LEVELS OF MANAGEMENT

        At three levels of management, three management modes are practices. Brudney et al. (2008) conducted a study for distinguishing among three directions of management: downward, upward, and outward management.

        Domains of space and autonomy are defined by outward management where a company can function in the political environment. Both outward management and downward management are connected by upward management by preparing and networking data like indicators of performance and some other variables. Meanwhile, a collaboration of employees is represented by downward management with management function who seem to plan the organizational work. It includes the culture within an organization and institutional environment. Higher management, with respect to the importance of decisions, portrays the strategic management while management at middle-level indicates tactical management or short-term management, and operative management is portrayed by management at the very first level. Management levels, in large firms, can be a complicated future with the addition of staff units.

        Overall, since the start of the 20th century, styles of management have drastically changed but the base of management is still one approved skills or attributes and if influenced by its culture or environment. An increment in complications is led by a changing environment in terms of projects. Methods of management which are described above are not eligible for dealing with the complicated projects. Multi-project management is required by complicated projects and this study's main objective is to highlight the management of all complications prevalent in a project. The next step is all about defining

management of a multi-project in a more precise manner beginning with the management of portfolio project at the management at first level.

MULTI-PROJECT MANAGEMENT (MPM)

        The term is made up of: “multi” which refers to many; “project” – has a definite end and beginning; “management” refers to guiding. That iswhy this approach can be simplified as the process of guiding different enterprises with a specific end and beginning. In accordance with Anderson Consulting’s Hugh Ryan, controlling and guiding all projects have obtained a rising significance recently. In the present economy, MPM is believed to be a crucial problem (Dinsmore&Cabanis-Brewin, 2011; Pennypacker& Dye, 2002). MPM is generally carried out by the PMO or office of project management (T. Mayer et al., 2008; Pennypacker& Dye, 2002). Surprisingly, effective management is guaranteed by MPM by offering indirect or direct support for different projects. The former one includes professionalization of management of a project by developing a project landscape different success elements including incentive systems, communication systems, and models, methods, processes, structures, and roles are defined clearly (T. Mayer et al., 2008). In the following terms, PMO was defined by PMI: "Various responsibilities were assigned by an organizational entity or body associated with the coordinated or centralized management of projects under its influence or domain". Centralized coordination is actually an important benefit of PMO which seems to nurture the increased capability from projects since not only the PMO and line manager but also project leader is communicating and collaborating on the same level or standard (T. Mayer et al., 2008). Generally, expert engineers mustn't belong to the office of project management because their concentration is on the internal structure of certain details of the project. Project overview must be considered for performing the process of decision making in an effective manner in regions including resource prioritization.

            In a hierarchical manner, MPM is separated or divided into the management of the project, management of the program, and management of project portfolio. MPM seems to function between the portfolio management or strategic level, which is accountable for an effective project portfolio; and project management or operative level is accountable for a project's economic realization. There is a similarity between PGM or program management and PPM with an exception that projects in portfolios are not interlinked necessarily (Lester, 2007). PPM, in major firms, is accountable for different programs, while in smaller firms, different projects can be directly controlled by a PPM (Lester, 2007). Operating tasks were described by Dinsmore (2011) in a different manner, explaining that PMO/MPM functions on 3 different stages: that is why it has different kinds of PMOs. In fact, the highest level is adjusted next to the management at the top-level, which is indicated as portfolio management by Mayer. In an organization, the middle level is implemented as a project office of the Business Unit to help the projects of the Business Unit corresponding to the program management. In the perspective of Dinsmore (2011), PMO/MPM's lowest level is the office of project control. In the project business, the office is involved directly. This level is further mentioned by Mayer on a subprojects' further lower standard (Dinsmore&Cabanis-Brewin, 2011; T. Mayer et al., 2008).

        Fields of MPM have their own governances (Müller, Martinsuo, &Blomquist, 2008). In PPM, the strategic level has involvement in the strategic objectives of the firm and sharing resources. And the management of the program is further associated with individual projects' common and defined aims (Müller et al., 2008). However, MPM’s each standard, the process kit and method along with tool remain almost the same like a consulting tool and a service for not only top and line but also project managers as discussed by Mayer that if the PMO or MPM is to conduct its service and consulting role in an effective manner then following must be included in its functions (T. Mayer et al., 2008):

Managerial operation (support, documentation, and handbooks about project planning)

Control operation (quick alert system, risk management, and milestone control)

Coordinating function (scheduling management, coordinating resource, and portfolio with the use of synergic influences)

Optimizing function (conducting PM methods coaching/training, knowledge management, and standardization)

        Furthermore, core competencies in the enhancement of definition of standards, methods, and processes, resource planning, development of leadership capabilities and professional competence, and project portfolio. Methods, processes, and methodology of PMO/MPM are similar to project management (Pennypacker& Dye, 2002); a number of projects supporting different projects are managed by MPM (T. Mayer et al., 2008).

        PMO/MPM tasks and competencies are on management's higher level than different tasks and competencies of PM. PMO/MPM is associated with a number of competencies and tasks in a wide sector in the matrix firms. Interwoven responsibilities and duties further complicate it. In the environment of a PMO/MPM, interests of not every stakeholder will be achieved. Customer projects, for instance, may not begin quickly if assets aren't present or cannot be connected or exchanged with projects. There is a possibility that other projects may deserve more focus along with management in terms of focus (Dinsmore&Cabanis-Brewin, 2011). Typically, PMO/MPM function in a relationship that appears to lie between enmity and friendship. For the top management’s governance, PMO/MPM has to focus on bringing transparency into the landscape of a project, (for instance, by creating decision papers). In accordance with the project management, this can be evaluated by the data quantity along with their representation. Meanwhile, for managers of projects, PMO/MPM provides support, instruments, and methods for developing a culture of project management. It is carried out at only the level of consulting. Satisfaction in terms of the project can measure work effectiveness (T. Mayer et al., 2008).

        Actually, authority maintenance of PMO/MPM is necessary as it seems to function in a large area. In the AMA or Handbook of American Management Association, it was specified by Dinsmore and Cabanis- Brewin (2011) that PMO/MPM must be supported by the executive board and for understanding, direct involvement is very important. It was asserted by T. Mayer et al. (2008) that support is important for CPO or Chief Officer of Project, who is PMO's director and imposes a very high standard of the capability of PMO. Although executive board won't be associated directly with PMO/MPM, it can positively help PMO in different ways. 

        Other than the executive board's direct cooperation, it is important to distinguish between PMO/MPM and PM. The team of PMO/MPM must have authentic and relevant qualification. Projects must be defined by them which PMO/MPM supports and whether to involve them all or only some specific ones. It is significant to realize the launch of the project successfully and approach from the start for guaranteeing daily use stability.

        Actually, it has been indicated that the entirety of projects, programs, and portfolio management is encompassed by MPM. For this study, the specific competencies and tasks of PM will be described.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT (PM)

        The term ‘PM' consists of the words "project" and "management." Different authors have defined the denotation and connotation of these terms (Brandon, 2006; Cleland &Gareis, 2006; Hedeman&Seegers, 2009; Jankulik et al., 2005; Kerzner, 2009; Lester, 2007; Litke, 2007; Pfetzing& Rohde, 2009; Sanghera, 2007; Stackpole et al., 2008; Verzuh, 2008; Weatherly, 2009). Every definition of PM has been summarized and it includes steering, controlling, planning, and organization of the given time, creating a completely unique product.

        At present, several global organizations need authentic standards for completing projects just as published by communities and associations including P2M or Programme Management for Enterprise Innovation, PMI, IMPA or International Project Management Association, etc. (Ireland & Cleland, 2006). Several factors can trigger the motivation of implementing project management including surviving in the economy, changed services, products, or processes, application of changed or new processes, efficiency, uniting stakeholder, evading risks and problems, and complication.

        Moreover, complication can motivate the implementation of PM, specifically with a project that involves changing requirements, or seem to operate with organization-wide groups and teams. The complication can also be raised by project innovation (Wendler, 2009). Project management is important for complicated tasks since multi-disciplinary efforts, risks, and uncertainty are raised by complication (Hamilton, 2004).

            A specific objective for projects have to be defined for avoiding risks and problems; PM achieves this the best (Hamilton, 2004). In projects, issues occur due to substandard control of quality, lack of progress, insufficient planning, ineffective communication, poor coordination, and lack of involvement of consumers. In PM, those issues can result in poor quality, budget overruns, unavailable resources, project delay, and unclear direction (Bentley, 2010).

        The above issues are capable of leading to project collapse (Weatherly, 2009), that can be decreased or avoided by the PM implementation (Bentley, 2010).

        Actually, another reason for implementing project management is caused by the necessity of increasing efficiency. The economic utilization of resources and providing predetermined products and benefits; it obtains greater effectiveness with less uncertainty and fewer risks (Ireland & Cleland, 2006).

        For economic survival, project management is important. A quick modification occurring under different controlled situations seems to create a future demand, which PM can easily handle. Furthermore, a requirement of better methods for executing work is sensed by competent management. That is why, project management is synonymous for a driving force that allows a cheaper, quicker, and faster method of achieving objectives and surviving in the international network and economy. Firms are capable of remaining competitive and improving continuously with the use of modern methods of PM (Ireland & Cleland, 2006).

        The manufacture of all new products and modifications in products along with changes in organizational services and processes offer further motivation and justification for project management. There is no rule for judging when to apply project management. Execution and planning have to be adapted for changing a situation (Ireland & Cleland, 2006).

        Lastly, stakeholder unity must be guaranteed by project management. Each and every project stakeholder should have the same purpose and individual empires must not be established by them. This is prevented by PM and alliance is compelled by it (Hedeman&Seegers, 2009).