Luis ArmasTransformation Project ManagerBrampton, Ontario, Canada
Hello Community,
I have come across a couple of times with the term "business project management" or "business project manager".
It is defined by some project management web pages around the idea that "Business Project Management" is the art of executing an internal project for the business. The idea of "there are no external clients", and therefore, no revenue generated is also mentioned.
I think that when a project manager plans/executes a process improvement for example, whatever the approach, there are internal clients (the people interested in the health of the project), and also CAN impact the in revenue by having significance in the cost reduction (a cheaper process can help you create more sales, for example).
I don't think there is a need to change the definition to "business project management".
So, what do you think? Is that some buzzword? Have you read about it?
There's no difference in my opinion other than branding. If you hired a Lean expert to help improve your efficiency either by improving your baseline flow or mitigating disruptions, you would be their external client and they would be performing a PM role. The only difference being a PM assigned to improving your own business architecture is from where the PM is hired.
Six Sigma isn't called Business Six Sigma if you are improving your own metrics vs. an external contractor assigned to the project. Why would there be a special distinction as a PM unless you're just trying to clarify your current role withing the business? Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
I worked from years with that architecture or schema. If you take into account the enterprise architecture composed by business, applications and technology layers (simple description) then for each initiative the business project manager was accountable for business layer and project manager (could call she/he IT Project Manager) was accountable for application and technology layers. Both worked together to make things done. On the other side, in other places where things like implemeted some ERP for example, the project manager was a business project manager, mainly the responsible for the business function the ERP is trying to automate. So, in my case, I saw different "flavors" about the matter. Saving Changes...
I have run into this in a couple of clients where on technology-based projects, they differentiated the role of the PM who was responsible for the non-technical scope components from the one who focused on the technical scope.
The former usually had much more domain knowledge about the business processes being affected and had long standing relationships with the line of business stakeholders whereas the latter usually came from a technical background.
Agreed, there should be a cost savings for any process improvement projects. In my experience, we estimated the time and translated that to dollars; we then used that data to prioritize and justify projects. We were called PMs, but the department was named: Business Engineering Services. Saving Changes...
Molly McMahonSr. Project Manager| TwinStar Credit UnionCarlsbad, Ca, United States
Like Kiron, I've seen (and used) this designation for project managers whose knowledge and expertise are operationally focused and not technical. They understand how our systems support the business, how it operates, and the regulations we need to navigate. They do not have an in-depth knowledge of the technical infrastructure that is required. Using this designation is helpful to manage expectations and direct people to the right resources. Saving Changes...
