Journal of Cleaner Production 238 (2019) 117810

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

The imperative and research directions of sustainable project

management
Abdoulmohammad Gholamzadeh Chofreh a, *, Feybi Ariani Goni a,
Muhammad Noman Malik b, Huma Hayat Khan b, Ji
rí Jaromír Kleme
s a
a 
Sustainable Process Integration Laboratory - SPIL, NETME Centre, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Brno University of Technology - VUT Brno, Technicka
2896/2, 616 69 Brno, Czech Republic
b
Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science, National University of Modern Languages (NUML), Islamabad Campus, Pakistan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: There have been a considerable number of studies that underscored the need to integrate sustainability
Received 9 June 2018 into the sustainable project management concept. However, there is a limited study that examines the
Received in revised form significance of the concept and its future research directions. The present study aimed to investigate the
7 April 2019
imperative of the concept and identify a number of potential research themes. The research methodology
Accepted 26 July 2019
Available online 31 July 2019
used in this study is a narrative review that relies on literature analysis in the fields of sustainability,
project management, and sustainable project management. The results provide numerous research
Handling Editor: CT Lee topics that have been studied by academics, and further studies are required to advance the development
of sustainable project management research. The research findings contribute to academics in providing
Keywords: research directions in order to observe new research themes. In a practical perspective, this study can
Sustainability assist practitioners in understanding the importance of embedding environmental, social, and economic
Project management aspects of sustainability into the process of managing projects.
Research imperative © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Research directions

1. Introduction to be a global business trend as various organisations incorporate

Development of project management has been recognised, and
it is essential for organisations to manage various portfolios, pro-
grams, and projects (Chofreh et al., 2016). However, Marcelino-
Sadaba et al. (2015) argued that the philosophy of this concept is
limited to profit without considering the societal and environ-
mental aspects. Conventional project management is not suitable
for managing portfolios, programs, and projects in a sustainable
manner. Sustainability principles need to be embedded into the
project management concept.
Since the last 1980s, the concept of sustainability has become a
major problem in doing business as public awareness about nature
conservation is escalating (Mikul
cic et al., 2016). This has been
recognised as a necessary emerging approach to re-think, re-
design, and re-develop business practices in a more sustainable
way (Chofreh and Goni, 2017). The sustainability concept turns out
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: chofreh@fme.vutbr.cz (A.G. Chofreh).
sustainability strategies into their business mission and strategy to
survive and having a competitive advantage (Goni et al., 2015).
Chofreh et al. (2017) argued that sustainable products and services
are the key prospects of consumers and the organisations’ main
priority is to achieve this through sustainable practices. Therefore,
addressing realistic sustainability issues and dynamic global busi-
ness environment requires the attention and responsibility of the
organisations to respond (Chofreh et al., 2018).
Sustainability has become one of the main concerns and key
indicators of success in business (Goni et al., 2017). Therefore,
sustainability embedment into project management concepts and
methods, known as SPM, should be carried out to support the or-
ganisations in achieving competitive advantage. Silvius et al. (2017)
concluded that this embedment is important as the sustainability
concept has been incorporated into the strategic plan, tactical plan,
and daily operational activities of the organisation. Practitioners
need SPM concepts and applications to sustainably estimate risk,
plan, organise, and control the projects.
SPM can be seen as an opportunistic platform for organisations
to survive with current and future sustainability issues. This

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117810
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 A.G. Chofreh et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 238 (2019) 117810
concept enables organisations to interlock sustainability principles
into the way projects are managed, measured and reported that
ultimately contribute to business success. Although organisations
have taken their initiative towards sustainability, many of them still
manage their projects using conventional project management and
therefore, they fail to achieve the anticipated goals (Banihashemi
et al., 2017).
In an academic perspective, scholars robustly designate the
importance of sustainability for project management and empha-
sise the embedment of valuable interlinking relationships from
both concepts (Gareis et al., 2011). Tharp (2012) underscored the
need for organisations to embed sustainability and project man-
agement and evaluate the implementation risks concerning social
impacts such as labour practices and human rights. Michaelides
et al. (2014) identified various drivers to SPM implementation in
oil and gas supply chains. They also analysed the importance of
knowledge sharing in implementing SPM. Mavi and Standing
(2018) identified critical success factors of SPM implementation
in the construction industry using a multi-criteria decision-making
techniques.
Existing studies have provided valuable contributions to aca-
demics and practitioners by focusing on specific subjects in SPM.
However, there are numerous important topics that have not been
explored by scholars. Limited studies concerning the importance of
SPM and research direction that provides numerous potential
research themes. The purpose of the present study is to emphasise
the importance of SPM and provide potential research themes in
order to give an overall research plan for academics.
The present study seeks to answer the following research
questions:
(i) Why is the SPM concept important for organisations? and
(ii) What are the potential research themes in SPM that need to
be investigated by academicians?
A narrative review is used to answer the research questions by
reviewing previous studies, identifying research topics that have
been studied, and classifying the studies. The results of the analysis
are presented in Table 1. It indicates that numerous research
themes in SPM have not been studied such as research evolution,
identification of SPM components, development of frameworks,
and integration process. These topics are potential for in-
vestigations to improve research development in SPM. The more
rapid the development stages of SPM research with diverse analysis
and targeted research topics can help practitioners to effectively
implement SPM and reduce failure in its application.
The structure of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2
provides a review of previous studies on SPM. Section 3 describes
the method used to conduct this study. Section 4 presents the
findings and discussion. Section 5 provides conclusions of the
study, research contributions, and recommendations for future
studies.
2. Research on sustainable project management
The present study provides a review study concerning the
imperative of SPM and research direction in this field. A number of
efforts have been done in emphasising the need for embedding
sustainability features into project management using literature
analysis. Silvius and Schipper (2014) provided a systematic litera-
ture review of 164 papers that interlink the sustainability concept
with project management to investigate various sustainability
impacts on project management. Marcelino-S adaba et al. (2015)
observed the relationship between project management and sus-
tainability by reviewing 110 publications. The studies were
classified according to project management and sustainability di-
mensions. The results of their literature examination showed that a
subject related to social issues of sustainability has less
advancement.
The recent paper by Aarseth et al. (2016) reviewed several
publications in project sustainability research to determine
various project sustainability strategies required in project man-
agement. They found that only a part of the identified strategies in
the literature was adopted by the project-based organisation.
Martens and Carvalho (2016a) conducted a study by reviewing
numbers of studies in SPM to ascertain numerous main factors of
sustainability through the triple bottom line perspective in the
context of project management. Similar to the previous studies,
Martens and Carvalho (2016b) used a systematic literature review
to analyse 199 publications in the related area and conducted a
survey in Brazilian companies. They identified four main factors
that are important to describe SPM from the viewpoint of project
managers: sustainable innovation business model, stakeholders’
management, economics and competitive advantage, and envi-
ronmental policies and resources saving. These studies have made
important contributions to academics and practices. However,
there is an absence of research providing research directions to
see the overall potential research themes in the SPM field. In
addition, the majority of current studies were narrow to fewer
areas in sustainable projects including green construction and
eco-design. For instance, Brones et al. (2014) observed the adop-
tion of project management in eco-design projects. Hwang et al.
(2017) examined the obstacles of implementing green business
parks and proposed solutions to the identified issues. Numbers of
the obstacles were identified through literature review and these
obstacles than were examined via a survey with 40 Singaporean
industries.
Banihashemi et al. (2017) examined critical success factors to
incorporate environmental, social, and economic aspects into
construction project management in developing countries. They
identified and assessed the success factors using qualitative and
quantitative analysis that culminated as a conceptual model.
Similar to Banihashemi et al. (2017), Mavi and Standing (2018)
identified critical success factors for implementing SPM in con-
struction and classified them into five groups. These factors are
then assessed using fuzzy DEMATEL-ANP to find the most crit-
ical factor to consider based on their weigh. Yu et al. (2018) used
sustainable project planning to integrate sustainability into
project management practices in construction projects. They
found that working agreement, risk response, and managerial
control are vital for a successful project in construction engi-
neering. Therefore, SPM research in a general perspective and
specific scope in the industry besides eco-design and construc-
tion is required for practitioners. This idea underlies the present
study, which can contribute to the improvement of SPM
research.
3. Research methodology
Bhandari (2012) mentioned that the literature review tech-
niques consist of three types including narrative review, systematic
review, and meta-analysis. The present study adopts a narrative
review to identify the research themes in SPM. It is a selective
literature review that provides a general perspective from studies.
The research objective in the narrative review is more general.
However, systematic reviews and meta-analysis have more concise
and specific research objectives. Fig. 1 encapsulates the research
process of the present study.
The first step in the narrative review is to identify the observed
topic according to its significance in academics and practices. The
 A.G. Chofreh et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 238 (2019) 117810 3

present study identified SPM as an important topic that needs to be

exposed to. However, the existing studies in this field are still
limited. Therefore, studies in the field of sustainability and project
management, which are considered as the root topic of SPM, are
reviewed in order to predict potential research themes in SPM.
The second step is the literature search in the area of “sustain-
ability” and “project management”, which is conducted in several
scientific databases including Science Direct, Scopus, and Google
Scholar. A literature search found numerous publications in these
two areas of study that have been published in various journals. To
limit search time, the present study selects studies from impact
factor journals comprising Journal of Cleaner Production, Interna-
tional Journal of Project Management, Sustainability, Long Range
Planning, Resources Policy, Sustainable Development, and other
potential journals that are listed in Fig. 2.
Abstracts from several collected studies are then analysed to
find the focus of the study. The results of this process indicate
various research themes in sustainability and project manage-
ment field that have been investigated including evolution, ter-
minology, architecture, components, implementation and
deployment, organisational capabilities, system extension, his-
tory, and other themes in a particular field. These identified
research themes are then classified based on the phases in the
research life cycle that have been defined by Chofreh et al. (2014),
as given in Fig. 5.
The third step is to find literature in the SPM area based on
the identified research themes. This study uses keywords that
indicate the research topic and specific research theme (RT), for
example, “sustainable project management” and “evolution”.
This literature search is also carried out in several scientific da-
tabases consisting of Science Direct, Scopus, and Google Scholar.
As a result, numerous studies in SPM are found from various
impact journals including Journal of Cleaner Production, Inter-
national Journal of Project Management, Project Management
Journal, Sustainability, and other scientific journals. The objec-
Fig. 1. Steps in a narrative review.
tives, methodologies, and results of the study are then analysed
to identify the knowledge gap and potential future works. Fig. 3
provides the journals and distribution of related studies in each
research theme.

Journal of Management in Engineering

Energy for Sustainable Development
Energies
Ecological Indicators
Business Strategy and the Environment
Project Management Journal
Journal of Environmental Management
Interna onal Journal of Managing Projects in Business
Journal of Business Ethics
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
Sustainable Development
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy
Resources Policy
Long Range Planning
Sustainability
Interna onal Journal of Project Management
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
Journal of Cleaner Produc on

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000

Project Management Sustainability

Fig. 2. A sample of journals and distribution of publications in sustainability and project management.
4 A.G. Chofreh et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 238 (2019) 117810

RT1: Evolution RT16: System integration RT33: Critical success factors

RT2: Terminology RT17: Software application RT34: Training
RT3: Concept and principal RT18: Modelling RT35: Human resource management
RT4: Research significance RT19: Prototype RT36: Cost management
RT5: Ontology RT20: Indicators RT37: Integration management
RT6: Benefits RT21: Data management RT38: Stakeholder management
RT7: Transformation RT22: Simulation RT39: Standardisation
RT8: Issues and challenges RT23: Customisation RT40: Maintenance
RT9: Value and objective RT24: Ethics RT41: Corporate performance
RT10: Impact of the concept of the internal and external RT25: Project team RT42: System’s performance
environment RT26: Program/portfolio RT43: Evaluation
RT11: Research direction RT27: Decision-making RT44: Change management
RT12: Strategy RT28: Planning RT45: Process management
RT13: Architecture RT29: System life cycle RT46: Control management
RT14: Theoretical components RT30: Implementation and Deployment RT47: System extension
of the concept RT31: Organisational capabilities RT48: History
RT15: System design RT32: Organisational readiness RT49: Research trend

4. Results and discussion increasing importance of sustainability that needs to be embedded

This section provides the results of the identified research
questions: (i) Why is the SPM concept important for organisations?
(ii) What are the potential research themes in SPM that need to be
investigated by academicians? Each research question is sequen-
tially discussed in the following sub-sections.
4.1. The importance of sustainable project management for
organisations
The concept of SPM has continuously grown considering the
into organisations. Silvius et al. (2009) defined Sustainable Project
Management as “the management of project-orientated change in
policies, assets or organisations, with consideration of the economic,
social, and environmental impact of the project, its result, and its effect,
for now, and for future generations”. They mentioned that all di-
mensions of sustainability including environmental, economic, and
social need to be closely linked with all main activities involved in
managing projects. SPM implementation is important for organi-
sations as conventional project management concept provides
limited consideration for sustainable development (Tharp, 2012).
Fig. 4 shows the philosophy of the conventional project

12

10

0
RT1
RT2
RT3
RT4
RT5
RT6
RT7
RT8
RT9
RT10
RT11
RT12
RT13
RT14
RT15
RT16
RT17
RT18
RT19
RT20
RT21
RT22
RT23
RT24
RT25
RT26
RT27
RT28
RT29
RT30
RT31
RT32
RT33
RT34
RT35
RT36
RT37
RT38
RT39
RT40
RT41
RT42
RT43
RT44

Journal of Cleaner Produc on Interna onal Journal of Project Management

Sustainability Interna onal Journal of Managing Projects in Business
Project Management Journal Ecological Indicators
Journal of Management in Engineering Journal of Project Management
Social Business KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 3. Journals and SPM studies in each research theme.

 A.G. Chofreh et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 238 (2019) 117810
Fig. 4. Philosophy of the conventional project management and SPM.
management leading to the SPM concept.
Labuschagne and Brent (2005) argued that sustainability
embedment into project management as a primary business tool of
many organisations could help practitioners to meet the needs of
the organisation and stakeholders. SPM concept enables them to
calculate the environmental, social, and economic impacts of pro-
jects on society. Keeys and Huemann (2017) mentioned that the
direction of project management should be changed from the result
into life cycle oriented. The SPM concept embraces iterative process
connected with project life cycle and includes sustainability aspects
in every phase and activity in the life cycle. Also, the sustainability
impact of project deliverables/results on the society needs to be
assessed to ensure the integration of sustainability dimensions and
effective implementation of sustainability.
The lack of sustainability considerations in project management
concepts and methods can hinder the ability of project managers to
deliver portfolios, programs, and projects sustainably (Marcelino-
daba et al., 2015). Okereke (2017) has investigated numerous
Sa
failed construction projects in Africa as a result of sustainability
ignorance. He found some specific causes of failure including cor-
ruption, poor planning, lack of stakeholder collaboration, lack of
resources, and lack of expertise and training. Therefore, the
embedment of sustainability into project management is crucial
overcoming various problems in project management.
Tharp (2012) defined three key principles of SPM including
planet (environment), profit (economy), and people (society).
Planet aspect related to managing and evaluating the use of re-
sources, procurement practices, organisational standards, capital
equipment, and facilities requirements. Profit aspect refers to the
return on investment approach to identify and measure the eco-
nomic impact of investment in projects and to ensure that align
Fig. 5. The research life cycle of project management and SPM.
5
with the organisational strategy. People aspect focused on human
resources in term of skills, responsibility, culture, and process.
The three main principles mentioned above were then observed
and expanded by numerous academics to highlight important as-
pects of sustainability that need to be underlined in managing the
project. For example, Silvius et al. (2012) identified six fundamental
values of SPM comprising (i) balancing environmental, social, and
economic benefits, (ii) short-term and long-term project orienta-
tion, (iii) local, regional, and global project orientation, (iv) morals
and values, (v) project transparency and responsibility, and (vi)
consume income not capital. However, Gareis (2013) focused only
on the values above without considering project transparency and
responsibility as well as income consumption. Agarwal and
Semenova (2015) completed the six values appointed by Silvius
et al. (2012) by adding involvement from stakeholders and risk
reduction. In a more recent study, Chawla et al. (2018) deliberated
other sustainability values comprising project life cycle, clear
strategies, standards, and methods, and the use of resources.
Martens and Carvalho (2016a) observed that SPM has a large
impact on project success. Adriana and Ioana-Maria (2013) found
that SPM implementation directly contributed to achieving suc-
cessful project outcomes. They have investigated project reports
from 35 companies and found that most companies have practised
SPM and they have achieved project success. The analysis results
revealed that 100% sustainability integration generates 67% or 83%
project success. Similarly, 86%, 71%, and even 57% sustainability
integration leads to 100% project success.
Practitioners should embed sustainability in their project stra-
tegies to successfully overcome current challenges including
managing stakeholder, managing the project life cycle, and
improving decision-making (Marcelino-Sa daba et al., 2015). This
opinion is in line with the work of Keeys and Huemann (2017) that
observed the application of SPM in organisations could improve
communication and collaboration between the company and
stakeholder and increase stakeholder satisfaction. They also added
other benefits of SPM including enhancing efficiency in managing
and completing a project, create sustainable value for organisa-
tions, and efficiently manage strategic alignment between sus-
tainability, business, and projects.
Tharp (2012) discussed the implementation of SPM could in-
crease sustainable competitive advantage, promote sustainable
outcomes, address social aspects for project team members, in-
crease transparency in managing project, and effectively cope the
6 A.G. Chofreh et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 238 (2019) 117810
complexity of managing projects. The above argument confirms
that important aspects of sustainability cannot be ignored in proj-
ect management. The embedment of sustainability into project
management helps experts, particularly project managers, to
design, execute, monitor/control, and eliminate projects with
consideration of the environmental, economic, social impacts.
The importance of sustainability has also been highlighted and
well recognised in the Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOK) standards and guidelines by including project stake-
holder management as a new knowledge area in project manage-
ment. Project Management Institute (PMI) considers several
sustainability-related features including stakeholder involvement
in decision-making, legal rights such as occupational health and
safety, ownership, knowledge sharing, and resources management
(PMBOK, 2017). Although the contribution of sustainability to
project management has been identified by numerous studies, its
practical application in organisations is not easily carried out due to
the complexity of the concept.
Numerous obstacles need to be addressed by practitioners to
effectively implement SPM in organisations. Michaelides et al.
(2014) identified several challenges including a lack of sense of
shared responsibility, weak partnerships between stakeholders,
insufficient planning, and limited understanding of sustainability.
In another study, Martens and Carvalho (2016a) observed that or-
ganisations currently need a methodology that can lead them to
effective SPM implementation and how to use sustainability in each
phase of the project management lifecycle. The methodology needs
to provide a comprehensive process showing how to integrate all
environmental, social, and economic aspects into project manage-
ment. Hwang et al. (2017) found that high implementation budget
is considered the highest obstacle, followed by the unclear balance
between environmental, social, and economic benefits and lack of
encouragement and assistance from the government. The above
studies have identified numbers of benefit and challenge in
implementing SPM. However, further research in real practice cir-
cumstances is required to provide an actual initial path and stra-
tegic direction for the organisation.
4.2. Potential research themes in sustainable project management
The present study adopts a research lifecycle proposed by
(Chofreh et al., 2014) to illustrate the research trends in project
management and SPM. The research life cycle shows the current
condition of project management and SPM researches. It consists of
four phases comprising introduction, growth, maturity, and
decline.
The introduction phase tends to focus more on fundamental
research. This initial research phase setup the baseline for embry-
onic research in the related field of study. The growth phase is more
focused on solutions such as models, frameworks, and system
design to address specific problems in related topics. The maturity
phase emphases more on a system implementation, various
involved factors, and their influence on the implementation pro-
cess. The decline phase is the point where research on a particular
topic decreases. This can be understood from research topics that
focus on the history of a system or method. Fig. 5 provides the
research life cycle of project management and SPM.
The phases in the research life cycle diagram are adapted in the
present study to categorise the research themes and obtained
studies in the fields of sustainability, project management, and
SPM. The results of this process are provided in Table 1.
Table 1 shows that SPM research is currently in the growth
phase. In the introduction phase, the majority of research themes
including concept and principal, research significance, ontology,
benefits, transformation, issues and challenges, values, impact, and
strategy have been studied by academics. In contrast, other
research themes in this phase comprising evolution, terminology,
and research direction have not yet been investigated.
Concerning the evolution research theme, academics might
focus their research on longitudinal study observing the imple-
mentation of SPM in organisations and required skills of project
managers to apply the concept. In the terminology research topic, a
study that analyses the terms used in SPM, their relationships, and
categorisation would be valuable for academics and practices to
clarify the ambiguity of terms. Research direction topic would tend
to focus on investigations in SPM and highlight the limited scope of
existing studies. This topic has been selected as a focus of the
present study to address the research limitation and provide di-
rections for academics to enrich the research development in SPM.
In the growth phase, SPM research that concentrates on the
following themes including system integration, prototype, in-
dicators, program/portfolio, decision-making, planning, and system
life cycle has been studied by academics. Various subjects that are
potential for future studies consist of architecture, components,
system design, software application, modelling, data management,
simulation, customisation, ethics, and project team. A study on
architecture research topic can emphasise the development of SPM
architectures that integrate project process, collaborators, knowl-
edge areas, and their connection. In addition, scholars can
contribute to the development of SPM strategic components and
structures to manage system complexity and ensure its effective
implementation.
Another prospective research topic is the development of SPM
systems design and process to ensure that all components work
efficiently and effectively. This study contributes to improving
system performance and achieving sustainable business goals.
Focusing on software applications research theme, a study on SPM
software selection and usage makes a valuable contribution for
practitioners to identify specific requirements for selecting and
deciding software packages. In modelling research theme, various
sub-themes can be investigated including sustainable project per-
formance modelling to evaluate quality management and the
development of project complexity modelling for large projects.
Studies on data management can emphasise the analysis of
work breakdown structures for different sustainable projects using
engineering data management. This study will help practitioners to
manage complex data structures sustainably on large projects that
are geographically disseminated. In simulation research subject,
academics can focus their studies on optimisation of resources or
risk management using simulation. This provides a problem solu-
tion for managing resources and risks as well as overcoming risky
decisions in SPM. Another potential research focusing on custom-
isation can highlight the identification of SPM approaches that are
suitable for small to medium-sized companies. The nature of this
research is related to management styles that are suitable for
managing projects.
Research on ethics can concentrate on various sub-topics
including investigation on the ethical dimension in SPM and dis-
cussion about the moral responsibility of project managers for
selecting projects. These sub-topics have a close relationship with
the social aspects of sustainability in the field of project manage-
ment. Studies on the project team can investigate collaboration and
cultural dimension in the project team. This type of study generally
uses surveys or case studies as a method for data collection in order
to directly analyse the sub-topics in project-based organisations.
In the maturity phase, SPM research would tend to focus more
on the implementation and post-implementation. This phase has a
broader research scope compared to other research phases. Several
research themes in this phase have been investigated by academics.
They are including SPM implementation and deployment,
Table 1
Research themes in sustainability, project management, and SPM.
Introduction
Research theme
- Evolution
Warren-Myers (2016):
Sustainability evolution in the
Australian property market..
Kwak et al. (2015): Evolution of
project-based organisation
- Terminology
Baden and Harwood (2013):
Analysis of corporate social
responsibility terms.
- Concept and principal
Schlo€ r et al. (2015): Sustainability
system boundaries.
Kirsil€
a et al. (2007): Project
management concept in
industrial deliveries.
Silvius (2017): Sustainability in
project management.
- Research significance
Lubin and Esty (2010):
Sustainability imperatives.
Svejvig and Andersen (2015):
Change direction in project
management.
Silvius and Schipper (2014): SPM
literature review and impact
analysis.
- Ontology
Upward and Jones (2016): Ontology √
for strongly sustainable business
models.
Fitsilis et al. (2014): Ontology for
software project management.
Edum-Fotwe and Price (2009):
Social ontology for appraising
sustainability of construction
projects.
Growth
Sust PM SPM Research theme
- Architecture
√ Zhang et al. (2017): Big data analytics √
architecture for cleaner manufacturing
and maintenance processes. of complex
products
√ Browning (2014): Process architecture
framework for managing complex
project process.
- Theoretical components of the
concept
√ Duic et al. (2015): Components and
structures of the pillars of sustainability.
Mogk and Grau (2014): Components in
project management training.
- System design
√ Küçüksayraç (2015): Design for
sustainability in companies.
√ Vareilles et al. (2015): System design
and project planning.
√
- System integration
√ Chofreh et al. (2014): Sustainable
enterprise resource planning for
managing sustainability integration in
organisations.
√ Hornstein (2015): Integration of project
management and organizational
change management.
√ nchez (2015): Integrating
Sa
sustainability issues into project
management.
- Software application
Kalakul et al. (2014): Life cycle
assessment software integration with
tools for sustainable process design.
√ Ramazani and Jergeas (2015): Benefits
√ Eastham et al. (2014): PLM software
selection model for project
management using hierarchical
decision modelling.
Maturity Decline
Sust PM SPM Research theme Sust PM SPM Research theme Sust PM SPM
- Implementation and Deployment - System extension
Laurian and Crawford (2016): √ Srdjevic and Srdjevic (2017): An √
Organisational factors of sustainability extension of the sustainability
implementation. index definition in water resources
planning.
√ Wang et al. (2017): Project √ Floricel et al. (2014): Extending √
implementation values under project management research.
uncertainty.
nchez (2015): Sustainability
Sa √
implementation in project
management.
- Organisational capabilities - History
√ Gelhard and Von Delft (2016): The role √ Chang et al. (2017): Evolving √
A.G. Chofreh et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 238 (2019) 117810
of organisational capabilities to achieve theories of sustainability and firms.
high-level sustainability performance.
√ Stephens and Carmeli (2016): √ Garel (2013): A history of project √
Analysing positive effect of expressing management models.
negative emotions on knowledge
creation capability and performance of
project teams.
- Organisational readiness - Research trend
√ Mondal et al. (2016): Strengths and √ Cullen (2016): Current trends and √
gaps for developing renewable energy research needs of sustainability
technologies. education for business students.
√ Bygballe et al. (2016): Project √ Padalkar and Gopinath (2016): √
coordination and the emergence of Thematic trends and future
synchronized readiness. opportunities of project
management research.
- Critical success factors
√ Luthra et al. (2016): Impacts of critical √
success factors for implementing green
supply chain management.
√ Alias et al. (2014): Identification of √
critical success factors for project
management practice.
√ Mavi and Standing (2018): Critical √
success factors of sustainable project
management in construction.
- Training
√ Jabbour (2015): Sustainability training √
and management maturity.
√
of investment in project management
training and education.
√
(continued on next page)
7
Table 1 (continued )
Introduction
Research theme
- Benefits
Godina et al. (2015): Sustainability
benefits and challenges.
Lappe and Spang (2014):
Investments in project
management are profitable.
Keeys and Huemann (2017):
Benefits of integrating
sustainability into project
management.
- Transformation
Ernst et al. (2016): Sustainable
urban transformation and
sustainability transitions.
Hornstein (2015): Integration of
project management and
organizational change
management.
Marcelino-Sadaba et al. (2015):
Project management as a way to
sustainability.
- Issues and challenges
Zalewski et al. (2016): New √ Spiller (2016): Sustainability indicators √
challenges and dimensions of
Ecohydrology-enhancement.
Gutierrez and Magnusson (2014):
Key challenge for project
portfolio management decision-
makers.
Hwang et al. (2017): Barriers and
solutions for green business park
project management.
- Value and objective
Martin (2015): Incorporating values √
into sustainability decision-
making.
Mir and Pinnington (2014):
Exploring the value of project
management.
Chawla et al. (2018): Exploring SPM
values.
- Impact of the concept on the
internal and external
environment
Tuomasjukka et al. (2018):
Sustainability impacts of
increased forest biomass
feedstock supply.
Badewi (2016): Impact of project
management and benefits
management practices.
Growth
Sust PM SPM Research theme
- Modelling
√ Evans et al. (2017): Business model
innovation for sustainability.
√ Qazi et al. (2016): Modelling project
complexity driven risk paths in
construction projects.
√
- Prototype
√ Liu et al. (2016): Analysis on energy
conversion and storage system for a
prototype buoys-array wave energy
converter.
√ Ekyalimpa et al. (2014): A prototype for
project management game
development.
√ Zhang et al. (2014): A prototype system
dynamic model for assessing the
sustainability of construction projects.
- Indicators
for assessing urban water systems.
√ Eik-Andresen et al. (2016): Key
performance indicator for project
portfolio management.
√ Fernandez-Sanchez and Rodríguez-
pez (2010): Sustainability indicators
Lo
in construction project management.
- Data management
Papadopoulos et al. (2016): The role of √
big data in disaster resilience in
sustainable supply chains.
√ Frankova et al. (2016): Agile project
management approach and its use in
big data management.
√ Eskerod and Huemann (2013):
- Simulation
√ Moeller et al. (2014): Simulation
modelling for assessing the
sustainability of wheat-based cropping
systems.
√ Farr et al. (2016): Simulation-based
costing for early phase life-cycle cost
analysis.
8
Maturity Decline
Sust PM SPM Research theme Sust PM SPM Research theme Sust PM SPM
- Human resource management
√ Martin et al. (2016): A new approach to √
corporate governance and strategic
human resource management.
√ Pournader et al. (2015): Human √
resource planning framework in
projects.
- Cost management
√ Botín and Vergara (2015): Cost √
management model for economic
sustainability and continues
A.G. Chofreh et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 238 (2019) 117810
improvement of mining operations.
√ Smith (2016): Analysis of international √
standards for project cost management.
√
- Integration management
George et al. (2016): Identification of √
drivers and obstacles of sustainability
integration in the performance
management systems.
√ Tsaturyan and Müller (2015): √
Integration and management of
multiple project management offices.
√
- Stakeholder management
Perez and del Bosque (2014): Exploring √
stakeholder relations management in
the hospitality industry.
√ Mok et al. (2015): Stakeholder √
management studies in mega
construction projects.
√
Sustainability standards for project
stakeholder management.
- Standardisation
√ Marsal-Llacuna (2016): Sustainability √
standardisation technologies for
smarter governance of cities.
√ Varaj~
ao et al. (2017): ISO 21500: 2012 √
and PMBOK 5 processes in information
systems project management.
Carvalho and Rabechini (2017):
Project sustainability
management impact on project
success.
- Research direction
Cherrafi et al. (2016): Literature
review and future research
directions for integration of lean
manufacturing, six sigma and
sustainability.
vom Brocke and Lippe (2015):
Project management literature
and directives for future
research.
- Strategy
Barnett et al. (2015): Sustainability √
strategy in constrained economic
times.
Serra and Kunc (2015): Business
strategies of benefits realisation
management.
Aarseth et al. (2016): Project
sustainability strategies.
√
- Customisation
√ Song and Sakao (2016): Customisation- √
oriented framework for sustainable
product/service system design.
√ Turner et al. (2010): Project
management in small to medium-sized
enterprises.
- Ethics
Carmeli et al. (2017): Organizational √
ethic of care and employee involvement
in sustainability-related behaviors.
√ Bredillet (2014): Ethics in project
management.
√
- Project team
Naranjo-Gil (2016): The role of
management control systems and top
teams in implementing sustainability
policies.
Henderson et al. (2018): Cultural
intelligence problems in global project
teams.
- Program/portfolio
Neumüller et al. (2016): Integrating
sustainability into strategic supplier
portfolio selection.
Magazzini et al. (2016): Pharmaceutical
research and development project
portfolio management.
Yung and Siew (2016): Sustainability
integration into construction project
portfolio management.
- Decision-making
Garcia-Herrero et al. (2017):
Incorporating linear programing and
life cycle thinking into sustainability
decision-making.
Ehsani et al. (2017): Application of
fuzzy multi-objective linear
programming to a project management
decision.
Silvius et al. (2017): Considering
sustainability in project management
decision making.
- Planning
- Maintenance
Ye et al. (2015): Effective maintenance √
planning for sustainable energy
efficiency lighting retrofit projects.
√ Mild et al. (2015): Infrastructure √
maintenance projects selection with
robust portfolio modelling.
- Corporate performance
Morioka and Carvalho (2016): √
Investigating the inclusion of
sustainability into corporate
performance systems.
A.G. Chofreh et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 238 (2019) 117810
√ Blomquist et al. (2016): Project √
management self-efficacy as a predictor
of project performance.
- System’s performance
√ Scho€ggl et al. (2017): Improving √
sustainability performance in the early
phases of product design.
√ Khameneh et al. (2016): Development √
of a framework for evaluating the
performance of project risk
management systems.
- Evaluation
√ Sastre et al. (2016): Improvement of √
bioenergy sustainability evaluations.
√ Gonzalez-Marcos et al. (2016): Student √
evaluation of a virtual experience for
project management learning.
√
- Change management
√ Lozano et al. (2016): Investigating the √
relationship between sustainability
reporting and organisational change
management for sustainability.
√ Whyte et al. (2016): Managing change √
in the delivery of complex projects.
√
- Process management
√ Baumgartner and Rauter (2017): √
Exploring the strategic perspectives of
(continued on next page)
9
 10 A.G. Chofreh et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 238 (2019) 117810

identification of critical success factors, stakeholder management,

Sust PM SPM

and control management. However, the research subjects that need

to be explored consist of organisational capability, organisational
readiness, training, human resources management, cost manage-
ment, integration management, standardisation, maintenance,
corporate performance, systems performance, project evaluation,
change management, and process management.
In organisational capabilities research theme, researchers can
analyse the capabilities needed by companies, particularly project
managers, to manage the projects in a sustainable manner. This
study would be advantageous for practitioners to improve com-
Sust PM SPM Research theme

pany performance and meet sustainable business goals. Another

interesting topic is about organisational readiness that examines
individual’s and organisation’s readiness for change towards SPM
Decline

as each company has unique characteristics that make change

management either easy or challenging. The level of readiness
√ should be assessed to determine whether the organisation has the
resources, skills, and knowledge needed for successful SPM
implementation.
√

Studies on training research theme can examine the benefits of

√

SPM training and education for project managers and team mem-
Sustainability and management control
sustainability management to develop a

management through project control in

€ et al. (2017): Sustainable project

bers in today’s complex work environment. This study will identify

concept of lessons-learned process in

model for controlling environmental

Abdi et al. (2018): Development of a
McClory et al. (2017): Analysing the

various areas of the SPM that should be considered by project

performance of project execution
process based on greenhouse gas
Crutzen et al. (2017): Exploring

managers and team members to prepare them for the process to-
wards sustainability. In the topic of human resource management,
sustainable organisation.

studies concentrating the development of human resource plan-

in large European firms.
- Control management

infrastructure projects.
project management.

ning framework in SPM that integrates various aspects of human

resources such as policy, finance, education, partnership, leader-
Sust PM SPM Research theme

ship, and other required aspects are necessary for the organisation.
This research will help organisations to predict the required human
emissions.
Maturity

resources and achieve optimal use of human resources to fulfil

Kivila

sustainable business requirements.

In cost management research theme, academics can identify
various factors causing cost overruns in large sustainable projects
√

and propose solutions. This problem needs to be addressed because

√

it is usually one of the reasons for project failure. Another future

study is related to integration management research methods that
√

investigates the process of integration management between risk

Ontario greenhouse tomato production.

(2014): The ritualization of transitions

initiation and project management by
community sustainability planning in

Integration of sustainable project life

and stakeholder. The results of the analysis can improve the

perspectives on the sustainability of
Gareis (2013): Re-thinking project

van den Ende and van Marrewijk

effectiveness of risk management and stakeholder management in

Papke-Shields and Boyer-Wright

characteristics applied to project

Labuschagne and Brent (2005):

Grant et al. (2018): Integrated

SPM as well as project performance. Concerning standardisation

Dias et al. (2017): Life cycle

research theme, a study outlining the process of designing, devel-

(2017): Strategic planning

considering sustainability.

cycle management in the

in the project life cycle.

oping, and implementing standardised SPM is advantageous for

manufacturing sector.

project management experts to successfully implement projects. In

- System life cycle
Atlantic Canada.

maintenance research subject, academics can develop a mainte-

Sust PM SPM Research theme

management.

nance control model to improve project monitoring and control. In

another study, identification of maintenance performance in-
Growth

dicators based on sustainability has the potential to improve

maintenance management performance.
Another future research theme is corporate performance. In this
subject, academics can propose a model for assessing organisa-
tional performance towards SPM implementation. This model
should include numerous performance indicators, which help
practitioners to understand how their organisation is performing
the SPM and whether its strategy is in line with the corporate
strategic goals. Besides measuring the corporate performance, a
study assessing SPM performance dealing with three fundamental
dimensions (environmental, social, and economic) is also valuable
for organisations. This study will develop a model that integrates
Table 1 (continued )

SPM key components and indicators and explain the process for
Research theme

using the model to evaluate SPM performance. Similar to the

Introduction

evaluation research topic, scholars can identify key factors for

evaluating sustainable projects. These key factors are embodied in
an indicator system that combines various approaches including
project life-cycle, sustainability indicators, and other important
 A.G. Chofreh et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 238 (2019) 117810
concepts. In change management research topic, a study investi-
gating the change management process towards SPM can be po-
tential research. This study identifies systematic methods to
transform the organisation’s goals and objectives, processes, and
technologies on the way to sustainability. The results will help
practitioners to know the transformation strategies to manage
change. The last potential research theme in the maturity phase is
process management. A study developing a framework that pro-
vides a strategic alignment process between business and sus-
tainability towards SPM implementation will be valuable for
practitioners to ensure that the application of SPM is in line with
organisational goals. The framework should link the organisational
structure, processes, and resources with related aspects of
sustainability.
SPM research in the decline phase would tend to focus on sys-
tem extension, research trends, and history. The research in this
area will turn down unless new research contributions are pro-
posed to sustain the concept in business and society. To utilise SPM
for business success, there is an esteem need of research related to
system extension to re-think, re-design, and re-engineer the pro-
cesses/activities involved in a way the project is initiated, managed,
executed and controlled. This implies a successive key to gaining
competitive advantages in the industry. This type of research has
the potential for organisational growth and success in the
marketplace. Another potential research subject is related to the
history of SPM, which examines developing theories linking SPM to
organisations and their implications for future concepts. The last
potential research theme in the decline phase concerning research
trends in SPM. In this study, academics need to highlight problems
in the SPM concept, propose the development of future concepts,
and discuss lessons learned from SPM implementation. This
research subject has a close relationship with the system extension
research theme.
5. Conclusions
This study has responded to the identified research questions:
(i) Why is the SPM concept important for organisations? and (ii)
What are the potential research themes in SPM that need to be
investigated by academicians? The imperative of SPM concept and
numerous potential research themes a research direction have
been elaborated in the present study. Literature analysis results
revealed that the SPM research is currently at the stage of growth.
Numerous research topics that have been studied comprising
concept and principal, research significance, ontology, benefits,
transformation, issues and challenges, value and objective, impact,
strategy, system integration, prototype, indicators, program/port-
folio, decision-making, planning, system life cycle, implementation
and deployment, critical success, factors, stakeholder management,
and control management.
Further studies focusing on the identified research themes
including evolution, terminology, research direction, architecture,
components, system design, software application, modelling, data
management, simulation, customisation, ethics, project team,
organisational capabilities, organisational readiness, training, hu-
man resource management, cost management, integration man-
agement, standardisation, maintenance, corporate performance,
system’s performance, evaluation, change management, process
management, system extension, history, and research trends are
required to advance the development of SPM research.
This study contributes to theory and practice. The identified
research themes provide numerous potential new topics in SPM
research that can be observed by scholars. Research directions give
a path for academics to enrich SPM research. For practitioners, the
identified research streams will provide an image of innovations
11
and value creation. They will understand current research progress
on a particular topic as the novel research contributions are
beneficial for practitioners to solve their problems in the organi-
sation. This effort would assist the alignment between educational
outcomes and practices to increase project success. This argument
is in line with the work of Adriana and Ioana-Maria (2013), which
proved that the implementation of SPM could produce 67%e83% of
project success. In addition, the Project Management Institute
(2011) observed that 93% of Chief Executive Officers stated that the
application of SPM in organisations could lead to success in
addressing sustainability issues. Therefore, academic efforts in
enhancing the development of SPM research are valuable for
practitioners to effectively implement SPM in organisations.
This study focuses on the general scope of the research direction
and is limited to the identification of potential research topics.
Further research should observe a more specific research process
that would be useful for academics to assist them in creating new
contributions through academic publications.
Acknowledgements
This research has been supported by the EU project “Sustainable
Process Integration Laboratory e SPIL”, project No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/
0.0/15_003/0000456 funded by EU “CZ Operational Programme
Research, Development and Education”, Priority 1: Strengthening
capacity for quality research.
References
Aarseth, W., Ahola, T., Aaltonen, K., Økland, A., Andersen, B., 2016. Project sus-
tainability strategies: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35 (6),
1071e1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.11.006.
Abdi, A., Taghipour, S., Khamooshi, H., 2018. Corrigendum to “A model to control
environmental performance of project execution process based on greenhouse
gas emissions using earned value management” [Int. J. Proj. Manag. 36 (3)
(April 2018) 397-413]. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 36 (8), 1047e1049. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.07.006.
Adriana, T.T., Ioana-Maria, D., 2013. Project success by integrating sustainability in
project management. In: Sustainability Integration for Effective Project Man-
agement. IGI Global, Pennsylvania, US.
Agarwal, S.R., Semenova, N., 2015. Sustainability in Project Management: Eight
Principles in Practice. Umeå School of Business and Economics, Sweden. Master
Dissertation.
Alias, Z., Zawawi, E.M.A., Yusof, K., Aris, N.M., 2014. Determining critical success
factors of project management practice: a conceptual framework. Procedia Soc.
Behav. Sci. 153, 61e69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.041.
Baden, D., Harwood, I.A., 2013. Terminology matters: a critical exploration of
corporate social responsibility terms. J. Bus. Ethics 116 (3), 615e627. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1498-9.
Badewi, A., 2016. The impact of project management (PM) and benefits manage-
ment (BM) practices on project success: towards developing a project benefits
governance framework. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34 (4), 761e778. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.005.
Banihashemi, S., Hosseini, M.R., Golizadeh, H., Sankaran, S., 2017. Critical success
factors (CSFs) for integration of sustainability into construction project man-
agement practices in developing countries. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35 (6),
1103e1119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.014.
Barnett, M.L., Darnall, N., Husted, B.W., 2015. Sustainability strategy in constrained
economic times. Long. Range Plan. 48 (2), 63e68. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.lrp.2014.07.001.
Baumgartner, R.J., Rauter, R., 2017. Strategic perspectives of corporate sustainability
management to develop a sustainable organization. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 81e92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.146.
Bhandari, M., 2012. Evidence-based Orthopedics. John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex,
UK.
Blomquist, T., Farashah, A.D., Thomas, J., 2016. Project management self-efficacy as a
predictor of project performance: constructing and validating a domain-specific
scale. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34 (8), 1417e1432. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijproman.2016.07.010.
Botín, J.A., Vergara, M.A., 2015. A cost management model for economic sustain-
ability and continues improvement of mining operations. Resour. Policy 46,
212e218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2015.10.004.
Bredillet, C., 2014. Ethics in project management: some Aristotelian insights. Int. J.
Manag. Proj. Bus. 7 (4), 548e565. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-08-2013-0041.
Brones, F., de Carvalho, M.M., de Senzi Zancul, E., 2014. Ecodesign in project man-
agement: a missing link for the integration of sustainability in product
12 A.G. Chofreh et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 238 (2019) 117810
development? J. Clean. Prod. 80, 106e118. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2014.05.088.
Browning, T.R., 2014. Managing complex project process models with a process
architecture framework. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (2), 229e241. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.05.008.
Bygballe, L.E., Swa €rd, A.R., Vaagaasar, A.L., 2016. Coordinating in construction pro-
jects and the emergence of synchronized readiness. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34 (8),
1479e1492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.08.006.
Carmeli, A., Brammer, S., Gomes, E., Tarba, S.Y., 2017. An organizational ethic of care
and employee involvement in sustainability-related behaviors: a social identity
perspective. J. Organ. Behav. 38 (9), 1380e1395. https://doi.org/10.1002/
job.2185.
Carvalho, M.M., Rabechini, R., 2017. Can project sustainability management impact
project success? An empirical study applying a contingent approach. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 35 (6), 1120e1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.018.
Chang, R.D., Zuo, J., Zhao, Z.Y., Zillante, G., Gan, X.L., Soebarto, V., 2017. Evolving
theories of sustainability and firms: history, future directions and implications
for renewable energy research. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 72, 48e56. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.029.
Chawla, V., Chanda, A., Angra, S., Chawla, G., 2018. The sustainable project man-
agement: a review and future possibilities. J. Proj. Manag. 3 (3), 157e170.
https://doi.org/10.5267/j.jpm.2018.2.001.
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Chiarini, A., Mokhlis, A., Benhida, K., 2016. The integration of
lean manufacturing, six sigma and sustainability: a literature review and future
research directions for developing a specific model. J. Clean. Prod. 139,
828e846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.101.
Chofreh, A.G., Goni, F.A., 2017. Review of frameworks for sustainability imple-
mentation. Sustain. Dev. 25 (3), 180e188. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1658.
Chofreh, A.G., Goni, F.A., Shaharoun, A.M., Ismail, S., Kleme
s, J.J., 2014. Sustainable
enterprise resource planning: imperatives and research directions. J. Clean.
Prod. 71, 139e147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.010.
Chofreh, A.G., Goni, F.A., Ismail, S., Shaharoun, A.M., Kleme
s, J.J., Zeinalnezhad, M.,
2016. A master plan for the implementation of sustainable enterprise resource
planning systems (Part I): concept and methodology. J. Clean. Prod. 136 (Part B),
176e182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.140.
Chofreh, A.G., Goni, F.A., Kleme
s, J.J., 2017. Development of a roadmap for sustain-
able enterprise resource planning systems implementation (part II). J. Clean.
Prod. 166, 425e437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.037.
Chofreh, A.G., Goni, F.A., Kleme
s, J.J., 2018. A roadmap for Sustainable Enterprise
Resource Planning systems implementation (part III). J. Clean. Prod. 174,
1325e1337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.285.
Crutzen, N., Zvezdov, D., Schaltegger, S., 2017. Sustainability and management
control. Exploring and theorizing control patterns in large European firms.
J. Clean. Prod. 143, 1291e1301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.135.
Cullen, J.G., 2016. Educating business students about sustainability: a bibliometric
review of current trends and research needs. J. Bus. Ethics 145 (2), 429e439.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2838-3.
Dias, G.M., Ayer, N.W., Khosla, S., Van Acker, R., Young, S.B., Whitney, S.,
Hendricks, P., 2017. Life cycle perspectives on the sustainability of Ontario
greenhouse tomato production: benchmarking and improvement opportu-
nities. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 831e839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.
06.039.
Duic, N., Urbaniec, K., Huisingh, D., 2015. Components and structures of the pillars
of sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 88, 1e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2014.11.030.
Eastham, J., Tucker, D.J., Varma, S., Sutton, S.M., 2014. PLM software selection model
for project management using hierarchical decision modeling with criteria
from PMBOK® knowledge areas. Eng. Manag. J. 26 (3), 13e24. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10429247.2014.11432016.
Edum-Fotwe, F.T., Price, A.D., 2009. A social ontology for appraising sustainability of
construction projects and developments. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27 (4), 313e322.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.04.003.
Ehsani, E., Kazemi, N., Olugu, E.U., Grosse, E.H., Schwindl, K., 2017. Applying fuzzy
multi-objective linear programming to a project management decision with
nonlinear fuzzy membership functions. Neural Comput. Appl. 28 (8),
2193e2206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-015-2160-0.
Eik-Andresen, P., Johansen, A., Landmark, A.D., Sørensen, A.Ø., 2016. Controlling a
multibillion project portfolio-milestones as key performance indicator for
project portfolio management. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 226, 294e301. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.191.
Ekyalimpa, R., AbouRizk, S.M., Mohamed, Y., Saba, F., 2014. A prototype for project
management game development using high level architecture. Int. J. Simul.
Process Model. 9 (3), 131e145. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSPM.2014.064384.
Ernst, L., de Graaf-Van Dinther, R.E., Peek, G.J., Loorbach, D.A., 2016. Sustainable
urban transformation and sustainability transitions: conceptual framework and
case study. J. Clean. Prod. 112 (Part 4), 2988e2999. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2015.10.136.
Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., 2013. Sustainable development and project stakeholder
management: what standardss say. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 6 (1), 36e50. https://
doi.org/10.1108/17538371311291017.
Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., Holgado, M., Van Fossen, K., Yang, M., Silva, E.A.,
Barlow, C.Y., 2017. Business model innovation for sustainability: towards a
unified perspective for creation of sustainable business models. Bus. Strateg.
Environ. 26 (5), 597e608. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1939.
Farr, J.V., Faber, I.J., Ganguly, A., Martin, W.A., Larson, S.L., 2016. Simulation-based
costing for early phase life cycle cost analysis: example application to an
environmental remediation project. Eng. Econ. 61 (3), 207e222. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0013791X.2015.1062582.
Fern andez-Sa nchez, G., Rodríguez-Lo pez, F., 2010. A methodology to identify sus-
tainability indicators in construction project management - application to
infrastructure projects in Spain. Ecol. Indicat. 10 (6), 1193e1201. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.04.009.
Fitsilis, P., Gerogiannis, V., Anthopoulos, L., 2014. Ontologies for software project
management: a review. J. Softw. Eng. Appl. 7 (13), 1096e1110. https://doi.org/
10.4236/jsea.2014.713097.
Floricel, S., Bonneau, C., Aubry, M., Sergi, V., 2014. Extending project management
research: insights from social theories. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (7), 1091e1107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.02.008.
Frankov a, P., Draho
sova
, M., Balco, P., 2016. Agile project management approach and
its use in big data management. Procedia Comput. Sci. 83, 576e583. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.04.272.
Garcia-Herrero, I., Laso, J., Margallo, M., Bala, A., Gazulla, C., Fullana-i-Palmer, P.,
Va zquez-Rowe, I., Irabien, A., Aldaco, R., 2017. Incorporating linear programing
and life cycle thinking into environmental sustainability decision-making: a
case study on anchovy canning industry. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 19 (7),
1897e1912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-017-1373-6.
Gareis, R., 2013. Re-thinking project initiation and project management by
considering principles of sustainable development. In: Silvius, A.J.G., Tharp, J.
(Eds.), Sustainability Integration for Effective Project Management. IGI Global,
Hershey, USA.
Gareis, R., Huemann, M., Martinuzzi, A., 2011. What can project management learn
from considering sustainability principles? Project Perspect. XXXIII, 60e65.
Garel, G., 2013. A history of project management models: from pre-models to the
standard models. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (5), 663e669. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijproman.2012.12.011.
Gelhard, C., Von Delft, S., 2016. The role of organizational capabilities in achieving
superior sustainability performance. J. Bus. Res. 69 (10), 4632e4642. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.053.
George, R.A., Siti-Nabiha, A.K., Jalaludin, D., Abdalla, Y.A., 2016. Barriers to and en-
ablers of sustainability integration in the performance management systems of
an oil and gas company. J. Clean. Prod. 136 (Part A), 197e212. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.097.
Godina, R., Rodrigues, E.M., Matias, J.C., Catala ~o, J.P., 2015. Effect of loads and other
key factors on oil-transformer ageing: sustainability benefits and challenges.
Energies 8 (10), 12147e12186. https://doi.org/10.3390/en81012147.
Goni, F.A., Shukor, S.A., Mukhtar, M., Sahran, S., 2015. Environmental sustainability:
research growth and trends. Adv. Sci. Lett. 21 (2), 192e195. https://doi.org/
10.1166/asl.2015.5850.
Goni, F.A., Chofreh, A.G., Mukhtar, M., Sahran, S., Shukor, S.A., Kleme
s, J.J., 2017.
Strategic alignment between sustainability and information systems: a case
analysis in Malaysian public Higher Education Institutions. J. Clean. Prod. 168,
263e270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.021.
Gonz alez-Marcos, A., Alba-Elías, F., Navaridas-Nalda, F., Ordieres-Mere , J., 2016.
Student evaluation of a virtual experience for project management learning: an
empirical study for learning improvement. Comput. Educ. 102, 172e187. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.08.005.
Grant, J.L., Beed, T., Manuel, P.M., 2018. Integrated community sustainability plan-
ning in Atlantic Canada: green-washing an infrastructure agenda. J. Plan. Educ.
Res. 38 (1), 54e66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X16664788.
Gutie rrez, E., Magnusson, M., 2014. Dealing with legitimacy: a key challenge for
project portfolio management decision makers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (1),
30e39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.01.002.
Henderson, L.S., Stackman, R.W., Lindekilde, R., 2018. Why cultural intelligence
matters on global project teams. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 36 (7), 954e967. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.06.001.
Hornstein, H.A., 2015. The integration of project management and organizational
change management is now a necessity. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33 (2), 291e298.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.08.005.
Hwang, B.G., Zhu, L., Tan, J.S.H., 2017. Green business park project management:
barriers and solutions for sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 153,
209e219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.210.
Jabbour, C.J.C., 2015. Environmental training and environmental management
maturity of Brazilian companies with ISO14001: empirical evidence. J. Clean.
Prod. 96, 331e338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.039.
Kalakul, S., Malakul, P., Siemanond, K., Gani, R., 2014. Integration of life cycle
assessment software with tools for economic and sustainability analyses and
process simulation for sustainable process design. J. Clean. Prod. 71, 98e109.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.022.
Keeys, L.A., Huemann, M., 2017. Project benefits co-creation: shaping sustainable
development benefits. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35 (6), 1196e1212. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.008.
Khameneh, A.H., Taheri, A., Ershadi, M., 2016. Offering a framework for evaluating
the performance of project risk management system. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.
226, 82e90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.165.
Kirsila€, J., Hellstro€m, M., Wikstro €m, K., 2007. Integration as a project management
concept: a study of the commissioning process in industrial deliveries. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 25 (7), 714e721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.02.005.
Kivila€, J., Martinsuo, M., Vuorinen, L., 2017. Sustainable project management
through project control in infrastructure projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35 (6),
1167e1183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.009.
 A.G. Chofreh et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 238 (2019) 117810
Küçüksayraç, E., 2015. Design for sustainability in companies: strategies, drivers
and needs of Turkey’s best performing businesses. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 455e465.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.061.
Kwak, Y.H., Sadatsafavi, H., Walewski, J., Williams, N.L., 2015. Evolution of project
based organization: a case study. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33 (8), 1652e1664. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.004.
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C., 2005. Sustainable project life cycle management: the
need to integrate life cycles in the manufacturing sector. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23
(2), 159e168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.06.003.
Lappe, M., Spang, K., 2014. Investments in project management are profitable: a
case study-based analysis of the relationship between the costs and benefits of
project management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (4), 603e612. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.005.
Laurian, L., Crawford, J., 2016. Organizational factors of environmental sustainability
implementation: an empirical analysis of US cities and counties. J. Environ. Plan.
Manag. 18 (4), 482e506. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2016.1138403.
Liu, Z., Qu, N., Han, Z., Zhang, J., Zhang, S., Li, M., Shi, H., 2016. Study on energy
conversion and storage system for a prototype buoys-array wave energy con-
verter. Energy Sustain Dev. 34, 100e110. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.esd.2016.07.004.
Lozano, R., Nummert, B., Ceulemans, K., 2016. Elucidating the relationship between
sustainability reporting and organisational change management for sustain-
ability. J. Clean. Prod. 125, 168e188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.
03.021.
Lubin, D.A., Esty, D.C., 2010. The sustainability imperative. Harv. Bus. Rev. 88 (5),
42e50.
Luthra, S., Garg, D., Haleem, A., 2016. The impacts of critical success factors for
implementing green supply chain management towards sustainability: an
empirical investigation of Indian automobile industry. J. Clean. Prod. 121,
142e158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.095.
Magazzini, L., Pammolli, F., Riccaboni, M., 2016. Real options and incremental search
in pharmaceutical R&D project portfolio management. Creativ. Innov. Manag.
25 (2), 292e302. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12119.
Marcelino-Sa daba, S., Gonza lez-Jaen, L.F., Pe
rez-Ezcurdia, A., 2015. Using project
management as a way to sustainability. From a comprehensive review to a
framework definition. J. Clean. Prod. 99, 1e16. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2015.03.020.
Marsal-Llacuna, M.L., 2016. City indicators on social sustainability as standardiza-
tion technologies for smarter (citizen-centered) governance of cities. Soc. Indic.
Res. 128 (3), 1193e1216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1075-6.
Martens, M.L., Carvalho, M.M., 2016a. The challenge of introducing sustainability
into project management function: multiple-case studies. J. Clean. Prod. 117,
29e40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.039.
Martens, M.L., Carvalho, M.M., 2016b. Key factors of sustainability in project man-
agement context: a survey exploring the project managers’ perspective. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 35 (6), 1084e1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.04.004.
Martin, L., 2015. Incorporating values into sustainability decision-making. J. Clean.
Prod. 105, 146e156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.014.
Martin, G., Farndale, E., Paauwe, J., Stiles, P.G., 2016. Corporate governance and
strategic human resource management: four archetypes and proposals for a
new approach to corporate sustainability. Eur. Manag. J. 34 (1), 22e35. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.01.002.
Mavi, R.K., Standing, C., 2018. Critical success factors of sustainable project man-
agement in construction: a fuzzy DEMATEL-ANP approach. J. Clean. Prod. 194,
751e765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.120.
McClory, S., Read, M., Labib, A., 2017. Conceptualising the lessons-learned process in
project management: towards a triple-loop learning framework. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 35 (7), 1322e1335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.006.
Michaelides, R., Bryde, D., Ohaeri, U., 2014. Sustainability from a Project Manage-
ment Perspective: Are Oil and Gas Supply Chains Ready to Embed Sustainability
in Their Projects? Project Management Institute. www.pmi.org/learning/
library/project-management-global-sustainability-6393 (accessed 13.12.2018).
Mikul
ci
c, H., Kleme
s, J.J., Duic, N., 2016. Shaping sustainable development to sup-
port human welfare. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 18 (6), 1633e1639. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10098-016-1269-x.
Mild, P., Liesio€, J., Salo, A., 2015. Selecting infrastructure maintenance projects with
robust portfolio modeling. Decis. Support Syst. 77, 21e30. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.dss.2015.05.001.
Mir, F.A., Pinnington, A.H., 2014. Exploring the value of project management: linking
project management performance and project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32
(2), 202e217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.05.012.
Moeller, C., Sauerborn, J., de Voil, P., Manschadi, A.M., Pala, M., Meinke, H., 2014.
Assessing the sustainability of wheat-based cropping systems using simulation
modelling: sustainability¼ 42? Sustain Sci. 9 (1), 1e16. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11625-013-0228-2.
Mogk, M., Grau, N., 2014. Balancing different components in project management
training. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 119, 748e757. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.sbspro.2014.03.084.
Mok, K.Y., Shen, G.Q., Yang, J., 2015. Stakeholder management studies in mega
construction projects: a review and future directions. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33 (2),
446e457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.08.007.
Mondal, M.A.H., Hawila, D., Kennedy, S., Mezher, T., 2016. The GCC countries re-
readiness: strengths and gaps for development of renewable energy technol-
ogies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54, 1114e1128. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2015.10.098.
13
Morioka, S.N., Carvalho, M.M., 2016. Measuring sustainability in practice: exploring
the inclusion of sustainability into corporate performance systems in Brazilian
case studies. J. Clean. Prod. 136 (Part A), 123e133. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2016.01.103.
Naranjo-Gil, D., 2016. The role of management control systems and top teams in
implementing environmental sustainability policies. Sustainability 8 (4),
359e370. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8040359.
Neumüller, C., Lasch, R., Kellner, F., 2016. Integrating sustainability into strategic
supplier portfolio selection. Manag. Decis. 54 (1), 194e221. https://doi.org/
10.1108/MD-05-2015-0191.
Okereke, O.C., 2017. Causes of Failure and Abandonment of Projects and Project
Deliverables in Africa. www.pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/
pmwj54-Jan2017-Okereke-causes-of-project-failures-in-africa-featured-pa-
per2.pdf (accessed 21.12.2018).
Padalkar, M., Gopinath, S., 2016. Six decades of project management research:
thematic trends and future opportunities. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34 (7), 1305e1321.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.06.006.
Papadopoulos, T., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R., Altay, N., Childe, S.J., Fosso-Wamba, S.,
2016. The role of big data in explaining disaster resilience in supply chains for
sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 142 (Part 2), 1108e1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2016.03.059.
Papke-Shields, K.E., Boyer-Wright, K.M., 2017. Strategic planning characteristics
applied to project management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35 (2), 169e179. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.015.
rez, A., del Bosque, I.R., 2014. Sustainable development and stakeholder relations
Pe
management: exploring sustainability reporting in the hospitality industry
from a SD-SRM approach. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 42, 174e187. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.07.003.
Pournader, M., Tabassi, A.A., Baloh, P., 2015. A three-step design science approach to
develop a novel human resource-planning framework in projects: the cases of
construction projects in USA, Europe, and Iran. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33 (2),
419e434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.009.
Project Management Institute, 2017. A Guide to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge. PMBOK®, sixth ed. Project Management Institute, Inc., Pennsylva-
nia, USA.
Qazi, A., Quigley, J., Dickson, A., Kirytopoulos, K., 2016. Project complexity and risk
management (ProCRiM): towards modelling project complexity driven risk
paths in construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34 (7), 1183e1198. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.05.008.
Ramazani, J., Jergeas, G., 2015. Project managers and the journey from good to great:
the benefits of investment in project management training and education. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 33 (1), 41e52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.012.
S
anchez, M.A., 2015. Integrating sustainability issues into project management.
J. Clean. Prod. 96, 319e330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.087.
Sastre, C.M., Carrasco, J., Barro, R., Gonz alez-Arechavala, Y., Maletta, E., Santos, A.M.,
Ciria, P., 2016. Improving bioenergy sustainability evaluations by using soil ni-
trogen balance coupled with life cycle assessment: a case study for electricity
generated from rye biomass. Appl. Energy 179, 847e863. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.022.
Schlo€r, H., Fischer, W., Hake, J.F., 2015. The system boundaries of sustainability.
J. Clean. Prod. 88, 52e60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.023.
Scho€ggl, J.P., Baumgartner, R.J., Hofer, D., 2017. Improving sustainability perfor-
mance in early phases of product design: a checklist for sustainable product
development tested in the automotive industry. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 1602e1617.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.195.
Serra, C.E.M., Kunc, M., 2015. Benefits realisation management and its influence on
project success and on the execution of business strategies. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
33 (1), 53e66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.011.
Silvius, G., 2017. Sustainability as a new school of thought in project management.
J. Clean. Prod. 166, 1479e1493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.121.
Silvius, A.J., Schipper, R.P., 2014. Sustainability in project management: a literature
review and impact analysis. Soc. Bus. 4 (1), 63e96. https://doi.org/10.1362/
204440814X13948909253866.
€hler, A., 2009. Views on sustainable project management.
Silvius, A.J.G., Brink, J., Ko
In: K€ahko €hnen, K., Kazi, A., Rekola, M. (Eds.), Human Side of Projects in Modern
Business. IPMA Scientific Research Paper Series, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 545e556.
Silvius, A.J.G., Schipper, R., van den Brink, J., Ko € hler, A., 2012. Incorporating sus-
tainability in project management. In: Silvius, A.J.G., Schipper, R., Planko, J., van
den Brink, J., Ko €hler, A. (Eds.), Sustainability in Project Management. Gower
Publishing, Farnham, UK.
Silvius, A.G., Kampinga, M., Paniagua, S., Mooi, H., 2017. Considering sustainability
in project management decision making; an investigation using Q-methodol-
ogy. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35 (6), 1133e1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijproman.2017.01.011.
Smith, P., 2016. Global professional standards for project cost management. Pro-
cedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 226, 124e131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.170.
Song, W., Sakao, T., 2016. A customization-oriented framework for design of sus-
tainable product/service system. J. Clean. Prod. 140 (Part 3), 1672e1685. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.111.
Spiller, M., 2016. Adaptive capacity indicators to assess sustainability of urban water
systems- current application. Sci. Total Environ. 569, 751e761. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.088.
Srdjevic, Z., Srdjevic, B., 2017. An extension of the sustainability index definition in
water resources planning and management. Water Resour. Manag. 31 (5),
1695e1712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1609-6.
14 A.G. Chofreh et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 238 (2019) 117810
Stephens, J.P., Carmeli, A., 2016. The positive effect of expressing negative emotions
on knowledge creation capability and performance of project teams. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 34 (5), 862e873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.03.003.
Svejvig, P., Andersen, P., 2015. Rethinking project management: a structured liter-
ature review with a critical look at the brave new world. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33
(2), 278e290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.004.
Tharp, J., 2012. Project Management and Global Sustainability. Project Management
Institute. www.pmi.org/learning/library/project-management-global-
sustainability-6393 (accessed 9.11.2018).
Tsaturyan, T., Müller, R., 2015. Integration and governance of multiple project
management offices (PMOs) at large organizations. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33 (5),
1098e1110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.003.
Tuomasjukka, D., Martire, S., Lindner, M., Athanassiadis, D., Kühmaier, M.,
Tumajer, J., Vis, M., Spinelli, R., Dees, M., Prinz, R., Routa, J., 2018. Sustainability
impacts of increased forest biomass feedstock supplyea comparative assess-
ment of technological solutions. Int. J. For. Eng. 1e18. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14942119.2018.1459372.
Turner, J.R., Ledwith, A., Kelly, J., 2010. Project management in small to medium-
sized enterprises: matching processes to the nature of the firm. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 28 (8), 744e755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.06.005.
Upward, A., Jones, P., 2016. An ontology for strongly sustainable business models:
defining an enterprise framework compatible with natural and social science.
Organ. Environ. 29 (1), 97e123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615592933.
van den Ende, L., van Marrewijk, A., 2014. The ritualization of transitions in the
project life cycle: a study of transition rituals in construction projects. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 32 (7), 1134e1145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.02.007.
Varaj~
ao, J., Colomo-Palacios, R., Silva, H., 2017. ISO 21500: 2012 and PMBoK 5 pro-
cesses in information systems project management. Comput. Stand. Interfac.
50, 216e222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2016.09.007.
Vareilles, E., Coudert, T., Aldanondo, M., Geneste, L., Abeille, J., 2015. System design
and project planning: model and rules to manage their interactions. Integr.
Comput.-Aid E 22 (4), 327e342. https://doi.org/10.3233/ICA-150494.
vom Brocke, J., Lippe, S., 2015. Managing collaborative research projects: a synthesis
of project management literature and directives for future research. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 33 (5), 1022e1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.02.001.
Wang, L., Kunc, M., Bai, S.J., 2017. Realizing value from project implementation
under uncertainty: an exploratory study using system dynamics. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 35 (3), 341e352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.009.
Warren-Myers, G., 2016. Sustainability evolution in the Australian property market:
examining valuers’ comprehension, knowledge and value. J. Prop. Invest.
Financ. 34 (6), 578e601. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPIF-04-2016-0025.
Whyte, J., Stasis, A., Lindkvist, C., 2016. Managing change in the delivery of complex
projects: configuration management, asset information and ‘big data’. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 34 (2), 339e351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.02.006.
Ye, X., Xia, X., Zhang, L., Zhu, B., 2015. Optimal maintenance planning for sustainable
energy efficiency lighting retrofit projects by a control system approach. Contr.
Eng. Pract. 37, 1e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2014.12.014.
Yu, M., Zhu, F., Yang, X., Wang, L., Sun, X., 2018. Integrating sustainability into
construction engineering projects: perspective of sustainable project planning.
Sustainability 10 (3). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030784, 784-101.
Yung, R., Siew, J., 2016. Integrating sustainability into construction project portfolio
management. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 20 (1), 101e108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-
015-0520-z.
Zalewski, M., McClain, M., Eslamian, S., 2016. New challenges and dimensions of
Ecohydrology-enhancement of catchments sustainability potential. Ecohydrol.
Hydrobiol. 16 (1), 1e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2016.01.001.
Zhang, X., Wu, Y., Shen, L., Skitmore, M., 2014. A prototype system dynamic model
for assessing the sustainability of construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32
(1), 66e76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.01.009.
Zhang, Y., Ren, S., Liu, Y., Si, S., 2017. A big data analytics architecture for cleaner
manufacturing and maintenance processes of complex products. J. Clean. Prod.
142, 626e641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.123.