This research article aims to compare and contrast the practice of project portfolio management (PPM) between the public and private sectors in Brazil. The authors conducted a mixed-method study using data collected from interviews and surveys from both sectors. The study revealed that both sectors follow similar PPM practices in terms of prioritizing projects, monitoring and controlling portfolios, aligning portfolios with strategies and resources, and using metrics to evaluate portfolio performance. However, there are differences in the factors that influence portfolio selection and the way in which decision-making processes are structured. For example, in the public sector, portfolio selection is driven by political and social factors rather than financial ones. The study's findings have important implications for PPM in Brazil and offer insights for both public and private organizations to improve their PPM practices.

Take Away: Public and private sectors in Brazil share similar PPM practices, but factors such as political and social influences affect portfolio selection in the public sector.

Criticism: There is a need for further research to identify the differences and similarities of PPM practices between different industries and sectors in Brazil.

Source 3:

The public and private sectors have different selection and prioritization criteria for project portfolio management (PPM) due to their diverse strategic goals. Although this study has its limitations in terms of the limited number of organizations studied, the case studies represent various sectors and industries. By comparing PPM practices between the public and private sectors, the study finds that the Brazilian public sector could benefit from adopting the practices of the private sector to improve project spending prioritization and allocation. This study contributes to the PPM literature by filling the research gap on the practices of the public sector.

Takeaway: Public and private sectors use the same PPM tools, but the public sector documents better while also having lower awareness of risk.

Criticism: The limited number of organizations studied may not provide a complete picture of PPM practices in both sectors.

Source 4:

This article examines how project-based firms, particularly in the Dutch construction industry, use relational institutional work to gather important stakeholders to commit to new project delivery methods in inter-organizational projects (IOPs). The study identifies three types of relational institutional work: awareness creation, selective networking, and coalition building. Institutional work was found to be more effective in the co-supplier subfield than the architectural subfield, attributed to the nature of activities, social positions, and "coopetition". This research adds to the institutional project management literature and connects with inter-organizational projects and developments in institutional theory.

Takeaway: Some industry fields are more receptive to institutional work than others.

Criticism: The article could have used multiple industries for more comprehensive data.

Source 5:

This paper aims to distinguish between managing a single project and managing a project portfolio, proposing a methodology for managing risk within a project portfolio. The study draws from an action research study in a major transport solutions provider, with a focus on expanding the project requirements and linking them to the organization's objectives. The proposed methodology would help manage portfolio risks by sharing experiences across projects and identifying common risks and issues. Limitations of the experimental study include having one project portfolio, whereas different portfolios may yield different findings. Existing risk management processes do not support managing risk within a project portfolio, and this methodology offers a consolidated view of the project portfolio manager's total risk exposure.

Takeaway: The authors' method offers a way to manage risk within a project management portfolio.

Criticism: The study's focus on only one project portfolio limits its scope in drawing generalizations about managing project portfolios.