Adam Roberts - Project Strategy



Tony Peacock
Project Director URS


Jonathan Fernandez
Programme Manager London Overground Limited


Remi Awolola
Project Engineer London Underground Limited


Charanjit Birk
Senior Project Engineer London Underground Limited


Merv Wyeth
Project Management Consultant APM Programme Management SIG


Mick O'Donnell
M & E Package Manager Crossrail


Rod Prigge
Director LRD Engineering


Andrew Elliott
Senior Construction Manager London Underground Limited


Mike Flowers
Director Web Management Limited


View Adam Roberts (MAPM)'s profile on LinkedIn

Papers > Project Strategy

Methodology in Project Strategy



A good Project Management strategy can make the difference between a successful project and a failed project. Although we identify many strategies that can form part of a project management framework throughout this paper, we are also able to conclude that there are clearly some strategies that are more necessary than others, for example; a good risk management plan is identified as an indispensible tool thus suggesting that a robust risk management strategy is crucial.

It is also suggested in this paper, that there are many project management strategies that seem to be lacking the ability to grow independently of phases (or stages) and often attempt to move in one direction (forward) or at best in a 2 dimensional multidirectional flow pattern (backwards and forwards).

There is the suggestion of a 3 dimensional “Multiphasic” approach would alleviate many of the obstacles identified in this paper and allow for a project to grow from the inside out, while a constant flow of output deliverables would continue to progress in a positive manner. This strategy would allow for parts of the project to be stopped, mid flow, and if required move backwards or expand in another direction, while continuing with other segments of the project also allowing for the project to be stopped in its entirety if required.         

Keywords: Project, Strategy, Risk, Management.

Word Count: 5824



Strategy; “A plan of action designed to achieve a long term aim”

Project; The word "project" originally meant "before an action"

Management; “management can also be defined as a human action”

Taking these individual dictionary definitions into account, it would suggest that a single definition for Project Management Strategy, could be: ‘A human action, designed to create a ‘plan before acting’ approach, to ensure that the long-term goals are achieved’ The purpose of this paper is to review a combination of texts that have been written about project management strategy and to discuss both the similarities and differences between them.

During review of text books, papers, web sites and other texts in preparation for this paper it was evident that although the general feel of project management is similar, the different strategies can seem to be quite dissimilar. It is the purpose of this paper to attempt to highlight both the similarities and the differences between the authors that have been quoted, and in conclusion to discuss the possibility of a Hybrid type methodology taking multiple known concepts into account rather than introducing a further new approach.

It is highlighted throughout this paper the importance of risk management, with Field & Keller (1998) going as far as to say that project management is Risk management. Although several strategic methods are discussed throughout the paper, the general focus is on risk management, this is not to suggest that projects will succeed by focusing on risk management alone, but to iterate that risk management seems to be the focus point of many of the authors reviewed in this document.

There are other strategies that are outlined and highlighted to have significance in the success or failure of a project such as the importance of:

·      Value management

·      Issue management

·      Governance

·      Planning

The importance of a good project management framework structure is discussed and emphasised, throughout the paper.

A brief discussion is reviewed between the lifecycles of different project management methodologies looking at the mainstream bodies APM, PRINCE 2, Agile and also taking into account the idea that Heathcote (2012) has, of growing a project from the centre or initial starting point out in multidirectional flow pattern allowing for growth and learning throughout the project lifecycle.

With the information that has been reviewed it is suggested that a single ‘Multiphasic Hybrid’ solution may be the answer, incorporating all lifecycles together to make one single lifecycle that can be used successfully in all approaches to project management. Although this idea is discussed, it is very much only an idea and will need to be expanded on in much the manner that is suggested.

This paper makes suggestions and discusses the possibilities of creating a new ‘Multiphasic Hybrid’ solution, however further review, experimentation and research would be required in order to create a true working solution; and thus, although conclusions can be drawn from this paper, there is no evidence suggesting that a Multiphasic solution would be more versatile than any of the current commercially used lifecycles.


Callahan. K & Brooks. L – (2004) state that “Strategic Project Management is the use of the appropriate project management knowledge, skills, tools and techniques in the context of the company’s goals and objectives, so that the project deliverables will contribute to company value in a way that can be measured.” The Oxford dictionary (2012) defines the word strategy as: “a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim” thus suggesting that planning should play a major role when creating a strategy for the implementation of a projects.

A Project can typically be divided into four major segments, that being:

·      Governance

·      Personnel

·      Commercial

·      Planning

This would suggest that a project could not succeed without at least some input from each of these groups.

Lambert (2003) is referenced by Gardiner (2005) p.68 by stating “Project Governance is the set of structures, systems and processes around the project that ensures the effective delivery of the project through to full utilisation and benefits realisation by the business

Hamilton (2004) states; “The management procedures contained within a corporate handbook of project management procedures would form the basis for the management of all the organisation’s projects”, he then goes on to say that “...if such a book does not exist then it has to be developed” note that he does not use the term “can” be developed, but chooses to say “has to be developed” which suggests that he views governance as a compulsory item in project management and not something that is nice to have.

Murray-Webster. R and Simon. P (2012) refer to the Association for Project Managers (APM), when they state that the Project Manager owns the Project Management Plan (PMP). “The Project Manager owns the Project Management Plan and is accountable to the sponsor for the effective implementation of the plan” as the PMP incorporates most of the other management plans used in a project it would suggest that the Project Manager owns all plans used on a project and that governance is a tool to assist the project management with the delivery of the project.

It would be naive to suggest that project governance, being made up of a variety of different administrative documents, does not play a key role in the strategic management of projects, for example; without a risk management plan or a risk log there would be little chance of the entire project team being aware of all of the risks that may lie in wait. As Lock (2007) p.99 suggests “Even the classification of risk is not straight forward and can be approached in different ways.” This would suggest that it does not end with the identification of risk alone, and that strong governance procedures should be in place in order to scrutinise the risk further.

Governance and the amount of governance enforced on a project is normally determined by the size of the project, as larger projects will require more plans, procedures, policies, etc. in order to have a robust and substantial audit trail. A smaller less expensive project on the other hand, usually cut back on the governance, as this additional paper work can often cause projects to over run on cost and even time. Gardiner (2005) reiterates this point by suggesting that complex projects require a complex approach while simple projects will need a less complex process.

Hamilton. A (2004) – Pg.2-15“The astute Project Manager knows that his or her personal attributes and the ability to lead, motivate and integrate a project team are equally important factors” In fact without people it is safe to say that there is no project, however one would think that Hamilton is suggesting that the better the leader the better the chances are of completing a successful project.

It has become more evident in recent years that the personnel factor is usually attributed to the one factor that has the most critical impact of the success or failure of a project. With the right personnel in place the project has a much higher chance of success. Lock (2007) P.22 supports this idea by saying that; “The good management, organisation and motivation of all who contribute to a project cannot be taken for granted and this must be acknowledged from the start”, suggesting that having a good team and leader in place from the outset is key to project success.  

Commercial Management
Wikipedia <07/11/2012> “Commercial management is the non-technical business disciplines within a company or organisation, particularly the administration of revenue and expenses to generate a financial return” All projects have a financial element and each project will require commercial control to some degree; on small projects, the project manager may take on the role of the commercial manager, and he would then be responsible for all costs that emanate from the project. Typically the project manager is accountable for these costs regardless of the size of the project, however he would usually delegate this responsibility for commercial control to a commercial manager on larger projects, retaining full accountability for the finances of that project.  

Lock. D (2007) states that: “As one of the foundations of projects management, planning should promote efficient working when it has been done sensibly and logically.”This would imply that, if there is no plan then there is no start date and the project is unlikely to get off the ground.

Gardiner (2005) P.5 states; “Every project needs a plan explaining how it is going to proceed” Planning is probably the most important aspect of project management, as without governance, the right personnel and a good commercial management team, the project can still proceed, with a predictable low chance of success; however without any plan, simply put - there is no project.

Project Management Framework
Taking into account the four major groups detailed earlier, it would suggest that a strategic approach is necessary in order to have a structure that is understood by all members of the project team.

The APM terms this as a project life cycle showing a static structure with a beginning and an end. (APM BoK 5th Edition)

There are many different views to the lifecycle approach, typically varying from sector to sector or profession to profession, perhaps the four most popular being APM, Agile, PMI and PRINCE 2, all however having a similar type linear view on Project Management showing the project running mono directional (forward). Heathcote (2012) however views a project in a more multi directional approach, as he suggests that a project starts with an idea and grows from there in all directions. Lock (2007) P.10 would appear to agree with this idea in part as he states; “All projects begin as a concept, a gleam in the eye of their Progenitor” it would be naïve to believe that the first idea would not change throughout the process and from the concept of the idea that the project would only move forward.

Then Morris (1997) p.297 points out that; “Everyone working on the design and definition of projects should be aware of the need for and benefit of forecasting likely technological change over the next 5 to 10 years.” this again would suggest that if a project were to be moving in one, mono direction only, that there can be no turning back, even if new technology would increase the “value” of the project.

Hamilton (2004) P.1-7 discusses Value Engineering, which is becoming more and more prominent in modern project management, the question then has to be asked – how can one incorporate Value Engineering into a project if there is no structure in place to turn back? “Value Engineering. A process for creating increased functionality at the lowest lifecycle cost.”

It is agreed by all however that all projects will go through similar steps, even though the terms may differ from methodology to methodology.

Project Brief

Young. T (2010)“The project brief summarises all of the relevant fact’s about the project and is therefore a source of definitive information” he then goes on to say that “The project brief is an executive summary of your project and when combined with a business case, creates the project charter.”

It would therefore suggest that in order to create an accurate project brief that realistic requirement’s gathering is required and not a wish list. It would be prudent to recognise that most commercial organisations are in business to generate profit and therefore should have a robust business case to back up the authorisation of the project. Young. T (2010) states that “Projects and Programmes are selected only if they support achieving the business strategy and contribute to business growth”, this would suggest that an accurate account of the project requirements be documented in the brief, in order to maximise the benefit from the project increasing the chances of success.

In most cases a project is created in order to overcome a problem, Gardiner. P (2005) puts “Detailed determination of the problem and underlying business need” at the top of the list when referring to “A typical feasibility study” This would imply that it is imperative to identify the problem that is being resolved by the implementation of the project and then to include this in the project brief.

Heathcote (2012) placed some particular emphasis on the project beginning with a defined problem, seeing this as the activity in the ‘briefing’ phase, and believed that without a problem to solve there could not be a suitable solution found, seriously undermining the justification for the project, or the hope of it being successful.


Young (2010) defines the Project Definition by stating that; “This step is often the most difficult because you must now formulate in realistic terms just what the project is about and what it has to achieve”

Lock. D (2004) p.17 states that: “Initial project definition leads to the business case on which the decision to authorise or disallow the project start will principally depend” Lock then goes onto to say that a poor definition will almost certainly lead to project failure. “ Any of the following shortcomings during this early period can condemn a project to almost certain failure”

In order to properly define a project it would be prudent to have all of the information regarding the projects objectives. Learning most importantly what benefit the project is meant to deliver, why this benefit is required and how it can be delivered. Young. T (2010) states that “Many project teams suffer from a lack of clear vision of where they are going or want to accomplish.

To approach Project Management strategically Callahan and Brookes (2004) suggest that the appropriate tools and techniques be used. There is much literature covering these points, suggesting that the five most strategic tools would be to ensure that:

1. Requirements are known, APM (2000) p.32“One of the key’s to success of any project is the creation of project requirements that are comprehensive and clear, well structured, traceable and testable.

2. The value of the project is the true value and not subjective and that all avenues have been taken to ensure that the deliverables are the best value Callahan. K & Brooks. L (2004) say that: “The Strategic person asks the question, what result do we want? He or she is concerned with how to improve productivity and profitability, increase company value and return on investment.”

3. Another strategic tool is the use of Value Engineering, whereby a deliverable is revisited with the idea of finding a more efficient approach, with a fast changing environment it is possible that new and more efficient methods and materials become available allowing for more value to be obtained by the end product. APM web Site <08/112012> “Value engineering is an organised attempt to optimise the overall value of the project in project management endeavours”

4. It would make sense to place Risk management at the centre of a good strategic approach to project management not recognising risk could cause the project to fail. Gardiner (2005) p.164 stresses that: “It is an organised approach that aims to seek out any events associated with a project that may impair the achievement of that project’s critical success factor”

5. A further strategy to adopt is to create an Issue management tool, allowing the project team to monitor all issues that may cause delays or added expense to the project. Young. T (2010) states that: “The purpose of an issue management process is to make sure that all risks that happen are resolved promptly to avoid / and or limit damage to your project”


In order to complete this work with the outlook of incorporating many different ideas, it was imperative that many texts were reviewed to allow for a strategic overview of a well-rounded approach. Similarities were intentionally sought out between the varied approaches and common ground was identified in any contradicting texts.

A conversation was conducted with one of the programme risk managers at London Underground Limited, this was by means of a conversation discussing the process of managing risk on a large (£4 billion) programme of works.

Discussions were held at Leeds Metropolitan University during lectures, highlighting issues and best practices within a span of industries that both Heathcote and the MSc. Students have in depth knowledge.

Many of the papers reviewed for this assignment, both unpublished and published were reviewed and ideas were extrapolated to form new concepts and arguments. 


Resulting from the interview with the programme risk manager at London Underground Limited (LUL) were 2 main points.

1.     LUL make use of a software package called ARM (Active Risk Manager); this software utilises the Monte Carlo process to create a cash value to the identified risks; however as LUL have identified that not all risks can be managed in the same way and that risk management is dynamic, their approach is varied and although the majority of risk is managed in this manner, they often find the need to look at converting the risk into an estimated value by simply multiplying the estimated cost of the risk being realised by the percentage probability, thus allowing for a more linear estimation of the risk value. A further approach is considered when a high value risk is expected over the entire project, as although the probability may be low the impact would be catastrophic; here they will multiply the monetary value by the monetary impact that this risk could create, thus allowing for a much larger pot of money to be set aside in the event that this risk is realised.

2.     Risk management plays a major role in all programmes and projects within LUL; a risk manager is assigned to each project and reports into the programme risk manager. During the initial stages and throughout the project life cycle the risk manager conducts period (every 4 weeks) risk reviews to determine what the project team determine the risks to be within the project. Each risk is assigned a monetary value, the probability of the risk occurring and the impact that the risk will have, should the risk be realised. Each risk is revisited at these meetings with the entire project team being invited to each risk review; the risk scores are then adjusted and the project authority will be changed accordingly. (Although the project budget will remain the same the risk is included in the project authority in the event that money is required to be drawn down from that risk.

LUL have taken the approach that risk management is key to running of a successful programme / project. They are also very aware that projects are transient in nature and that what happens today may not necessarily happen again in the future. They are aware that projects are about change and that were there is change there is risk. Risk management is very high on the levels of importance, however they have adopted a dynamic approach to the management of risk, by looking at each individual risk separately and scoring that risk with a scoring system that best suits the type of risk that they have encountered, with the “one size DOES NOT fit all” approach to risk management. Each risk is reviewed at every meeting until it has been completely eradicated, which often means that it will remain on the risk register and will be reviewed and discussed at each period review meeting.     


Life cycle

Most modern texts all agree that there is a need for a strategic approach to project management and that good governance procedures, planning, commercial acumen and personnel is the right direction to go in to achieve that goal. There are several structured processes that look at project management in different ways, with the APM and PRINCE 2 adopting the “Waterfall approach” which suggests, as water can only flow in one direction that projects will do the same. The Agile approach tends to allow the project manager to go backwards if and when required only to revisit a previous step in a cyclic manner. Then there is a third and more “out of the box” idea that suggests that project’s grow from the inside out, in a multidirectional manner, allowing for growth from all sides. This in itself could suggest a chaotic approach, as if projects are allowed to grow in multi directions throughout the projects lifecycle, the project may never deliver the original intended benefit, unless the control mechanism’s are extremely robust. This may not be a bad thing, as in some cases, if the team are allowed to explore avenues from all angles and direction new ideas could emerge allowing for a more beneficial end product being delivered. These approaches all agree with the end result being - to complete the project within the stated success criteria (benefit realisation) none of these strategies seem to allow for the complexity of a three dimensional change in a project, but only to move backwards and forwards in a cyclic but linear fashion.


It is generally agreed and accepted that the creation of a robust project governance structure within an organisation is imperative for the successful management of project’s, however very few specify the level of governance required depending on the complexity of the project. It can be argued that a complex project will require a governance structure to allow for governing the complexities of the work and deliverables whereby a less complex or more over, a small simple project will not require the same level of governance. It can also be argued that the governance implemented in a project can only be equal to or less than the monitory value that the project can afford and if more governance is required in comparison to what can be afforded, then either the level of governance is too high and should be lowered or the project should be re-evaluated and the budget increased to allow the increased level of governance required.

Business Case:

It is generally accepted that if a business case is not created, detailing the project requirements, then the project has high probability of failure as the required benefit will not be known and cannot be measured, however it can be argued that if there is no success criteria then it is impossible to fail.
An example of this was brought up during a lecture at the Leeds Metropolitan University whereby one of the MSc. Students stated that on occasion they would complete a project prior to the creation of the business case. The business case would then be developed retrospectively, thus detailing that the project was completed, on time, to budget and delivered the exact benefits that they had already achieved, had the business case been developed at the initiation stage of the project, this may have shown a completely different result.


The business case should also be used in the strategic planning of a project, as knowing what is required from the project will allow for a plan to be put in place for the realisation of the project requirements. Bryson. J (2011) p.1 points out in his book on Strategic Planning: “Strategic Planning is an intelligent practice that is here to stay

It can be argued that a project should be planned at the project initiation phase and this plan should then be reviewed and revised with updates through the life span of the project, however, there is another school of thought that suggests that not only should the plan be reviewed often, but should be completely overhauled if and when required. This would support the view of Heathcote (2012) who suggests that a project grows from the inside out, thus a plan for the project would change depending on the direction in which the project was to grow. It can also be argued however that, if a robust business case is created at the onset of the project that a strategy can be put in place through a risk management process to account for many issues that may arise throughout the lifecycle of the project.

Risk management

Perhaps the most significant strategy adopted in modern project management is that of managing risk. Kerzner, Young, Lock and Gardiner all agree that a good risk management strategy is essential for the successful management of projects. Gardiner (2005) p.160 states that “All projects carry some level of risk and how this is dealt with effects project success.”

Lock (2007) p.99 points out that risk should be monitored throughout the project and warns of the fact that risk could occur at any time; “Risk can occur at any stage in a project”, he goes on to say that risk is a daily part of life;  “Everything that we do, from getting out of bed in the morning to returning there at night carries risk.”

Morris (1994) suggests that risk management would become more common on projects; and Kerzner (2009) p.743 goes on to say that “Risk is a measure of the probability and consequence of not achieving a defined project goal.” with that goal, no doubt, being the completion of a successful project. Kezner then goes onto suggest that all projects are different and that a risk management plan should be tailored to the project.  “One size does not fit all projects or circumstances” he also states that there is no tried and tested methodology that can be reproduced, suggesting that bespoke risk management plans should be drafted for each individual project. “There is no single textbook answer on how to manage risk” This seems to be in agreement with the approach that LUL have taken with managing risk.

The PMI define risk management as; “Risk management is the act or practice of dealing with risk

There seems to be a general consensus with the more recent the text the more importance that is placed on risk management, suggesting that risk is taking a more prominent role in project management, which leads on to suggest that projects are an accumulation of risks which require managing. It can also be argued that if by implementing a robust risk management strategy that the project can be managed on a more strategic level, creating, in effect a “crash barrier” to keep the project on track.

Issue Management

The benefit of a robust risk management strategy is that most (if not all) issues that are realised throughout the life span of the project have been identified prior to the issue being raised, in the risk management log. In this case a contingency plan should already be in place and the issue would be managed as per the plans requirements. If no contingency plan has been created then at the very least the issue would have been expected and should not take the project team, sponsor and stakeholders by surprise.


Most findings signify that project management is still in its infancy and is continuing to grow from all directions. There are various organisations that seem to be trying to put their stamp of ownership on project management, such as PRINCE 2, Association for Project Managers, Project Managers Institute and then there are various course that are being created to certificate individuals in the process of project management. However much these professional bodies and certificated courses may differ they all deliver a similar message.

In most cases projects may have a start, delivery and termination phase however as these bodies seem to be varied in their views between each phase it can only be concluded that either each project is in fact unique, as the APM suggest “A Unique endeavour with defined start and finish points” and therefore all methods can succeed or fail depending on a number of external influences or there is still a further methodological approach that has not yet been investigated or even identified.

Heathcote (2012) hinted at this, suggesting that a project starts as an idea and grows in all directions, however this concept can be investigated further by creating a 3 dimensional approach integrating many of the mainstream methodologies forming a single 3 dimensional flow chart. This would not only allow linear mono directional flow (Waterfall), but through a 3 dimensional model could show the flow to allow for the project manager to grow the project from the middle as Heathcote (2012) suggested.

Although the traditional waterfall method does not allow for the opportunity to go back once a gate has been passed, there are still times that projects managers that use the waterfall method do in fact go back to an earlier stage, for example during delivery if a fundamental fault is discovered, they may need to go back to the drawing board!  This is a form of the ‘sunk cost error’ a logic common error described by Sutherland (2007).

The idea of joining the traditional project management waterfall method (APM) with the idea of a multi directional growth pattern that Heathcote (2012) suggests that this would signify a Hybrid, multi phasic approach, encompassing multiple methodologies and allowing for a structured growth pattern. In this way the project manager would be able to plan the growth pattern and moreover be prepared for any risks that may be identified. This idea might be best illustrated by the Escher Waterfall, whereby showing the flow in one direction, while allowing the flow to return to its point of origin.

It is evident that risk plays a major role in projects as there is very few Project management texts that do not refer to risk, Field and Keller (1998) p.109 go as far as to say that “Project Management is Risk Management” and there seems to be no disagreement that if a robust risk management structure is not in place that project failure is eminent.

As planning is central to all projects and if we are to agree that project management is at least partly risk management, then we should assume that risk management and planning should work hand in hand. In most projects, planning is carried out prior to the start of the project, however as identified earlier in this paper, planning should be on going throughout the life of the project, thus it would suggest that risk management is not something that is carried out at the beginning of the project and left filed away, but should be reviewed regularly and moreover should be reviewed alongside the ever changing project plan. This would then again reiterate the need for the project to grow in a multidirectional / multiphasic manner; as a single linear approach does not allow for true value management.

If one is to accept that the true value of a project is the accumulated additional value that the project creates for the core business, then taking value engineering into account, (whereby a new piece of equipment can be introduced midway into the schedule of works, creating the need to effectively stop progress on one segment of works, possibly remove the recently installed equipment in order to implement or install the new value engineered part or technique) then we will understand the need for multiphasic growth, as this could happen at any time of the project and could possibly require something that had been implemented early on in the project to be reworked; moving that segment of the project back into the design phase whilst allowing the rest of the project to progress.      

If we are to assume that a good strategy is to plan the project well and continue planning the project until final closeout, and we are to agree that risk management goes hand in hand with planning, then it would suggest that a good strategy for a project manager would be to ensure that a robust risk management plan is in place from project initiation to final closeout, which in some cases will include the benefit realisation phase.

If this project Strategy was to be implemented then it would suggest that with the addition of multiple flow patterns and a three dimensional multiphasic approach, that this would introduce further risks, however it would also offer more opportunities to identify similar risk and any additional risk identified would be outweighed by the additional risk of identifying opportunities that would be generated by implementing this strategy.  


1.     Harold Kerzner, PH.D. (2009); Project Management, A system approach to planning, scheduling & controlling 10th Edition - John Wiley & Sons

2.     Albert Hamilton (2004); Handbook of Project Management Procedures - Thomas Telford Publishing

3.     Paul D. Gardiner (2005); Project Management, A Strategic Planning Approach - Palgrave Macmillan

4.     Dennis Lock (2007); Project Management 9th Edition - Gower Publishing Ltd

5.     Peter W G Morris (1997); The Management of Projects - Thomas Telford Services

6.     Allan. B (2004); Project Management – Tools and Techniques for Today’s ILS Professional. London UK

7.     Reiss. G (2007); Project Management Demystified. 3rd edition. Oxon: Taylor & Francis

8.     Maylor. H (2010) Project Management (Fourth Edition) Financial Times Prentice Books.

9.     Field. M and Keller.L (1998)Project Management The Open University

10.  Young. T(2010) Successful Project Management (Third Edition) Kogan Page Limited

11.  Callahan. K & Brooks. L(2004) Essentials of Strategic Project Management John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

12.  Baguley. P (2012) Project Management Book Point Limited

13.  Luecke. R (2004) Managing Projects Large and Small Harvard Business School

14.  PMBoK® – 4th edition – 11.2

15.  Wiki (05/11/2012)

16.  Project Management Knowledge (08/11/2012)

17.   Wiki (07/11/2012)

18.   Oxford Dictionaries (06/11/2012)

19.  Bryson. J (2011) Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations (fourth Edition) John Wiley & sons Inc.


ASTAD Project Management - QATAR, Doha


London Underground Limited 


NHS Homerton Trust


M J Quinn




Tube Lines Limited


RBEBS Limited Various


eVentFil Closed Corporation 


Filtra (Pty) LTD