Strategy, Project Management, and the Balanced Scorecard
This paper examines the relationship between corporate strategy and project management, arguing that while project management is an operational tactic rather than a strategy in itself, it serves as a critical enabler of strategic execution. Drawing on Michael Porter's concept of competitive differentiation, Kaplan and Norton's Balanced Scorecard (BSC), and Duke University's classification of strategic frameworks into integrative, customer, and competitor categories, the paper demonstrates how effective project management intersects with all four BSC dimensions. It also evaluates which strategic framework best supports a project management culture, concluding that the BSC's multidimensional approach — encompassing human capital, information, and organizational culture — is most conducive to aligning daily project activities with long-run strategic goals.
- Introduction: Strategy vs. Operational Effectiveness: Porter distinguishes strategy from operational management tools
- Strategy and Project Management: PM as tactic that enables strategic value creation
- The Balanced Scorecard Framework: BSC origin, purpose, and four measurement dimensions
- Project Management's Role in the Balanced Scorecard: PM intersects all four BSC functional benchmarks
- Strategic Framework Categories: Integrative, customer, and competitor strategy frameworks compared
- Choosing a Framework Conducive to Project Management: BSC best supports flat, information-sharing PM culture
- Conclusion: Strategy and PM unified through BSC alignment
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It grounds abstract strategy concepts in well-known frameworks (Porter, BSC, SWOT) and connects them clearly to the operational realities of project management.
- The paper builds a logical progression — from defining strategy, to explaining project management's role, to evaluating which framework best supports PM culture — giving the argument a coherent arc.
- It uses direct quotations from authoritative sources (Porter, Kaplan, Jack Welch) judiciously, letting expert voices reinforce rather than replace the student's own analysis.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates synthesis across multiple theoretical sources. Rather than summarizing each framework in isolation, the student weaves Porter's competitive strategy, the BSC, and the Fuqua School's framework taxonomy into a unified argument about strategic alignment. The Jack Welch quotation on shareholder value is particularly effective as a counterpoint that adds critical nuance to the customer strategy discussion.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by distinguishing strategy from operational tools, then introduces project management as a strategic enabler. The middle sections present the BSC in depth and map it against three categories of strategic frameworks (integrative, customer, competitor). The penultimate section applies this analysis to a practical question — which framework suits PM best — before a conclusion that re-integrates all threads. This funnel structure moves from broad theory to specific recommendation.
Introduction: Strategy vs. Operational Effectiveness
Considered the "father of the modern strategy field" (Harvard Business School, Faculty and Research, n.d., p. 1), Professor Michael Porter contends that over the past several decades, amid globalization, intense competition, dynamic markets, and changing technologies, "management tools have taken the place of strategy" (Porter, November–December 1996, p. 1). Much like productivity enhancement tools, total quality management, benchmarking, and change management platforms, project management is a tactic designed to positively impact operational effectiveness — but it is not to be confused with competitive strategy.
"The essence of strategy is in the activities — choosing to perform activities differently or to perform different activities than rivals... to deliver a new mix of value" (Porter, November–December 1996, p. 6). These unique or differentiated competencies provide the cornerstones of a strategic framework "defining a company's positioning, making trade-offs, and forging fit among activities" (Porter, November–December 1996, p. 19), driving long-run profitability.
Strategy and Project Management
As strategy is built on differentiated, value-added propositions, project management provides the functionality and process needed to facilitate maximum levels of operational effectiveness. Succinctly, project management as a tactic or tool augments strategic value through productivity and efficiency gains, concomitant with lower operating costs and higher gross margins. A firm's core competencies — which define its competitive advantage — are the activities, projects, and efforts conducted by management and employees.
"Project management, then, is the application of knowledge, skills, and techniques to execute projects effectively and efficiently. It is a strategic competency for organizations, enabling them to tie project results to business goals — and thus, better compete in their markets" (Project Management Institute, n.d., p. 1).
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.