read the artical snd writ 2 pages

PA 582-01

May 30, 2016

In reading Creating Public Value, one is completely struck by the comparisons that author Mark H. Moore makes between the private and public sectors and focuses his premise in pages 13-56 on one main idea: “The aim of managerial work in the public sector is to create public value just as the aim of managerial work in the private sector is to create private value (page 28). He says that public sector managers need to convert the ideas in people’s heads that government is inefficient and unproductive by demonstrating and following through what the point of their work is: to create value for the society. Moore then gives a list of six ways to define, analyze and assess public value. In the first place, Moore asserts that managers must have specific goals and a clear way to attain them; they need to differentiate between the use of techniques to evaluate initiatives in advance and one they have been implemented; and to look at benefit-cost analysis.

In terms of determining public value, authors Erik Larson and Clifford Gray discuss how projects contribute to the overall organization in their book Project Management: The Managerial Process. Larson and Gray first discuss how to identify projects that play a key role in determining the strategic direction that an organization is taking. In these projects, the writers maintain that priorities and top management support need to be established. These strategies must be clearly linked to the projects and then the top management level becomes involved in order to minimize conflicts that arise. In turn, an objective priority system bust is followed when selecting projects. Underlying all of this is the awareness that needs to go into projects that the world today tends to favor a strategic plan which is shorter in range.

Larson and Gray discuss how strategic management is a process that involves evaluating what the role currently is, determining what the future goals are, and then figuring out how to realize them. This process is clear in the example that Moore gave in his book about the librarian who had to deal with kids who were entering the library after school because their parents were using the library as a sort of babysitting place for them. The librarian had to determine what her role was. At first she was angry because the kids were making a lot of noise and putting the library in a sort of disarray. However, without much thought, the librarian automatically wanted to see if a service could be charged to take care of the children in the library during the hours of 3:00 pm -6:00 pm. However, slowly the librarian started to look inside of herself and realize that she was there to help people find information and get the community to read more. With a clear understanding of what she stood for, she then went ahead and identified her goals for the future, which were to increase the reading of the children who visited the library. She wanted the library to be user-friendly to the kids so that they would be motivated to read more. She then figured out the best way to arrive at her objectives while keeping the best interest of the organization she worked for, in this case the library and the community, and by meeting the needs of her new patrons – the children.

In their third chapter entitled “Organization: Structure and Culture,” Larson and Gray work on the project management structures, how to determine what the best structure is, look at the culture of the organization, and examine the outcomes of this culture in organizing projects. To begin, one type of organizational structure within which projects can be organized is the functional one. This means that the one that already exists and the management simply delegates those responsible for different parts to complete those points. Larson and Gray then point out the various benefits of such a structure, which are mainly that there is no radical change to disrupt the flow, there is extreme flexibility, in-depth expertise is present, and there is an easy post-project transition. In contrast, Larson and Gray also identify the various drawbacks, which consist of lack of focus due to the routine, poor integration since each segment may only be worried about its key part, the slow pace, and lack of ownership.

Another type of structure is the dedicated project team, which function as independent units separated from the umbrella of the organization. A third type is the projectized organization, which means that various teams can work on various projects and some can be part-time staff.

One major innovation in the past three decades has been the matrix arrangement, which is basically a hybrid organization model in which a “horizontal project management structure is “overlaid” on the normal functional hierarchy. Metric management seems to work well in that it is very efficient, focused and flexible in addition to having an easier time transferring from post production. In considering which structure ought to be used, one needs to consider time and budgetary constraints, scope of the project and strategic significance.

Not only is the structure of the organization important, but also the personality of the organization known as organizational culture. Larson and Gray list the 10 major characteristics that a structure should have: member identity, team emphasis, management focus, unit integration, control, risk tolerance, reward criteria, conflict tolerance, means versus end orientation; and open-systems focus.