more directed to the project domain, programs and

portfolios – see Figure 1.

3.2 Define Architecture Roles

Organizational governance, as the system by which

organizations are directed and controlled (Guria,

2015), has in the roles associated with PPP

governance and management processes the core

activities carried out under the organizational

governance system. These organizational roles,

defined as “the roles played by individuals or groups

in a project” (Association for Project Management,

2006), program or portfolio, are considered

fundamental and essential in creating a reference

architecture of the PPP governance model. An

analysis of existing governance and management

models is performed. As mentioned in (Fragoso et al.,

2018), the roles present in ISO's 21500 (ISO 21500,

2012), 21503 (ISO 21503, 2017), 21504 (ISO 21504,

2015) and 21505 (ISO 21505, 2017), are used as a

reference in other methodologies. These roles are

presented in section 2.2 for PPP and organizational

governance and section 2.3 for project, program and

portfolio management, and are used in the reference

architecture.

3.3 Identify Role Concerns

To identify the concerns of each role, the organization

documentation is analysed (where the roles are

identified) and a table is filled, where it is possible to

check which concerns and responsibilities associated

with each role.

This approach provides an easy access to the concerns

of each role, which is useful for the next steps.

Figure 2: View of role matching with their concerns

identified in the ArchiMate Business Function viewpoint.

3.4 Associate Roles with Layers

To organize roles in the respective layers, it is

necessary to have access to the concerns /

responsibilities of each role as well as the definition

of each layer of the architecture.

The mapping is performed layer by layer:

 Business Governing Layer: Determines the

vision and strategy for the entire organization. It

consists of one or more management committees

operating at director level. This is where

priorities are set, investment decisions are made,

and resources allocated. In ISO 21505 (ISO

21505, 2017), the governing body role is

introduced as “a person, group or entity

responsible for the governance of the

organization or part of the organization” which is

then associated with this layer.

 Steering Layer: Provides guidance for the

project, program or portfolio, keeping each one

of them focused on the goals. PPP Governing

Body is “the person, group or entity responsible

for the governance of projects, programs and

portfolios as an organization, supported by a set

of interrelated organizational processes by which

an organization prioritizes, selects and allocates

resources to achieve organizational objectives”

(ISO 21505, 2017). An organization may have a

specific governing body for the project

ecosystem, the program ecosystem and the

portfolio ecosystem.

Figure 3: Mapping the roles associated with PPP

Governance in the respective layers.

 Directing Layer: Sponsors the project, program

or portfolio. It mobilizes the necessary resources

and monitors the performance of the project,

program or portfolio to achieve its objectives.

Project Sponsor is defined as “the person who

authorizes the project, makes executive decisions

and solves problems above the authority of the

project manager” (ISO 21500, 2012). The

Program Sponsor is defined as the person

“responsible for the overall program strategy and

its implementation. defence” (ISO 21503, 2017).

 Managing Layer: is focus on the daily operations

of the project, program or portfolio, organizing,

monitoring and controlling the work to produce

the intended deliverables and implement them in

the organization. Managing Layer members

report to Directing Layer. In this layer, the

Project, Program, Portfolio Governance Model Reference Architecture in the Classic Approach to Project Management

623

project manager is the person who “leads and

manages the project activities and is responsible

for its completion” (ISO 21500, 2012), supported

by the project management team. The program

manager is the person “responsible for project

performance. program and coordinating its

components” (ISO 21503, 2017), supported by

the program management team. Finally the

portfolio manager is the person “responsible for

applying the portfolio management supported by

the portfolio management team” (ISO 21504,

2015).

 Performing Layer: responsible for the work of

the project, program or portfolio, producing the

deliverables and implementing them in the

organization. Performing Layer members report

to the Managing Layer. Associated with this

layer is the Project Team role that “carries out the

project activities” (ISO 21500, 2012).

3.5 Associate Competences with Roles

To associate which competencies are required for

each role, it is essential to consider the competency

indicators present in IPMA ICB, as well as the

concerns of each of them.

Through a comparative analysis between the

concerns of each role as well as the indicators of each

competence, a mapping between the roles and the

skills is performed.

3.6 Associate Competences with Layers

Through the mapping of roles in layers and the

association of competencies with roles, a mapping of

layered competencies - see appendix A for the

detailed mapping.

For each layer of the architecture, the roles that

belong are identified, after that the competencies of

these same roles are also identified and finally the

competencies are associated with these same layers.

3.7 Model in ArchiMate by Layer the

Roles and Their Competencies

To correctly model in ArchiMate, it is necessary

relate the terms “role” and “competence” with the

elements present in ArchiMate, namely the elements

“business role” and “capability” – see

Table 3.

Table 3: Mapping of Role and Competence concepts, with

the repetitive elements of ArchiMate.

Reference

Architecture concept

Element in ArchiMate

“Role” - “Function or

something that

someone has”

(Priberam, n.d.)

“Business Role”-

“Responsibility to perform a

specific behavior” (The Open

Group, 2017)

“Competence” -

“applying knowledge,

skills and abilities to

achieve desired results”

(IPMA, 2018)

“Capability” - “represents a

resource (knowledge, skills,

abilities) that an element of the

active structure, such as an

organization, person or system

has or should have” (The Open

Group, 2017)

Figure 4: ArchiMate mapping viewpoint of roles and

competencies.

4 DEMONSTRATION

The demonstration of the use of the PPP governance

methodology is performed in a Government owned

company which for confidentiality reasons is named

DemoCorp. DemoCorp is an organization with 740

employees, that has in the PMO (Project Management

Office) the governance model that controls an

ecosystem with portfolios, programs and projects,

promoting organizational alignment and increasing

the levels of efficiency and effectiveness in project

development. DemoCorp is rated at maturity level 4

according to Gartner's IT Score for Program &

Portfolio Management maturity model.

The demonstration is carried out step by step, through

a process similar to the one described in the “Solution

Proposal” section. The DemoCorp methodology is

represented in the layers of the reference architecture

supporting a comparative analysis between the

methodology of DemoCorp and the PPP governance

model used in the reference architecture – see figures

5 and 6.

With the demonstration one may conclude that the

number of roles is less in the DemoCorp model

compared to the reference architecture governance

model. Upon further analysis the following findings

are identified:

 In the business governing layer, there is one more

role in the DemoCorp model than in the reference

architecture's PPP governance model.

 There are also fewer roles in the project

ecosystem than in the DemoCorp model. In the

ICEIS 2020 - 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

624

Managing Layer there is no project management

team that assists the project manager which can

cause work overload on the project manager.

Steering Layer also doesn’t have a Project

Governing Body, with Project Management

Officer's role being responsible for its functions.

However, a project sponsor is added to realize

the benefits of the project in the organization

linking the project and its implementation in the

organization.

 In both the program and portfolio ecosystems, a

role in the Managing Layer is removed and there

is no program management team or portfolio

management team, which means that both

program and portfolio managers may be

overloaded. In these ecosystems there is no

program governing body or portfolio governing

body. Similar to the project ecosystem, its

functions are performed by the project

management officer.

Figure 5: Analysis of role deviations (project ecosystem).

Figure 6: Analysis of role deviations (program and portfolio

ecosystem).

At the level of missing competencies or competencies

added through the demonstration one can conclude

that the number of competences is less in DemoCorp

model compared to the reference architecture

governance model (respectively 91 and 122

competences). Performing a further analysis, one

found that in the set of both governance models, 156

competences were identified, of which 64 are in

accordance with both models, 27 are introduced by

DemoCorp governance model and 65 only appear in

the governance model of the reference architecture.

Through the demonstration it is possible to verify that

DemoCorp PPP governance methodology has some

gaps, both in terms of roles and competencies

associated with it. In terms of roles, there is an

absence of teams that help portfolio managers, pro-

grams and projects, as well as a specific governing

body for both projects, programs and portfolios.

Regarding competencies, it is noted that there are 65

competencies not considered in DemoCorp

methodology, suggesting a revision of the method-

ology processes in order to decrease this figure.

It is important to notice that the addition of roles and

the 27 skills that are only included in the DemoCorp

model can be justified by its context and needs.

5 EVALUATION

The evaluation of this research is performed

considering DemoCorp demonstration. The

evaluation is performed in three steps. In section 5.1

the artefacts that support the solution, namely the

reference architecture, are evaluated. In section 5.2

the evaluation of the solution objectives is performed.

In section 5.3 the proposed solution is compared with

existing ones.

5.1 Reference Architecture Assessment

To assess the reference architecture, PPP

management professionals were asked to perform a

similar process to steps 3.4 - Associate Roles with

Layers and 3.5 - Associate Competencies with Roles.

These two steps were chosen because they are the

structural steps in the creation of the reference

architecture.

The result of step 3.4 coincided 100% with the

reference architecture and with the step 3.5 we

concluded that of the total of 317 competences

addressed by the reference architecture and by the

respondent or both, 57.4% comply, i.e. according to

both (reference and respondent architecture), 6.6%

are only addressed by the reference architecture and

36% are only addressed by the respondent.

The fact that only a low percentage (6.6%) of

competences is not addressed by the respondents is a

good indicator for validating the association of skills

with roles in the reference architecture (because it

shows that most of the competences present in the

reference architecture were identified by the

respondents).

Project, Program, Portfolio Governance Model Reference Architecture in the Classic Approach to Project Management

625

5.2 Solution Benefits

The proposed solution provides a reference

architecture that can serve as a basis for comparing

PPP governance models. This reference architecture

allows to verify the failing elements that may be

influencing the functioning of the PPP governance

model and also to find deviations that may be related

to the context of the organization that holds the PPP

governance model to be compared.

It facilitates the identification/ understanding of

failing elements in PPP governance models in a

classical approach to project management. Through

the demonstration in section 4 we find that it is

possible to perform an analysis of both competencies

and roles associated with the PPP governance model.

We can see which roles and competencies have been

added or are flawed in DemoCorp methodology based

on the reference architecture presented in section 3.

It highlights additional roles and relationships by

comparison, allowing to explore role patterns or

redundancy, better understanding the value offer of

one methodology over another. By adding and

removing roles (that the method allows to identify),

patterns may be created considering the different

contexts of project execution. An example of this is

the addition of the project sponsor, and associated

skills, working with the project manager to ensure

that all project benefits are absorbed by the

organization. This addition can be considered a

necessary standard when dealing with a certain type

of projects.

Another benefit of the proposed solution is on the

verification on how the skills required for proper PPP

governance are addressed when roles are added or

removed. ArchiMate modelling makes it easier to

analyse competency handling when roles are added or

removed.

Finally, the proposed solution allows access to a

reality that comprises only one project, or one project

ecosystem and its associated methodologies,

including programs and portfolios. The method

allows comparing PPP governance models that

encompass both a project-only ecosystem, an

ecosystem with programs and projects, and an

ecosystem with portfolios, programs and projects.

5.3 Related Work Comparison

5.3.1 Roles

In contrast to the studied PPP governance models,

namely the APMBoK and PM2 models, which

address an ecosystem where there are only projects,

the PPP governance model used in the reference

architecture, similar to the PMBOK model, besides

supporting a project ecosystem, it also supports a

program ecosystem and a portfolio ecosystem.

5.3.2 Competences

IPMA ICB, which is the main source for the

competencies used in the reference architecture,

presents the cross-referencing of the competences

presented with ISO 21500 (from which the roles and

their concerns / responsibilities associated with

project management were taken) and with ISO 21504

(from which the roles and responsibilities / concerns

associated with portfolio management were taken).

After analysing the result of this intersection with

what is presented in the reference architecture, we

find that with respect to the ISO 21500 the identified

roles don’t perform two competences (“Self-

reflection and Self-management” and “negotiation”)

which are addressed in the intersection of ISO with

IPMA ICB. With respect to ISO 21504, the roles

identified therein perform all the competences

addressed at the intersection of this ISO with the

IPMA ICB. The reference architecture by also

mapping the competencies of IPMA ICB with the

roles taken from ISO 21503 and ISO 21505 also

makes a possible intersection of these ISOs with

IPMA ICB.

5.3.3 Architecture Levels

None of the studied researches present

simultaneously the two levels present in the reference

architecture or present only the level with the

essential roles for the correct governance of PPP or

present only the level with the competences.

Therefore, this architecture is innovative because it

allows the roles to be associated with the skills they

must perform.

5.3.4 Other Comparing Models

The reference architecture proposed may also be

compared with maturity models since they the

evaluation of PPP governance methodologies by

assigning them a level of maturity.

All maturity models are concerned with PPP

governance processes and with the creation the

creation of a structure, that allows for this same

governance. None of them deepens this same

structure, namely the roles it should contain and the

skills they must perform.

Therefore this research allows to compare the PPP

governance structures considered essential in the

ICEIS 2020 - 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

626

maturity models, at a level of roles and competencies

that it should contain

6 CONCLUSIONS

The research proposes a reference architecture for

comparing PPP governance models in a classical

approach to project management. Thus, this research

allows to verify deviations between models and select

which one best suit the context of each organization.

The reference architecture created is divided into

layers and encompasses the roles identified in ISO's

21500, 21503, 21504 and 21505, referred in several

other widely accepted project management

methodologies, as well as competencies associated

with them.

Enterprise architecture becomes important in this

research because it allows the representation of the

roles identified by relating them to the ecosystem to

which they belong (portfolios, programs or projects),

and the responsibilities associated with them. For this

representation the ArchiMate language was used.

The proposed architecture was applied at DemoCorp,

to compare its governance model with the reference

architecture, where it was verified that there is

removal and addition of roles (for example, the

removal of project, program and portfolio

management teams and addition of the project

sponsor). It was also found that of the 156

competencies identified in the set of both PPP

governance models, 64 are common to both models,

27 are associated only with the DemoCorp

governance model and 65 are associated only with the

reference governance model.

6.1 Contributions

The main contribution that this research is a reference

architecture of the PPP governance model associated

with a classic approach to project management. This

architecture is divided into layers and allows roles to

be associated with each layer.

Another contribution is the ability to provide input for

a better understanding of the elements in PPP

governance models.

Additionally the ability to highlight additional roles

and relationships by comparison, allowing the

exploration of role patterns or redundancy, and better

understanding the value offer of one methodology

over another is another contribution.

Finally the ability to check how competencies

required for proper PPP governance are addressed

when roles are added or removed is also a

contribution.

6.2 Limitations

In the development of the proposed method,

limitations were encountered. These limitations are,

the fact that there may be a role that belongs to more

than one layer. This hasn’t been addressed, but with

some flexibility the method may continue to be used;

when assigning competencies to roles, each of them

has a list of indicators and the same competency can

be associated with one role due to one indicator and

associated with another role due to another indicator;

and in most cases the attribution of competencies to

roles is not something that is straightforward after

analysing concerns and responsibilities, which brings

to this stage of the method some degree of

uncertainty.

6.3 Future Work

Based on the results of this research, the authors point

out the some future work opportunities. The use of the

proposed reference architecture in various contexts to

be able to find deviations from the reference

architecture and thus be able to create patterns of roles

and competencies needed in certain contexts is path

to explore.

Another future work is the to conduct a deeper

investigation that allows skills to be linked to roles in

a more direct and less dubious way.

Finally the increase in the knowledge base of the

reference architecture, by analysing the variations of

the indicators of each competency (as the same

competency may be associated with different roles

due to different indicators) is a planned future work.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by national funds through

Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) with

reference UIDB/50021/2020 and by the European

Commission program H2020 under the grant

agreement 822404 (project QualiChain).

REFERENCES

(PMI), P. M. I. (2016). Governance of Portfolios,

Programs, and Projects: A Practice Guide.

(PMI), P. M. I. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management

Body of Knowledge - PMBOK GUIDE (6th ed.).

Project, Program, Portfolio Governance Model Reference Architecture in the Classic Approach to Project Management

627

Association for Project Management. (2006). APM Body of

Knowelge (5th ed.).

Child, J. (1984). Organization: A Guide to Problems and

Practice (2nd ed.). London.

Cloutier, R., Muller, G., Verma, D., Nilchiani, R., Hole, E.,

& Bone, M. (2010). The concept of reference

architectures. Systems Engineering, 13(1), 14–27.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.20129

Daft, R. L. (2008). The new era of management.

Edition, O. (2016). Project Management Methodology

Guide.

Foundation, K. (n.d.). Organizational Project Management

Maturity Model (OPM3).

Fragoso, B., Vasconcelos, A., & Borbinha, J. (2018). On

the roles of project , program and portfolio

governance. In Business Modeling and Software

Design (pp. 1–8).

Garcia, I. (2017). Alignment between Organization Projects

and Strategic Objectives. Instituto Superior Técnico.

Gartner. (2019). IT Score for Program & Portfolio

Management.

Guria, A. (2015). G20/OECD Principles of Corporate

Governance. OECD Secretary-General. Retrieved

from www.oecd.org/daf/ca

IPMA. Individual Competence Baseline for Project,

Programme and Portfolio Management (2018).

ISO 21500. ISO 21500, Project, programme and portfolio

management - Guidance on project management, 1 §

(2012).

ISO 21503. ISO 21503, Project, programme and portfolio

management - Guidance on programme management

(2017).

ISO 21504. ISO 21504, Project, programme and portfolio

management - Guidance on portfolio management

(2015).

ISO 21505. ISO 21505, Project, programme and portfolio

management - Guidance on governance (2017).

Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2016). The relationship between

project governance and project success.

International Journal of Project Management, 34(4),

613–626.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.01.008

KPMG. (2003). Programme Management Survey. UK.

Lankhorst, M. (2009). Enterprise Architecture at Work.

Enterprise Architecture at Work.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01310-2

Man, T. (2007). A framework for the comparison of

Maturity Models for Project-based Management,

114.

Mieritz, L. (2017). ITScore Overview for Program and

Portfolio Management. Retrieved from

https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/2837917

Müller, R., Zhai, L., Wang, A., & Shao, J. (2016). A

framework for governance of projects :

Governmentality , governance structure and projecti

fi cation. JPMA, 34

(6), 957–969.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.05.002

Priberam. (n.d.). Significado de Papel. Retrieved from

https://dicionario.priberam.org/papéis

Sauer, C., & Horner, B. (2009). Rethinking IT project

management : Evidence of a new mindset and its

implications. International Journal of Project

Management, 27(2), 182–193.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.08.003

SEI. (2010). CMMI ® for Development, Version 1.3

Improving processes for developing better products

and services Software Engineering Process

Management Program, (November), 468. Retrieved

from http://www.sei.cmu.edu

The Open Group. (2017). ArchiMate® 3.0.1 Specification.

Too, E. G., & Weaver, P. (2014). The management of

project management : A conceptual framework for

project governance. JPMA, 32(8), 1382–1394.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.07.006

Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P., & Cicmil, S. (2006).

Directions for future research in project

management: The main findings of a UK

government-funded research network. International

Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 638–649.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.009

APPENDIX

Layer Competence

Projects

Managing

Layer

Result orientation

Personal integrity and reliability

Personal communication

Leadership

Teamwork

Conflict and crisis

Resourcefulness

Relationships and engagement

Governance, structures and processes

Compliance, standards and regulations

Power and interest

Culture and values

Requirements, objectives and benefits

Design

Scope

Time

Quality

Finance

Plan and control

Resources

Stakeholders

Procurement and partnership

Risk and opportunities

Performing

Layer

Personal integrity and reliability

Risk and opportunities

Plan and control

Directing

Layer

Result orientation

Personal integrity and reliability

Personal communication

Relationships and engagement

ICEIS 2020 - 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

628

Leadership

Conflict and crisis

Governance, structures and processes

Strategy

Scope

Requirements, objectives and benefits

Plan and control

Risk and opportunities

Organisation and information

Business

Governing

Layer

Strategy

Governance, structures and processes

Compliance, standards and regulations

Culture and values

Personal integrity and reliability

Leadership

Teamwork

Conflict and crisis

Relationships and engagement

Result orientation

Requirements, objectives and benefits

Scope

Organisation and information

Plan and control

Stakeholders

Steering

Layer

Strategy

Culture and values

Compliance, standards and regulations

Governance, structures and processes

Result orientation

Leadership

Resourcefulness

Personal integrity and reliability

Personal communication

Finance

Resources

Requirements, objectives and benefits

Scope

Plan and control

Organisation and information

Quality

Procurement and partnership

Risk and opportunities

Change and transformation

Stakeholders

Programs

Managing

Layer

Governance, structures and processes

Power and interest

Personal integrity and reliability

Personal communication

Relationships and engagement

Leadership

Teamwork

Conflict and crisis

Negotiation

Result orientation

Design

Requirements, objectives and benefits

Organisation and information

Resources

Plan and control

Finance

Stakeholders

Select and balance

Directing

Layer

Strategy

Personal integrity and reliability

Personal communication

Relationships and engagement

Leadership

Teamwork

Conflict and crisis

Result orientation

Design

Requirements, objectives and benefits

Organisation and information

Plan and control

Stakeholders

Steering

Layer

Strategy

Governance, structures and processes

Compliance, standards and regulations

Culture and values

Personal integrity and reliability

Personal communication

Leadership

Teamwork

Result orientation

Resourcefulness

Design

Requirements, objectives and benefits

Scope

Time

Organisation and information

Quality

Finance

Resources

Plan and control

Procurement and partnership

Risk and opportunities

Stakeholders

Change and transformation

Select and balance

Business

Governing

Layer

Strategy

Governance, structures and processes

Compliance, standards and regulations

Culture and values

Personal integrity and reliability

Leadership

Teamwork

Conflict and crisis

Project, Program, Portfolio Governance Model Reference Architecture in the Classic Approach to Project Management

629

Relationships and engagement

Result orientation

Requirements, objectives and benefits

Scope

Organisation and information

Plan and control

Stakeholders

Portfolios

Managing

Layer

Strategy

Governance, structures and processes

Compliance, standards and regulations

Culture and values

Leadership

Conflict and crisis

Negotiation

Result orientation

Design

Requirements, objectives and benefits

Time

Organisation and information

Resources

Plan and control

Risk and opportunities

Stakeholders

Change and transformation

Select and balance

Steering

Layer

Strategy

Governance, structures and processes

Compliance, standards and regulations

Culture and values

Personal integrity and reliability

Personal communication

Leadership

Resourcefulness

Teamwork

Negotiation

Result orientation

Design

Requirements, objectives and benefits

Scope

Organisation and information

Quality

Finance

Resources

Procurement and partnership

Plan and control

Risk and opportunities

Select and balance

Stakeholders

Business

Governing

Layer

Strategy

Governance, structures and processes

Compliance, standards and regulations

Culture and values

Personal integrity and reliability

Leadership

Teamwork

Conflict and crisis

Relationships and engagement

Result orientation

Requirements, objectives and benefits

Scope

Organisation and information

Plan and control

Stakeholders

ICEIS 2020 - 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

630