Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 638649
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
a,*
Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, MBS East, Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB, UK
b
11 Lowland Way, Knutsford, Cheshire WA16 9AG, UK
School of Construction and Project Management, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
d
Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Bristol BS16 1QY, UK
Abstract
In 2003 the UKs Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) agreed to fund a research network Rethinking Project Management to dene a research agenda aimed at enriching and extending the subject of project management beyond its current
conceptual foundations. The main argument for the proposed Network highlighted the growing critiques of project management theory
and the need for new research in relation to the developing practice. Being the rst paper of this Special Issue, this paper presents the
Networks main ndings: a framework of ve directions aimed at developing the eld intellectually in the following areas: project complexity, social process, value creation, project conceptualisation, and practitioner development. These areas are based on a comprehensive analysis of all the research material produced over a 2-year period and represent the dominant pattern of ideas to emerge from the
Network as a whole. They are not meant to be the agenda for future research, but an agenda to inform and stimulate current and future
research activity in developing the eld of project management. Methodologically, the ve research directions represent a synthesis of
ideas for how the current conceptual base needs to develop in relation to the developing world of practice. As well as presenting the main
ndings, the paper also presents a practical research framework aimed at researchers working in the eld. The intended audience for the
paper is the project management research community, and also researchers in other management areas for whom the Networks ndings
might be of interest.
2006 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Project management; Research; Directions; Network; Theory; Practice; Complexity
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.winter@manchester.ac.uk (M. Winter).
639
640
suciently for human issues, which are often the most signicant, e.g. [2527]. A second strand of thinking is more
theoretically based and emerged in the late 1960s and
1970s from the literature on organisational design, which
focused on organisational structure as a means of achieving
integration and task accomplishment. Following Lawrence
and Lorschs seminal work on integration [28], Galbraith
[29] identied the spectrum of organisational alternatives,
from functional through matrix to project. Mintzberg
[30], following Toer [31], promoted projects as ad-hoc
organisational forms, which led to the so-called Scandinavian school [3235] looking at projects as temporary organisations, showing how projects are embedded within the
rm and wider networks [36]. A more recent third group,
stemming from the late 1980s, but still producing important contributions, has looked at major projects, e.g.
[9,37,38] with examples in specic sectors [3944]. These
studies emphasise a broader view of projects, recognising
the importance of the front-end, and of managing exogenous factors, as well as the more traditional executionfocused endogenous ones. From this latter strand has
emerged the broader management of projects framework
[5,45], one which, it is argued elsewhere in this Special
Issue, is more aligned with the main ndings of the Network. Emphasising context and front-end work, strategy,
learning, and managing the exogenous factors, this framework has the advantage of being more holistic while being
theoretically catholic.
In addition, there are also a number of more recent perspectives now in the public domain. The rst has explored
the interplay between projects and the strategic direction of
the business enterprise [44,46]. This work emphasises the
context in which projects are undertaken and how prior
experience and contingent capabilities are crucial to
project performance [36,47]. Second, Winch, building on
Williamson [48], has promoted a view of projects as information-processing systems (to address the uncertainty
which is an over-riding characteristic of projects) [49,50]).
And third, most recently Hodgson and Cicmil [51] have
been exploring projects and project management from a
critical management perspective. Among this collection of
work, one of the themes focuses on projects and project
management as instruments of control (though this could
be seen by some not so much as theorising about the management of projects as the consequences of how they are
managed).
Certainly the issues facing both researchers and practitioners now seem to be well beyond the hard systems perspective so often associated with project management
([52]; see also Morris et al. [53] in this Special Issue). For
example, Morris [10] in 2000 analysed all the 763 papers
and book reviews published in the Project Management
Journal, the Project Management Network, and the International Journal of Project Management between 1990 and
1999, and concluded there is a need, fundamentally, to
refocus the discipline and its research paradigm. We need
to understand better, in particular, the linkages between pro-
641
642
Table 2
643
644
words, value creation continues long after the project managers have moved on.
4.2.3. D4 narrow conceptualisation of projects ! broader
conceptualisation of projects
Like the other two directions in this category, this direction also emerges from the practitioner inputs to the Network, but unlike directions 2 and 3 which are essentially
concerned with content the social process and value creation this direction is concerned with the actual process of
conceptualising projects and programmes from dierent
perspectives. In writing about this in relation to business
strategy, Normann [78] states:
business and other institutions today have to be very
skilled at conceptualising. Todays products and services
are more about knowledge and linkages than about steel
and mass. Companies are abstractions and value-creating
networks more than factories and oces. Todays free
ow of information needs to be transformed into unique
concepts and frameworks which then focalize action.
Interestingly, exactly the same ideas apply to projects and
programmes, implying that project managers and other
practitioners have to be very skilled at conceptualising
(and focalising action!) Indeed, one of the qualities displayed by the practitioners who presented to the Network
was precisely this skill, the skill of conceptualising projects
and programmes from dierent perspectives, and focusing
action in the midst of complex practice. Hence, the message
of direction 4 as the towards part in Table 2 shows is
the need for new concepts and approaches to help facilitate
this activity, particularly at the front-end of projects, where
as Morris [19] states:
we often have quite messy, poorly structured situations
where objectives are not clear, where dierent constituencies have conicting aims and where the way forward
requires vision and leadership as well as hard analysis
and design.
Where then might researchers look to assist practitioners at
the messy front-end? One area which holds particular
promise is the area of problem structuring methods [79],
a collective term for various approaches which pay signicant attention to intellectual processes individual and
group and the work involved in conceptualising messy
situations and the action needed in these situations. Consider for example the following statement from another research project [80]:
one of the widest elds where new and original research
could provide most practical benet is within the frontend processes of a project. . . . Better understanding is
needed of the soft methodologies and their relevance
and credibility.
Although several soft methodologies have featured in different IJPM papers over the years, e.g. [8184], much of the
discussion to date has been largely theoretical and exam-
645
ples of reported practical application have been few and limited in scope [85]. Hence, the perceived need for further
work in this area. As Table 2 also shows, mainstream
thinking conceptualises projects and programmes around
single disciplines (e.g. construction projects, engineering
projects, building projects, IT projects, etc.), based on narrow conceptualisations of what the project or programme
is. In practice however, new concepts and approaches are
needed to facilitate the broader conceptualisation of projects and programmes as being multidisciplinary, with multiple purposes that are permeable, contestable and open to
renegotiation throughout. More holistic thinking is needed
whereby projects are seen to incorporate both hard and
soft aspects, rather than being conceptualised as either
hard projects or soft projects. Thinking in this way also
requires practitioners to use a range of dierent images and
perspectives in conceptualising projects and programmes,
including the images discussed so far, and other conceptual
images such as projects as temporary organisations, e.g.
[21]. As was stated earlier, when multiple images are used,
they reveal new insights and new ways of managing projects, programmes and portfolios, that might not otherwise
be apparent to practitioners [67]. The actual use of these
images in practice leads us to the nal part of Table 2.
4.3. Theory IN practice
As Table 2 shows, as well as the need for new theories
about and for practice, future research in the eld also
needs to concentrate on the area of theory in practice, that
is, the actual use of theory in the midst of action. This leads
us to the nal direction shown in Table 2.
4.3.1. D5: Practitioners as trained
technicians ! practitioners as reective practitioners
In essence, this direction also emerges from the qualities
displayed by the practitioners who presented to the Network, notably and rstly, their reective approach towards
the complexity of projects, and secondly, their pragmatic
approach towards the use of theory in practice. In short,
as many of them either highlighted or alluded to in the
meetings, mainstream methods and techniques can be a
useful source of guidance for certain aspects, but they provide no guidance on how to navigate the complexity of
projects in the ever-changing ux of events. As Schon states
[86]:
in the varied topography of professional practice, there is
a high, hard ground where practitioners can make eective
use of research-based theory and technique, and there is a
swampy lowland where situations are confusing messes
incapable of technical solution. . . . when [practitioners
are] asked to describe their methods of inquiry [in the
swampy lowlands] they speak of experience, trial and
error, intuition, and muddling through.
Schons metaphor of the swampy lowlands describes not
only the kind of terrain experienced by project managers
646
rises the resulting views on the kind of thinking and directions needed, which in turn suggest two important
implications for research: (i) directions 15 reect the concerns of practitioners in the following areas: project complexity, social process, value creation, project
conceptualisation and practitioner development; and (ii)
directions 15 suggest the need for an interdisciplinary
approach to conceptualisation and theorising of project
management practice, and careful consideration of the
methodological issues by researchers in order to enable
the creation of knowledge perceived as useful by practicing
managers.
5.1. Knowledge creation and the role of research approaches:
a framework for researchers
A signicant body of literature on management research
addresses the relationship between the research process and
the nature of knowledge created through this process, e.g.
[93103]. Fig. 1 provides an illustration of this process
and illuminates the intricacies of the research process
through which the ve directions in Table 2 could be investigated. Firstly, the decision to study a management related
topic in a particular way, involves a philosophical choice
by the researcher about what is important. This choice is
made simultaneously with, not in isolation from, the
researchers understanding of the phenomena or issues of
interest, and the area of study within which it is situated
(Elements 1 and 3). Table 2 signposts some aspects of such
understanding and choice. The research methodology (Element 2) will, therefore, reect and require serious consideration of the level of inquiry (macro or micro), the type of
concepts and theory being used to formulate research questions and interpret answers, and the assumptions about the
nature of empirical data and how they are collected (e.g.
objective statements of truth or collaborative interpretations of experience). Fig. 1 seeks to show the close interconnectedness between Elements 1, 2, and 3.1
For example, the shift in thinking (from/towards) as
represented in Table 2, refocuses research attention to the
issues which require familiarity and understanding of relevant theoretical traditions and the need to draw on a range
of less mainstream concepts including theory of control,
complexity theory, systems thinking, social organisational
theory, being vs becoming ontology, phronetic social science, to name only a few that are relevant to, for example
the new research directions 1 and 4. Simultaneously, there
is the need to reect on the implications of positivist, interpretative, critical and constructionist positions in representing the phenomenon under inquiry, i.e. the project
and/or project management, for the nature of created
knowledge and propositions directed to practitioners. Similarly, the adopted focus and level of analysis will result in a
specic framing of the research question(s) in relation to
1
Note: the numbering of the Elements in Fig. 1 is not intended to
indicate their order of priority or sequence.
Element 2
Element 3
THEORETICAL
TRADITIONS
used to understand and
explain the world of project
management practice
- level of inquiry
- view on empirical data
ISSUE / AREA
OF STUDY
- body of knowledge
deemed legitimate
Methods of data
collection and analysis:
- procedures
- tools and techniques
- interpretation
Evaluation of research
process and outcomes:
- quality
- usefulness
- relevance
- previous research
- extant literature
- current debates
METHODOLOGY
647
Reflection
Fig. 1. A practical framework for thinking about project management research [103].
648
649
[84] Ramsay D et al. Reinforcing learning, using soft systemic frameworks. Int J Project Manage 1996;14(1):316.
[85] Crawford L et al. Managing soft change projects in the public
sector. Int J Project Manage 2003;21(6):4438.
[86] Schon D. The reective practitioner: how professionals think in
action. New York: Basic Books; 1983.
[87] Cicmil S, Hodgson D. Phronesis an approach to researching the
actuality of projects. Presentation to EPSRC Network Rethinking
Project Management, University of Strathcylde; 2005. Available
from: <http://www.umist.ac.uk/departments/civil/research/management/rethinkpm/presentations5.htm>.
[88] Morris P, Shepherd M. Developments with the APM BoK.
Presentation to EPSRC Network Rethinking Project Management,
University of Bath; 2005. Available from: <http://www.umist.ac.uk/
departments/civil/research/management/rethinkpm>.
[89] OGC. Managing successful projects with PRINCE2. London: The
Stationery Oce; 2005.
[90] Crawford L. Proling the competent project manager. In: Slevin D
et al., editors. The frontiers of project management research.
Newton Square (PA): Project Management Institute; 2002.
[91] Winter M, Thomas J. Understanding the lived experience of
managing projects: the need for more emphasis on the practice of
managing. PMI Research Conference 2004. London; 2004.
[92] Cicmil S, Hodgson D. Knowledge, action, and reection in
management education the case of project management, in BBS
Teaching and Research Review, Issue 7, September 2005; Available
from: <http://www.uwe.ac.uk/bbs/trr/Is7-cont.htm> ISSN 14684578; 2005.
[93] Easterby-Smith M et al. Management research an introduction.
London: Sage; 1991.
[94] Mitro I, Linstone H. The unbounded mind: breaking the chains of
traditional business thinking. New York: Oxford University Press;
1993.
[95] Arbnor I, Bjerke B. Methodology for creating business knowledge.
2nd edit. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 1997.
[96] Seale C. The quality of qualitative research. London: Sage; 1999.
[97] Alvesson M, Deetz S. Doing critical management research. London:
Sage; 2000.
[98] Johnson P, Duberley J. Understanding management research an
introduction to epistemology. London: Sage; 2000.
[99] Silverman D. Interpreting qualitative data: methods for analysing
talk, text and interaction. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2001.
[100] Stacey R. Strategic management and organisational dynamics the
challenge of complexity. 4th ed. Harlow: FT-Prentice Hall, Pearson;
2003.
[101] Weick K. Essai: real-time reexivity prods to reection. Organ Stud
2002;23(6):8938.
[102] Calori R. Essai: real-time/real-space research: connecting action
and reection in organization studies. Organ Stud 2002;23/
6:87783.
[103] Cicmil S. Understanding project management practice through
interpretative and critical research perspectives. Project Manage J
2006;37(2):2737.