13th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT - CONTECSI - 2016
DOI: 10.5748/9788599693124-13CONTECSI/PS-3825
PROJECT MANAGEMENT 2.0: SOME OF THE CHALLENGES TO A MORE
COLLABORATIVE AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT STYLE
Alex de Souza Santana (Uninove - Universidade Nove de Julho, São Paulo, Brasil) – [email protected]
Cristina Dai Prá Martens (Uninove – Universidade Nove de Julho, São Paulo, Brasil) –
[email protected]
The traditional project management approach directs all responsibility to a central point, the project
manager, it stimulatesa centralized management style and a top-down decision making flow.But,
some changes in the project management tools are stimulating changes in management style, as
they are promoting emphasis on collaboration and increasing team’s production. Such tools are the
so called web 2.0 technologies, like blogs, wikis and others social media applications. The main
challenges to overcome the limits of traditional project management into the future of the new
management style required to meet the current dynamic environment needs where outlined in a
conference held in 2008 in California. Given that, the aim of this theoretical study is to identify
what has been academically discussed, about this field of study, since then. The strategy used to
achieve the objectives of this study was to conduct a literature review through hermeneutic
approach. We found that the road to project management 2.0 is far from being well paved, because
much is being discussed about technologies development, and so now, there is a need to explore
more effectively the human aspects, procedural aspects and the intersection between these both
project management dimensions.This study was limited by the number of used data bases.
Additional
challenges
are
suggested
in
this
paper
and
it
contributesliterallywithscholarsandpractitionersinterested inthis new wave of the project
management.
Keywords: project management 2.0, collaborative project management, web 2.0.
1178
13th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT - CONTECSI - 2016
1 Introduction
Several organizations have been working to develop and consolidate the good
practices related to project management discipline. Among the best known standards
include: Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK) established and maintained
by the Project Management Institute (PMI), the Competence Baseline (ICB) developed by
the International Project Management Association (IPMA), and more recently, ISO 21500
- Guidance on Project Management, by the International Standards Organization (ISO).
The traditional project management approach directs all responsibility to a central
point, the project manager, who collects all the information from the team, analyses it,
processes it and then communicates to the upper management (Hass, 2007). This means
having a centralized management style and a top-down decision making flow. But some
changes in the project management tools are stimulating changes in management style, as
they are promoting emphasis on collaboration and increasing team’s production. Such tools
apply collective intelligence practices and emerging structures.
The term collaboration was defined by Camarinha-Matos and Afsarmanesh (2008)
as the share of information, resources and responsibilities between entities in a process, in
order to achieve a common goal. This definition clearly indicates a close integration
between the project stakeholders. The collaborative project management can be interpreted
as: the collaborative management projects – which considers the delegation of
management responsibility, the adoption of a participative and non-hierarchical structure
(in many cases); or, the management of collaborative projects – which refers to the
management of projects in a distributed environment.
According to Levitt (2011), a new generation of knowledge workers has
experienced a new level of technology-enabled democracy that makes them reluctant to
work in command-and-control style organizations of any kind. He was referring to the web
2.0 tools, consisting of applications, like blogs, wikis and other social media tools, which
give the users the ability to collaborate, share and communicate, where the tasks and
structures evolves organically. This evolution is close related to the term project
management 2.0 (PM 2.0). The PM 2.0 term highlights a new approach to project
management, characterized by a dramatic shift toward having collaboration as the heart of
managing projects (Filev, 2008). It means in a more decentralized and bottom-top decision
make way.
A conference held in May 2008 in California gathered a group of 35 individuals,
among them scholars and business leaders, in order to outline the main challenges to
overcome the limits of project management 1.0 into the future of the new management
style required to meet the current dynamic environment needs. Hamel (2009) publishes the
resulting list of this conference, consisting in 25 challenges.
The aim of this theoretical study is to identify what has been academically
discussed in the context of PM 2.0, it means, how much have we progressed in this field of
study since 2009 conference, regarding the management manner. It is expected that the
findings of this study may help identify how we are running the road map for reinventing
management as well as possible new challenges that may have arisen.
After this introduction, section 2, is focused on research strategy, which was
conducting a literature review through hermeneutic approach. Then, in section 3, it is
presented the analysis of the observed results. The fourth and final section, we present the
conclusions and general considerations, the limitations of this study and future research
suggestions.
1179
13th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT - CONTECSI - 2016
2 Research Strategy
The strategy used to achieve the objectives of this study was to conduct a literature
review through hermeneutic approach. Because of such strategy and since the main
construct of this study is the project management 2.0, the portion of theoretical basis on
this subject naturally emerges in the results analysis section.
Because it is a relatively new theme, it is expected that there is little existing
literature, but, a literature review can pool empirical findings from earlier publications in
order to compile an overall picture on a phenomenon (King & He, 2005). Figure 1
represents the hermeneutic framework for the literature review proposed by Boell and
Cecez-Kecmanovic (2014), which was used as a guide to the steps of the research process.
The choice for such a framework is justified by its practical applicability and details of the
suggested steps, which will be explored in this topic.
Figure 1. A hermeneutic framework for the literature review.
Source: Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic (2014, p. 9)
The initial search for articles was made in the ISI database - Web of Knowledge
(Web of Science). This base was chosen because of the amount of resources to the search
refinement, sorting and exporting of results, moreover, the ISI system covers other
databases, expanding the search range. The key words used to start the searching phase
were "collabor* management" OR "social management" OR "management 2.0", all of
1180
13th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT - CONTECSI - 2016
these in its topics, and later refined by the word "project*", resulting in a list of 82 articles.
The result list was then sorted by number of citations.
Realizing the proximity of the term web 2.0 with PM 2.0, it was identified the
necessity of to re-enter in the search and acquisition cycle. This time, considering the
keywords "web 2.0" OR "collabor* tools" OR "social media" on topics, then refining the
results by "project*" AND "management", resulting in a list of 131 articles. But, before
heading to the process of papers selection, possible duplications when putting the results of
the first and second search together were eliminated. Finally, two articles that were already
in the authors' knowledge, indicated by study partners and academics from the field of
administration and project management were added to the list. Thus, the final list of
potential items to be read is composed of 215 items.
The criteria for selection of potentially relevant articles was by reading their
abstracts, identifying the relationship of its scope to project management 2.0 characteristics
as well as its possible challenges and difficulties. Most of the articles dealt with the use of
2.0 tools (especially wikis and others social network medias) in the process of new product
design, customer relationship management, as well as in application development
requirements. Only 10 articles are directly related to the context of project management 2.0
and so were select for acquisition and reading. See table 1, the list of acquired articles,
sorted by date. It is also important to notice that given the novelty of the subject, part of the
found material is not specifically academic, but, papers presented at conferences.
Table 1
Acquired articles for reading
CODE
AUTHOR
TITLE
1
Filev, A.
2
Hamel, G.
Ollus, M., Jansson,
K., Karvonen, I.,
Supporting collaborative project
Uoti, M., &
management
Riikonen, H.
3
PERIODIC
Project management 2.0: the ultimate
benefits of the new approach to project PM World Today
management
Moon shots for management
Harvard Business Review
YEAR
2008
2009
Production Planning &
Control
2011
4
Levitt, R. E.
Toward project management 2.0
Engineering Project
Organizations Conference
2011
5
McDonald, P.
It's time for management version 2.0:
six forces redefining the future of
modern management
Futures
2011
6
Groysberg, B., &
Slind, M.
Leadership is a conversation
Harvard Business Review
2012
European Journal of
Information Systems
2014
Computers in Human
Behavior
2014
Business Horizons
2014
Journal of Business
Economics and Management
2014
7
8
9
10
Blending bureaucratic and
Gregory, R. W., & collaborative management styles to
Keil, M.
achieve control ambidexterity in IS
projects
Pirkkalainen, H.,
Global social knowledge management
& Pawlowski, J.
- understanding barriers for global
M.
workers utilizing social software
Guinan, P. J.,
Jumpstarting the use of social
Parise, S., &
technologies in your organization
Rollag, K.
Social media in communication of
Rimkuniene, D., &
temporary organizations: role, needs,
Zinkeviciute, V.
strategic perspective
1181
13th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT - CONTECSI - 2016
Source: authors
The main points adopted for mapping were their unity of analysis (people,
technology and processes). Manage project involves: people, technology and processes
(Thamhain, 2012; Haron, Sahibuddin, Harun, Zakaria, and Mahrin, 2013; Badiru, 2009,
p.21). The goal was basically to enable the grouping of matters of interest to facilitate the
process of critical assessment and argumentation. Figure 2 shows the result of the mapping
process.
Processes
3
5
4
1
2
People
8
6
Technology
9
7
10
Figure 2. Result of the mapping process.
Source: Authors.
Note: All numbers are related to the column “code” in Table 1.
Two articles exclusively handled the human aspects, other three articles dealt
exclusively about technological aspects and no article dealt exclusively about procedural
aspects. The interaction between human and procedural aspects were discussed in two of
the selected articles. Since the interaction between the three dimensions (people,
technology and processes) was the focus of three of the selected articles. None of the
articles could be grouped at the intersections between technology and people or between
technology and processes.
3 Analysis of Results and discussion
First, we take as a basis the 25 challenges for the new management approach 2.0
listed by Hamel (2009), as shown in Figure 3. These 25 challenges have emerged in
conference held in May 2008 in California, with the participation of 35 individuals, among
them scholars and business leaders, in order to outline the main challenges to overcome the
limits of management 1.0 into the future of the new management style required to meet the
current dynamic environment needs.
1182
13th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT - CONTECSI - 2016
1
ensure that the work of
management serves a higher
purpose
5
2
3
fully embed the ideas of
community and citizenship in
management systems
6
reduce fear and increase trust
9
7
reinvent the means of control
13
develop holistic performance
measures
17
11
12
14
15
stretch executive time frames and
perspectives
empower the renegades and disarm
create a democracy of information
the reactionaries
18
19
create internal markets for
ideas/talents/resources
16
20
depoliticize decision making
22
further unleash human imagination
expand and exploit diversity
de-structure and disaggregate the dramatically reduce the pull of the
share the work of setting direction
organization
past
expand the scope of employee
autonomy
21
8
redefine the work of leadership
10
reinvent strategy making as an
emergent process
4
reconstruct management’s eliminate the pathologies of formal
philosophical foundations
hierarchy
23
better optimize trade-offs
24
retool management for an open
world
enable communities of passion
humanize the language and
practice of business
25
Figure 3. The 25 challenges for management 2.0 arisen at 2008 conference.
Font: adapted from Hamel (2009).
retrain managerial minds
Then, we observe in Table 2 which subjects are being addressed within each of the
three project management dimensions (people, technology and processes). Then, we
extract the main key concepts and contributions of each of the ten selected articles in a
structured manner, according to the identified issues.
The identification of subjects being specifically addressed within each of the three
dimensions (technology, processes and people) will enable us to identify the relationship
between the subjects and the 25 challenges throughout the chapters of analysis and
conclusion. Furthermore, the challenges listed may also be grouped in dimensions,
allowing us to deepen the discussion of the findings.
Table 2
Subjects in each dimension
PEOPLE
DIMENSION
SUBJECT
AUTHORS/PAPERS
Collaboration
Filev, 2008; Gregory & Keil, 2014
Communication
Ollus et al, 2011
Trust
Ollus et al, 2011; Levitt, 2011
Leadership
McDonald, 2011; Gregory & Keil, 2014;
Groysberg & Slind, 2012; Ollus et al, 2011
Competences
Filev, 2008; Levitt, 2011 ; McDonald, 2011;
Ollus et al, 2011
1183
13th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT - CONTECSI - 2016
PROCESS
TECHNOLOGY
DIMENSION
SUBJECT
AUTHORS/PAPERS
Productivity gain potential
Filev, 2008
Structure type
Filev, 2008
Holistic view
McDonald, 2011
Barriers
Pirkkalainen & Pawlowski, 2014
Adoption strategy
McDonald, 2011; Guinan, Parise & Rollag,
2014
Usage level
Rimkuniene & Zinkeviciute, 2014
Decentralization
Filev, 2008; Levitt, 2011; McDonald, 2011;
Ollus et al, 2011
Driven forces
McDonald, 2011
Source: authors
The article number 2, from Hamel (2009), deals with all of these subjects and many
other implicit subjects that could not be fully extracted. In fact, it deals with the 25
challenges that guide the basis of this study, so these are the reason why it was kept outside
of Table 2.
The following subtopics will explore the subjects identified in each of the selected
items, keeping them in their defined dimensions (technology, people and processes).
3.1 People
Regarding the dimension of people, some articles explore aspects of collaboration,
trust, leadership and competences. These aspects are explored in the subtopics of this
section.
3.1.1 Collaboration and Communication
Project management 2.0 emphasizes collaboration and collective intelligence, more
than this, in fact the collaboration supposes to be the heart of this new approach (Filev,
2008). The collaborative management enables achieve project goals through thoughts and
behaviors that target the effective collaboration among stakeholders (Gregory & Keil,
2014).
According to Ollus et al (2011) there are two interpretations for collaborative
project management: a) collaborative project management, referred the delegation and
sharing responsibilities often in a non-hierarchical structure and based on results; and b)
management of collaborative projects, related to project management in a multi-located
environment. For Ollus et al (2011) communication, trust, collaboration and individual
attributes are intangible assets in the management focused on collaboration that makes up
some of the next steps for the development of the management of collaborative projects.
3.1.2 Trust
Trust is an aspect understood by Ollus et al (2011) as a key factor for collaboration,
communication and knowledge creation can occur efficiently and effectively. Trust is a
coordinating mechanism which binds relationships. Trust comprises the following
dimensions according to Msanjila and Afsarmanesh (2008) as mentioned by Ollus et al
1184
13th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT - CONTECSI - 2016
(2011): technological, structural, economic, social and managerial. Social contact through
social media tools can generate various types of exchanges between employees, thereby
creating a certain level of confidence (Levitt, 2011).
3.1.3 Leadership
One of the main roles of leadership is to create a sense of collaboration and
inspiration, and despite the different concepts for the term leadership, most part of them
converge the idea that it is about to support others (collaborators) so they can achieve the
common project objectives (Ollus et al, 2011).
Leaders that instead of just passing orders, establish conversation with their
employees can achieve greater operational flexibility, more engagement and strategic
alignment (Groysberg & Slind, 2012). Four attributes of interpersonal conversation are
defined by Groysberg and Slind (2012). They are: intimacy, interactivity, inclusion, and
intentionality.
Intimacy, as the word itself suggests, is related to the creation of proximity. When
there is intimacy in conversation, leaders creates a reliable environment in a natural way.
This can be achieved by listening to people at all organizational levels and to speak
directly and authentically. The question is not in physical proximity but emotional. This
requires that the exchange of ideas to flow from the bottom-up (Groysberg & Slind, 2012).
Interactivity is about making the conversation open and fluid rather than closed and
directive. Greater interactivity demands the existence of communications channels, thereby
enabling additional ways for employees to speak up or talk back (Groysberg & Slind,
2012).
Interpersonal conversation cannot be aimless. Participants need to know clearly
what they want to achieve. The conversation should converge towards a common goal and
conform to the strategic alignment (Groysberg & Slind, 2012). In collaborative
management style there is a direction for interpersonal relationships, consensus and shared
understanding, thereby promoting collaboration among members and their commitment
(Gregory & Keil, 2014). The ability to create a sense of community, fluidity, flexibility and
customization are about to be central skill points to a management 2.0 style (McDonalds,
2011).
3.1.4 Competences
Even users without much computer skills can make easy use of 2.0 tools (Filev,
2008). But Ollus et al (2011) point out that those involved must have sufficient skills and
competencies to perform their tasks. Workers got to make decisions without technical
supervision (Levitt, 2011).
To forge relationship, to communicate and be self-motivated are basic skills to
work in collaborative activities (Ollus et al, 2011). In an environment where there is no
monitoring or technical supervision, workers need to have high level of internal
motivation, motivation is usually the recognition or status, much more than just salary
(Levitt, 2011).
The multiculturalism and workplace diversity will represent the moving from
‘ethnocentricity’ towards ‘geocentricity’ as a result from changing traditional managerial
mindset, driven by globalization (McDonald, 2011). Each individual will be an intellectual
asset to be invested in with ongoing learning and development.
3.2 Technologies
1185
13th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT - CONTECSI - 2016
Regarding the dimension of technology, some articles explore aspects of
productivity gain potential and structure type, barriers of adoption, adoption strategy and
usage level. These aspects are explored in the subtopics of this section.
3.2.1 Productivity gain potential, structure type and holistic view
Technologies 2.0 have the potential to improve project management practices
(Filev, 2008) and saves lots of project manager’s time on routine operations, what means a
productivity gain. New 2.0 tools have a many-to-many structure without a central control
and the field knowledge comes from bottom-up while the guidance comes from top-down
(Filev, 2008), creating so a kind of a big picture of the whole project. Management 2.0
marks a shift from rhetoric to results and such activities will be holistic and integrated and
will engage mainstream business processes (McDonald, 2011).
3.2.2 Barriers
The use of 2.0 technologies helps project management in global environments
(Filev, 2008) and offers incredible communication opportunities. Pirkkalainen and
Pawlowski (2014) explore, through literature review, barriers to workers in the context of
global projects, using social software. They grouped the identified barriers into four
groups: organizational or contextual social, technical and cultural.
3.2.3 Adoption strategy
A correct strategy to adopt collaborative technologies is essential for better
acceptance of such tools and to increase the chances of success. To attract, retain and
maximize the talents of new generations entering the workforce, managers must to create
an exciting, entertaining and challenging workplaces (McDonald, 2011).
Guinan, Parise and Rollag (2014) defined 3 strategies of 2.0 technologies adoption:
the first consists of a bottom-up approach, making use of younger employees, newly
formed and generally at the lowest level of the organization, who were born in the webbased era; the second, through tech-savvy middle managers experienced, with credibility
and somehow already feel the potential of collaborative tools; finally, the third and most
effective, has focus on the executive level, exploring the desire for learning and new
possibilities of business people with an open mind.
3.2.4 Usage level
The findings from Rimkuniene and Zinkeviciute (2014) indicate low level of use of
social media in project management context in relation to the level of use for personal
purposes. They also indicated that the perception of the use of social media by employees
in this context are below the actual potential use level, and that this same perception is
above its actual application.
3.3 Processes
Regarding the dimension of processes, some articles explore aspects of
decentralization and driven forces. These aspects are explored in the subtopics of this
section.
3.3.1 Decentralization
Filev (2008) affirmed that in PM 2.0 context the project manager is no longer the
center of the project and the project itself started to take center stage. He suggested that
project managers can take more visionary role and act as project leader instead of
1186
13th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT - CONTECSI - 2016
taskmaster. Ollus et al (2011) adds the democratic manner for decision making and also
that in a decentralized environment culture means value, attitudes and clear understanding
of the roles. But, Levitt (2011) argues that the particular project risk level can define
whether it can be led through a more or less decentralized approach.
3.3.2 Driven forces
The virtualization of work is pointed out by McDonald (2011) as one of the six
driven forces for project management 2.0, proposing trust and teamwork as possible
solutions, since the quality of the output depends more on the brains than the employee’s
hands, apart from the difficulty of supervising those who cannot be seen, which also
justifies the needing for self-managed workers.
Network structures are replacing hierarchical structures. McDonalds (2011)
proposed that hierarchical status traditionally associated with managerial roles will
diminish while organic coordination function, including coaching, cultivating and
brokering, as one of a variety of equitable functions within network structures keeps
growing, as essence management 2.0.
3.4 The challenges and dimensions of project management 2.0
When we group the 25 challenges (Hamel, 2009) within the dimensions of project
management (people, technology and processes), we realize that most of the challenges are
related to human aspects, processes and the intersection between both, see Figure 4.
Processes
9
20
1
4
10
12
15
6
19
2
17
13
14
3
People
5
23
7
8
16
11
Technology
22
25
18
21
24
Figure 4. Allocating challenges inside the project management dimensions.
Source: Authors.
Returning to the result of the mapping phase (Figure 2, Section2), we find that the
10 articles selected for this literature review were allocated to the correct dimensions. But,
automatically, we remember that in a list of 215 articles, 205 were not selected for this
review because they were dealing the use of 2.0 tools in new products development
1187
13th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT - CONTECSI - 2016
processes, customer relationship management, tools development requirements, etc. This
demonstrates that the handle on 2.0 theme, much about technology is being debated, which
greatly contributes to the development of collaborative management body of knowledge,
but it is clear that we are missing to have more focus on the most important dimensions to
overcome the existing collaborative management challenges, we mean , human and
procedural factors.
4 Conclusions
From the 25 challenges arisen in the 2008 conference (Hamel, 2009), only 10 of
them was addressed in academy, still even indirectly: fully embed the ideas of community
and citizenship in management systems, eliminate the pathologies of formal hierarchy,
reduce fear and increase trust, reinvent the means of control, redefine the work of
leadership, expand and exploit diversity, share the work of setting direction, create a
democracy of information, expand the scope of employee autonomy and retool
management for an open world. It seems like even these parts of the road to management
2.0 is far from being well paved. There is a need to explore more effectively the human
aspects, procedural aspects and the intersection between these both project dimensions.
Another important factor noticed is that among a list of 215 papers in the searching
phase, only 10 was related to the project management 2.0 context, and all others were
addressing tools development requirements, as well as the use of 2.0 tools in the process of
new product design, customer relationship management, etc. What we could clearly see
when taking a briefly look on the non-selected papers is that people are guessing that using
collaborative tools is enough for being 2.0 at all. It’s not, projects can be managed in a
collaborative way even without the use of 2.0 tools, given the fact that the essence is in the
collaboration, sharing ideas and responsibility, decentralization of management and
bottom-up flow of information and decision making.
The discipline of project management is well established and much good and
relevant material is available. However, the focus is mainly on the management of project
within a single enterprise and not for the management of dynamic collaborative projects
(Ollus et al, 2011). One new challenge arising that we can observe is that solid knowledge
about competences and maturity were develop with the help, in example, of PMI’s OPM3
(http://www.pmi.org/opm3), Kerzner (1999) and the Project Management Competences
Framework by Rabechini and Pessôa (2005). But, how the competences and maturity
levels are affected by this new 2.0 approach? Can we measure how mature and competent
on being 2.0 a manager, a team or an enterprise is?
One limitation of this study is the use of only one data base (ISI – Web of Science).
Future studies could explore other data bases. Furthermore, beyond the challenges here
addressed, we suggest that future studies could measure the impacts of management 2.0
approach in trust, collaboration and communication, as well as the intersection between
people and processes dimensions.
5 References
Badiru, A.B. (2009). STEP Project Management: Guide for Science, Technology, and
Engineering Projects. London: CRC Press.
1188
13th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT - CONTECSI - 2016
Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2014). A hermeneutic approach for conducting
literature reviews and literature searches. Communications of the association for
information systems. v. 34, article 12.
Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh, & M. Ollus, eds. Methods and tools for collaborative
networked organizations. New York: Springer, 91–118. ISBN 978-0-387-79423-5.
Filev, A. (2008). Project management 2.0: the ultimate benefits of the new approach to
project management. PM world today. v. X, issue XI.
Gregory, R. W., & Keil, M. (2014). Blending bureaucratic and collaborative management
styles to achieve control ambidexterity in IS projects. European journal of information
systems. v. 23, pp. 343-356.
Groysberg, B., & Slind, M. (2012). Leadership is a conversation. Harvard business review,
90(6), 76-84.
Guinan, P. J., Parise, S., & Rollag, K. (2014). Jumpstarting the use of social technologies
in your organization. Business horizons. v. 57, pp. 337-347.
Hamel, G. (2009). Moon shots for management. Harvard business review, 87(2), 91-98.
Haron, A., Sahibuddin, S., Harun, M., Zakaria, N. H., & Mahrin, M. N. (2013). The
Important Role of People, Process and Technology during Software Project Requirement.
International Journal of Machine Learning and Computing, 3(1), 24.
Hass, K. B. (2007). The blending of traditional and agile project management. PM world
today. v. IX, issue V.
Kerzner, H. (1999). Strategic planning for project management using a project
management maturity model. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
King, W. R., & He, J. (2005). Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS
research. Communications of the association for information systems. v. 16, pp. 665–686.
Levitt, R. E., (2011, August). Toward project management 2.0. EPOC – Engineering
Project Organization Conference, Colorado, USA.
McDonalds, P. (2011). It’s time for management 2.0: six forces redefining the future of
modern management. Futures. v. 43, pp. 797-808.
Ollus, M., Jansson, K., Karvonen, I., Uoti, M., & Riikonen, H. (2011). Supporting
collaborative project management. Production planning & control: the management of
operations. v. 22, n. 5-6, pp. 538-553.
Rabechini, R., Jr. & Pessôa, M. (2005). Um modelo estruturado de competências e
maturidade em gerenciamento de projetos. Revista produção. v. 15, n. 1, pp. 34-43.
1189
13th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT - CONTECSI - 2016
Rimkuniene, D., & Zinkeviciute, V. (2014). Social media in communication of temporary
organizations: role, needs, strategic perspective. Journal of business economics and
management. 15:5, pp. 899-914.
Thamhain, H. J. (2012). The changing role of team leadership in multinational project
environments. GeP – Revista de gestão de projetos. v. 3, n. 2, pp. 04-38.
1190