International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 13, 153–176 (2011)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00290.x
Pluralism in Project Management:
Navigating the Crossroads of
Specialization and Fragmentation
ijmr_290
153..176
Jonas Söderlund
Department of Leadership and Management, BI Norwegian School of Management, 0442 Oslo, Norway
Corresponding author email: [email protected]
Project management is a rapidly expanding subfield of management and organization
studies. This paper seeks to make sense of this development and the current state of
project management research. It reviews the literature published over the last five
decades in 30 leading management and organization journals. In total, 305 articles
were included in the data set. The paper proposes a categorization of the published
articles into seven ‘schools of thought’: Optimization School, Factor School, Contingency School, Behaviour School, Governance School, Relationship School and Decision
School. The schools vary in terms of their main focus and use of the project concept,
major research questions, methodological approaches and type of theorizing. It is
suggested that a better awareness on how to make use of the schools and the identified
perspectives would stimulate cross-fertilization, unification and thus enhance a pluralistic understanding of projects and project management at the same time as it would
prepare research to frame more accurately the problems of contemporary projects. In
that respect, the paper offers ideas on how to navigate at the crossroads between
specialization and fragmentation, between the search for novel topics and improvements of existing knowledge.
Making sense of fifty years of project
management research
There is a strong relationship between scientific
progress and pluralism, especially if the goal is to
‘get a reasonably adequate picture of the complex
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the
Academy of Management Conference in Anaheim in 2008.
The paper has benefited from comments and help from
workshop and conference participants and numerous colleagues in Scandinavia, the UK and the US. In particular, I
am grateful for the valuable support and constructive comments from Erling S. Andersen, Karlos Artto, Elliot
Bendoly, Floortje Blindenbach-Driesen, Mats Engwall, Lars
Lindkvist, Rolf A. Lundin, Peter Morris, Ralf Müller,
Johann Packendorff, Jeff Pinto, Anders Söderholm and
Graham Winch. I also acknowledge the suggestions from the
Associate Editor and four anonymous reviewers.
reality’ (Knudsen 2003, p. 271). Similarly, pluralism
could be viewed in light of Popper’s (1945) argument
that the more open a scientific field is towards new
ideas, the tougher the competition and, consequently,
the better the chances for scientific breakthroughs.
However, scientific fields, like project management,
struggle with the balance between exploration and
exploitation, between unification and focus and pluralism, diversity and openness, between the search
for new topics, methods, and the capitalization and
improvement of existing knowledge (March 1996).
As Knudsen (2003, p. 263, emphasis in original) put
it: ‘fields with too little pluralism run the risk of
being caught in a specialization trap, while fields
with too much pluralism run the risk of being caught
in a fragmentation trap’. Over the years, this challenge has been an often-debated topic in management and organization studies (e.g. Pfeffer 1993; Van
Maanen 1995) and is, perhaps, particularly pressing
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA
02148, USA
154
for project management, given its recent fast-paced
development and its historic origin within such
diverse areas as engineering, operations research and
organization theory (Johnson 1997; Levene 1996). In
project management, as Morris (1994) clearly demonstrates, there is a long and strong tradition of
research with a firm grounding in operations
research and management science which dates back
to the early 1950s. Since then, project management
research has developed considerably and moved into
other knowledge and application areas responding to
the wider spectrum of the use of projects as organizational forms (cf. Ekstedt et al. 1999; Whittington
et al. 1999). On this development route, it has made
use of a number of related disciplines: marketing;
organization theory; strategic management; and
political science, to name a few.
Inspired by debates and studies in other subfields
of management and organization studies, this paper
suggests that an analysis and discussion of the
‘schools of thought’ might be a promising path to
bring together unification and pluralism. Accordingly, it is an approach to avoid the aforementioned
traps of specialization and fragmentation (cf. Daft
and Buenger 1990; Fredrickson 1990; Nag et al.
2007). To a certain extent, a categorization of
research traditions may contribute to the sophistication and further elaborations of existing knowledge
and theories. It would also, if properly done, draw
attention to new and evolving perspectives and analytical frameworks. In other words, a categorization
of contributions could lead the way to a healthy ‘creative tension’ within the field of project management
research (cf. Poole and Van de Ven 1989), and thus be
essential for improving the linkages between project
management and its related subfields in management
and organization studies. These linkages are imperative, given the extensive scholarly interest in projects as cornerstones for new organizational forms
(Castells 1996; Whittington et al. 1999), loci for
entrepreneurial and strategy formation processes
(Whittington et al. 2006) and organizational devices
to deliver increasingly complex integrated customer
solutions (Davies and Hobday 2005). Indeed, the
wide adoption of project-based structures makes
project management, as Postrel (2007) comments, an
important area of inquiry for management and organization studies in general. Theoretical pluralism is,
however, not only essential to research, but may well
also advance managerial and organizational practice.
An awareness of multiple perspectives provides contrasting explanations and thereby stimulates manage-
J. Söderlund
rial and organizational creativity. The combination of
multiple perspectives and informed practice would
then in the next step hopefully infuse a more insightful and penetrating research agenda (see Van de Ven
2007, p. 9).
The main purpose of this paper is to present a
categorization of the schools of thought which gives
an account of the present state of theorizing in
project management. Dividing a scientific field into
different schools of thought would make us categorize contributions with strong similarity into one
group (e.g. similar conception of phenomenon, key
concepts and issues, base discipline, research methodologies), thus separating them from other groups.
The prime reasons for using the school concept
are twofold. First, so-called ‘schools overviews’
have offered instrumental and powerful analysis of
research in related fields, such as that by Mintzberg
(1990) on strategic management (see also Mintzberg
et al. 1998). Second, the idea of school categorization has also recently gained considerable popularity
within the project management community (Bredillet 2007; Kwak and Anbari 2008; Söderlund 2002).
Using this idea thereby facilitates a comparative
analysis of the development of project management
research relative to other management and organization subfields as well as to current debates among
project management scholars. In relation to earlier
school categorizations in project management, the
present review relies on a more rigorous methodology and elaborate journal coverage (cf. Söderlund
2002) and, most importantly, has a specific focus on
studies addressing the project level (cf. Bredillet
2007; Kwak and Anbari 2008).
The paper is structured in the following way. The
next section presents the methodology and data used
for the literature review. Thereafter follows an
account of the identified schools of thought that
focus on a selected number of contributions and trajectories. The paper ends with comparisons, conclusions and implications.
Methodology
The paper focuses on articles published in highranked management and organization journals
outside the conventional project management publications such as the International Journal of Project
Management and Project Management Journal.
Overviews of work published in these journals
already exist, although they tend to centre on narrow
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Pluralism in Project Management
project management topics, such as risk management, project manager competencies, and planning
techniques (see e.g. Betts and Lansley 1995; Crawford et al. 2006; Kloppenborg and Opfer 2002;
Pollack 2007; Themistocleous and Wearne 2000;
Urli and Urli 2000; Zobel and Wearne 2000). In line
with Leybourne (2007, p. 70), the review presented
here instead addresses overall management and organization topics in projects and project management –
a focus that the author believes is important for
readers both within and outside the project management domain.
The paper builds on a series of prior literature
reviews and database investigations (e.g. Crawford
et al. 2006; Engwall 1998; Ford and Randolph 1992;
Packendorff 1995; Shenhar and Dvir 2007; Söderlund 2002, 2004a,b). These reviews were analysed as
a starting point for the study presented here. Based
on panel discussions with leading scholars in
project management, previously published literature
reviews, and journal ranking lists (Collin et al. 1996;
ISI Web of Science), it was decided to focus on 30
journals that were likely to publish empirical and
theoretical work on project management, thus
leaving out methodology, teaching and pure review
journals from the sample (e.g. International Journal
of Management Reviews, Organizational Research
Methods and Academy of Management Learning &
Education). Besides mainstream management and
organization journals, a selection of journals in
related areas, such as technology management, innovation, operations management and product development, were added. A separate search for special
issues on project management and adjacent areas was
also made to identify those journals that publish
project management work. Table 1 presents the
journals included in the sample and documents a
few patterns in the sample of articles from each
journal.
Papers were selected based on the following criteria: (1) published in one of the preferred journals;
(2) focused on governance, management and organization of single projects (following Morris’s (1994)
advice, articles dealing with early and/or implementation phases of projects were included); and (3)
positioned within the realm of project management
and/or project organization. Such positioning would
normally be stated in the abstract, the introductory
parts of the paper or in the conclusion section, often
as a problem or challenge in terms of the management and organization of single projects. The
abstracts were read and combined with keyword
155
investigations and, to ensure the accuracy of the literature search, related research reports were used to
match the data set (Kwak and Anbari 2008; Packendorff 1995). This search created a total data set of
312 papers. After a preliminary analysis of the
papers, it was decided to leave out seven papers,
since the theoretical underpinnings were unclear or
because the papers, after a more detailed analysis,
did not match the initial criteria, which resulted in a
final data set of 305 journal articles.
In the subsequent phase, a brief summary was
produced and between five and ten keywords were
identified from each paper. The summary included
the paper’s key ideas of project management, its base
discipline and primary focus. Thereafter, the author
analysed across the data set, which incorporated the
different traditions and the diversity among the
papers. The analysis started with an inductive examination of the papers based on key concepts and keywords. The first list of categories contained both
categories that were relatively small (with two to
three articles each) and larger categories (approximately 20 papers). Based on methodological recommendations, the number of categories was reduced
through a deductive approach. The intention, based
on Miller’s (1956) well-known idea, was to end up
with approximately five to nine categories (see also
Mintzberg et al. 1998; Morgan 1986). For purposes
of presentation, the study has relied on compilations
of keywords and citation analysis. The keywords are
used primarily to identify similarities and differences
across the schools, whereas the citation analysis is
intended to identify examples of influential contributions within each school of thought.
Every categorization effort needs to be based on a
selected number of dimensions and variables. To fit
the journal format, the scope was narrowed and
focused on a limited number of dimensions, namely:
influential contributions, sources of inspiration,
primary ideas of projects and project management,
empirical focus, key issues/questions, keywords and
main research methodologies (cf. Mintzberg 1990).
Bearing in mind that the idea in this paper is to
advance theory development, the author believes
that these dimensions are sufficient to identify and
analyse pluralism within project management
research. The study is dealing here with a delicate
balancing act: the categorization scheme must
provide room for a certain breadth of aspects and
contributions, and, at the same time, be bounded to
make it comprehensible and coherent. New schools
will evolve, merge with existing ones, and old ones
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
156
J. Söderlund
Table 1. Selected journals: patterns and comments (305 articles)
Journal
No. of
articles
Patterns and comments
1. Academy of
Management
Journal
2. Academy of
Management Review
3. Administrative
Science Quarterly
20
In AMJ there is a wide array of publications ranging from studies of decision-making in
complex projects, communication in R&D projects, to studies of project team evolution. A
few shorter research notes were excluded from the sample.
Most of the articles in the sample from AMR are relatively old. Two themes seem to have
attracted special attention: planning and matrix organization.
No common theme was identified in the articles in the sample published in ASQ. However, a
set of themes have attracted a lot of attention from other scholars on topics such as craft
administration, product development processes, escalating commitment, group longevity and
project performance, and temporary systems.
The papers published in BJM do not have a strong common theme, although the papers in
various ways seem to take an interest in the processes and behaviour of projects. The articles
are also all based on qualitative research, case studies being the most common approach.
In CMR are found some of the classics in project management and the main inspiration for the
notion of projects as temporary organizations. Many of the early articles on programme
management, temporary systems and matrix management were published in this journal.
CIM is a rather new journal that has published several articles on subjects of relevance to
project management. However, many of the articles focus on aspects of individual work,
including creativity and motivation. Accordingly, these papers were not included in the data
set. The papers included in the data set discuss creativity and control in projects, and the
impact of temporal contexts on management.
In the EMJ, one finds a set of articles on project success. Several short articles and empirical
reports were excluded from the sample. Also excluded were a few articles on project-based
firms that primarily dealt with company-wide issues. Of the papers included in the data set,
several have a governance orientation.
Given the success of the EURAM track on project management, it was expected that more
articles would be published in EMR dealing with project management/organization. However,
in the end, only one of the articles matched the selection criteria.
Papers are primarily about two topics, either practical approaches to the management of
projects (including rugby approaches, overlapping approaches, planning techniques, PERT),
or as reports from failed projects (false economies, lessons learned). A number of
practice-oriented papers and short notes were excluded from the sample. Some of the articles
in the data set were also difficult to analyse because the theoretical foundation was not really
made explicit (e.g., Gaddis 1959), and hence excluded from the sample.
The bulk of papers in IEEE-EM deal with either critical success factors of projects and project
management or methods for optimizing project implementation. The papers have a rather
strong engineering or mathematical orientation. The author was only able to search issues
between 1987 and 2007.
The papers could be divided into two groups: one dealing with supplier–client relationships in
complex projects, the other dealing with project performance and project success. IMM has
published a special issue that addresses project management issues.
The papers published in IBR generally look at the relationship aspects of projects, covering
topics such as owner involvement, network development, systems selling and project
marketing. IBR has published a special issue on project marketing and systems selling in
which several of the papers included were published.
The two papers in IJIM that have a project-centric focus deal with global innovation projects
and the importance of ‘project vision’. Both papers generally address the management
challenges of innovation projects.
In IJTM, a wide range of topics were found related to project management, from planning,
cross-functional integration to the practice of project management. It was difficult to identify
a common theme among the papers. However, the majority of papers deal with project
management in new product development.
Most papers have an organization theory orientation dealing with either cultural diversity or
complex decision-making.
4. British Journal of
Management
5. California
Management Review
4
8
5
12
6. Creativity and
Innovation
Management
8
7. European Management
Journal
9
8. European Management
Review
1
9. Harvard Business
Review
9
10. IEEE Transactions
on Engineering
Management
11. Industrial Marketing
Management
12. International
Business Review
13. International Journal
of Innovation
Management
14. International Journal
of Technology
Management
15. International Studies
of Management &
Organization
16. Journal of
Management
14
7
10
2
6
7
3
In JM, only three papers were found. No common theme could be identified, one paper deals
with cross-functional structures, one with critical success factors, and one with pacing and
deadlines in projects. All papers identified have a high citation rate (89, 86, 27 respectively).
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Pluralism in Project Management
157
Table 1. Continued
Journal
No. of
articles
Patterns and comments
17. Journal of
Management Studies
14
18. Journal of Operations
Management
18
In JMS, the first paper on project management was found, published in 1970. The papers
published have a fairly strong organization theory perspective and cover a wide range of
topics, including papers on critical success factors, matrix organization, political perspectives
on projects, and critical perspectives on project management.
In JOM the first 15 volumes contained ten papers focusing on scheduling, forecasting and
priority rules. The most recent ten volumes have focused to a greater extent on critical
success factors. Two papers had high citation scores (112 and 81).
Three of the papers have a focus on project success/product success and project management.
The remaining papers address organizational structures and complexity. A few articles that
only focused on success factors for product development without a specific focus on projects
were excluded from the sample.
One paper deals with project success, the other deals with planning approaches and work
breakdown structures. Five practice-oriented papers were excluded from the sample.
In MS, several papers on project management and project planning were identified. These
papers have a strong operations research orientation, dealing with project scheduling, solving
resource conflicts, project planning methods, etc. Several papers were excluded either
because of a too narrow focus or due to mismatch in the level of analysis, including project
portfolio management, multi-project scheduling, or a focus on project selection.
The papers in Organization have a critical orientation and a strong organization theory
background, carried out within a qualitative research paradigm.
The papers published in Organization Science have a strong organization theory origin. Papers
are produced within two different traditions: one quantitative tradition and one case-study
based/qualitative tradition. Several papers have touched upon inter-team co-ordination/
inter-departmental co-ordination.
Learning and knowledge processes seem to be recurring themes in the papers published in
Organization Studies. Several of the papers are published in the same special issue covering
knowledge, learning and project organizing.
A number of the papers deal with success factors in different types of development projects.
Some papers cover relational aspects, including stakeholder management, governance, and
collaboration. A number of papers were excluded from the sample because they were
considered to be outside the scope of the present review, including project portfolio, and
project valuation. The author had access to issues only between 1997 and 2007.
In RP, several influential papers were identified, ranging from success factors in projects and
innovation projects to contextual analyses of projects.
The papers in SJM have a strong organization theory orientation. Many of the papers are
published in a special issue of selected papers from a project management conference. The
theme of this special issue was ‘project management and temporary organization’.
Two papers are clearly within the line of success factors and project management; the other
papers deal with managing uncertainty and models for project management. Several papers
were not included because they primarily dealt with the firm-level, e.g. project portfolio and
strategy.
Two papers were included in the data set: one dealing with critical success factors, one focusing
on knowledge integration in projects. Several papers were left out because they dealt
primarily with company-wide issues, including multi-project strategies.
The majority of publications deal with project success, how to evaluate successful projects, and
critical factors in projects. Most of the papers deal with innovation and new product
development projects.
19. Journal of Product
Innovation
Management
6
20. Long Range Planning
2
21. Management Science
58
22. Organization
3
23. Organization Science
11
24. Organization Studies
9
25. R&D Management
15
26. Research Policy
14
27. Scandinavian Journal
of Management
11
28. Sloan Management
Review
7
29. Strategic
Management Journal
2
30. Technovation
10
will possibly cease to exist. Hence, the categorization
presented here is by no means final and complete; it
is to be seen as a tentative framework intended to
stimulate discussion about the importance, purview
and problems of research on projects and project
management. Its meaning is also to relate project
management research better to the study of management and organization in general.
A few delimitations had to be made. As mentioned
earlier, the focus of attention is on project-centric
studies. In the literature search carried out in 2008
covering papers published from 1954 to 2007, there
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
158
were many hits on ‘project’ and ‘project management’. Several articles were excluded from the data
set because they dealt mainly with a different level of
analysis (individuals or firms) or because they, for
other reasons, did not specifically address the management and organization of projects. This generally
implied that studies of the management of projectbased firms (e.g. management of multiple projects,
selection of projects, project portfolio management,
project capabilities/competence) were not considered relevant for the present study (e.g. Cooper et al.
2001; Nobeoka and Cusumano 1997). Papers
addressing narrow topics of project-based organizations, including innovation (Keegan and Turner
2002), human resource management (Bredin and
Söderlund 2006) and knowledge transfer (Prencipe
and Tell 2001), were also excluded, since their intention was principally to understand another domain of
management than the management of projects. The
prime focus of this review is accordingly on studies
and articles that analyse single projects from a holistic and organizational point of view, which means
that the literature review covers papers on governance, management and organizational structures
and processes of single projects. Revisiting the
so-called ‘fundamental questions of project management’ discussed in Söderlund (2004a), the selected
articles above all contribute to the understanding of
why projects exist, how they differ, how they behave,
the role of project management, and the determinants
of success and failure of projects.
In the following, it is suggested that the articles
can be divided into seven distinct schools of thought:
(1) Optimization School (logic-based, prescriptive
research drawing on management science, optimization techniques and systems analysis); (2) Factor
School (empirical research relying on descriptive
statistics on the criteria and factors of project
success and failure); (3) Contingency School
(empirical research, case-study-based and surveybased research on the differences between projects,
characteristics of projects and contextual dimensions); (4) Behaviour School (interpretative and
descriptive research on organizational behaviour,
processes and learning in projects); (5) Governance
School (prescriptive research on governance and
contract problems in projects); (6) Relationship
School (descriptive case-study research on relations
between actors in projects); and (7) Decision School
(descriptive and interpretative research on politics
and decision-making in projects). Below, the paper
offers an overview of each of the schools and sum-
J. Söderlund
marizes their respective developments and main
findings. Thereafter, it turns to a comparative analysis eliciting the differences among the schools.
Optimization School
In this category of research, such diverse fields as
network planning research and systems analysis are
found, of which the majority of papers have been
published in Management Science and in IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management (for a
detailed overview, see Tavares 2002). The contributions generally address the optimization of project
implementation using mathematics, optimization
theory and management science. The author has
therefore chosen to label it the Optimization School
(alternatives could have been Management Science,
Planning or Systems Analysis).
Judging from the 73 publications in the data set,
this line of research was introduced quite early in the
top-tier journals. Management Science published
articles on project management and network planning in the early 1960s, and a range of papers were
published in the 1960s on topics exploring PERT
(Program Evaluation and Review Technique) and
critical path planning, which also gained some interest in practitioner journals (for instance King and
Wilson 1967; Miller 1962). Since the early publications on project activity networks, PERT and CPM
(Critical Path Method) (Klingel 1966; Levy et al.
1963; Parikh and Jewell 1965), more advanced
methods and analyses followed. In the late 1960s and
early 1970s, papers dealt with parallel strategies in
development projects (Abernathy and Rosenbloom
1969), project cost control, and different planning
and programming solutions to the problem of
optimal resource use and cost–time trade-offs (e.g.
Cooper 1976). Subsequent articles contribute to the
understanding of more complex problems and the
management of yet more difficult projects by introducing dynamic situations involving multi-pass,
heuristic decomposition procedures for project
scheduling (Holloway et al. 1979) and project scheduling with continuously divisible constrained
resources (Weglarz 1981). Some contributions also
extend the original PERT ideas by elaborating on
Q-GERT modelling and simulation models (Taylor
and Moore 1980).
Gutierrez and Kouvelis (1991) use a stochastic
activity completion time model to examine the
effects of information release policies on subcontrac-
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Pluralism in Project Management
tors of project activities. Similar contributions are
presented in Dumond and Mabert (1988), Drexl
(1991), Elmaghraby and Kamburowski (1992) and
Demeulemeester and Herroelen (1992). A set of
related papers were published in Management
Science around this time (1988–95), with the overarching idea of developing techniques and models
for formalized project management approaches,
including network planning and PERT.
The contributions within the research in the Optimization School share a common view on projects
as complex activities to be planned by, more or
less, advanced management-science techniques and
models. The contributions tend to advocate an analytic view of projects and project management.
Writers also typically adopt a prescriptive and normative stance, rather than a descriptive one (cf.
Lucas 1971). Consequently, project management is
largely defined as the application of the techniques
to approach the complex scheduling/co-ordination
problem of executing a project (e.g. Bailetti et al.
1994; Eppinger 2001). For instance, Liberatore and
Titus (1983, p. 962) define project management as
‘the activities of screening, selecting, evaluating,
budgeting, scheduling and controlling . . . projects’.
Many of the papers refer to the history of project
management found in the early days of management
science and, in particular, the development of
advanced project planning techniques and various
structuring and breakdown methods (Lanford and
McCann 1983). A common assumption is that
‘successful management of . . . projects requires a
careful planning, scheduling . . . of activities’
(Granot and Zuckerman 1991, p. 140). A great deal
of attention is devoted to modelling and evaluation of
projects combined with improvements in network
models for project management (generalized networks, logical networks, overlapping activities and
hammock activities). In recent years, research into
this area has also focused on the limitations of the
tools and techniques to deal with the growing complexity and speed of change.
Factor School
A considerable body of project management research
reflects the investigation of the criteria for project
success and, naturally, also the factors that lead to
either success or failure in projects and project management. Hence, a common interest revolves around
the matters of how to determine what a successful
159
project is and what seems to cause project (management) success. The author has chosen to label this
particular tradition of project management research
the Factor School (alternatives could be Success
School, Critical Success Factor School, see e.g.
Jugdev and Müller 2005; Söderlund 2002).
In total, there were 64 papers included in the data
set grouped within the Factor School. The research
published in journals dates back to the late 1960s
and early 1970s with a small number of articles in
journals such as California Management Review
(Avots 1969) and Academy of Management Journal
(Thamhain and Gemmill 1974). The majority of
the publications were, however, published in the
1980s.
The importance of examining the critical success
factors is justified by the overwhelming failure of
projects and the belief that the identification of these
factors would profoundly improve project implementation in practice (Pinto and Prescott 1990). This
seems also to be the typical starting point for many
articles within this tradition: e.g. why projects fail
and what separates the low performers from the high
performers (see, for instance, Avots 1969).
During the late 1980s, research developed rapidly,
with a series of important publications in both
practitioner-oriented journals, such as Sloan Management Review (Randolph and Posner 1988; Slevin
and Pinto 1987) and well-known scholarly journals,
such as the Academy of Management Journal (Katz
and Allen 1985), Administrative Science Quarterly
(Katz 1982), Journal of Management (Pinto and
Prescott 1988), Journal of Management Studies
(Pinto and Prescott 1990), Journal of Product
Innovation Management (Larson and Gobeli 1988),
Management Science (Clark 1989) and Strategic
Management Journal (Bryson and Bromiley 1993).
A number of interesting developments are worth
noting. One line of development encompasses an
increasingly detailed empirical focus on particular
types of projects and empirical contexts, most
notably geographical regions, sectors and industries.
Hence, research also becomes more fine-grained
with regard to organizational conditions and task features. In addition, research covers a wider range of
sectors and industries, such as pharmaceutical, electrical equipment manufacturing, IT, and oil and gas,
sometimes in conjunction with a particular focus on
geographical regions and/or nations.
The second expansion relates to the nature of
analysis with regard to its dynamics and specificity.
Even though the majority of publications have a
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
160
static orientation, in some publications one sees
attempts to provide a dynamic view on projects and
the variations in success factors across the project
life cycle (e.g. Hoegl and Weinkauf 2005; Pinto and
Prescott 1988). These studies typically span the early
stages (Ericksen and Dyer 2004), from the planning
phases to the implementation and conclusion phases.
In addition, some studies deal with the overall
success factors, similar to the factors presented by
DeCotiis and Dyer (1977), while others focus on a
particular issue or problem, such as teamwork and
team location (Grewal et al. 2006), decision-making
influence (Katz and Allen 1985; Müller and Turner
2007; Thamhain and Gemmill 1974), group longevity (Katz 1982) and cross-functional co-operation
(Pinto et al. 1993), yet still framing it as a problem
relating to the management and organization of
projects.
For many years, research within the Factor School
had a strict and narrow definition of success in terms
of efficiency with regard to time, cost and quality
dimensions. Over the years, however, this was broadened and led to an increased interest in value
creation, long-term perspectives, and capabilitybuilding (Shenhar et al. 2001), which generally
signals a concern for separating efficiency from
effectiveness measurements. Advancements pertaining to research methodologies are also discerned.
The early studies generally rely on a limited data set
or author experience with primarily anecdotal evidence. Over time, there has been more rigorous
survey research, with large cross-sectional samples
and a few in-depth case studies.
Contingency School
For several decades, project management research
struggled to strike a balance between the elaborations of a theory of project management that was
generic and general yet allowed for applications to
different types of projects. One important stream
of research tied to this involved contingency
approaches and comparative analyses of projects and
project management. The author has labelled it the
Contingency School; primarily because it draws on
contingency-inspired organization theory developed
by Galbraith (1973), Burns and Stalker (1961) and
Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) (alternative labels
could have been structural school, design school or
situational school). In total, 42 papers were grouped
as pertaining to the Contingency School.
J. Söderlund
The first paper in the sample is by Middleton
(1967) on different kinds of project organization. The
author discusses the advantages and disadvantages of
organizing by projects and identifies the various
forms of project organization ranging from individual project organization, staff project organization, intermix project organization to aggregate
organization. He argues that the establishment of a
project organization should rest on an examination of
the nature of the ‘job and its requirements’ and
‘scope of the project’. Several of the early contributions within the Contingency School continue on this
line of thinking by addressing matrix organizations
and matrix management, typically in R&D settings
(e.g. Kolodny 1979; Tushman 1978).
Some of the papers concentrate on the identification and comparison of different ‘project environments’ and how these different environments require
alternative approaches to project management,
project control and project planning (see e.g. Griffiths and Pearson 1973; Nutt 1982, 1983). Nutt
(1983), for instance, identifies 16 different environments and analyses how they relate to internal project
attributes. The author typifies the identified environments based on the organization’s tendency to be
centralized, cost conscious, qualitatively oriented
and their mix of skills. A project management
approach is proposed to meet the unique demands in
each environment. Other papers adopt a more finegrained approach by detailing the contingency
factors for the design of project organization and
project management, using task certainty and task
interdependence (e.g. Dailey 1978), sometimes in
combination with analyses of specific kinds of
projects (e.g. Debrabander and Edström 1977). This
trajectory is also evident in papers throughout the
1980s and the 1990s, adding yet more contingency
dimensions and more elaborate types of projects. For
instance, Løwendahl (1995) gives prominence to
‘project task uncertainty’ and ‘parent organization
embeddedness’ in her study of an Olympic Games
project, and Shenhar and colleagues published a
series of papers in top-ranked journals on a ‘typological theory’ (initially based on ‘technological
uncertainty’ and ‘system scope’) of project management where contingency theory constitutes the prime
theoretical foundation (see e.g. Dvir et al. 1998;
Shenhar 1998, 2001; Shenhar and Dvir 1996).
Sommer and Loch (2004), Pich et al. (2002) and De
Meyer et al. (2002) follow a similar path and suggest
a categorization of four fundamental types of project
uncertainties: variation, foreseen, unforeseen and
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Pluralism in Project Management
chaos. To this end, they outline a contingencyinfluenced framework which contrasts types of
project management logics and roles of project management (see De Meyer et al. 2002). Lindkvist et al.
(1998) consider the significance of type of complexity in conjunction with ‘error problematic’ (as either
‘error detection’ or ‘error diagnostics’) to make sense
of project management in time-compressed, largescale product development projects. A similar, muchcited contribution is by Eisenhardt and Tabrizi (1995,
p. 108), who contrast two models for achieving fast
adaptation: the ‘compression model’ and the ‘experiential model’ with regard to different assumptions
about certainty. Their paper contributes to the analysis and understanding of project management in
‘competitive, fast-paced situations’. Several other
papers augment the progress of detailed analysis of
contingency dimensions, especially with regard to
further investigations of different types of projects
(e.g. Chiesa 2000; Coombs et al. 1998; Lundqvist
et al. 1996).
In sum, research within the Contingency School
draws on a long and strong tradition in organization
theory relating to a variety of contingency dimensions affecting organizational design and structure.
In particular, papers illustrate the role of technological uncertainty, complexity and embeddedness for
the design of project management and project organizations. Over time, papers have detailed the analysis with regard to the differences across types of
projects as well as deeper investigations into specific
contingency dimensions.
Behaviour School
In the Behaviour School is found a diverse group of
organization-theory inspired research on project
organization, organizational behaviour and organization processes. The term ‘behaviour’ is chosen here
to accommodate publications with an explicit focus
on the organizational behaviour of projects, the processes of organizing, and the nature and organization
of social interaction in projects. Accordingly, alternative labels could have been Process, Interaction,
Learning or Organizing. In total, 64 papers were
classified as being part of Behaviour School
research.
The first publications in the sample date back to
the late 1960s and early 1970s. Here are found
Wilemon and Cicero (1970), Gemmill and Wilemon
(1970), Wilemon and Gemmill (1971) and Wilemon
161
(1973) on the ‘ambiguities’ and ‘conflicts’ in project
management. Among the first publications are also
Reeser (1969), Hammerton (1970), Melcher and
Kayser (1970) and Butler (1973). Reeser (1969)
examines the human problems in the ‘project form of
organization’ and zeroes in on the ‘anxieties and
frustrations’ of people working in a ‘projectized
organization’, including the issues of phase-out and
temporary relationships. Hammerton (1970) discusses the difficulties in projects associated with
interdisciplinarity and motivation. Melcher and
Kayser (1970) analyse an intensive case study of
project management action and the troubles of building a team spirit and commitment in project settings.
Butler (1973) continues along these lines in his study
of what he frames as ‘dysfunctional conflicts’ in
project management.
A number of articles within the Behaviour School
consider the challenges and problems of ‘temporary
organization’, inspired by the early work of
Goodman and Goodman (1972, 1976). For example,
Lundin and Söderholm (1995) argue that projects
have definite characteristics and thus a unique way of
life and behaviour compared with permanent organizations. Several authors have adopted a similar
dynamic view on projects and project organization.
Gersick (1988, 1989) provides an interpretation of
project teams working under deadline pressure. This
research has also informed subsequent studies into
the dynamics of projects, particularly regarding the
effects of deadlines (e.g. Chang et al. 2003; Engwall
and Westling 2004; Seers and Woodruff 1997). A
number of other studies share a similar processoriented scrutiny of projects as emerging phenomena
that inherently change their direction and scope
(Kreiner 1995). Kreiner (1992) suggests that project
behaviour follows the idea of a ‘theatre of passion’,
where the unpredictability of human behaviour is an
essential element of project management. Engwall
(2003), although pointing out the importance of
institutions and environments, focuses to a great
extent on the ‘interior process’ of projects to establish an evolutionary and process interpretation of
project organization.
Other studies are also found sharing the interest of
enhancing the dynamic and behavioural interpretation of projects as organizational forms and processes. Some authors focus on the learning processes
in projects (Bourgeon 2002; Brady and Davies 2004;
Grabher 2004; Ibert 2004; Kim and Wilemon 2007;
Scarbrough et al. 2004); others analyse the processes
of knowledge sharing and knowledge integration
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
162
(Hoopes and Postrel 1999; Ivory et al. 2007; Newell
et al. 2004). Here are also found studies dealing with
the role of ‘boundary objects’ in projects (Boland
et al. 2007; Sapsed and Salter 2004; Yakura 2002)
and the development of trust in interdisciplinary and
geographically dispersed projects (Bechky 2006; Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999). In addition, some studies
discuss human behaviour and culture in projects
(Dadfar and Gustavsson 1992; Milosevic 2002),
whereas other studies centre on the processes of
creativity in projects (Bech 2001; Ekvall 1993;
Holmquist 2007).
An important feature of Behaviour School
research is the general critique of the project form as
an organizational solution and the dominant static
and system-focused view of project management.
This is apparent already in the first papers in the data
set, and continues to be an important topic in the
research published in the 1990s and the 2000s. For
instance, some papers focus on particular problems
in specific types of projects (e.g. Berggren 2004;
Hedlund and Ridderstråle 1995; O’Mahony 2003)
and others offer a more general critique of the project
form of organization (Hodgson 2002, 2004, 2005;
Joyce 1986; Lindgren and Packendorff 2006).
Research within the Behaviour School typically
acknowledges the process and dynamic nature of
projects, and investigates time pressure, trustbuilding, problem-solving, sense-making and learning dimensions to accommodate an analysis of the
nature and process of the behaviour of projects.
Governance School
In the Governance School, contributions are found
that use an economics approach on projects and
project management. The majority of papers include
applications of either agency theory or transaction
cost theory. Alternative labels for this school could
be the Economics School or the Contract School. In
total, 19 papers were grouped as belonging to the
Governance School.
Two of the first and most influential references in
the Governance School discuss the problems of contracting and governance in the construction industry.
The first paper in the data set is written by Stinchcombe (1959), who presents a comparative analysis
of bureaucratic and craft administration for production. His study centres on market contracting versus
bureaucratic control and the effects of variability in
construction projects. Eccles (1981), another and
J. Söderlund
related influential paper, extends Stinchcombe’s
investigation with a partial critique of his main
finding. He examines subcontracting, and argues that
subcontracting is better explained with reference to
complexity, size and market extent. In both papers,
the authority and administrative problems of projects
are essential. The authors connect their analyses to
the market–bureaucracy dichotomy and thereby
touch upon contracting and transaction cost
frameworks.
Other papers in this research tradition similarly
discuss problems pertaining to contracting and governance in projects. Early examples of contributions
are four papers published in the Academy of Management Journal, namely Roman (1964), Goodman
(1967), Meinhart and Delionback (1968) and
Hodgetts (1969). Roman (1964) discusses the problems of audit and performance evaluation in R&D
project management. Goodman (1967) and Hodgetts
(1969) zero in on the ‘authority problems’ of project
organizations and, in view of that, examine the
general question of why projects exist. Relying on a
game theoretic interpretation, Meinhart and Delionback (1968) focus on the role of contracts and, in
particular, the role of incentive contracts in project
management.
Recent contributions discuss the governance problems observed in projects in strategic alliances
(Gerwin and Ferris 2004), project alliances (Clegg
et al. 2002), project-based international joint ventures (Hung et al. 2002), mutual organizations
(Koenig and Thietart 1988) and complex consortia
(Winch et al. 2000). Starting from a primary interest
in the nature and particularities of construction
projects as a case of craft administration, research
within this line of research has developed to cover
other types of projects, such as research projects
(Croisier 1998) and service development projects
(van den Ende 2003).
The transaction-cost-inspired research reflects an
application of the Williamson theory in particularly
complex empirical settings (Williamson 1975), e.g.
large-scale construction or offshore projects. The
impact of transaction cost economics on the development of management theory is well documented,
and hence it is perhaps no surprise that it has also
been applied and used in project settings. A key
theme revolves around the alternative forms of contracting and governance modes (Lorenzen and Frederiksen 2005; Turner and Keegan 2001). Some of the
research focuses on the relationship between project
owners and project executers/administrators (see e.g.
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Pluralism in Project Management
Turner and Müller 2004). Typically, these papers rely
on agency theory to explore the difficulties in arranging for well-functioning interplay between projects
and its external environment, including clients and
project owners. Accordingly, there is an interest in
understanding the differences in goal preferences
and information asymmetry among the actors
involved.
The Governance School aims to analyse why
projects exist and define the appropriate governing
mechanisms of projects as a particular kind of
administrative problem and complex transaction. In
depicting project management largely as a macrolevel concern and a strategic management issue (Paul
1984), Governance School research investigates the
overall and contractual aspects, the choice of project
contracts and the forms of bilateral or trilateral governance to handle large-scale projects.
Relationship School
The research within the Relationship School has
several similarities to both the Governance School
and the Behaviour School. However, research within
this school draws on alternative theories taken primarily from the fields of inter-organizational relations and marketing. The majority of papers are
published in Industrial Marketing Management and
the International Business Review, i.e. journals that
historically have had, for obvious reasons, a strong
marketing origin. Recurrent themes in the papers are
network formation and development (Welch et al.
1996), stakeholder interaction (Elias et al. 2002;
Welch 2005), project networks (Hellgren and Stjernberg 1995), project marketing (Cova and Hoskins
1997) and relational interaction (Larson and Wikström 2007). In total, 19 papers were sorted into the
Relationship School.
Marketing research contributes to the field of
project management by explaining how companies
sell and market their projects, how clients buy
projects, and how the early stages of a project can be
seen as the management and organization of interactions between clients and the contractors. Important
to this analysis is the observation of a lack of longterm relationships between the interacting partners,
leading authors to discuss the ‘management of discontinuity’ and its related co-operation problems
(Hadjikhani 1996). Even though several studies
adopt a process-oriented approach and analyse the
formation of networks and relationships between
163
actors, they foremost address projects as complex
networks of multiple actors. Studies emphasize, for
instance, the high degree of uncertainty, the complex
buying process, the long transaction duration and the
double fragmentation of buying and selling centres
(e.g. Owusu and Welch 2007). Several articles
address the importance of the early phases of projects
as a means of understanding how projects are organized during the implementation phase, what rulesof-the-game are set and what characterizes good
co-operation and co-ordination in complex, interorganizational projects (Cova and Hoskins 1997).
For instance, Cova et al. (1996) use sociograms to
examine institutional and individual actors in the
project environment, especially in order to identify
the significant actors that are likely to have high
influence on the progress of the project. Researchers,
for that reason, highlight the complex negotiations
and multipart sales processes (Lemaire 1996;
Millman 1996) and the importance of forming supplier and buyer alliances (Bansard et al. 1993).
Similar types of network approaches are seen in
studies on ‘project networks’, building on the paper
by Hellgren and Stjernberg (1995). In these publications, projects are viewed as dynamic networks of
multiple actors and firms crossing organizational
boundaries (Staber 2004).
Overall, managing the early phases of projects is
typically addressed as a problem of organization and
networking which requires appropriate managerial
strategies, together with considerable time and
resources (Bansard et al. 1993). Accordingly, papers
within this tradition typically emphasize the dynamic
and social nature of projects. Authors document how
firms can formulate projects in various ways, and
how they work to influence the perception of
projects. The Relationship School gives an alternative to the conventional static view of projects and
stresses the relational embeddedness of projects and
its social construction (see e.g. Skaates et al. 2002;
Starkey et al. 2000). Recent literature on project
marketing appears to be as much an attempt to
combine knowledge from different areas as it is a
means of augmenting the understanding of the
conduct in which projects are instigated, how they
are built and how they are structured (Cova and
Hoskins 1997). In summary, the Relationship School
is largely devoted to research in the management of
the early phases of projects, the identification of
client needs, the dynamics of project networks, the
formulation and formation of projects. Many of the
studies rely on single case methodology, principally
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
164
investigating complex, industrial, international and
inter-organizational projects.
Decision School
The Decision School is characterized by its principal interest in the early phases of projects. Here,
scholars are generally occupied with two leading
questions: Why are projects instigated, and why are
certain decisions made that affect the termination
or continuation of a project? In sum, 25 journal
articles were grouped as belonging to the Decision
School.
One major interest in the Decision School is the
efforts to explain why projects (or individual actors)
that do not follow a rational (decision-making)
model work successfully and why some projects that
seem to be unwise get implemented despite objective information on ‘bad economies’ (Davis 1985).
Thus, research examines the use of various strategies and actions during project realization, including ‘rapid-results’ (Matta and Ashkenas 2003) and
‘outside views’ to deal with ‘over-optimism’ in
project decisions (Lovallo and Kahneman 2003). In
several ways, these strategies relate to ‘escalating
commitment’ (Ross and Staw 1993; Staw and Ross
1978) and the difficulties of terminating ongoing
projects (Balachandra et al. 1996; Green et al.
2003).
The most influential publications are by Staw and
Ross, published in Administrative Science Quarterly
and in the Academy of Management Journal (Ross
and Staw 1986, 1993; Staw and Ross 1978). The
analysis revolves primarily around the early decision
processes in complex projects. Their notion of escalated commitment is an endeavour to understand the
countervailing forces that make it difficult to withdraw from a project despite a poor economic result
(Ross and Staw 1993, p. 703). Ross and Staw (1993,
p. 701) ask the basic questions: ‘how do we get
organizations moving, and how do we get them
stopped once they are moving in a particular direction?’ The authors argue that the escalation in
complex projects/programmes involves the interplay
of four sets of determinants: project, psychological,
social and organizational determinants. It is also
shown that ‘the more ambiguous and changing the
economics of a project, the more difficult it will be
for an organization to extricate itself from the
selected course of action’ (p. 723). In other words,
the studies by Staw and Ross bring to light the nature
J. Söderlund
of projects by investigating the role of selfjustification and biased information processing in
politicized environments.
Several studies investigate the difficulties of
decision-making in complex projects, including the
use of economic calculations (Jansson 1989), the
adverse selection on evaluation decisions (Harrison
and Harrell 1993), and the politics surrounding
projects (Dehler 2003; Gasper 1989). One important
matter is how to make sense of risky projects that get
out of control (Charalambos and Dexter 2004).
Important in this line of research is the idea of ‘risk
tolerance’ in project-driven organizations (Kwak and
Scott LaPlace 2005) and the relevance of options
thinking to understand decision-making in complex
projects (Lint et al. 2001). Others examine the role
of decision-support systems for the management of
projects (e.g. Asrilhant et al. 2004), while other
studies concentrate on the political aspects of
complex projects. These latter studies normally build
further on the original ideas presented in Staw and
Ross (1978). For instance, several papers address the
reasons why software projects escalate and the associated problems with information flows (Conlon and
Garland 1993; Keil et al. 2003), whereas others
zoom in on the troubles of reporting ‘bad news’ in
complex, multi-actor projects (Tan et al. 2003).
Drawing on the notion of ‘future perfect thinking’, a
few recent studies bring about the political aspects of
public projects (e.g. Pitsis et al. 2003) and the idea of
projects as ‘political hybrids’ (Clegg and Courpasson
2004).
Decision School research focuses primarily on the
early stages of projects and underlines the value of
in-depth analysis of single cases. Studies typically
elicit the political processes inherent in public
projects involving a great number of actors, encouraging the analysis of the information flows, the escalation processes in projects, and the investigation of
why good projects die and bad projects survive.
Studies within this tradition tend to draw on classic
research within psychology and organization theory,
in particular, decision-making theories that contrast
the rationalistic model of decision-making.
Embracing pluralism
Based on the above review of research on project
management, a framework is suggested consisting of
seven schools of thought that represent different traditions of research. The identification and categori-
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Pluralism in Project Management
zation of schools of thought in project management
research lends support to the idea of theoretical
pluralism. It also substantiates the observation that
the study of projects and project management has
gained increased attention from a wide range of disciplines, including operations research, organization
theory, economics, psychology and industrial marketing (Söderlund 2002). In the following, the seven
schools of thought are compared. To give more detail
to the main attention of each school and their respective major influences, Table 2 presents examples of
contributions based on citation analysis and selected
keywords taken from the summary documents.
Table 3 presents an initial summary of the differences between the schools in terms of main focus and
research approach and methodologies. As this table
shows, project management research differs considerably, covering various topics with a focus on planning and scheduling of complex tasks, investigations
of success factors to achieve project success, organizational structures, organization processes, governance of complex project transactions, formation of
project networks and project investment decisions.
Some disparity is also observed across the schools
concerning their foci of analysis along the stages of
the project life cycle. Some schools, such as the
Decision School and Relationship School, tend to
address the early stages and formation phases of
projects, while other schools primarily examine the
implementation phase, which, for instance, is the
tendency among the bulk of studies in the Factor
School and the Contingency School.
Drawing on Hambrick (1990), one can also distinguish differences in terms of the scholarly interest in
the dynamic aspects of projects. Some schools treat
projects primarily as a static phenomenon (Contingency School), while others adopt a more dynamic
view on the development of projects (Behaviour
School, Relationship School, Decision School). The
former often presents projects from a snapshot view
without giving details of its history and evolution.
The latter, in contrast, seeks to elicit some of the
dynamics involved in projects. Such interest is often
seen in the use of longitudinal data or authors’ formulating explicit critique of conventional static interpretations of projects.
Some diversity is also noted as to the respective
schools’ interest in describing or prescribing, and
whether the published papers are primarily based on
inductive or deductive research approaches (Thomas
2006). For instance, most papers in the Factor School
have a strong deductive approach, testing a particular
165
hypothesis, and a prescriptive orientation since ‘performance is a dependent construct’ (Hambrick 1990,
247), while Behaviour School research to a much
greater extent reports on inductive and descriptive
research with limited interest in formulating and
testing hypotheses. Typically, a number of these
studies embark on a longitudinal research agenda.
Now turning to a comparison of how the schools
have treated the idea of projects and project management, a few observations should be brought to the
fore. First, one might say that a simple and clear-cut
definition of projects and project management would
be a difficult feat. Like other subfields of management, for instance strategic management (see, e.g.
Cheaffee 1985; Nag et al. 2007), project management has its share of challenges, problems and
opportunities. Looking at the seven schools, some
overlap and shared ideas are discerned regarding
project definitions, such as temporary, complex or
interdisciplinary; at the same time, some interesting
divergences are also discovered. In the analysis of the
primary definitions of projects and the ideas of
project management frequently adhered to, one has
definitions of projects as complex sets of activities,
complex tasks, organizational structures, organization processes, transactions, networks and largescale investments. As a consequence, the schools
give somewhat different explanations to the role
and practice of project management, whether,
for instance, the focus primarily is on planning,
decision-making, design or network formation. From
a theory-development standpoint, the schools hence
have various foci and seek to answer, to some extent,
different fundamental questions (Söderlund 2004a),
ranging from the existence of projects, the variation
among projects, how they behave, the role of project
management, to, finally, the determinants of success
and failure of projects. These questions are essential
if one is to develop theories of projects and project
management, and they are important for each of the
schools to develop further, but also for the schools
and the emerging perspectives to complement each
other in future empirical investigations. Table 4 presents a comparison of the key questions and the
diverse project ideas. It also adds a summarizing
‘project management maxim’ to capture the role and
function of project management portrayed in each of
the identified schools.
As documented in the categorization and analysis,
the study elaborates on the polysemic nature of
projects and thus acknowledges that projects come in
different forms and have multiple meanings (cf. Bre-
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
73
64
42
64
19
18
25
Optimization
School
Factor School
Contingency
School
Behaviour
School
Governance
School
Relationship
School
Decision
School
No. of papers
in data set
Hellgren and Stjernberg (1995), Hadjikhani (1996), Cova
et al. (1996), Millman (1996), Cova and Hoskins
(1997), Starkey et al. (2000), Vaaland and Håkansson
(2003)
Ross and Staw (1986), Ross and Staw (1993), Harrison
and Harrell (1993), Conlon and Garland (1993), Staw
and Ross (1978), Matta and Ashkenas (2003), Lovallo
and Kahneman (2003)
Gersick (1988; 1989), Goodman and Goodman (1976),
Lundin and Söderholm (1995), Packendorff (1995),
Kreiner (1995), DeFillippi and Arthur (1998), Jarvenpaa
and Leidner (1999), Hoopes and Postrel (1999),
O’Mahony (2003), Engwall (2003)
Stinchcombe (1959), Eccles (1981), Croisier (1998),
Turner and Keegan (2001), Clegg et al. (2002), Gerwin
and Ferris (2004), Turner and Müller (2004)
Fulkerson (1961), Wiest (1981), Davis and Heidorn
(1971), Davis and Patterson (1975), Cooper (1976),
Talbot (1982), Liberatore and Titus (1983), Northcraft
and Wolf (1984), Drexl (1991), Demeulemeester and
Herroelen (1992), Adler and Mandelbaum (1995),
Kolisch (1996), Levitt et al. (1999), Eppinger (2001),
Huchzermeier and Loch (2001)
Alter and Ginzberg (1978), Katz (1982), Katz and Allen
(1985), Larson and Gobeli (1987; 1988; 1989), Pinto
and Prescott (1988), Pinto and Mantel (1990),
Henderson and Lee (1992), Pinto et al. (1993), Clark
(1989), Iansiti (1995), Tatikonda and Rosenthal (2000),
Hoegl and Gemeunden (2001), Bonner et al. (2002)
Tushman (1978), Takeuchi and Nonaka (1986), Clark and
Wheelwright (1992), Ford and Randolph (1992),
Eisenhardt and Tabrizi (1995), Adler (1995), Kirsch
(1996), Shenhar and Dvir (1996), Lindkvist et al.
(1998), Hobday (2000), Shenhar (2001), MacCormack
et al. (2001), Pich et al. (2002), De Meyer et al. (2002)
Examples of highly cited contributions (based on citation
analysis, presented in chronological order)
Table 2. Schools of project management research: contributions and keywords
Information, bias, escalation, commitment, influence,
investment, project assessment, politics, termination, risk,
option.
Contingency, project organization, structure, information,
decentralization, design, flexibility, fit, environment,
conditions, characteristics, approach, matrix organization,
adaptive, typology, framework, cross-functional structure,
communication, taxonomy, complexity, uncertainty,
flexibility, interdependence, complex tasks, co-ordination,
differences.
Behaviour, process, learning, team, emotion, development,
communication, creativity, longitudinal, climate, boundary
object, transition, time, conflict, human, temporary,
evolution, knowledge integration, motivation, role, practice,
culture, diversity, pacing, gender, power, trust, change.
Governance, authority, transaction cost, bureaucracy, market,
variability, administration, contract, incentive, control,
contracting, subcontracting, co-operation, construction
projects, joint venture, consortium, hierarchy, strategic,
alliance, principal, agent.
Project network, formation, marketing, project business,
network development, international projects, systems
selling, project milieu, stakeholders, social capital.
Project success, failure, determinants, satisfaction,
performance, criteria, antecedents, effects, critical, outcome,
measure.
Optimal, quantitative, analysis, logical, management science,
analytical, techniques, critical path, PERT, planning, work
breakdown structure, resource allocation, project
scheduling, value, activity networks, algorithm, duration,
estimates, modelling.
Keywords from paper summaries
Political science, psychology
Industrial marketing,
economic geography
Economics, transaction cost
theory, principal agent
theory
Organizational behaviour,
organization theory
psychology, learning,
Sociology, organization
theory
Diverse, including innovation
studies, operations and
technology management
Management science, applied
mathematics
Base discipline/key influence
166
J. Söderlund
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Pluralism in Project Management
167
Table 3. Schools of project management research: main focus and research approach
Optimization
School
Factor
School
Contingency
School
Behaviour
School
Governance
School
Relationship
School
Decision
School
Main focus of analysis
Primary research approach and methodologies
Empirical context
Planning, breakdown techniques and scheduling
of complex tasks
Success factors and project outcomes/project
performance
Project organization design/structure
Logic-based, modeling, simulation,
experiments, static/dynamic
Surveys, quantitative cross-sectional analysis,
regression analysis, deductive, static
Surveys, multiple case studies, single case
studies, deductive/inductive, static
Case studies, experiments, inductive,
longitudinal, dynamic
Case studies, deductive, static
Engineering,
R&D
R&D
Case studies, inductive, longitudinal, dynamic
Engineering,
construction
Public sector, IT
Project organization processes
Governance of project organizations/
transactions
Management of the formation and development
phase of projects
The interplay among decision-makers in the
(mainly) early stages of projects
Case studies, longitudinal, deductive/inductive,
dynamic
R&D
Change,
development
Construction
Table 4. Schools of project management research: key questions, ideas and maxims
Key questions/issues investigated
Dominant project idea
Project management maxim
Optimization School
How to manage/plan a project?
Complex set of activities
Factor School
Contingency School
What determines project success?
Why do projects differ?
Complex task
Organizational structure
Behaviour School
Governance School
How do projects behave?
How are projects governed?
Organizational process
Complex transaction
Relationship School
How are the early stages of projects
managed and how are projects formed?
Why are projects instigated, why do
they continue to live?
Multi-actor network
‘Optimizing project implementation by
planning’
‘Targeting project management by factors’
‘Adapting project organization to
contingencies’
‘Shaping processes of project organization’
‘Governing project organization/
transactions’
‘Developing relationships and projects’
Decision School
dillet 2005a,b). Its polysemic nature probably stems
from the empirical reality of contemporary projects
where they are often, at the same time, considerable
public investments and multifaceted organizational
processes involving learning, emotions and tangled
knowledge integration. Such complexities, one
would assume, require a number of theoretical perspectives and research methodologies to be possible
to grasp and understand. Hence, Table 4 offers some
substance to a critique of common descriptions of
project management research to be discussed further
below.
Rethinking or taking stock
Authors have stated that there is an ‘extraordinary
silence’ on the theoretical side of project management and that ‘an explicit theory is the crucial and
Large-scale investment
‘Politicking and influencing
decision-making processes’
single most important issue for the future’ (Koskela
and Howell 2002, p. 1). Similar opinions have been
voiced by others in the domain of project management, who emphasize the need to decide on standardized definitions and that project management
research must develop an overarching unifying
theory to be recognized as a ‘proper academic discipline’ (Turner 2006a, p. 1; see also, e.g. Shenhar and
Dvir 1996, Turner 2006a,b,c,d). A number of scholars even argue for the pressing need to ‘rethink
project management’ (e.g. Winter et al. 2006, p.
642). The present paper provides additional insights
into and partial support for this rethinking agenda
(Winter et al. 2006, p. 642). The paper has shown
that (1) pluralism offers various ‘theories of project
management’ and alternative views on projects and
their complexity; (2) research has, for several years,
been interested in projects as social processes, organizational processes and decision-making processes;
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
168
(3) part of project management research has
addressed a wide array of success criteria and value
creation measurements; (4) there is an evolving pluralistic understanding of projects, which offers broad
conceptualizations of projects and project management; and (5) theorists and reflective practitioners
need to embrace this pluralism, and learn to live with
multiple and sometimes competing explorations and
explanations.
In sum, based on this review, project management
research today offers at least a minimum level of
pluralism and multiple perspectives to illuminate the
complex actuality of projects and project management practice (Cicmil et al. 2006; Sauer and Reich
2007; Williams 2005). The message is about embracing pluralism and learning to live with contradictions
without losing focus and commonality. In that
respect, project management as a scientific field
needs to strike a balance between pluralist and unification strategies (Knudsen 2003). However, the
primary role of the unification strategy is to set the
agenda for research, to identify the important topics
and questions, and to open up the arenas for sharing
research results. Relating to the polysemic nature and
multiple meanings of projects, this paper elicits a
variety of conceptions and ideas of projects and
project management. To some extent, these alternatives are competing; nevertheless, the existence of
contrasting versions and definitions of projects are
positive signs that are to be welcomed, and which, in
the end, might facilitate the progress of research to
the level of complexity almost matching that of
projects themselves. Different ideas about projects
can activate creative thinking about project management and aid fruitful knowledge exchanges with
other subfields in management and organization
studies. A few noteworthy examples already exist
among the papers in the data set. For instance,
Shenhar and Dvir (1996) introduced a contingency
theory and extended this idea in subsequent papers to
test the theory on a larger sample in an attempt to
explore successes and failures in project management
(Dvir et al. 1998). Katz (1982) began with a study
similar to other research in the Factor School, but his
ideas later influenced follow-up studies in the Behaviour School and investigations into the salient features of projects as temporary organizations. These
developments and school-crossings seem critical to
producing theories that are sensitive to context yet
still build on findings presented in earlier research.
Schools are static, but schools develop; so do subfields. Although this paper offers a categorization of
J. Söderlund
project management research, it warns against
narrow Balkanization both of the subfield, as such,
becoming too distant from the study of management
and organization, and schools locking themselves in
to develop their own research agenda far from other
scholars sharing the interest to develop knowledge
about projects and project management. Building on
what is known – ‘exploitation’ – is an important act
of knowledge development; so is ‘exploration’.
Exploitation can, however, be done in several ways:
by elaborating further on the research carried out
within a particular school; or by crossing schools and
combining existing ideas developed in adjacent
areas. In the author’s view, this is the best way to
handle the balance of exploration and exploitation –
between pluralism and unification – within management and organization, and the best way to
strengthen the field of project management even
further.
Putting the schools to work
Projects are becoming increasingly multifaceted,
involving stakeholders with diverse interests, fastchanging technologies and distributed knowledge
bases. As a result, they need to be examined from a
number of different perspectives and theoretical
lenses to frame accurately the problems facing their
initiators, owners, designers and managers. At the
same time, projects are vehicles for strategy development and implementation, regional development
and places for work. Hence, the spectrum of problems confronting research becomes broader, which
emphasizes the importance of connecting project
management with other disciplines, such as strategy, economic geography and human resource
management.
To aid the world of practice, project management
scholars would arguably have to provide solutions on
how best to design structures which correspond to
many challenges facing present-day projects, so that
the relevant processes are initiated to take projects to
fruition – be that behavioural, social or technical
processes. The schools, however, suggest quite contrasting resolutions. Consider the determinants of
success and failure – a popular theme in research on
project management. Common in the explanations of
failed projects in the Optimization School is the
flawed use of plans and formalized planning techniques (Liberatore and Titus 1983), while in the
Factor School the reasons are addressed in a wider
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Pluralism in Project Management
management context, including top management
attention, communication modes, teamwork, project
manager skills, monitoring and feedback measures
(Pinto and Prescott 1990). In the Contingency
School, the explanations are first and foremost
sought in the design of the organization and its adaptability to particular contingencies, most notably the
technical and environmental complexity and uncertainty. For the Decision School and the Behaviour
School, the explanations are chiefly traced in human
capacities to deal with information and the underlying reasons for commitments to particular courses
of action and decision-making. Decision School
research, conversely, tends to position the problem
with regard to over-optimism and unrealistic expectations, making it nearly impossible for projects to
succeed according to conventional success criteria.
Finally, the Governance School and the Relationship
School view failures predominantly in light of the
institutional and inter-organizational environments,
fragile governance mechanisms (Governance
School) and/or the lack of important relationships
with partners and other significant stakeholders
(Relationship School). Determining which of the
schools offer the best account depends on the focal
situation, timing and the person conducting the
analysis. Still, the schools and their different ideas of
project management play an important role in
enhancing understanding of the yet more complex
projects of our time.
Authors who claim that project management
researchers should become a homogeneous group
with a shared interest and view of reality with a
common epistemology are not only downplaying the
contributions of previous and recent research, but
may, in fact, be hindering the advancement of ingenious thinking and creative tensions. By following
the unification strategy too strongly, the project management community may run the risk of losing the
important linkages between the field of project management and related management and organization
studies. Thus, specialization wins at the expense of
new findings, new ideas and relevance. By embracing pluralism, project management research may be
better equipped to explore and explain the difficulties
of generating, forming, managing and even killing
projects – such analysis would benefit from a comprehensive view on project processes and the use of
multiple theories. As argued, embracing pluralism
might lead us forward – to truly acknowledge the
many exciting contributions within this fast-growing
area of research. However, the schools, in conjunc-
169
tion with the fundamental questions, discussed
earlier, are central to being able to navigate in this
land of research opportunities: to know where to start
and where to head, what to build on and what to
criticize. The schools of project management
research presented here could play a part in turning
the fragmentation trap where too many theories are
produced at too high a speed into a focused creative
tension among explanations with the capacity to
provide complementary understandings and robust
alternative models of project management.
References
Abernathy, W.J. and Rosenbloom, R.S. (1969). Parallel strategies in development projects. Management Science, 15,
pp. 486–505.
Adler, P.S. (1995). Interdepartmental interdependence and
coordination: the case of the design/manufacturing interface. Organization Science, 6(2), pp. 147–167.
Adler, P.S. and Mandelbaum, A. (1995). From project to
process management: an empirically-based framework
for analyzing product development time. Management
Science, 41, pp. 458–485.
Alter, S. and Ginzberg, M. (1978). Managing uncertainty in
MIS implementation. Sloan Management Review, 20(1),
pp. 23–31.
Asrilhant, B., Meadows, M. and Dyson, R. (2004). Exploring decision support and strategic project management in
the oil and gas sector. European Management Journal,
22, pp. 63–73.
Avots, I. (1969). Why does project management fail? California Management Review, 12, pp. 77–82.
Bailetti, A., Callahan, J. and DiPietro, F. (1994). A coordination structure approach to the management of projects.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 41, pp.
394–403.
Balachandra, R., Brockhoff, K.K. and Pearson, A.W. (1996).
R&D project termination decisions: processes, communication, and personnel changes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, pp. 245–256.
Bansard, D., Cova, B. and Salle, R. (1993). Project marketing: beyond competitive bidding strategies. International
Business Review, 2, pp. 125–141.
Bech, N. (2001). Doors to leading projects: your new chance
to understand and perform project leadership. Creativity
and Innovation Management, 10, pp. 96–101.
Bechky, B.A. (2006). Gaffers, gofers, and grips: role-based
coordination in temporary organizations. Organization
Science, 17, pp. 3–21.
Berggren, C. (2004). Global dreams – Local teams: rhetoric
and realities of transnational innovation. International
Journal of Innovation Management, 8, pp. 115–145.
Betts, M. and Lansley, P. (1995). International Journal of
Project Management: a review of the first ten years.
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
170
International Journal of Project Management, 13, pp.
207–217.
Boland, R.J., Lyytinen, K. and Yoo, Y. (2007). Wakes of
innovation in project networks: the case of digital 3-D
representations in architecture, engineering, and construction. Organization Science, 18, pp. 631–647.
Bonner, J.M., Ruekert, R.W., Walker, O.C. Jr (2002). Upper
management control of new product development
projects and project performance. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 19, pp. 233–245.
Bourgeon, L. (2002). Temporal context of organizational
learning in new product development projects. Creativity
and Innovation Management, 11, pp. 175–183.
Brady, T. and Davies, A. (2004). Building project capabilities: from exploratory to exploitative learning. Organization Studies, 25, pp. 1601–1621.
Bredillet, C. (2005a). From the editor: Where do we come
from? What are we? Where are we going? Project Management Journal, 36, pp. 3–4.
Bredillet, C. (2005b). From the editor. Project Management
Journal, 36, pp. 3–4.
Bredillet, C. (2007). Exploring research in project management: nine schools of project management research (Part
1). Project Management Journal, 38, pp. 2–6.
Bredin, K. and Söderlund, J. (2006). HRM and project intensification in R&D-based companies: a study of Volvo Car
Corporation and AstraZeneca. R&D Management, 36,
pp. 467–485.
Bryson, J.M. and Bromiley, P. (1993). Critical factors affecting the planning and implementation of major projects.
Strategic Management Journal, 14, pp. 319–337.
Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961). The Management of
Innovation. London: Tavistock.
Butler, A.G. (1973). Project management: a study of organizational conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 16,
pp. 84–101.
Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Chang, A., Bordia, P. and Duck, J. (2003). Punctuated equilibrium and linear progression: toward a new understanding of group development. Academy of Management
Journal, 46, pp. 106–117.
Charalambos, L.I. and Dexter, A.S. (2004). Turning around
runaway information technology projects. California
Management Review, 46, pp. 68–88.
Cheaffee, E.F. (1985). Three models of strategy. Academy of
Management Review, 10, pp. 89–98.
Chiesa, V. (2000). Global R&D project management and
organization: a taxonomy. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 17, pp. 341–359.
Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thomas, J. and Hodgson, D. (2006).
Rethinking project management research: researching the
actuality of projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 24, pp. 675–686.
Clark, K.B. (1989). Project scope and project performance:
the effect of parts strategy and supplier involvement on
J. Söderlund
product development. Management Science, 35, pp.
1247–1263.
Clark, K.B. and Wheelwright, S.C. (1992). Organizing and
leading ‘heavyweight’ development teams. California
Management Review, 34, pp. 9–28.
Clegg, S. and Courpasson, D. (2004). Political hybrids: Tocquevillean views on project organizations. Journal of
Management Studies, 41, pp. 525–547.
Clegg, S.R., Pitsis, T.S., Rura-Polley, T. and Marosszeky, M.
(2002). Governmentality matters: designing an alliance
culture of inter-organizational collaboration for managing
projects. Organization Studies, 23, pp. 317–337.
Collin, S.-O., Johansson, U., Svensson, K. and Ulvenblad,
P.-O. (1996). Market segmentation in scientific publications: research patterns in American vs European management journals. British Journal of Management, 7,
pp. 141–154.
Conlon, D.E. and Garland, H. (1993). The role of project
completion information in resource allocation decisions.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, pp. 402–413.
Coombs, R., McKeekin, A. and Pybus, R. (1998). Toward
the development of benchmarking tools for R&D
project management. R&D Management, 28, pp. 175–
186.
Cooper, D.F. (1976). Heuristics for scheduling resourceconstrained projects: an experimental investigation. Management Science, 22, pp. 1186–1194.
Cooper, R., Edgett, S. and Kleinschmidt, E. (2001). Portfolio
management for new product development: results of an
industry practices study. R&D Management, 31, pp. 361–
380.
Cova, B. and Hoskins, S. (1997). A twin-track networking
approach to project marketing. European Management
Journal, 15, pp. 546–556.
Cova, B., Mazet, F. and Salle, R. (1996). Milieu as a pertinent unit of analysis in project marketing. International
Business Review, 5, pp. 647–664.
Crawford, L., Pollack, J. and England, D. (2006). Uncovering the trends in project management: Journal emphases
over the last 10 years. International Journal of Project
Management, 24, pp. 175–184.
Croisier, B. (1998). The governance of external research:
empirical test of some transaction-cost related factors.
R&D Management, 28, pp. 289–298.
Dadfar, H. and Gustavsson, P. (1992). Competition by effective management of cultural diversity. International
Studies of Management & Organization, 22, pp. 81–92.
Daft, R.L. and Buenger, V. (1990). Hitching a ride on a fast
train to nowhere: the past and future of strategic management research. In Fredrickson, J. (ed.), Perspectives on
Strategic Management. New York: Harper, pp. 81–103.
Dailey, R.C. (1978). The role of team and task characteristics in R&D team collaborative problem solving and productivity. Management Science, 24, pp. 1579–1588.
Davies, A. and Hobday, M. (2005). The Business of Projects.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Pluralism in Project Management
Davis, D. (1985). New projects: beware of false economies.
Harvard Business Review, 63, pp. 95–101.
Davis, E.W. and Heidorn, G. (1971). An algorithm for
optimal project scheduling under multiple resource constraints. Management Science, 17, pp. 803–816.
Davis, E.W. and Patterson, J. (1975). A comparison of heuristic and optimum solutions in resource-constrained
project scheduling. Management Science, 21, pp. 944–
955.
De Meyer, A., Loch, C. and Pich, M. (2002). Managing
project uncertainty: from variation to chaos. Sloan Management Review, 43, pp. 60–67.
Debrabander, B. and Edström, A. (1977). Successful information system development projects. Management
Science, 24, pp. 191–199.
DeCotiis, T.A. and Dyer, L. (1977). The dimensions and
determinants of project performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 6, pp. 370–378.
DeFillippi, R. and Arthur, M. (1998). Paradox in projectbased enterprise: the case of film making. California
Management Review, 40, pp. 186–191.
Dehler, G.E. (2003). Advocacy, performance, and threshold
influences on decision to terminate new product development. Academy of Management Journal, 46, pp. 419–434.
Demeulemeester, E. and Herroelen, W. (1992). A branchand-bound procedure for the multiple resourceconstrained project scheduling problem. Management
Science, 38, pp. 1803–1818.
Drexl, A. (1991). Scheduling of project networks by job
assignment. Management Science, 37, pp. 1590–1602.
Dumond, J. and Mabert, V. (1988). Evaluating project scheduling and due date assignment procedures: an experimental analysis. Management Science, 34, pp. 101–118.
Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S., Shenhar, A. and Tishler, A. (1998).
In search of project classification: a non-universal
approach to project success factors. Research Policy, 27,
pp. 915–935.
Eccles, R. (1981). Bureaucratic versus craft administration:
the relationship of market structure to the construction
firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, pp. 449–469.
Eisenhardt, K. and Tabrizi, B. (1995). Accelerating adaptive
processes: product innovation in the global computer
industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, pp.
84–110.
Ekstedt, E., Lundin, R.A., Söderholm, A. and Wirdenius, H.
(1999). Neo-Industrial Organising: Renewal by Action
and Knowledge Formation in a Project-Intensive
Economy. London: Routledge.
Ekvall, G. (1993). Work: a longitudinal study of a product
development project. Creativity and Innovation Management, 2, pp. 17–26.
Elias, A., Cavana, R. and Jackson, L.S. (2002). Stakeholder
analysis for R&D project management. R&D Management, 32, pp. 301–310.
Elmaghraby, S.E. and Kamburowski, J. (1992). The analysis
of activity networks under generalized precedence
171
relations (GPRs). Management Science, 38, pp. 1245–
1263.
van den Ende, J. (2003). Modes of governance of new
service development for mobile networks: a life cycle
perspective. Research Policy, 32, pp. 1501–1518.
Engwall, M. (1998). The ambiguous project concept(s). In
Lundin, R.A. and Midler, C. (eds), Projects as Arenas for
Renewal and Learning Processes. Boston, MA: Kluwer
Academic Publishers, pp. 25–36.
Engwall, M. (2003). No project is an island: linking projects
to history and context. Research Policy, 32, pp. 789–808.
Engwall, M. and Westling, G. (2004). Peripety in an R&D
drama: capturing a turnaround in project dynamics. Organization Studies, 25, pp. 1557–1578.
Eppinger, S.D. (2001). Innovation at the speed of information. Harvard Business Review, 79(1), pp. 149–158.
Ericksen, J. and Dyer, L. (2004). Right from the start:
exploring the effects of early team events on subsequent
project team development and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, pp. 438–471.
Ford, R. and Randolph, A. (1992). Cross-functional structures: a review and integration of matrix organization and
project management. Journal of Management, 18, pp.
267–294.
Fredrickson, J. (1990). Introduction: the need for perspectives. In Fredrickson, J. (ed.), Perspectives on Strategic
Management. New York: Harper, pp. 1–8.
Fulkerson, D.R. (1961). A network flow computation for
project cost curves. Management Science, 7, pp. 167–178.
Gaddis, P.O. (1959). The project manager. Harvard Business
Review, 37, pp. 89–97.
Galbraith, J.R. (1973). Designing Complex Organizations.
Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.
Gasper, D.R. (1989). Toward a sociology of project assessment. International Studies of Management & Organization, 19, pp. 28–52.
Gemmill, G. and Wilemon, D.L. (1970). The power spectrum in project management. Sloan Management Review,
12, pp. 15–25.
Gersick, C. (1988). Time and transition in work teams:
toward a new model of group development. Academy of
Management Journal, 31, pp. 9–41.
Gersick, C. (1989). Marking time: predictable transitions in
task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32, pp.
274–309.
Gerwin, D. and Ferris, J.S. (2004). Organizing new product
development projects in strategic alliances. Organization
Science, 15, pp. 22–37.
Goodman, R.A. (1967). Ambiguous authority definition in
project management. Academy of Management Journal,
10, pp. 395–407.
Goodman, L.P. and Goodman, R.A. (1972). Theater as a
temporary system. California Management Review, 15,
pp. 103–108.
Goodman, R.A. and Goodman, L.P. (1976). Some management issues in temporary systems: a study of professional
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
172
development and manpower: the theater case. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, pp. 494–501.
Grabher, G. (2004). Temporary architectures of learning:
knowledge governance in project ecologies. Organization
Studies, 25, pp. 1491–1514.
Granot, D. and Zuckerman, D. (1991). Optimal sequencing
and resource allocation in research and development
projects. Management Science, 37, pp. 140–156.
Green, S.G., Welsh, M.A. and Dehler, G.E. (2003). Advocacy, performance, and threshold influences on decision
to terminate new product development. Academy of Management Journal, 46, pp. 419–434.
Grewal, R., Lilien, G. and Mallapragada, G. (2006). Location, location, location: how network embeddedness
affects project success in open source systems. Management Science, 52, pp. 1043–1056.
Griffiths, D. and Pearson, A.W. (1973). Planning,
control and organizational structure in research and
development. Journal of Management Studies, 10, pp.
256–274.
Gutierrez, G.J. and Kouvelis, P. (1991). Parkinson’s law and
its implications for project management. Management
Science, 37, pp. 990–1001.
Hadjikhani, A. (1996). Project marketing and the management of discontinuity. International Business Review, 4,
pp. 319–336.
Hambrick, D.C. (1990). The adolescence of strategic management, 1980–1985: critical perceptions and reality. In
Fredrickson, J. (ed.), Perspectives on Strategic Management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 237–253.
Hammerton, J.C. (1970). Management and motivation. California Management Review, 12, pp. 51–56.
Harrison, P.D. and Harrell, A. (1993). Impact of ‘adverse
selection’ on managers’ project evaluation decisions.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, pp. 635–
642.
Hedlund, G. and Ridderstråle, J. (1995). International development projects: key to competitiveness, impossible or
mismanaged? International Studies of Management &
Organization, 25, pp. 158–184.
Hellgren, B. and Stjernberg, T. (1995). Design and implementation in major investments: a project network
approach. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11, pp.
377–394.
Henderson, J.C. and Lee, S. (1992). Managing I/S design
teams: a control theories perspective. Management
Science, 38, pp. 757–777.
Hobday, M. (2000). The project-based organization: an ideal
form for management of complex products and systems?
Research Policy, 29, pp. 871–893.
Hodgetts, R.M. (1969). Leadership techniques in project
organization. Academy of Management Journal, 11, pp.
211–219.
Hodgson, D. (2002). Disciplining the professional: the case
of project management. Journal of Management Studies,
39, pp. 803–821.
J. Söderlund
Hodgson, D. (2004). Project work: the legacy of bureaucratic control in the post-bureaucratic organization. Organization, 11, pp. 81–100.
Hodgson, D. (2005). Putting on a professional performance:
performativity, subversion and project management.
Organization, 12, pp. 51–68.
Hoegl, M. and Gemeunden, H.G. (2001). Teamwork quality
and the success of innovative projects: a theoretical
concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science,
12, pp. 435–449.
Hoegl, M. and Weinkauf, K. (2005). Managing task interdependencies in multi-team projects: a longitudinal study.
Journal of Management Studies, 42, pp. 1287–1308.
Holloway, C.A., Nelson, R. and Suraphongschai, V. (1979).
Comparison of a multi-pass heuristic decomposition procedure with other resource-constrained project scheduling
procedures. Management Science, 25, pp. 862–872.
Holmquist, M. (2007). Managing project transformation in a
complex context. Creativity and Innovation Management,
16, pp. 46–62.
Hoopes, D. and Postrel, S. (1999). Shared knowledge,
‘glitches,’ and product development performance. Strategic Management Journal, 20, pp. 837–865.
Huchzermeier, A. and Loch, C.H. (2001). Project management under risk: using the real options approach to evaluate flexibility in R&D. Management Science, 47, pp.
85–101.
Hung, A., Naidu, G., Cavusgil, S. and Yam, R.C. (2002). An
exploratory study of project based international joint ventures: the case of Chek Lap Kok Airport in Hong Kong.
International Business Review, 11, pp. 505–522.
Iansiti, M. (1995). Shooting the rapids: managing product
development in turbulent environments. California Management Review, 38(1), pp. 37–58.
Ibert, O. (2004). Projects and firms as discordant complements: organisational learning in the Munich software
ecology. Research Policy, 33, pp. 1529–1546.
Ivory, C.J., Alderman, N., Thwaites, A., McLoughlin, I. and
Vaughan, R. (2007). Working around the barriers to creating and sharing knowledge in capital goods projects: the
client’s perspective. British Journal of Management, 18,
pp. 224–240.
Jansson, D. (1989). The pragmatic uses of what is taken for
granted: project leaders’ applications of investment calculations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 19, pp. 49–63.
Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Leidner, T.E. (1999). Communication
and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science,
10, pp. 791–815.
Johnson, S.B. (1997). Three approaches to big technology:
operations research, systems engineering and project
management. Technology and Culture, 38, pp. 891–
919.
Joyce, W.F. (1986). Matrix organization: a social experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, pp. 536–
561.
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Pluralism in Project Management
Jugdev, K. and Müller, R. (2005). A retrospective look at our
evolving understanding of project success. Project Management Journal, 36, pp. 19–31.
Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project
communication and performance. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 27, pp. 81–104.
Katz, R. and Allen, T.J. (1985). Project performance and the
locus of influence in the R&D matrix. Academy of Management Journal, 28, pp. 67–87.
Keegan, A. and Turner, J.R. (2002). The management of
innovation in project-based firms. Long Range Planning,
35, pp. 367–388.
Keil, M., Rai, A., Cheney Mann, J.E. and Zhang, G.P.
(2003). Why software projects escalate: the importance of
project management constructs. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 50, pp. 251–261.
Kim, J. and Wilemon, D. (2007). The learning organization
as facilitator of complex NPD projects. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 16, pp. 176–191.
King, W.R. and Wilson, T. (1967). Subjective time estimates
in Critical Path planning: a preliminary analysis. Management Science, 13, pp. 307–320.
Kirsch, L.J. (1996). The management of complex tasks in
organizations: controlling the systems development
process. Organization Science, 7(1), p. 121.
Klingel, A. (1966). Bias in PERT project completion time
calculations for a real network. Management Science, 13,
pp. 194–201.
Kloppenborg, T.J. and Opfer, W.A. (2002). The current state
of project management research: trends, interpretations,
and predictions. Project Management Journal, 33, pp.
5–18.
Knudsen, K. (2003). Pluralism, scientific progress, and the
structure of organization theory. In Tsoukas, H. and
Knudsen, C. (eds), Oxford University Press Handbook on
Organization Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 262–288.
Koenig, C. and Thietart, R.-A. (1988). Technology and organization: the mutual organization in the European aerospace industry. International Studies of Management &
Organization, 17, pp. 6–30.
Kolisch, R. (1996). Efficient priority rules for the resourceconstrained project scheduling problem. Journal of
Operations Management, 14, pp. 179–192.
Kolodny, H.F. (1979). Evolution to a matrix organization.
Academy of Management Review, 4, pp. 543–553.
Koskela, L. and Howell, G. (2002). The underlying theory of
project management is obsolete. Proceedings of the PMI
Research Conference, Philadelphia: Project Management
Institute.
Kreiner, K. (1992). The postmodern epoch of organization
theory. International Studies of Management & Organization, 22, pp. 37–52.
Kreiner, K. (1995). In search of relevance: project management in drifting environments. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 11, pp. 335–346.
173
Kwak, Y.H. and Anbari, F. (2008). Impact on Project Management of Allied Disciplines: Trends and Future of
Project Management Practices and Research. Atlanta,
GA: PMI.
Kwak, Y.H. and Scott LaPlace, K. (2005). Examining risk
tolerance in project-driven organization. Technovation,
25, pp. 691–695.
Lanford, H.W. and McCann, T.M. (1983). Effective
planning and control of large projects: using workbreakdown structure. Long Range Planning, 16, pp. 38–
50.
Larson, E. and Gobeli, D. (1987). Matrix management: contradictions and insights. California Management Review,
29, pp. 126–138.
Larson, E.W. and Gobeli, D. (1988). Organizing for product
development projects. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 5, pp. 180–190.
Larson, E.W. and Gobeli, D.H. (1989). Significance of
project management structure on development success.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 36, pp.
119–125.
Larson, M. and Wikström, E. (2007). Relational interaction
processes in project networks: the consent and negotiation
perspectives. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 23,
pp. 327–352.
Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967). Differentiation and
integration in complex organizations. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 13, pp. 1–47.
Lemaire, J.-P. (1996). International projects’ changing patterns: sales engineers’ changing role. International Business Review, 5, pp. 603–629.
Levene, R. (1996). The Origins of Project Management.
International Encyclopedia of Business and Management,
Vol. 5. London: Thomson Business Press.
Levitt, R.E., Thomsen, J., Christiansen, T.R., Kunz, J.C., Jin,
Y. and Nass, C. (1999). Simulating project work processes
and organizations. Management Science, 45, pp. 1479–
1495.
Levy, F.L., Thompson, G.L. and Weist, J.D. (1963). The
ABCs of the Critical Path Method. Harvard Business
Review, 41(5), pp. 98–108.
Leybourne, S. (2007). The changing bias of project management research: a consideration of the literatures and an
application of extant theory. Project Management
Journal, 38, pp. 61–73.
Liberatore, M. and Titus, G. (1983). The practice of management science in R&D project management. Management Science, 29, pp. 962–974.
Lindgren, M. and Packendorff, J. (2006). What’s new in new
forms of organizing? On the construction of gender in
project-based work. Journal of Management Studies, 43,
pp. 841–866.
Lindkvist, L., Söderlund, J. and Tell, F. (1998). Managing
product development projects: on the significance of
fountains and deadlines. Organization Studies, 19, pp.
931–951.
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
174
Lint, O., Lint, O. and Pennings, E. (2001). An option
approach to the new product development process: a case
study at Philips Electronics. Preview. R&D Management,
31(2), pp. 163–172.
Lorenzen, M. and Frederiksen, L. (2005). The management
of projects and product experimentation: examples from
the music industry. European Management Review, 2, pp.
198–211.
Lovallo, D. and Kahneman, D. (2003). Delusions of success:
how optimism undermines executives’ decisions.
Harvard Business Review, 81, pp. 56–63.
Løwendahl, B. (1995). Organizing the Lillehammer
Olympic winter games. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11, pp. 347–362.
Lucas, R. (1971). Optimal management of a research and
development project. Management Science, 17, pp. 679–
697.
Lundin, R.A. and Söderholm, A. (1995). A theory of the
temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11, pp. 437–455.
Lundqvist, M., Sundgren, N. and Trygg, L. (1996).
Remodularization of a product line: adding complexity to
project management. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, pp. 311–324.
MacCormack, A., Verganti, R. and Iansiti, M. (2001).
Developing products on ‘Internet Time’: the anatomy of a
flexible development process. Management Science, 47,
pp. 133–150.
March, J.G. (1996). Continuity and change in theories of
organizational action. Administrative Science Quarterly,
41, pp. 278–287.
Matta, N. and Ashkenas, R.N. (2003). Why good projects
fail anyway. Harvard Business Review, 81, pp. 109–
114.
Meinhart, W.A. and Delionback, L.M. (1968). Project management: an incentive contracting decision model.
Academy of Management Journal, 11, pp. 427–434.
Melcher, A.J. and Kayser, T.A. (1970). Leadership without
formal authority: the project group. California Management Review, 13, pp. 57–64.
Middleton, C.J. (1967). How to set up a project organization.
Harvard Business Review, 45, pp. 73–82.
Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or
minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing
information. Psychological Review, 63, pp. 81–107.
Miller, R.W. (1962). How to plan and control with PERT.
Harvard Business Review, 40(2), pp. 93–104.
Millman, T.F. (1996). Global key account management and
systems selling. International Business Review, 5, pp.
631–645.
Milosevic, D.Z. (2002). Selecting a culturally responsive
project management strategy. Technovation, 22, pp. 493–
508.
Mintzberg, H. (1990). Strategy formation: schools of
thought. In Fredrickson, J. (ed.), Perspectives on Strategic
Management. New York: Harper, pp. 105–236.
J. Söderlund
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy
Safari: The Complete Guide through the Wilds of Strategic
Management. London: Prentice Hall.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization. London: Sage.
Morris, P.W.G. (1994). The Management of Projects.
London: Thomas Telford.
Müller, R. and Turner, R. (2007). The influence of project
managers on project success criteria and project success
by type of project. European Management Journal, 25,
pp. 298–309.
Nag, R., Hambrick, D. and Chen, M. (2007). What is strategic management, really? Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the field. Strategic Management
Journal, 28, pp. 935–955.
Newell, S., Tansley, C. and Huang, J. (2004). Social capital
and knowledge integration in an ERP project team: the
importance of bridging and bonding. British Journal of
Management, 15, pp. 43–57.
Nobeoka, K. and Cusumano, M.A. (1997). Multiproject
strategy and sales growth: the benefits of rapid design
transfer in new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 18, pp. 169–186.
Northcraft, G.B. and Wolf, G. (1984). Dollars, sense, and
sunk costs: a life cycle model of resource allocation decisions. Academy of Management Review, 9, pp. 225–234.
Nutt, P.C. (1982). Hybrid planning methods. Academy of
Management Review, 7, pp. 442–454.
Nutt, P.C. (1983). Implementation approaches for project
planning. Academy of Management Review, 8, pp. 600–
611.
O’Mahony, S. (2003). Guarding the commons: how community managed software projects protect their work.
Research Policy, 32, pp. 1179–1198.
Owusu, R.A. and Welch, C. (2007). The buying network in
international project business: a comparative case study
of development projects. Industrial Marketing Management, 36, pp. 147–161.
Packendorff, J. (1995). Inquiring into the temporary organization: new directions for project management research.
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11, pp. 319–
334.
Parikh, S. and Jewell, W. (1965). Decomposition of project
networks. Management Science, 11, pp. 444–459.
Paul, S. (1984). The strategic management of development
programs: evidence from an international study. International Studies of Management & Organization, 14,
pp. 133–166.
Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational
science: paradigm development as a dependent variable.
Academy of Management Review, 18, pp. 599–620.
Pich, M.T., Loch, C.H. and De Meyer, A. (2002). On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management.
Management Science, 8, pp. 1008–1023.
Pinto, J.K. and Mantel, S.J. (1990). The causes of project
failure. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
37, pp. 269–276.
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Pluralism in Project Management
Pinto, J.K. and Prescott, J.E. (1988). Variations in critical
success over the stages of in the project life cycle. Journal
of Management, 14, pp. 5–18.
Pinto, J.K. and Prescott, J.E. (1990). Planning and tactical
factors in the project implementation process. Journal of
Management Studies, 27, pp. 305–327.
Pinto, M.B., Pinto, J.K. and Prescott, J.E. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of project team cross-functional
cooperation. Management Science, 39, pp. 1281–
1297.
Pitsis, T.S., Clegg, S., Marosszeky, M. and Rura-Polley, T.
(2003). Constructing the Olympic dream: a future perfect
strategy of project management. Organization Science,
14, pp. 574–590.
Pollack, J. (2007). The changing paradigms of project management. International Journal of Project Management,
25, pp. 266–274.
Poole, M.S. and Van de Ven, A. (1989). Using paradox to
build management and organization theories. Academy of
Management Review, 14, pp. 542–578.
Popper, K.R. (1945). The Open Societies and Its Enemies.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Postrel, S. (2007). Do we need a project project?
Blog post on the value of project management for
strategy research, posted 6 June, 2007, http://www.
organizationsandmarkets.org
Prencipe, A. and Tell, F. (2001). Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in
project-based firms. Research Policy, 30, pp. 1373–
1394.
Randolph, W.A. and Posner, B.Z. (1988). What every
manager needs to know about project management. Sloan
Management Review, 29, pp. 65–73.
Reeser, C. (1969). Some potential human problems of the
project form of organization. Academy of Management
Journal, 11, pp. 459–467.
Roman, D. (1964). Project management recognizes R&D
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 7, pp.
7–20.
Ross, J. and Staw, B.M. (1986). Expo 86: an escalation
prototype. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, pp. 274–
297.
Ross, J. and Staw, B. (1993). Organizational escalation and
exit: lessons from the Shoreham nuclear power plant.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, pp. 701–732.
Sapsed, J. and Salter, A. (2004). Postcards from the edge:
local communities, global programs and boundary
objects. Organization Studies, 25, pp. 1515–1534.
Sauer, C. and Reich, B.H. (2007). What do we want from a
theory of project management? A response to Rodney
Turner. International Journal of Project Management, 25,
pp. 1–2.
Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., Laurent, S., Bresnen, M.,
Edelman, L. and Newell, S. (2004). Project-based learning and the role of learning boundaries. Organization
Studies, 25, pp. 1579–1600.
175
Seers, A. and Woodruff, S. (1997). Temporal pacing in task
forces: group development or deadline pressure? Journal
of Management, 23, pp. 169–187.
Shenhar, A.J. (1998). From theory to practice: toward a
typology of project-management styles. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 45, pp. 33–48.
Shenhar, A. (2001). One size does not fit all projects: exploring classical contingency domains. Management Science,
47, pp. 394–414.
Shenhar, A. and Dvir, D. (1996). Toward a typological theory
of project management. Research Policy, 25, pp. 607–632.
Shenhar, A. and Dvir, D. (2007). Project management
research: the challenge and opportunity. Project Management Journal, 38, pp. 93–99.
Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Levy, O. and Maltz, A.C. (2001).
Project success: a multidimensional strategic concept.
Long Range Planning, 34, pp. 699–725.
Skaates, M.A., Tikkanen, H. and Alajoutsijärvi, K. (2002).
Social and cultural capital in project marketing service
firms: Danish architectural firms on the German market.
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18, pp. 589–609.
Slevin, D.P. and Pinto, J.K. (1987). Balancing strategy and
tactics in project implementation. Sloan Management
Review, 29, pp. 33–41.
Söderlund, J. (2002). On the development of project management research: schools of thought and critique. International Project Management Journal, 6, pp. 20–31.
Söderlund, J. (2004a). Building theories of project management: past research, questions for the future. International
Journal of Project Management, 22, pp. 183–191.
Söderlund, J. (2004b). On the broadening scope of the
research on projects: a review and a model for analysis.
International Journal of Project Management, 22, pp.
655–667.
Sommer, S. and Loch, C. (2004). Selectionism and learning
in projects with complexity and unforeseeable uncertainty. Management Science, 50, pp. 1334–1347.
Staber, U. (2004). Networking beyond organizational
boundaries: the case of project organizations. Creativity
and Innovation Management, 13, pp. 30–40.
Starkey, K., Barnatt, C. and Tempest, S. (2000). Beyond
networks and hierarchies: latent organizations in the UK
television industry. Organization Science, 11, pp. 299–
305.
Staw, B.M. and Ross, J. (1978). Commitment to a policy
decision: a multi-theoretical perspective. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 23, pp. 40–64.
Stinchcombe, A.L. (1959). Bureaucratic and craft administration of production. Administrative Science Quarterly,
4, pp. 168–187.
Takeuchi, H. and Nonaka, I. (1986). The new new product
development game. Harvard Business Review, 64, pp.
137–146.
Talbot, F.B. (1982). Resource-constrained project scheduling with time-resource tradeoffs: the nonpreemptive case.
Management Science, 29, pp. 1197–1210.
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
176
Tan, B., Smith, H.J., Keil, M. and Montealegre, R. (2003).
Reporting bad news about software projects: impact of
organizational climate and information asymmetry in
an individualistic and a collectivistic culture. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 50, pp. 64–
77.
Tatikonda, M.V. and Rosenthal, S.R. (2000). Successful
execution of product development projects: balancing
firmness and flexibility in the innovation process. Journal
of Operations Management, 18(4), pp. 401–425.
Tavares, L.V. (2002). A review of the contribution of operational research to project management. European Journal
of Operational Research, 136, pp. 1–18.
Taylor, B.W. and Moore, L. (1980). R&D project planning
with Q-GERT network modeling and simulation. Management Science, 26, pp. 44–59.
Thamhain, H.J. and Gemmill, G.R. (1974). Influence
styles of project managers: some project performance
correlates. Academy of Management Journal, 17, pp. 216–
224.
Themistocleous, G. and Wearne, S.H. (2000). Project management topic coverage in journals. International Journal
of Project Management, 18, pp. 7–11.
Thomas, J. (2006). Problematising project management. In
Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S. (eds), Making Projects Critical. London: Palgrave, pp. 90–107.
Turner, J.R. (2006a). Towards a theory of project management: the nature of the project. International Journal of
Project Management, 24, pp. 1–3.
Turner, J.R. (2006b). Towards a theory of project management: the nature of project governance and project management. International Journal of Project Management,
24, pp. 93–95.
Turner, J.R. (2006c). Towards a theory of project management: the functions of project management. International
Journal of Project Management, 24, pp. 187–189.
Turner, J.R. (2006d). Towards a theory of project management: the functions of project management. International
Journal of Project Management, 24, pp. 277–279.
Turner, J.R. and Keegan, A. (2001). Mechanisms of governance in the project-based organization: roles of the broker
and steward. European Management Journal, 19, pp. 254–
267.
Turner, J.R. and Müller, R. (2004). Communication and
co-operation on projects between the project owner as
principal and the project manager as agent. European
Management Journal, 22, pp. 327–336.
Tushman, M.L. (1978). Technical communication in R&D
laboratories: the impact of project work characteristics.
Academy of Management Journal, 21, pp. 624–645.
Urli, B. and Urli, D. (2000). Project management in North
America, stability of the concepts. Project Management
Journal, 31, pp. 33–43.
Vaaland, T.I. and Håkansson, H. (2003). Exploring interorganizational conflict in complex projects. Industrial
Marketing Management, 32, pp. 127–138.
J. Söderlund
Van de Ven, A. (2007). Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for
Organizational and Social Research. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Van Maanen, J. (1995). Style as theory. Organization
Science, 6, pp. 133–143.
Weglarz, J. (1981). Project scheduling with continuously
divisible, doubly constrained resources. Management
Science, 27, pp. 1040–1053.
Welch, C. (2005). Multilateral organizations and international project marketing. International Business
Review, 14, pp. 289–305.
Welch, D., Welch, L. and Young, L. (1996). Network development in international project marketing and the impact
of external facilitation. International Business Review, 5,
pp. 579–602.
Wiest, J.D. (1981). Precedence diagramming method: some
unusual characteristics and their implications for project
managers. Journal of Operations Management, 1(3), pp.
121–130.
Whittington, R.A., Molloy, E., Mayer, M. and Smith, A.
(2006). Practices of strategizing/organizing: broadening
strategy work and skills. Long Range Planning, 39, pp.
615–629.
Whittington, R., Pettigrew, A., Peck, S., Fenton, E. and
Conyon, M. (1999). Change and complementarities in the
new competitive landscape: a European panel study,
1992–1996. Organization Science, 10, pp. 583–600.
Wilemon, D.L. (1973). Managing conflict in temporary
systems. Journal of Management Studies, 10, pp. 282–296.
Wilemon, D.L. and Cicero, J.P. (1970). Project manager:
anomalies and ambiguities. Academy of Management
Journal, 13, pp. 269–282.
Wilemon, D.L. and Gemmill, G.R. (1971). Interpersonal
power in temporary system. Journal of Management
Studies, 8, pp. 315–328.
Williams, T. (2005). Assessing and moving on from the
dominant project management discourse in the light of
project overruns. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 52, pp. 497–508.
Williamson, O.E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies. New
York: Free Press.
Winch, G., Clifton, N. and Millar, C. (2000). Organization
and management in an Anglo-French consortium: the case
of Transmanche link. Journal of Management Studies, 37,
pp. 663–685.
Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P. and Cicmil, S. (2006).
Directions for future research in project management: the
main findings of a UK government-funded research
network. International Journal of Project Management,
24, pp. 638–649.
Yakura, E.K. (2002). Charting time: timelines as temporal
boundary objects. Academy of Management Journal, 45,
pp. 956–970.
Zobel, A.M. and Wearne, S. (2000). Project management
topic coverage in recent conferences. Project Management Journal, 31, pp. 32–37.
© 2010 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.