Rijkswaterstaat (RWS) is responsible for the design, construction, management, and maintenance of the central infrastructure facilities in the Netherlands. To improve project management, RWS developed a management methodology called Integral Project Management (IPM). At the basis of the IPM model are seven construction processes which are present in a project and the management methodology Projectmatig Werken (PMW). The IPM model ensures that both the seven processes and the PMW are used in practice by prescribing a structure in which five roles work together to form a team. With a clear distribution of tasks, the IPM model creates a structured, open discussion format among the five functions in a project. The dialogue ensures that all aspects of the project are taken into account before a decision is made.

Decentral governmental organizations copy the IPM model as a management structure for their construction projects. One of the agencies is the Ingenieursbureau (IB) of Amsterdam. RWS projects are larger regarding scope, budget, complexity and use of manpower, whereas the IB executes besides larger also smaller, less complex projects. The use of the same project methodology on different types of projects raises the question how the model is used in practice. The current study investigates the use and possible adjustments of the IPM model for IB projects by answering the following research question:

Which adjustments should be made to the IPM model to make it suitable for projects of the host organization?

To answer the main question four sub-questions are formulated:
• What is the current status of the IPM model in the host organization?
• What is the current practice of applying the IPM model in the host organization?
• Are adjustments needed to the IPM model for the projects of the host organization?
• Which adjustments may be made to the IPM model?

In the IB organization, it is not clear what the current status of the IPM model is. The model is being introduced as an optional management method, and project managers are free, but not obliged, to use it. A team has been appointed to bring the IPM model further into the organization, but this faces difficulties in adjusting the model to the needs of the organization. The IB does not have an overview of the finished and ongoing projects, because there is no project portfolio management. The lack of portfolio management makes it hard to assess the performance of the projects and the way they are managed. The larger, more complex IB projects use the IPM model, but when projects become smaller and less complex, the IPM model is not always used.
This report contains a multi-case analysis in which 8 IB projects are studied. The study shows that the IPM model is applied in different ways among the cases. The 8 cases are managed in the following way:
• Case 1 used the IPM model in the overarching team but not in the project team.
• Case 2 a full IPM team was created with five members.
• Case 3 adjusted the IPM model by combining four roles on to two team members
• Case 4 a full IPM team was created with five members.
• Case 5 no IPM model was used.
• Case 6 no IPM model was used.
• Case 7 no IPM model was used.
The adaptation of the IPM model to a municipal organization v
• Case 8 (still on-going) uses the IPM model in an overarching team, managing several sub- projects.

Comparing the 8 cases in a cross-case analysis shows that in some cases the use of the IPM model affects the efficiency of less complex projects in a negative way. The “top-down” approach of distributing the tasks over the 5 IPM roles does not provide the opportunity to make practical adjustments. The teams are too large for the project, resulting in islands to form in the team. Adjusting the IPM model by combining roles does not improve efficiency. The team still had to include external resources in meetings, resulting in unnecessary discussions and affecting efficiency in a negative way. Projects which do not use the IPM model are managed with a “bottom-up” approach. In the “bottom-up” approach the project manager assesses the project and distributes the tasks among the available resources, taking their expertise into account. The IPM model should be adjusted to make it possible for a “bottom-up” approach to be applied in the smaller, less complex IB projects.

To adjust the IPM model from a “top-down” to a “bottom-up” approach the task division of the five working fields is removed. The basis of the IPM model, the seven processes and the management methodology Projectmatig Werken (PMW), is still used. The projects are assessed on the seven process and tasks are formulated by the project manager. The tasks are divided among the available resources taking their expertise into account.

The “top-down” and “bottom-up” approach can be combined in an overarching IPM team that is executing several smaller less complex projects of the IB. The sub-projects are managed overall by the “top-down” created IPM team and “bottom-up” in the sub-teams. The overarching IPM team can create cohesion among the sub-projects by assessing the total project, whereas the “bottom-up” approach provides the possibility to assess the sub-project individually and formulate project specific tasks, leaving room for adequate flexible management on site during execution.

Further research is recommended in three areas:
• The use of the IPM model in other multi-project organizations should be further
investigated. The context of the IB on the projects could have an effect on the
performance that is not considered.
• Man-hours spent on every project are not included into this study. Using data from the
computer program TimeTell, a quantitative analysis can be performed.
• There is little research on management of small projects. A study into management of small projects is recommended, especially resource management in large multi-project
organizations that execute small projects.