INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 638–649
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Directions for future research in project management: The main

findings of a UK government-funded research network
a,*
Mark Winter , Charles Smith b, Peter Morris c, Svetlana Cicmil d

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
c
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 UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) agreed to fund a research network – Rethinking Pro-
ject Management – to define 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 first paper of this Special Issue, this paper presents the
Network’s main findings: a framework of five directions aimed at developing the field intellectually in the following areas: project com-
plexity, social process, value creation, project conceptualisation, and practitioner development. These areas are based on a comprehen-
sive 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 field of project management. Methodologically, the five 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
findings, the paper also presents a practical research framework aimed at researchers working in the field. The intended audience for the
paper is the project management research community, and also researchers in other management areas for whom the Network’s findings
might be of interest.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Project management; Research; Directions; Network; Theory; Practice; Complexity

1. Background to the network tres of excellence within UK government departments [3].

One of the most important organisational developments
in recent years has been the significant growth in project
work across different sectors and industries. Academic
research in the UK [1] confirms this trend, which looks
set to continue with increasing numbers of new develop-
ments and new initiatives being pursued through projects
and programmes. Recent industry reports, e.g. [2] also
highlight the growing adoption of project management
standards and practices across large numbers of organisa-
tions, including the creation of project management cen-
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.winter@manchester.ac.uk (M. Winter).
No longer just a sub-discipline of engineering, the manage-
ment of projects – including programme management and
portfolio management – is now the dominant model in
many organisations for strategy implementation, business
transformation, continuous improvement and new product
development. Similarly, in areas such as infrastructure
renewal, urban regeneration and community development,
project management practices are becoming increasingly
important, as more and more work is organised through
projects and programmes [4]. Despite these developments
in practice, however, the current conceptual base of
project management continues to attract criticism for its
lack of relevance to practice [5–21] and, consequently,
to improved performance of projects across different

0263-7863/$30.00 Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.009
 M. Winter et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 638–649
industrial sectors. It was against this background in 2003
that the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council (EPSRC) agreed to fund a new research network
called Rethinking Project Management: Developing a New
Research Agenda between 2004 and 2006. The Network
proposal highlighted many of the growing critiques of pro-
ject management concepts, and the increasing calls for new
perspectives from other related disciplines in the social sci-
ences, e.g. [17]. In summary, the main argument was not
that the extant project management body of thought with
its concepts, methodologies and tools is worthless and
should be abandoned, but rather that a new research net-
work was needed to enrich and extend the field beyond its
current intellectual foundations, and connect it more clo-
sely to the challenges of contemporary project manage-
ment practice.
2. Network aims and primary output
Shaped then by the argument above, and the objectives
of EPSRC Networks, the stated aims of the Rethinking
Project Management Network were:
Table 1
639
1. To create a new inter-disciplinary network of academics,
researchers and practitioners interested in developing
the field of project management and improving real-
world practice.
2. To identify and define an inter-disciplinary research
agenda aimed at enriching and extending the field
beyond its current foundations.
Focusing on the second of these two aims, this paper
presents the primary output of the Network – a frame-
work of five directions for future research – based on a
comprehensive analysis of all the research material pro-
duced over a 2-year period, including sensemaking
papers, meeting minutes, meeting notes, practitioner pre-
sentations and papers from other events. (The next paper
in this Special Issue discusses the research methodology
and the whole collaborative inquiry approach upon which
these findings are based. For a brief summary of the
research methodology and the Network meeting pro-
gramme, see Table 1.) Collectively, the ideas in this paper
represent the most discernible pattern of ideas to emerge
from the Network as a whole, and the aim of this paper is
640 M. Winter et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 638–649
to contrast these ideas with many of the dominant ideas
contained within the published literature on project man-
agement. In doing this, our principal aim is to highlight
five directions for possible future research, which focus
on the development of new concepts and approaches
identified by both researchers and practitioners as critical
to the management of projects. Overall, the Network has
found a strong need for new thinking to inform and guide
practitioners beyond the current conceptual base, and it is
this need which the five directions seek to address. To
present the five directions, we begin the paper with a sum-
mary of contemporary thinking in project management to
provide a backdrop against which to discuss the Net-
work’s main findings. This enables a structured compari-
son between the two patterns of ideas – contemporary
thinking and the thinking of the Network – highlighting
the five areas in which future research is needed. After
discussing what research is needed – albeit in the form
of the five directions – the final part of the paper turns
to the question of how: in short, what are some of the
issues for researchers and what new approaches can be
used to improve the rigour and relevance of project man-
agement research?
In summary, the ideas contained within this paper (and
the other papers in this Special Issue) are not meant to be
the agenda for future research, but an agenda to inform
and stimulate current and future research in project man-
agement. To this end, the intended audience is not just
the project management research community, but also
researchers in other management areas for whom the find-
ings of this Network might be of interest.
3. Contemporary thinking in project management
Summarising the current conceptual base of project
management may be a logical place to start, but is not easy.
There is no single theoretical base from which to explain
and guide the management of projects. There are instead
various theoretical approaches, many of which overlap.
These operate both for individual aspects of project man-
agement (e.g. control, risk, leadership, etc.) and for the dis-
cipline as a whole. For the discipline as a whole, three
dominant approaches stand out, and a number of newer
strands have emerged in recent years. The aim of this sec-
tion is to summarise these different conceptual approaches
and their relevance to today’s research issues.
Arguably the most dominant strand of project manage-
ment thinking is the rational, universal, deterministic
model – what has been termed the ‘hard’ systems model,
emphasising the planning and control dimensions of pro-
ject management, e.g. [19,22–24]. This is chronologically
the first of the strands arriving with critical path schedul-
ing. Most popular project management textbooks and
methodologies are based on this approach. It has however
been criticized for failing to deal adequately with the emer-
gent nature of front-end work, for tending to treat all pro-
jects as if they were the same, and for not accounting
sufficiently for human issues, which are often the most sig-
nificant, e.g. [25–27]. 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 Lorsch’s seminal work on integration [28], Galbraith
[29] identified the spectrum of organisational alternatives,
from functional through matrix to project. Mintzberg
[30], following Toffler [31], promoted projects as ad-hoc
organisational forms, which led to the so-called Scandina-
vian school [32–35] looking at projects as temporary organ-
isations, showing how projects are embedded within the
firm and wider networks [36]. A more recent third group,
stemming from the late 1980s, but still producing impor-
tant contributions, has looked at major projects, e.g.
[9,37,38] with examples in specific sectors [39–44]. These
studies emphasise a broader view of projects, recognising
the importance of the front-end, and of managing exoge-
nous factors, as well as the more traditional ‘execution-
focused’ 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 findings of the Net-
work. Emphasising context and front-end work, strategy,
learning, and managing the exogenous factors, this frame-
work has the advantage of being more holistic while being
theoretically catholic.
In addition, there are also a number of more recent per-
spectives now in the public domain. The first 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 infor-
mation-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 man-
agement of projects as the consequences of how they are
managed).
Certainly the issues facing both researchers and practi-
tioners now seem to be well beyond the hard systems per-
spective 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 Interna-
tional 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-
 M. Winter et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 638–649
ject management and business performance, and project
management’s generic responsibilities and actions in the
area(s) of technology and design, IT, supply chain manage-
ment . . .knowledge, learning and competency development is
key’’. Similarly, in a 2004 review of practice issues, Morris
identified topics of increasing interest to include: portfolio
management; program management; integrated perfor-
mance metrics; the front-end (encompassing issues such
as governance, project leadership, project sponsorship,
strategy, value management and benefits management);
and building enterprise-wide project management compe-
tence and capability [54]. Examples in this latter area
include benchmarking, maturity, certification, and learning
and knowledge management. An increased interest in
typology issues to help categorize particular practices
[58–61] was also recognised.
Evidently then, the subject seems to be intellectually
alive; the number of research and practitioner confer-
ences each year attests to the fact! Clearly there are real
issues: largely either about how we develop the practices
that best help manage projects, or else as much, if not
more, in areas such as commercial, technological, human
behaviour and other broader aspects of the subject – as
indeed the Network too has found. To many project
managers, some of these broader topics may seem eso-
teric – beyond their daily concerns – but collectively they
represent real issues for the totality of people who
together work for the effective development and delivery
of projects, including project directors, programme and
portfolio managers, development managers, system engi-
neers, and associated project team members, as well as
project managers themselves. And it is this totality that
the research on project success and failure [9,55–57] sug-
gests we need to attend to if we want to develop and
deliver more successful projects.
4. Directions for future research: main findings of the
Network
We turn now to the framework of five directions in
which the current conceptual foundations of project man-
agement need to develop in relation to the developing prac-
tice. As stated earlier, these directions are not meant to be
the agenda for future research, but an agenda to inform
people already working in the field, and those interested
in developing new research in project management. In
essence, the principal finding of the Network is the need
for new thinking in the areas of project complexity, social
process, value creation, project conceptualisation and prac-
titioner development. Many of these areas are not ‘new’ to
academics and experienced practitioners, but this is not
what the Network has sought to achieve: what the five
directions represent are the principal areas in which new
concepts and approaches are needed to guide practitioners
in the management of projects. To illustrate the different
kinds of concepts and approaches that are needed, the five
directions are also presented under three particular head-
641
ings: theory about practice (direction 1), theory for practice
(directions 2–4) and theory in practice (direction 5). Start-
ing with theory about practice, this is a reference to theory
that helps us to understand practice, albeit from a particular
perspective, but which does not necessarily have immediate
practical application; in the case of theory for practice, this
is a reference to concepts and approaches that do have
practical application, and here we identify three directions
in which new thinking is needed. With regard to both cat-
egories, the Network has found there to be significant dif-
ferences in theory and knowledge constructed on the basis
of studying projects and project management processes as
pre-existing, given, before we become aware of them, and
theory and knowledge which takes practice as becoming,
or emerging under specific conditions of power, structures,
history and intentions of actors in a specific local context,
and reflecting lived (not modelled) experience of practicing
project managers. In essence, the Network has found there
needs to be a much greater focus in future research on con-
cepts and theories closely resonating with these realities, to
provide practitioners with practical concepts and
approaches more in alignment with contemporary think-
ing. The final heading, theory in practice, is essentially a ref-
erence to how practitioners learn their craft, and how they
actually practice their craft using relevant theory from the
published literature on project management. In summary,
this third dimension is used to capture the emerging debate
about skills, competencies, and practitioner development,
and the growing need for new research in this area too.
In presenting the five directions – shown in Table 2 – a
‘from’ position is identified for each direction – the domi-
nant position (as we perceive it) – and a ‘towards’ position
representing the new direction of thought, vis-à-vis, a new
direction for future research. Each direction is also the sub-
ject of discussion in the following sections, leading to a
final section which elaborates on some of the methodolog-
ical implications relating to the Network’s main findings.
4.1. Theory ABOUT practice: Issues in conceptualising
projects and project management
By far the clearest pattern to emerge from all the prac-
titioner inputs to the Network is the sheer complexity of
projects and programmes across all sectors and at all lev-
els, encompassing all manner of aspects including the
multiplicity of stakeholders, and the different agenda, the-
ories, practices and discourses operating at different levels
within different interested groups, in the ever-changing
flux of events. Set the classical lifecycle model as ‘the’
conceptual representation of project management – the
textbook story in much of the literature – against this
complexity and one soon appreciates the need to enrich
the current conceptual base in relation to the developing
practice. However, this is not to say that we should aban-
don the project lifecycle concept, but that it cannot be
perceived as an all-encompassing representation of actual
practice.
642 M. Winter et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 638–649

Table 2
 M. Winter et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 638–649 643

4.1.1. D1: The lifecycle model of projects and theory-world more clearly from the practice world, it also
PM ! theories of the complexity of projects and PM demands that such models and theories be rigorously
In essence, the message of direction 1 in Table 2 is that ‘tested’ for their relevance and usefulness to that terrain.
we need to develop new models and theories which recog- As Fay [63] states:
nise and illuminate the complexity of projects – new ontol-
there is no ‘one best map’ of a particular terrain. For any
ogies and epistemologies – which extend and enrich our
terrain there will be an indefinite number of useful maps, a
understanding of the actual reality of projects and project
function of the indefinite levels and kinds of description of
management practice. An example of ‘new thinking’ in this
the terrain itself, as well as the indefinite number of modes
area is the edited collection of Hodgson and Cicmil [51]
of representation and uses to which they can be put.
which offers new insights into the realities of projects based
on critical management perspectives and perspectives from To evolve ‘useful maps’ requires organised interaction be-
social theory. Within this collection, one notable example is tween theory and practice, between academics and practi-
the work of Linehan and Kavanagh [62] who describe two tioners, and the issues associated with this are discussed
contrasting project ontologies – ‘being’ and ‘becoming’ – in a later section. Suffice to say, during meeting 6 of the
for extending and enriching our understanding of the real- Network, one of the practitioners supported Deming’s
ity of projects. Consider for example the following extract words in saying ‘‘all models are wrong, but some are useful’’
from their work: [64], which leads us conveniently to the second domain of
theory development in Table 2.
[in a being ontology] primacy is given to objects, things,
states, events, and nouns. . . . this style of thinking leads us
4.2. Theory FOR practice: directions for new concepts and
to consider project organisations as things, as entities,
approaches to support practitioners
akin to elephants and other organisms, with functions,
parts, structure, and relationships with similar entities in
As Table 2 shows, as well as there being a need to
the ‘environment’ . . . it is a worldview that infuses the
develop new theories about actual project management
[mainstream] discourse of project management, . . . our
practice – which recognise and illuminate the complexity
point is not that a being ontology is wrong or unhelpful;
of projects and project management – another strong pat-
rather that it is partial and that it may blind us to other,
tern to emerge from the Network is the need to develop
perhaps more useful and more human, ways of thinking
new theories for practice – new images, concepts, frame-
about and seeing the world. In contrast to a being ontol-
works and approaches – to help practitioners actually deal
ogy, a becoming ontology emphasises process, verbs,
with this complexity in the midst of practice. In other
activity, and the construction of entities. . . . a becoming
words, a key implication of direction 1 is the need for prac-
ontology demands that we continually question categories
titioners to work with multiple images in the management
and divisions that are routinely seen as fixed. . . . to hold a
of projects, rather than just one single all-encompassing
becoming ontology is to demand that we question bound-
model or theory, which is often the textbook guide to
aries on the basis that these are always human construc-
action. As Morgan [65] states in respect of organisation
tions and mere ‘empirical’ manifestations of conceptual
theory:
categories.
if multiple images of an organisation are used, much
As Linehan and Kavanagh state, the (mainstream) ‘being’
greater understanding is gained, for organisations are
ontology is not wrong or unhelpful, but rather a partial
many things at once, so multiple images envisage more
view of reality, and the same is true of the ‘becoming’
of what is going on. They can reveal new ways of manag-
ontology; it too is not wrong or unhelpful, but is another
ing and designing organisations that were not apparent
view of reality, which Linehan and Kavanagh argue
before [66].
‘‘seems to better describe the empirical reality of projects’’
[62]. The same thinking also applies to projects and pro-
Herein lies two very important points for developing the grammes, as Winter and Szczepanek [67] point out:
field intellectually: firstly, the need to challenge the assump-
if multiple images of a project (or programme) are used,
tion that the rational deterministic model is an all-encom-
much greater understanding is gained, for projects are
passing model of projects and project management – as
many things at once, so multiple images envisage more
many of the textbooks seem to portray – and secondly,
of what is going on. They can reveal new ways of manag-
the (often unexamined) assumption that the deterministic
ing and designing projects that were not apparent before.
model is the actual reality, in other words, the map is the
terrain. As the extract from Linehan and Kavanagh makes In practice of course, many experienced practitioners al-
clear, there are multiple models and theories of the practice ready do this – through experience and intuition – a fact
terrain, and being only partial views of that terrain, these confirmed by many of the practitioner inputs to the Net-
models and theories should be viewed less as models ‘of’ work meetings. So what new theories and images need to
that terrain, and more as models ‘relevant to’ the terrain. be developed ‘for’ practice, to assist those learning the
Making this distinction not only helps to distinguish the craft?
644 M. Winter et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 638–649
Based on the work of the Network, this part identifies
three important areas in need of further research: projects
as social processes – new concepts and images (D2); pro-
jects as value creation processes – new concepts and frame-
works (D3); and, project conceptualisation – new concepts
and approaches (D4). Directions 2 and 3 are essentially
based on the worldview that there is no one ‘best way’ to
think about projects and programmes. As Table 2 shows,
as well as the instrumental lifecycle image of projects, prac-
titioners also need to think about projects and programmes
from a number of other perspectives [67], notably, projects
as social processes, and projects as value creation pro-
cesses, which in turn leads to the following research ques-
tion: what concepts, images and frameworks could
usefully assist practitioners in thinking from these perspec-
tives? Similarly, with regard to direction 4, the research
question is: what new concepts and approaches could use-
fully assist practitioners in conceptualising projects and
programmes from different perspectives? As stated earlier,
these directions and questions represent important areas
in which project management ideas need to develop, to
assist practitioners in dealing with the complexity of pro-
jects. As Cooke-Davies [27] argues:
there is a need to improve the effectiveness of research into
the management of projects so as to provide support both
for project management practitioners, and also for
organisations in public, private and voluntary sectors
that seek to accomplish beneficial change through
projects.
The next three paragraphs cover directions 2–4 with some
examples of current and emerging research.
4.2.1. D2 projects as instrumental processes ! projects as
social processes
One of the strongest themes to emerge from all the prac-
titioner presentations to the Network is the fact that ‘real’
projects and programmes are much more complex, unpre-
dictable and multidimensional than the rational, determin-
istic model which dominates the literature. In short, the
notion that there are projects and programmes ‘out there’
being ‘acted upon’ by practitioners performing apolitical
operations is inappropriate. And yet practitioners are often
left ‘stranded’ to deal with this complexity without much
help from the literature. Hence, as Table 2 shows, future
research in this area needs to concentrate on developing
new ways of thinking which relate to the actual complexity
of projects, at all levels, focusing on aspects such as: the
ever-changing flux of events, the complexity of social inter-
action and human action, and the framing and reframing
of projects and programmes within an evolving array of
social agenda, practices, stakeholder relations, politics
and power [68,69].
For example, many of the practitioners who presented
to the Network sought to explain events in terms of organ-
isations and their interactions, seeing the adoption of pro-
ject and programme management, and the emergence of
specific projects, as artefacts of the power relationships
between different groups with competing interests. In
focusing on these events, a number of examples of current
and emerging research were presented to the Network,
including the work of Cicmil and Cooke-Davies
[26,27,70] who advocate the image of ‘complex responsive
processes of relating in organisations’ [71] as a way of
understanding the complexity of social interaction, and
suggest that this perspective could form an useful theoret-
ical basis for new research into project management.
4.2.2. D3 product creation as the prime focus ! value
creation as the prime focus
Another strong theme to emerge from the practitioner
presentations to the Network is the increasing emphasis
within organisations on value creation, rather than product
creation, as the overall focus in the management of pro-
jects. For many organisations, the main concern now is
no longer the capital asset, system or facility etc, but
increasingly the challenge of linking business strategy to
projects, maximising revenue generation, and managing
the delivery of benefits in relation to different stakeholder
groups. However, as the ‘from’ part of direction 3 in Table
2 shows, the principal concern in mainstream project man-
agement thinking is essentially that of product creation: the
development or improvement of a physical product, system
or facility etc, to specification, cost and time. Even the
body of ideas known as ‘value management’ is historically
and intellectually more aligned with the product creation
perspective than the value creation perspective being
described here.
Like the other directions in Table 2, direction 3 consti-
tutes another significant gap between mainstream thinking
and the developing practice, and hence, represents another
important area in which the field needs to develop new con-
cepts and frameworks to help practitioners. Unlike direction
2 however, the thinking in this area is more advanced – dri-
ven more by industry than academia – however, more work
is needed to build on current and emerging developments,
e.g. [46,72–77]. For example, new research is needed to illu-
minate the strategic selection (and non-selection) of projects
and programmes in organisations, recognising different
forms of value, and the need for new models of value crea-
tion beyond the conventional ‘value chain’ type representa-
tions of production and manufacturing.
Another aspect which emerged as significant in several
of the Network meetings was the issue of ‘value to whom?’,
in other words, the notion of ‘value’ as having multiple
meanings linked to different organisational and individual
purposes. A case in point is urban regeneration pro-
grammes and community development projects: how can
we assist practitioners to conceptualise the ‘value’ to be cre-
ated from these programmes and projects? This more com-
plex understanding of ‘value’ also highlights the fact that
the creation of value is often extended over long time peri-
ods, and cannot be defined and constrained by the main-
stream concepts of project initiation and closure. In other
 M. Winter et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 638–649
words, value creation continues long after the project man-
agers have moved on.
4.2.3. D4 narrow conceptualisation of projects ! broader
conceptualisation of projects
Like the other two directions in this category, this direc-
tion also emerges from the practitioner inputs to the Net-
work, but unlike directions 2 and 3 which are essentially
concerned with content – the social process and value crea-
tion – this direction is concerned with the actual process of
conceptualising projects and programmes from different
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. Today’s 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 offices. Today’s free
flow 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 dis-
played by the practitioners who presented to the Network
was precisely this skill, the skill of conceptualising projects
and programmes from different 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 different constituen-
cies have conflicting 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 signifi-
cant attention to intellectual processes – individual and
group – and the work involved in conceptualising messy
situations and the action needed in these situations. Con-
sider for example the following statement from another re-
search project [80]:
one of the widest fields where new and original research
could provide most practical benefit is within the front-
end processes of a project. . . . Better understanding is
needed of the ‘soft’ methodologies and their relevance
and credibility.
Although several ‘soft’ methodologies have featured in dif-
ferent IJPM papers over the years, e.g. [81–84], much of the
discussion to date has been largely theoretical and ‘‘exam-
645
ples of reported practical application have been few and lim-
ited 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 nar-
row conceptualisations of what the project or programme
is. In practice however, new concepts and approaches are
needed to facilitate the broader conceptualisation of pro-
jects and programmes as being multidisciplinary, with mul-
tiple 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 different 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 pro-
jects, programmes and portfolios, that might not otherwise
be apparent to practitioners [67]. The actual use of these
images in practice leads us to the final 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 field 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 final direction shown in Table 2.
4.3.1. D5: Practitioners as trained
technicians ! practitioners as reflective practitioners
In essence, this direction also emerges from the qualities
displayed by the practitioners who presented to the Net-
work, notably and firstly, their reflective 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 pro-
vide no guidance on ‘how’ to navigate the complexity of
projects in the ever-changing flux of events. As Schön states
[86]:
in the varied topography of professional practice, there is
a high, hard ground where practitioners can make effective
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.
Schön’s metaphor of the swampy lowlands describes not
only the kind of terrain experienced by project managers
646 M. Winter et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 638–649
and other practitioners – as conveyed to the Network – but
also how experienced practitioners approach this terrain,
through experience, intuition and the pragmatic applica-
tion of theory. As reflective practitioners (in Schön’s lan-
guage), the practitioners that presented to the Network
not only displayed many of the qualities of the reflective
practitioner [86], they also highlighted the importance of
these qualities as distinctive capabilities for the successful
management of projects. Examples highlighted were: con-
ceptualising projects from different perspectives, reading
situations, problem setting, dealing with ambiguity, relat-
ing to wider issues, and political footwork. Moreover,
one of the main concerns in this area, frequently high-
lighted by practitioners and academics within the Network,
is the limited attention given to the development of these
capabilities within the field of project management. Similar
observations were made about the role of leadership in pro-
ject environments, and the importance of leadership capa-
bilities, which many of the practitioners also highlighted as
being crucial to the successful management of projects. In
summary, many of the practitioners’ accounts presented
and discussed within the Network indicate that practice-
based knowledge is bounded by its contextual nature,
where actions and dispositional behaviours of practitioners
are influenced by their own identity and processes of sense-
making (of the context and its circumstances) where actors
apply their implicit rules in combination with the external
ones explicated in manuals and procedures.
Against this background then, the message of direction
5 – as the ‘towards’ part in Table 2 shows – is the need
for a greater focus on developing reflective practitioner
capabilities, enabling people to operate more effectively in
the ‘‘swampy lowlands’’ of projects and programmes, e.g.
[68,87,88]. Current industry offerings however, in training
and development, tend to centre on particular products –
such as PRINCE2 [89] and MSP [72] – many of which
embody some or all of the mainstream ideas in project
management. Experience shows however that it is people
who deliver successful projects, not methods and tools,
and it is people’s ability to engage intelligently with the
complexity of projects, that is central to the successful
management of projects. For examples of current and
emerging work in this area see [26,90–92].
5. Future research in project management: issues for
researchers and concluding remarks
The overarching aim of the Network has been to con-
tribute to the development of the field beyond its current
intellectual foundations, reflecting the need to re-examine
in a constructive way the relationship between project man-
agement research and the field as practiced. One of the
aims has been to examine how current theories, concepts
and methodologies underpinning project management
research could be enriched and extended to enhance the rel-
evance of the knowledge created in the research process for
practical action in project environments. Table 2 summa-
rises the resulting views on the kind of thinking and direc-
tions needed, which in turn suggest two important
implications for research: (i) directions 1–5 reflect the con-
cerns of practitioners in the following areas: project com-
plexity, social process, value creation, project
conceptualisation and practitioner development; and (ii)
directions 1–5 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 significant body of literature on management research
addresses the relationship between the research process and
the nature of knowledge created through this process, e.g.
[93–103]. Fig. 1 provides an illustration of this process
and illuminates the intricacies of the research process
through which the five directions in Table 2 could be inves-
tigated. 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
researcher’s 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 (Ele-
ment 2) will, therefore, reflect and require serious consider-
ation of the level of inquiry (macro or micro), the type of
concepts and theory being used to formulate research ques-
tions 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 interpreta-
tions of experience). Fig. 1 seeks to show the close intercon-
nectedness 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 rele-
vant 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 sci-
ence, to name only a few that are relevant to, for example
the new research directions 1 and 4. Simultaneously, there
is the need to reflect on the implications of positivist, inter-
pretative, critical and constructionist positions in repre-
senting the phenomenon under inquiry, i.e. the project
and/or project management, for the nature of created
knowledge and propositions directed to practitioners. Sim-
ilarly, the adopted focus and level of analysis will result in a
specific 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.
 M. Winter et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 638–649 647

Element 1 Element 2 Element 3

THEORETICAL
TRADITIONS
used to understand and
explain the world of project
management practice…
METHODOLOGY ISSUE / AREA
OF STUDY
- level of inquiry - body of knowledge
- view on empirical data deemed legitimate

Presumptions of the researcher Methods of data Evaluation of research

about the phenomenon under collection and analysis: process and outcomes:
investigation and about the - procedures - quality
nature of ‘practically relevant’ - tools and techniques - usefulness
knowledge - interpretation - relevance

…and assumptions about - view on the role of - previous research

and concepts of, reality, theory in the research - extant literature
science, knowledge, process - current debates
ethics, values

Reflection

Fig. 1. A practical framework for thinking about project management research [103].

the issues of relationship between individual and group, the
nature of human interaction, and questions of how learn-
ing, emotion, ethics, micro-politics, and power in project
environments are understood (relevant to the new research
directions 2, 3 and 5). Ontological and theoretical
approaches will shape the representation of the phenome-
non under study and guide the choice of research methods
best suited for creating knowledge relevant to practice (e.g.
directions 2–4). In the process of reflection, researchers’
(and practitioners’) assumptions about the criteria for eval-
uating ‘relevant and useful’ knowledge in project manage-
ment will also surface, making a distinction between, for
example, criteria focused on control and organisational
performativity, and those focused on intersubjective com-
municative interaction, collaborative work, or individual
wellbeing and emancipation from exploitation (e.g. direc-
tions 2 and 3). At the same time, the five directions also
imply the need for a range of creative research strategies,
designs and methods including action research (e.g. direc-
tions 1–5), action learning (direction 5), longitudinal case
studies (directions 1 and 4), and co-operative inquiry in
the specific organisational or project context (directions
1–5), in addition to more conventional surveys and statisti-
cal analyses.
It is important, therefore, to understand the implications
for research implied by Table 2; notably the need to under-
stand research as a holistic intellectual activity – spanning
all three elements in Fig. 1 – and, very importantly, the
intrinsic link between research methodology and the nature
of the knowledge created in the process. The remaining
papers within this Special Issue will also illustrate the rele-
vance of this proposition.
6. Conclusion
It was stated earlier that the field of project management
does seem to be intellectually alive, as judged by the num-
ber of research and practitioner conferences for example.
The Rethinking Project Management Network also attests
to this fact, with its large and active membership of aca-
demics and practitioners, many of whom have contributed
to the papers in this Special Issue. As the opening paper of
this Special Issue, this paper has presented the main find-
ings, a framework of five directions in which the field needs
to develop intellectually beyond its current conceptual
base. These directions are not meant to be the agenda for
future research, but an agenda to inform people already
working in the field, and those interested in developing
new research in project management. Collectively, the five
directions in Table 2 represent a synthesis of ideas for how
the discipline needs to develop in relation to the developing
world of practice. Finally to end, the whole methodological
approach to the Network is also relevant to how the field
needs to develop, and this is the subject of the next paper.
Acknowledgement
The Network organisers would like to acknowledge the
contributions of all the invited speakers and the Network
participants, and the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sci-
ences Research Council for funding this work.
References
[1] Whittington R et al. Change and complementarities in the new
competitive landscape: an European panel study. 1992–1996. Org Sci
1999;5:583–600.
[2] KPMG. Programme management survey. UK: KPMG; 2002.
[3] OPSR. Improving Programme and Project Delivery. UK Civil
Service Report, Office of Public Services Reform. Whitehall,
London; 2003.
[4] Child J, McGrath R. Organizations unfettered: organizational form
in an information intensive economy. Acad Manage J 2001;44(6):
1135–48.
[5] Morris P. The management of projects. Telford; 1994.
[6] Koskela L, Howell G. The underlying theory of project management
is obsolete. In: Conference proceedings of the 2002 PMI conference,
Seatle; 2002.
648 M. Winter et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 638–649
[7] Hobday M. The project-based organisation: an ideal form for
managing complex products and systems. Res Policy 2000;29(7–8):
871–93.
[8] Kloppenborg T, Opfer W. Forty years of project management
research: trends, interpretations, and predictions. In: Proceedings of
the PMI research conference, Paris; 2000.
[9] Miller R, Lessard D. The strategic management of large engineering
projects: shaping institution. MIT Press; 2001.
[10] Morris P. Researching the unanswered questions of project man-
agement. In: Conference proceedings of the PMI research confer-
ence, Paris; 2000.
[11] Lundin R, Hartman F. Pervasiveness of projects in business. In:
Lundin R, Hartman F, editors. Projects as business constituents and
guiding motives. Kluwer; 2000. p. 1–10.
[12] Soderlund J. Temporary organizing – characteristics and control
forms. In: Lundin R, Hartman F, editors. Projects as business
constituents and guiding motives. Kluwer; 2000. p. 61–74.
[13] Winch G. The management of projects as a generic business process.
In: Lundin R, Hartman F, editors. Projects as business constituents
and guiding motives. Kluwer; 2000. p. 117–30.
[14] Melgrati A, Damiani M. Rethinking the project management
framework: new epistemology, new insights. In: Proceedings of the
2002 PMI research conference, Seatle, Project Management Insti-
tute; 2002.
[15] Meyer A et al. Managing project uncertainty: from variation to
chaos. MIT Sloan Manage Rev 2002:60–7.
[16] Cooke-Davies T. Establishing the link between project management
practices and project success. In: Proceedings of the 2002 PMI
research conference, Seatle, Project Management Institute; 2002.
[17] Hodgson D. Disciplining the professional: the case of project
management. J Manage Stud 2002;39(6):803–21.
[18] Meredith J. Developing project management theory for managerial
applications: the view of a research journal’s editor. In: Proceedings
of the 2002 PMI research conference, Seatle, PM Institute; 2002.
[19] Morris P. Science, objective knowledge and the theory of project
management. Civil Eng Proc ICE 2002;150:82–90.
[20] Winter M. Management, managing and managing projects: towards
an extended soft systems methodology. Unpublished PhD Disser-
tation, Department of Management Science, Lancaster University;
2002.
[21] Packendorff J. Inquiring into the temporary organization: new
directions for project management research. Scand J Manage
1995;11(4):319–33.
[22] Checkland P. Soft systems methodology. Chapter 4 in rational
analysis for a problematic world. Wiley; 1989.
[23] Yeo KT. Systems thinking and project management – time to
reunite. Int J Project Manage 1993;11(2):111–7.
[24] Winch G. Rethinking project management: project organizations as
information processing systems? In: Proceedings of the PMI research
conference, July 2004, London, Project Management Institute; 2004.
[25] Cicmil S. Knowledge, interaction, and project work: from instru-
mental rationality to practical wisdom. Unpublished PhD Disserta-
tion, British Library; 2003.
[26] Cicmil S, Marshall D. Insights into collaboration at project level:
complexity, social interaction and procurement mechanisms. Build
Res Inform 2005;33/6:523–35.
[27] Cooke-Davies T. De-engineering project management. In: Proceed-
ings of the IRNOP VI conference, 1–20, Turku, Finland; 2004.
[28] Lawrence P, Lorsch J. Organisation and environment: managing
integration and differentiation. Boston: Harvard University; 1967.
[29] Galbraith J. Designing complex organisations. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley; 1973.
[30] Mintzberg H. Structure in fives: designing effective organizations.
Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1983.
[31] Toffler A. Future shock. New York: Bantam Book; 1997.
[32] Sydow J et al. Project-based organisations, embeddedness, and
repositories of knowledge: editorial. Organ Stud 2004;25(9):
1475–89.
[33] Lundin R, Soderholm A. A theory of the temporary organization.
Scand J Manage 1995;11(4):437–55.
[34] DeFillippi R, Arthur M. Paradox in project-based enterprise: the
case of film making. Calif Manage Rev 1998;40(2):1–15.
[35] Grabher G. Cool projects, boring institutions: temporary collabo-
ration in social context. Reg Stud 2002;36(3):205–14.
[36] Engwall M. No Project is an island: linking projects to history and
context. Res Policy 2003;32(5):789–809.
[37] Morris P, Hough G. The anatomy of major projects. Wiley; 1987.
[38] Flyvbjerg B et al. Underestimating costs in public works projects.
Error or lie? Am Plan Assoc J 2002;68(3):279–95.
[39] Bauer R et al. The silverlake project. Oxford University Press; 1992.
[40] Stinchcombe A, Heimer C. Organization theory and project
management, administering uncertainty in Norwegian offshore oil.
Oslo: Norwegian University Press; 1985.
[41] Whipp R, Clark P. Innovation and the auto industry:
product, process and work organization. London: Francis
Pinter; 1986.
[42] Clark K, Fujimoto T. Product development performance: strategy,
organization, and management in the world auto industry. Harvard
Business School Press; 1991.
[43] Midler C. L’auto qui n’existait pas, management des projects et
transformation de l’ entreprise (The car that did not exist: project
management and transformations of the firms). Paris: InterEdition;
1993.
[44] Davies A, Hobday M. The business of projects. Cambridge
University Press; 2005.
[45] Morris P, Pinto J, editors. The Wiley guide to managing projects.
New Jersey: Wiley; 2004.
[46] Morris P, Jamieson A. Translating corporate strategy into project
strategy. Project Management Institute; 2004.
[47] Flowers S. Contingent capabilities and the procurement of complex
product systems. Int J Innov Manage 2004;8(1):1–20.
[48] Williamson O. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York:
Free Press; 1985.
[49] Winch G. Managing construction projects. Blackwell; 2002.
[50] Winch G. Rethinking project management: project organisations as
information processing systems. In: Slevin D et al., editors. Inno-
vations: project management research 2004. Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute; 2004.
[51] Hodgson D, Cicmil S. Making projects critical. Palgrave Macmillan;
2006.
[52] Williams T. Modelling complex projects. Wiley; 2002.
[53] Morris P et al. Exploring the role of formal bodies of knowledge in
defining a profession – The case of project management. Int J Project
Manage 2006;24:710–21.
[54] Morris P. Current trends in project and programme management.
Association for Project Management Yearbook, Association for
Project Management (APM), High Wycombe; 2004.
[55] Cooke-Davies T. Project success. In: Morris P, Pinto J, editors. The
Wiley guide to managing projects. New Jersey: Wiley; 2004.
[56] Yeo K. Critical failure factors in information systems projects. Int J
Project Manage 2000;20:241–6.
[57] Crawford L. Profiling the competent project manager. In: Slevin D
et al., editors. The Frontiers of Project Management Research.
Newton Square (PA): Project Management Institute; 2002. p.
151–76.
[58] Crawford L et al. Project categorization systems and their use in
organisations: an empirical study. In: Slevin D et al., editors.
Innovations: project management research 2004. Newton Square
(PA): Project Management Institute; 2005.
[59] Shenhar A, Dvir D. Toward a typology theory of project manage-
ment. Res Policy 1996;25:607–32.
[60] Morris P. The (ir)relevance of project management. In: Proceedings
of international association for project management world congress,
June, Moscow. IPMA, Zurich; 2003.
[61] Keegan A, Turner R. The management of innovation in project-
based firms. Long Range Plan 2002;35:367–88.
 M. Winter et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 638–649
[62] Linehan C, Kavanagh D. From project ontologies to communities
of virtue. 2nd Workshop of Making Projects Critical, 1–15, Bristol,
UK; 2004.
[63] Fay B. Critical realism? J Theor Soc Behav 1990;20:33–41.
[64] Deming W. Out of the crisis. Cambridge University Press; 1986.
[65] Morgan G. Images of organization. Sage; 1986.
[66] Pugh D, Hickson D. Writers on organizations. UK: Penguin; 1996.
[67] Winter M, Szczepanek T. Reframing project management: new
thinking, new practice. Gower Publishing; 2007.
[68] Winter M. The actuality of managing projects: reflection-in-action
as a theory of practice. Presentation to EPSRC Network Rethinking
Project Management, University of Strathcylde; 2005. Available
from: <http://www.umist.ac.uk/departments/civil/research/manage-
ment/rethinkpm/presentations5.htm>.
[69] Cicmil S. Researching the actuality of projects – key premises and
assumptions. In: Presentation to EPSRC Network Rethinking
Project Management, University of Strathcylde; 2005. Available
from: <http://www.umist.ac.uk/departments/civil/research/manage-
ment/rethinkpm/presentations5.htm>.
[70] Cooke-Davies T, Cicmil S. Complex responsive processes of relating
in organisations – an approach to social science research into 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/manage-
ment/rethinkpm/presentations5.htm>.
[71] Stacey R. Complex responsive processes in organizations: learning
and knowledge creation. London: Routledge; 2001.
[72] OGC. Managing successful programmes. 2nd ed. London: The
Stationery Office; 2003.
[73] Thorp J. The information paradox. Revised edition. McGraw-Hill;
2003.
[74] Brady T, Davies D, Gann D. Creating value by delivering integrated
solutions. Int J Project Manage 2005;23:360–5.
[75] Cohen D, Graham R. The project manager’s MBA. Jossey-Bass;
2001.
[76] Ward J, Daniel J. Benefits management: delivering value from IS &
IT investments. Wiley; 2006.
[77] Winter M et al. Focusing on business projects as an area for future
research: An exploratory discussion of four different perspectives.
Int J Project Manage 2006;24:699–709.
[78] Normann R. Reframing business: when the map changes the
landscape. Wiley; 2001.
[79] Rosenhead J, Mingers J. Rational analysis for a problematic world.
2nd ed. Wiley; 2001.
[80] Ashmore C. BPRC focus group: project management, the motiva-
tions and conditions for change, 1997. Internet: http://bprc.war-
wick.ac.uk/focus12html [accessed 31.10.01].
[81] Saunders R. Project management: a systems perspective. Int J
Project Manage 1992;10(3):153–9.
[82] Green S. Beyond value engineering: SMART value management for
building projects. Int J Project Manage 1994;12(1):49–56.
[83] Neal R. Project definition: the soft systems approach. Int J Project
Manage 1995;13(1):5–9.
649
[84] Ramsay D et al. Reinforcing learning, using soft systemic frame-
works. Int J Project Manage 1996;14(1):31–6.
[85] Crawford L et al. Managing soft change projects in the public
sector. Int J Project Manage 2003;21(6):443–8.
[86] Schön D. The reflective 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/manage-
ment/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 Office; 2005.
[90] Crawford L. Profiling 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 reflection 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 1468-
4578; 2005.
[93] Easterby-Smith M et al. Management research – an introduction.
London: Sage; 1991.
[94] Mitroff 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 reflexivity prods to reflection. Organ Stud
2002;23(6):893–8.
[102] Calori R. Essai: real-time/real-space research: connecting action
and reflection in organization studies. Organ Stud 2002;23/
6:877–83.
[103] Cicmil S. Understanding project management practice through
interpretative and critical research perspectives. Project Manage J
2006;37(2):27–37.