prsti

ode

nive

form

ic e

ch relastand

, weeld

research to a greater extent should acknowledge. The questions concern issues such as why project organizations exist, how they

ct Mexplained by a general increase in the way of organizingbusiness activities in projects [1]. This has in addition# 2003 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Project management; Project organization; Temporary organization; Project research; Assumptions; Research questions

1. The current state of project management research

The professional eld of project management today isdiverse, multifaceted and contradictory in severalrespects. On the one hand is the explosive developmentof professional organizations, such as the Project Man-agement Institute (PMI) and the International ProjectManagement Association (IPMA). These associationsare not only known as organizers of a number of con-ferences, but also as promoters of the standardization ofproject management and certication programs forproject managers. We have here a eld of professionals,virtually ourishing, which attracts an increasingamount of members, who, as it seems, require stan-dards, techniques and certication programs for theirprofessional development. The interest in project man-agement showed by professionals is, of course,

product development [2] and of companies in a numberof other industrial sectors [3].The basic rationale underlying many of the texts and

articles published in journals, such as the Project Man-agement Journal, is the adoption of project managementas a method for solving complex organizational pro-blems. Such a viewpoint treats project management asone of several ways for handling organizational activity.Similar arguments and standpoints are found innumerous project management research texts.Along with the development of project management

practice, various networks have emerged primarilyfocusing on the distribution of knowledge and ndingsstemming from project-oriented research. One suchnetwork is IRNOP (International Research Network forOrganizing by Projects), founded in 1994. Since itsinception, IRNOP has arranged ve research con-knowledge about project management.behave and why they dier. The principal argument is that too much eort has been dedicated to clarifying the reasons of project

success and failure, while downplaying a number of important research questions that need to be discussed in order to further theBuilding theories ofpast research, que

Jonas S

School of Management, Linkoping U

Received 12 July 2002; received in revised

Abstract

Project management has long been considered as an academ

application of engineering science and optimization theory. Mutors of project success. Project management has, however, in theAs the eld rapidly expands, the need for an internal discussion

management and project organization is a complex subject andpaper we discuss the emerging perspectives within the project

International Journal of Projeoject management:ons for the future

rlund*

rsity, SE-58234 Linkoping, Sweden

26 November 2002; accepted 5 June 2003

ld for planning-oriented techniques and, in many respects, an

search has also been devoted to the search for the generic fac-decade received wider interest from other academic disciplines.debate about project management research increases. Project

argue, is usefully examined from several perspectives. In this. The paper also presents a number of questions that project

anagement 22 (2004) 183191

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpromancharacter of the eld of project management research.Participants come from such disciplines as psychology,pedagogy, business administration, organization theory,

0263-7863/$30.00 # 2003 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00070-X

* Tel.: +46-13-28-40-65; fax: +46-13-281873.

E-mail address: jonso@eki.liu.se (J. Soderlund).been documented in research on the organization of

ferences with nearly one hundred participants at eachconference. One of the recurrent issues at these con-ferences has been the combination of dierent elds ofinquiry, which illuminates the cross-disciplinary

inquiry, and a critical discussion about them, should

questions to which project researchers should paygreater attention.

projects along the following lines.

f Projindustrial engineering and sociology. Project manage-ment seems to be a research eld with potentials ofbringing dierent disciplines to focus on a focalphenomenon of study, i.e. projects. The breadth ofperspective is challenging and interesting, but should,we argue, be accompanied by a continuing dialogue ofsome basic issues about project management research.We thus argue for the need of a elaborate discussion onthe identity and content of the eld of project manage-ment research.Although, one might argue that the eld of project

management (both the practical and theoretical parts ofit) has developed rapidly in recent years, some authorshave argued that the focus has been much too narrow[4]. A number of authors have argued that, despite theacademic interest in courses and programs, the researchis not very well developed. Morris [5] argues, for exam-ple, that the academic awakening of interest in project-based undertakings is far too slow. Furthermore, in areview of the literature and theories of project manage-ment, Packendor [6] claimed that project managementis largely considered as a general theory that is not suf-ciently empirical. Moreover, he stressed, in the domi-nant line of research, projects are seen as tools andproject management is seen as a set of models andtechniques for the planning and control of complexundertakings. Thus, a number of writers have in recentyears stressed the importance of a diversity of theore-tical perspectives and in-depth studies in order to con-struct middle-range theories on dierent types ofprojects. In the same vein, Shenhar and Dvir [7] statedthat most research on project management suersfrom a scanty theoretical basis and lack of concepts.In a recent literature review, Pinto [8] claimed that the

major developments of the research on project manage-ment have been into project risk management and cri-tical chain project management. The author does notacknowledge any of the developments related to theresearch on temporary organizations. The author alsodoes not fully acknowledge the problem that theresearch referred to suers from almost an entire lack ofempirical studies. The present paper aims at buildingfurther on the reviews carried out by Packendor [6]and Pinto [8] by pointing to some recent trends but alsoto some of the most important questions for the basis ofproject management research. We suggest that thesequestions are crucial for building middle-range theoriesof dierent types of projects.The article also criticizes the propensity of project

management researchers to focus on the reasons forsuccess and failure of projects. Instead, we argue, thereare a number of important questions that need to beaddressedquestions that might be at the core in orderto develop our understanding of project managementsuccess. It is the intention that the mentioned themes of

184 J. Soderlund / International Journal oThe aim of the present paper is to introduce a discus-sion and debate about some fundamental theoreticalissues related to project management research. Theunderlying reason is that such a discussion would con-tribute to the development of project managementresearch on a general level and further its status as anacademic discipline.

2. The intellectual roots of project managementresearch

A number of writers seem to trace the intellectualroots of project management research and knowledge tovarious types of planning techniques, such as CPM,PERT, and the like [6]. Some even say that the father of(modern) project management is the well-known HenryGantt, who invented the Gantt chart, which has becomesomething of a standard model in project managementpractice [9]. A continuation on these lines would indicateproject management as a specic problem-solvingmethod, of delimiting and grouping activities by usingvarious types of techniques and methods. As it seems,project management, and also project managementresearch, would thus fall very close to optimization the-ory and applied mathematics and, for obvious reasons,part of the engineering schools curriculum.Others would trace project management research to

completely dierent intellectual roots. A locus classicushere is the contribution by Gaddis [10] published in theHarvard Business Review. In that article, Gaddis denes,be benecial for identifying opportunities for futureresearch.The increasing interest from both practitioners and

researchers from various disciplines is a positive sign.However, it also produces a need for clarifying some ofthe fundamental ideas and identication of projectmanagement research. This article attempts at stimulat-ing an internal debate about project managementresearch, about the development of research and aboutthe important research questions that project manage-ment researchers should revisit in order to further thetheoretical positioning of their work. This could, forinstance, lead to a better understanding of the varietyand broadening scope of project management researchthat has occurred in recent years.Several authors have criticized much of the research

on projects and project management. We take thesepleas as a starting point for the present article. How-ever, we argue that criticism also has to be very clear interms of the alternatives to the dominant lines. In thispaper, we elaborate on a framework for the analysis ofproject research and point to a number of research

ect Management 22 (2004) 183191

his treatise on temporary systems, which later oninspired Bennis and Slater [12] and Goodman and

Thus, what the practitioner denes as the project might social life. Such a theory (or theories), we argue, would

f ProjGoodman [13,14] to further the understanding of pro-jects as organizational forms. However, in recent years anumber of project-related articles have appeared inhigh-ranked management and organization journals,such as Research Policy [7], Organization Studies [15],Scandinavian Journal of Management [16] and CaliforniaManagement Review [17]. Interestingly, these articlesexplicitly relate and, in some sense, also criticize muchof the writings within project management research.Shenhar and Dvir [7] write, for instance, as an organi-zational concept, project management is quite new andnot well-understood. /. . ./ most research literature onthe management of projects is relatively young and stillsuers from a scanty theoretical basis and a lack ofconcepts (p. 607608). Furthermore, Lindkvist et al.[15] argue that traditional project management litera-ture views upon projects very much as an analyticalprocess, unable to explain the systemic character inher-ent in most projects.One would thus conclude that there exist two main

theoretical traditions in project management research.The rst tradition with intellectual roots in the engi-neering science and applied mathematics, primarilyinterested in the planning techniques and methods ofproject management. The other tradition with its intel-lectual roots in the social sciences, such as sociology,organization theory and psychology, especially inter-ested in the organizational and behavioral aspects ofproject organizations.

3. Basic assumptions in project management research

Basic assumptions direct our interest and thus alsoour research results. From a research perspective aproject could be viewed upon as a construct for ana-lytical purposes, e.g. that a social process has a denedbeginning and a clear end. It is created by practice, andrecreated, or modied, by the researcher who sets out tostudy the project. We know that fairly frequently thesocial construction of a project of a single actor mightdier from the construction made by the researcher [18].A project is an organization unit dedicated to theattainment of a goalgenerally the successfulcompletion of a developmental product on time,within budget, and in conformance with pre-determined performance specications. [10]

The importance of the Gaddis article is that it was therst, and still is among the very few, publications inwell-known management journals explicitly discussingthe art and practice of managing projects. Projects asempirical entities were also important for Miles [11] in

J. Soderlund / International Journal obe irrelevant to the researcher. As researchers in projectmanagement, we would consider every project as beingsimilar very much because of the act of labeling parti-cular empirical phenomena as projects. However, wewould also assume that no project is similar to another.An important matter for empirical social research is

that of perspective versus phenomenon. For instance, itcould be claimed that projects are nothing else than away of looking at industrial and organizational activity.Whether projects really exist is of less importance in thisrespect, which is similar to the argument stated abovethat the researchers perception of a single project doesnot necessarily have to correspond with the ones of theactors involved. Researching into projects is thus morea matter of looking and trying to capture the unique,complex and time-limited processes of interaction,organization and management. Hence, it might be pos-sible to identify research that claims project researchto be a perspective or a metaphor for studying entirerms, entire industries to be the most important unit ofanalysis, on the one hand. On the other hand, it mightbe possible to identify research, which states the impor-tance of providing knowledge and theories about theorganization and management of projects. Followingthis line of reasoning it might be stated that the researchinto the management by projects, i.e. studies thatlook at rms but pay special attention to the projectdimension, advocates that projects provide a perspectivefor analyzing corporate activity [19,20].In a project context, the universal elements are nor-

mally uniqueness, task complexity and time-limitedness,which are also the characteristics brought forward in therst chapters of project management textbooks [21].The point made here is that we need to explicate theuniversal dimensions of projects but also thoroughlyanalyze the variations among projects. Thompson [22]early pointed out the importance of this fact for thedevelopment of organization theory.Fairly recently, the term of project theory has been

used, not only by practitioners, but also by organizationscholars [3]. Even though these authors are relativelyvague about what project theory signies, the use ofthe concept reveals some important constituents. Pro-ject theory is sometimes strictly referred to as the prac-tical knowledge, sometimes referred to as thenormative tradition [6], including the textbook, thechecklists and the optimization and critical success fac-tor research [23]. This research tradition is well knownfor scholars of project management. For researchersinterested in building theories from empirical data, suchlines of research, however, provide very little in terms oftheory. Concomitantly, we would argue that projectsare important and interesting phenomena from which itis possible to build strong and interesting theories inorder to increase our knowledge of certain parts of

ect Management 22 (2004) 183191 185

projects.

behaviors. Although economists use the term theory ofthe rm in its singular form, there is no single, multi-purpose theory of the rm. Every theory of the rm is

In the above sections, the article has given evidence ofcontradictory basic assumptions about project manage-

f Project Management 22 (2004) 183191focus on action and temporariness. Project orga-nization is a key industrial activity and a key corporateprocess [24] and management without sound knowledgeof projects misses a great deal of what management ofcontemporary rms is about. This has been stressed byauthors on the project-based rm, boundary-less careersand time-paced strategies who argue that we need newways of thinking about organizations and their man-agement [17]. We suggest project research to be oneproductive approach to increase our understanding ofthe modern rm.The widespread use of projects in organizations today

is the driving force in the search for factors that inu-ence project success. In spite of extensive research inrecent years, there has been little agreement on the cri-tical factors of project success [25]. A major reason, inour opinion, is the widespread assumption that a uni-versal theory of project management can be applied toevery project. The search for such a universal theorymay be inappropriate given the fundamental dierencesthat exist across projects. Of course, as stated by Winch[24], the contention is not that all projects are the same,but that there is a generic form that can be called projectorganization. We call for several dierent approachesand for a fruitful debate about important contingencyand contextual dimensions. The point made here is thusthat the engineering tradition and the social sciencetradition are incompatible on important issues, for oneavoids uncertainty to achieve determinateness, whilethe other assumes uncertainty and indeterminateness[22].We argue that there is a need for several types of the-

orizing, some that look at the universal aspects of pro-jects, some that look at the specic aspects of certainprojects. The latter could preferably be either withinparticular industries or rms, or be associated with acertain project category. However, it is necessary toconstantly criticize the dimensions put forward, searchfor new ones and to keep a balance between the specicand the general aspects of project management. Asproposed by Lundin [26], there is a need for dierentia-tion in empirical and theoretical research, yet there seemto be several generic mechanisms everywhere in theproject eld.The problem here is that universal theories do not

necessarily have to imply that only one theory, or onebest way of managing projects, is promoted. Taken toan extreme, the problem would be that if there were noconnecting links between the project theories, then onewould question the studies of projects as a eld in itsentirety. One important matter is thus to strive for abalance between universal and specic theories. Never-theless, it should be emphasized that universal couldhere be some overall themes, some overall interests,etc., not a universal proposition of how to manage

186 J. Soderlund / International Journal oment. In the following section we present ve key ques-tions. Our argument is that these questions are not onlyimportant for building sound knowledge of projectmanagement, but also essential for highlighting theweaknesses of current project management research.The questions1 we consider to be crucial for the researchon the management and organization of projects wouldinclude:

1. Why do project organizations exist?2. Why do project organizations dier?3. How do project organizations behave?4. What is the function of, or value added by, the

project management unit2?5. What determines the success or failure of project

organizations?

1 The questions are inspired by the overview of strategy research

given by Rumelt et al. [30].2 The term unit here signies the group in charge of managing the

project, or if not a group, the person in charge of managing the

project.ceptualizations and models that explain and predict thestructure and behavior of projects (or temporary orga-nizations), and in order to further develop the projecteld a number of such theories would need to be pre-sented some complementary, some competing. In thispaper we argue that each such attempt might benetfrom considering ve key questions. In the next part ofthis paper, we present and discuss ve questions thatmight further the development of the project eld andfacilitate the building of theories of project management.

4. Questions for building theories of projectmanagementConsequently, theories of projects, we suggest, are con-

one another in explaining dierent phenomena [27].

explanations of the same phenomena and complementbehaviors [29]. As a result, there are many theories ofthe rm that simultaneously compete in oering rivalan abstraction of the real-world business enterprise thatis designed to address a particular set of its traits andIf we relate theories of projects to the theories of therm [27,28] some issues might be stressed. Theories ofthe rm are conceptualizations and models of businessenterprises that explain and predict their structure and

stressed learning, participation, renewal, and rate issues (e.g. strategy, organizational structure,

f ProjIn the following we will comment upon these ques-tions seriatim. We begin each section with a brief lit-erature review in order to discuss the state of the arton project management research. Second, we try topinpoint the dominating line of research and its answerto each question. Finally, suggestions on some alter-native sub-questions are presented.

4.1. Why do project organizations exist?

As stated earlier, the term project has become thevogue in describing contemporary organizations. Bothlarge multinationals to small technology-based rms arebeing described as organized by projects, project-inten-sive, and the like. Typically, the term project is usedto describe the observed pattern of organization orinteraction. But just as often, it is used normatively: toadvocate what organizations must become if they are tobe competitive in todays business environment. As putby Lundin [31] if projects are so damned good, howcome everything aint projects? This relates to one ofthe fundamental issues for project research, i.e. why doproject organizations exist?Inspired by the discussion about why rms exist [32],

one would think of a multitude of reasons why projectorganizations exist. Project researchers tend to use afairly rationalistic argument in this respect. First, aproject exists because there is something important andcomplex to be solved [14]. Second, a project organiza-tion exists because there is a need for a purposefulorganization eort and a high need of coordination inorder to execute a number of tasks/activities. As itseems, the project form is applied when activities aretightly integrated. Much project management research,even the one that is based on a social science tradition,would thus argue in fairly rationalistic fashion, mainlypointing to the task at hand [16].Other explanations have, however, been suggested.

One such explanation is found in the literature onindustrial marketing [33]. Here projects are consideredto be solutions to generate above normal rents bygrouping activities as turn-key deliveries [34]. How-ever, alternative explanations, we argue, would be usefulfor the development of our understanding of projectmanagement on a more general level. Important con-cepts would, for instance, be explained by transactioncost reasoning [28], by knowledge-based reasoning [27]or power perspectives [35].There are, for sure, alternative explanations to be

found in the literature. The problem is that these expla-nations are very few. Kreiner [36], for instance, putsforward that project work is a way for organizations,and for researchers, to release the creative forces withinthemselves rather than to plan; and a way to enhanceparticipation rather than to control. He especially

J. Soderlund / International Journal oinnovation as indispensable in project managementterminology as they have been for years in modernorganization theory. As it seems, not many projectresearchers have taken this plea seriously. Relevantquestions would include the following ones. What arethe alternatives to project management? Do projectsprovide ecient alternatives to develop and implementstrategies? How can we understand the relationshipbetween strategy formation and project management?Are projects ecient means to trigger learning, partici-pation and renewal?

4.2. Why do project organizations dier?

Building on the argument put forward above, muchresearch explains dierences among project organiza-tions by simply pointing to the dierences between thetasks at hand. Dierent types of projects require dier-ent types of organization, the argument goes [37]. Theproblem is, not only that project management researchhas focused on a limited number of so-called con-tingency factors, but also that these factors are notexplicitly critically reviewed. The most extensive studyin this area would probably be the work by Shenhar andDvir [38] published in the highly ranked journalResearch Policy. In their work, a distinction is madebetween dierent types of technological uncertainty(low-tech, medium-tech, high-tech, super high-tech) anddierent types of scope (assembly, system, array). Theirinitial ambition thus seems to entail an attempt toestablish a theory in the same vein as organization the-ory, most notably the contingency tradition of organi-zation theory [39]. Their later work has, however,returned to the relatively rationalistic approach ofidentifying and documenting critical success factors [38].Another article, published in one of Europes leading

organization research journals is the work by Lindkvistet al. [15]. In their analysis, a contingency model of dif-ferent types of project organization is presented. To befair, also the work by Wheelwright and Clark [40] onheavy-weight project teams should be acknowledgedhere. Their work is written in a product developmenttradition, but has also been considered to be an impor-tant contribution to the management of projects. Theircategorization has attracted considerable attention fromproject management researchers [2].In sum, the dierence between project organizations

has not been analyzed thoroughly enough. Only a lim-ited group of references is found in the major researchjournals. It would thus be advantageous to more clearlypinpoint and analyze the reasons why projects and pro-ject organizations dier. We have mentioned a fewimportant contextual and contingency variables. Thereare, however, several other questions that might be ofinterest to project research, such as industry and corpo-

ect Management 22 (2004) 183191 187

project organizations move through the various stages does the project management unit trigger action, in

f Projindustry regulation and tradition), project issues (e.g.age, size, environmental uncertainty and complexity ofvarious kinds). We thus suggest that project managementmust be understood as a situated practice where cultural,social and institutional traits are paramount [41].

4.3. How do project organizations behave?

Several authors have stressed that we only have lim-ited knowledge of the behavior of project organizations[23]. The main part of the literature points to the well-known project life cycle in determining (or predicting)the behavior of project organizations [16]. The project-life cycle has also, for obvious reasons, been the foun-dation for illuminating and capturing the inherentdynamics of project organizations, for instance in termsof pre-study and conclusion phases. This is, however,merely one way of looking at the behavior of projectorganizations. The work by Gersick has convincinglyshown that the project life cycle is not a good descrip-tion of how real projects evolve [64,65]. Hence, a num-ber of questions might be raised whether the project lifecycle is used normatively and if it is an adequate andappropriate description of reality or not. Only a fewstudies have discussed the behavior of project organiza-tions in theoretical terms [16].The main point here is that the many models and

techniques found in the project management eld donot explain or increase our understanding about thebehavior of project organizations. One fruitful meta-phor of projects is that of temporary organizations[14,16]. As it seems, the label temporary organization isused, not only to capture the characteristics of projectorganizations, but also to clearly separate it from tradi-tional (or more permanent-like) organizations. Thebasic traits pointed out is that of a time-limited, andoften time-pressured, organization that is built up by agroup of people who has never worked together beforeand with limited possibilities of working together againin the future [44,45]. The literature on temporary orga-nizations has, in this context, emphasized themes aslearning, participation, commitment and actionin order to focus on the behavioral aspects of suchorganizations. Of course, the aspects of time-limitednessare considered to be at the core of understandingtemporary organizations.In sum, project-oriented literature has only modestly

considered the mentioned aspects as vital in under-standing projects, and thus our knowledge is limited interms of the action triggers, the key obstacles of learn-ing, and the important commitment processes in projectorganizations. A number of questions evolve. How arethe organizational processes aected by the time-limitednature of projects? How do people react on time pres-sure and control by deadlines and milestones? How do

188 J. Soderlund / International Journal oof work? How is the behavior of project organizationsaected by the uncertainty and complexity normallyconnected with many projects?

4.4. What is the function of, or value added by, theproject management unit?

To a great extent, planning has been viewed as themain task of the project management unit. Severalstudies have documented the increased role of projectmanagers and project directors in contemporary rms[2]. The task, for sure, is not merely one of planning inthese cases. This leads to some further issues that shouldbe taken into account in an analysis of the projectmanagement unit/team. This could be, for instance, thehandling of dierent knowledge bases, the handling ofdierences in rates of time, the making of priorities anddecisions, the setting of deadlines, and the overallinformation process of the project. Furthermore, asstated above, the project management unit should beresponsible for the processes and structures related tocommitment, participation and learning. There are thusa number of functions that the project management unitperforms. These functions have accorded scant atten-tion from researchers.In some contexts, the project management unit only is

in charge of the planning activities, or providingadministrative support to the rest of the managerialhierarchy. In other cases the project management unithas a senior executive position, as in the case of theearlier mentioned heavyweight project managementstructure [46]. The trend towards projecticationwould considerably change the role, and also, mostlikely, the value added by the project management unit[2]. The focus on the value added by the project man-agement unit is at the core of understanding theincreased application of project-based structures on ageneral level. Whittington et al. [1] has convincinglydocumented project-based organizing to be at the top ofthe strategic agenda of many European companies. Theso-called project oce has been launched by, forinstance the research and advisory rm Gartner Group,as an organizational solution that would increase theperformance of many companies [47]. Other issues in theproject managerial hierarchy are also of importance, forinstance, the role of project portfolio managers, projectmanagement oces and program managers.From a theoretical point of view, we should in addi-

tion address the question in a more critical sense. Whatpositive eects do project organizing lead to? What arethe downsides to project structures? Research in pro-duct development and matrix management is denitelyhelpful on this matter [40]. However, the specic focuson the work of project management units has not beendealt with, highlighting questions such as in what way

ect Management 22 (2004) 183191

writings have documented the dierence in success fac-

reasons for the increased reliance on project-basedorganization of today [1].

motivational and commitment matters of project orga-

f Projwhat way does it promote learning, participation andcommitment, and how do we determine the value oftheir work? What competencies are required in order totake on the role as project directors and senior projectmanagers? How could their respective roles be under-stood from a knowledge perspective, e.g. in the integra-tion of technology and knowledge bases within the rm?And further, is certain behavior of the project manage-ment function correlated with the level of value added?

4.5. What determines the success or failure of projectorganizations?

As mentioned earlier, a considerable body of projectmanagement research, particularly of North Americanprovenance, is grounded in critical success factor think-ing [48]. Publications both in the International Journalof Project Management and Project Management Jour-nal reect the search for factors of success and failure([49,6,23] for reviews of the literature). Research on cri-tical success factor is also observed in other academicdisciplines, for instance in product development [50,51].In a project context, this approach seeks to system-atically determine the set of generic factors that are cri-tical to project success [48,52,53]. The logic of the searchfor critical success factors has been justied with refer-ence to the many observed examples of project failureand the belief that the identication of generic factorswill greatly facilitate the project implementation processin practice [48].The study by Pinto and Prescott [48] published in the

renowned Journal of Management Studies presents evi-dence of the following set of critical factors: clarity ofgoals, top management support, clear project plans, cli-ent relationship and communication. The studies byBaker et al. [54] were one of the rst to focus on thebehavioral dimensions and organizational issues ofproject organization. This study also employed abroader denition of project success than the typicaltriple constraints of cost, time and conformance to spe-cications. However, as has been pointed out by Turner[49], although much of the research into this particulararea has adopted broader denitions of project success,the traditional triple constraint criteria seem to prevail.The critical success writings have been one dominant

line in project management research. Soderlund [23] tracesits history back to the empirical studies of project failuresin which writers sought to explain the reasons for the fre-quent failures of projects in practice. In the 1980s, this ledto several publications in, not only project managementjournals and books, but also in other management jour-nals, such as the Journal of Management Studies andJournal of Management.A continuing issue for debate hasbeen how to look upon these success factors, their genericapplicability and the sampling methods used [55]. Recent

J. Soderlund / International Journal oThe second and third key questions relate to someclassic organization theory inquiries. There has beenquite a lot of interesting work within these particularstrands of research. In any case, we need to know moreabout these issues, partly because very little empiricalwork and only a few case studies have been carried out.Besides the adoption of contingency frameworks, itwould be argued that in order to understand the beha-vior of project organizations we need more dynamicelaboration. The riding on the project lifecycle is akey aspect here [16,24]. For instance, activities varydramatically over the life of the project, from, e.g. con-ceptualization, feasibility studies, detailed engineering,to testing and commissioning. It might be assumed thateach of these requires a dierent authority system. Thetors among industries and project types and also exten-ded the original success criteria [37]. Further, recentliterature also acknowledge the variation of projectsuccess factors along the project life cycle [56].We acknowledge the importance of researching

success and failure in project management contexts.However, we believe that a certain tradition of success-oriented research has dominated. We argue that themajor part of critical success factor research does notgive us deeper knowledge about real life project man-agement. This research does not acknowledge thedynamics and the social embeddedness of projectmanagement. We suggest instead a greater focus on thefour above-mentioned questions in order to further thedevelopment of project research.

5. Discussion

The main argument put forward in the present paperis that there are openings for additional perspectivesand there are openings for more empirical studies. Still,the eld lacks in-depth case studies, studies of processes,and studies in real timestudies that would be bene-cial in building theories for understanding funda-mental issues of projects and project organizations [57].The reasons why projects exist have in most part of

project writing mainly been explained by referring to thetype of task, most frequently by adopting transactioncost theory [58] or contingency theory approaches[7]. A project would thus be explained by fairly ratio-nalistic arguments, i.e. the reason why project organi-zations exist is because there is a complex task withcertain characteristics to be carried out. However, thereare many more explanations that could be given a partfrom that one, for instance the fact that the task itselfis a social construction. We need to know more aboutthese issues in order to understand the background and

ect Management 22 (2004) 183191 189

also important for wider purposes and can improvethe understanding of management in general. The

tion as has been done within the broader eld of man-

ymous reviewers are greatly acknowledged. Normal

[3] Ekstedt E, Lundin RA, Soderholm A, Wirdenius H. Neo-indus-

York: Harper & Row; 1968.

f Project Management 22 (2004) 183191article maintained that in order to develop the eldinto a stronger academic discipline, ve key questionsrequire alertness.

6. Concluding remarks

The present article has stressed the importance ofstudying projects as organizations and focusing on howthey dier and behave. The article has suggested anagenda for future research into some of the fundamentalsof project management research. The standpoint wasstrongly theoretical, illuminating the importance of alively and critical debate on project managementresearch also from classic scientic standpoints. It wasstressed that the basic assumptions frequently are notexplicitly stated. Recent trends in project researchpoint to project management research as widening itsinterest to also include company-wide issues, such as themanagement of project-based rms, project-basedindustries, project-based careers (cf. [66]). This trendfurther increases the need for an internal debate aboutthe identity of project management research. Could it bemore appropriate to talk about various levels of analysisin project research, rather than linking everything tothe single project?Finally, the article pointed out ve key questions for

project management research. We stressed the need todevelop various theories of projects in a similar tradi-nizations might also change over the lifetime of a pro-ject, the various hurdles facing project members duringa project might explain and increase the knowledge onthe behavioral dimensions of project organization.Project management research has traditionally paid

limited interest in the actual work and performance ofthe project manager and the project management unit.It is time for more thorough studies on the role, styleand function of the project management unit. We wel-come in-depth studies in the same vein as Kotter [59]and Mintzberg [60] have done on general managers onthe theme what do project managers really do (andwhy)?.Many researchers of project organization claim that

organizational researchers have focused (or enacted)their studies on permanent, self-producing organiza-tions [6,61] and have, according to Kavanagh [62],largely ignored temporary, unique organizations (suchas project organizations). The irony of this situationis that there is now a rapidly growing interest in theso-called post-Fordist organization [62], which arestrikingly similar to many traditional project-based organ-izations [63]. Research on project management is thusnot only important for understanding projects. It is

190 J. Soderlund / International Journal otrial organising: renewal by action and knowledge formation in a

project-intensive economy. London: Routledge; 1999.

[4] Lundin RA, Soderholm A. Managing the black boxes of the

project environment. In: Pinto J, editor. The handbook of project

management,. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1998.

[5] Morris PWG. The management of projects. London: Thomas

Telford; 1994.

[6] Packendor J. Inquiring into the temporary organization: new

directions for project management research. Scandinavian Jour-

nal of Management 1995;11(4):31934.

[7] Shenhar A, Dvir D. Toward a typological theory of project

management. Research Policy 1996;25:60732.

[8] Pinto JK. Project management 2002. Research Technology

Management 2002;2:2237.

[9] Wren D. The evolution of management thought. New York:

John Wiley & Sons; 1979.

[10] Gaddis PO. The project manager. Harvard Business Review

1959;MayJune:8997.

[11] Miles MB. On temporary systems. In: Miles MB, editor. Inno-

vation in Education. New York: Teachers College Press; 1964.

[12] Bennis WG, Slater PE, editors. The temporary society. Newdisclaimers apply.

References

[1] Whittington R, Pettigrew A, Peck S, Fenton E, Conyon M.

Change and complementarities in the new competitive landscape:

A European panel study, 19921996. Organization Science 1999;

10(5):583600.

[2] Midler C. Projectication of the rm: the Renault case. Scandi-

navian Journal of Management 1995;11(4):36376.agement research. It was stated that questions such aswhy projects exist and why they dier must not be for-gotten in order to expand our knowledge and encouragecross-fertilization among perspectives.A theory of projects cannot be built on merely

empirical insights, but has also to be driven by a parti-cular theoretical perspective. It was argued that suchperspectives exist in other elds and it should be plau-sible to try them out also in a project context. However,without forgetting the special traits of projects asempirical entities. We need to discuss and develop con-cepts in order to understand the plurality currentlyunder way within the eld of project research. It is trulya research eld that might not only improve the man-agement and organization of single projects, but alsoimprove the eectiveness of many companies and entireindustries.

Acknowledgements

The research reported here has been nanced byHSFR and Handelsbankens forskningsstiftelser andVinnova. I am also grateful for the support from mycolleagues at Centre de Recherche en Gestion, lEcolePolytechnique, Paris. The comments from two anon-

[39] Lawrence P, Lorsch J. Organization and environment: managing boration in social context. Regional Studies 2002;36(3):20514.

J. Soderlund / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 183191 191[13] Goodman LP, Goodman RA. Theater as a temporary system.

California Management Review 1972;15(2):1038.

[14] Goodman RA, Goodman LP. Some management issues in

temporary systems: a study of professional development and

manpowerthe theater case. Administrative Science Quarterly

1976;21:3 494-501.

[15] Lindkvist L, Soderlund J, Tell F. Managing product development

projects: on the signicance of fountains and deadlines. Organi-

zation Studies 1998;19(6):93151.

[16] Lundin RA, Soderholm A. A Theory of the temporary organi-

zation. Scandinavian Journal of Management 1995;11(4):43755.

[17] DeFillippi R, Arthur M. Paradox in project-based enterprise: the

case of lm making. California Management Review 1998;40(1):

18691.

[18] Engwall M. The ambiguous project concept(s). In: Lundin RA,

Midler C, editors. Projects as arenas for renewal and learning

processes. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1998.

[19] Sharad D. Management by projects: an ideological break-

through. Project Management Journal 1986;2:613.

[20] Gareis R. Management by projects: the management approach

for the future. International Journal of Project Management

1989;7(4):24352.

[21] Meredith J, Mantel S. Project management: a managerial

approach. New York: Wiley; 2000.

[22] Thompson JD. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw

Hill; 1967.

[23] Soderlund J. On the development of project management

research: schools of thought and critique. International Project

Management Journal 2002;8(1):2031.

[24] Winch G. The management of projects as a generic business

process. In: Lundin RA, Hartman F, editors. Projects as business

constituents and guiding motives. Boston: Kluwer Academic

Press; 2000.

[25] Pinto JK, Slevin DP. Critical factors in successful project imple-

mentation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management

1987;34:227.

[26] Lundin RA. Editorial: Temporary organizations and project Man-

agement. Scandinavian Journal of Management 1995;11(4):3158.

[27] Grant R. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the rm, Strategic

Management Journal. Special issue 1996;17:10922.

[28] Williamson OE. Strategy research: governance and competence

perspectives. Strategic Management Journal 1999;20:1087108.

[29] Machlup F. The production and distribution of knowledge in the

United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1967.

[30] Rumelt D, Schendel D, Teece D, editors. Fundamental issues in

strategy research: a research agenda. Boston: Harvard Business

School Press; 1994.

[31] Lundin RA. 1999. If projects are so damned good, how come

everything aint projects, Paper presented at the IPMA Con-

ference.

[32] Nelson R. Why do rms dier, and how does it matter. Strategic

Management Journal 1991;12:6174.

[33] Cova B, Holstius K. How to create competitive advantage in

project business. Journal of Marketing Management 1993;9(2):

10521.

[34] Mattsson L-G. Systems selling as a strategy on industrial mar-

kets. Industrial Marketing Management 1973;3:10720.

[35] Hodgson D. Disciplining the professional: the case of project

management. Journal of Management Studies 2002;39(6):80320.

[36] Kreiner K. The postmodern epoch of organization theory. Interna-

tional Studies of Management and Organization 1992;22(2):3752.

[37] Gobeli D, Larson EW. Relative eectiveness of dierent project

structures. Project Management Journal 1987;18(2):815.

[38] Dvir D, Lipovetsky S, Shenhar A, Tishler A. In search of project

classication: a non-unversal approach to project success factors.

Research Policy 1998;27:91535.dierentiation and integration. Boston: Harvard University

Press; 1967.

[40] Wheelwright SC, Clark KB. Revolutionizing product develop-

ment. New York: Free Press; 1992.

[41] Constant E. Reliable knowledge and unreliable stu: on the

practical role of rational beliefs. Technology and Culture 1999;

40:32457.

[44] Meyerson D, Weick KE, Kramer RM. Swift trust and temporary

groups. In: Kramer RM, Tyler TR. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1996.

[45] Soderlund J. Temporary Organizing: Characteristics and Control

Forms. In: Lundin RA, Hartman F, editors. Projects as Business

Constituents and Guiding Motives. Boston: Kluwer; 2000.

[46] Clark K, Fujimoto T. Product development performance: strat-

egy, organization and management in the world auto industry.

Boston: Harvard Business School; 1991.

[47] Gartner Group 2000. Project Oce: Teams, Processes and Tools,

Gartner Group Strategic Analysis Report.

[48] Pinto JK, Prescott JE. Planning and tactical factors in the project

implementation process. Journal of Management Studies 1990;

27(3):30527.

[49] Turner JR. Editorial: Project management: a profession based on

knowledge or faith. International Journal of Project Management

1999;17(6):32930.

[50] Cooper RG. New product success in industrial rms. Industrial

Marketing Management 1982;11:21523.

[51] Cooper RG, Kleinschmidt EJ. What makes a new product a

winner: success factors at the project level. R&D Management

1987;17(3):17589.

[52] Morris PWG. Managing project interfaces: key points for project

success. In: Cleland D, King W, editors. Project management

handbook. New York: Van Nostrand; 1983.

[53] Wateridge, J. F. (1996): Delivering successful IS/IT projects: eight

key elements from success criteria to review via appropriate

management, methodologies and teams. PhD thesis, Henley

Management College, Brunel University.

[54] Baker BN, Murphy DD, Fisher D. Factors aecting project

success. In: Cleland D, King W, editors. Project management

handbook. New York: Van Nostrand; 1983.

[55] Pinto J, Kharbanda OP. Successful project managers: leading

your team to success. New York: Van Nostrand; 1995.

[56] Pinto JK, Slevin DP. Critical success factors across the project

life cycle. Project Management Journal 1988;19(3):6775.

[57] Eisenhart KM. Building theories from case study research.

Academy of Management Review 1989;14:53250.

[58] Winch, G. 1995. Project management in construction: towards a

transaction cost approach, Le Group Bagnolet, Working Paper,

University College London.

[59] Kotter J. The general managers. New York: Free Press; 1982.

[60] Mintzberg H. The nature of managerial work. New York:

Prentice Hall; 1973.

[61] Bryman A, Bresnen M, Beardsworth AD, Ford J, Keil ET. The

concept of the temporary system: the case of the construction

project. Research in the Sociology of Organizations 1987;5:25383.

[62] Kavanagh, D. 1998. Multi-rm, temporary networks: a study of

process, Unpublished PhD thesis, The Management School,

Lancaster University.

[63] Kanter RM. The future of bureaucracy and hierarchy in organi-

zational theory: a report from the eld. In: Bordieu P, Coleman J,

editors. Social theory for a changing society. Boulder: Westview

Press; 1991.

[64] Gersick C. Time and transition in work teams: towards a new

model of group development. Academy of Management Journal

1988;31(1):941.

[65] Gersick C. Marking time: predictable transitions in task groups.

Academy of Management Journal 1989;32(2):274309.

[66] Grabher G. Cool projects, boring institutions: temporary colla-

Building theories of project management: past research, questions for the futureThe current state of project management researchThe intellectual roots of project management researchBasic assumptions in project management researchQuestions for building theories of project managementWhy do project organizations exist?Why do project organizations differ?How do project organizations behave?What is the function of, or value added by, the project management unit?What determines the success or failure of project organizations?

DiscussionConcluding remarksAcknowledgementsReferences