Efficacy of Project-program Management Tools at the Science

Research Article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2023.5.2.17
EDN: RLCWNL
How to Cite
Tambovtsev V.L. Efficacy of Project-program Management Tools at the Science. Science Management: Theory and Practice. 2023. Vol. 5. No. 2. P. 203-209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2023.5.2.17

Abstract

The presented analysis of scientific research planning practices, as well as international experience in covering projects and programs of the entire state administration, leads to the conclusion that in science, project-program methods can be efficient and cost-effective only for a limited range of tasks. These methods should be combined with exploratory, non-project research necessary to identify and compare work options that can lead to one or another significant practical results. Without such a combination, the range of practical problems solved by project-program methods can be significantly reduced after a certain period of neglect of exploratory research.
Keywords:
exploratory research, project, program

Author Biography

Vitaly L. Tambovtsev, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
Doctor of Economics, Professor

References

1. Albert, V. A. (Ed.) (2005). Parsimony, Phylogeny, and Genomics. New York: Oxford University Press.

2. Lieder, F. and Griffiths, T. L. (2020). Resource-rational analysis: Understanding human cognition as the optimal use of limited computational resources. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Vol. 43, article e1: 1–60. DOI 10.1017/S0140525X1900061X.

3. Franck, G. (2002). The scientific economy of attention: A novel approach to the collective rationality of science. Scientometrics. Vol. 55, no. 1. P. 3–26.

4. Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK ® Guide). (2008). 4th ed. Newtown: Project Management Institute.

5. Armstrong, M. (2006). A Handbook of Management Techniques: A Comprehensive Guide to Achieving Managerial Excellence and Improved Decision Making. Revised 3rd ed. London – Philadelphia: Kogan Page.

6. Hood, C. (1986). The Tools of Government. Chatham: Chatham House Publishers.

7. Luvuno, L. L. (2011). Public Sector Management Techniques: The Administrative Tools for Executive Public Managers. London: Lambert Academic Publishing.

8. Howlett, M. (Ed.). (2022). The Routledge Handbook of Policy Tools. London: Routledge.

9. Cirera, X., Frías, J., Hill, J. and Li, Y. (2020). A Practitioner’s Guide to Innovation Policy. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

10. Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of “Muddling Through”. Public Administration Review. Vol. 19, no. 2. P. 79–88.

11. Schick, A. (1966). The road to PPB: The stages of budget reform. Public Administration Review. Vol. 26, no. 4. P. 243–258

12. Novick, D. (1962). Program budgeting: Long-range planning in the Department of Defense. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. URL: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM3359.html (accessed: 02.02.2021).

13. Harlow, R. L. (1973). On the decline and possible fall of PPBS. Public Finance Quarterly. Vol. 1, no. 1. P. 85–105.
Article

Received: 09.03.2023

Accepted: 27.06.2023

Citation Formats
Other cite formats:

APA
Tambovtsev, V. L. (2023). Efficacy of Project-program Management Tools at the Science. Science Management: Theory and Practice, 5(2), 203-209. https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2023.5.2.17
Issue
Vol 5 No 2 (2023): Science Management: Theory and Practice
Section
Discussion