organizing project-based operations - diva1093511/fulltext01.pdf · organizing project-based...
TRANSCRIPT
Organizing project-based operations The interplay of content, context and social processes
Maxim Miterev
Doctoral Thesis 2017 KTH Royal Institute of Technology School of Industrial Engineering and Management Department of Industrial Economics and Management Stockholm, Sweden
ISBN 978-91-7729-407-8 TRITA-IEO-R 2017:09 ISSN 1100-7982 ISRN/KTH/IEO/R-17:09-SE ©Maxim Miterev 2017 [email protected] This academic thesis, with the approval of KTH Royal Institute of Technology, will be presented to fulfill the requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The public defense will be held in Room F3 at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, at 10:00, on the 30th of May 2017.
Printed in Sweden, Universitetsservice US-AB
i
This research was conducted within the framework of the “European
Doctorate in Industrial Management”—EDIM—which is funded by The
Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) of the
European Commission under Erasmus Mundus Action 1 programmes.
iii
Abstract
Project-based organizations (PBOs) are becoming increasingly widespread
and important for the modern economy and society. Thus, they attract
significant scholarly attention to their distinctive features. The unit of analysis
employed by the majority of the studies is the project-based organization as a
whole. Hence, the locus of attention stays at the organizational level, whereas
project-related effects are discussed in terms of aggregate properties. With
very few exceptions, projects as distinct entities do not feature prominently
in the discussion of project-based organizations.
This observation creates an interesting paradox. In particular, when projects
are discussed as separate units of analysis, their complex organizational
dynamics, idiosyncrasies, and institutional embeddedness are among
important loci of attention. However, when projects and project collections
are discussed within the context of the PBO, the very same aspects tend to
be downplayed. Most commonly, projects are either neglected or implicitly
assumed to be homogeneous, interchangeable atomic units without internal
structure or dynamics, obediently following orders of the parent organizations.
Their internal organizational properties are overlooked and the individual-
level variables are assumed to have little or no influence on the project
outcomes. This thesis questions these assumptions and posits that
understanding the dynamics at the project operations level might have
important implications for explaining the effectiveness of management
arrangements in the PBO.
In particular, this thesis aims to explore the factors that shape project-based
operations in the setting of the project-based organization. The thesis
examines three particular factors which affect organizing of the project-based
operations: (1) the content of operations; (2) the context of operations; and
(3) the social processes at the operational level. Structurally, the thesis
comprises a cover essay and four appended papers (three of them published
in international peer-reviewed journals).
Largely inductive in nature, the thesis builds on two research studies. The first
study represents an in-depth “insider” case study of project-based operations
in the Operations division of a large pharmaceutical company. It employs a
iv
combination of data collection methods, including semi-structured interviews,
participant observations, and document analysis. The second study represents
a structured framework-based literature review. Recognizing the
organizational properties of projects, the thesis draws upon several literature
streams within organization theory and design to analyze the empirical data.
The results elaborate how the organizing of project-based operations in the
PBO is shaped by the interplay between the content, intra-organizational and
wider institutional contexts, as well as endogenous social processes.
The thesis contributes to the literature on project-based organizations by
developing an institutional, as well as extending a contingency perspective on
organizing project-based operations. Further, the results call for revisiting the
conceptualization of the PBO by questioning the view of projects as atomic
and homogeneous units. Finally, the thesis contributes to the literature by
developing an organization design perspective on the PBO.
In terms of managerial implications, the thesis offers a few frameworks which
can be used to support the decision-making process in a PBO. In particular,
Paper I develops a contingency model of program management competences
(the 3C model), Paper II derives a framework that can help PBO managers in
evaluating the sources of isomorphic pressure on individual projects and
programs, while Paper IV puts forth an organization design model for the
PBO. At a more general level, Paper II discusses how the identified
isomorphic processes within the PBO can limit flexibility, innovation, and
efficiency. Finally, the cover essay discusses the important factors that need
to be scrutinized in order to assess organizing of the project-based operations,
such as the technical content, the project landscape and social landscape or
the influence of institutionalized practices and models.
Keywords: project-based operations; project-based organization; PBO;
contingency; new institutionalism; organization theory; organization design.
v
Sammanfattning
Projektbaserade organisationer (PBO) ökar i både antal och relevans för både
samhället och den moderna ekonomin, vilket medfört betydande vetenskaplig
uppmärksamhet. Den analysenhet som används för en majoritet av studierna
är den projektbaserade organisationen som helhet. Fokus ligger oftast på
organisationsnivå, medan de projektrelaterade effekterna främst diskuteras
utifrån deras aggregerade egenskaper. Med väldigt få undantag är inte projekt,
sett som separata enheter, framträdande i diskussionen kring projektbaserade
organisationer.
Detta skapar en intressant paradox. När projekt diskuteras som separata
analysenheter, är deras komplexa organisationsdynamik, egenheter och
institutionella förankring viktiga uppmärksamhetsområden. När projekt och
projektportföljer diskuteras inom ramen för PBOs, tenderar emellertid
samma aspekter att vara nedtonade. Oftast är projekten antingen försummade
eller implicit antagna att vara homogena, utbytbara enheter utan inre struktur
eller dynamik, som lydigt följer moderorganisationens order. Projektens
interna organisatoriska egenskaper förbises och de individuella variablerna
antas ha liten eller ingen påverkan på projektresultatet. Denna avhandlingen
ifrågasätter dessa antaganden och postulerar att förståelsen av dynamiken på
projektnivå har viktig påverkan i hur effektiviteten i ledningen av PBOs kan
förklaras.
Mer specifikt så syftar denna avhandling till att utforska de faktorer som
formar verksamheten i projektbaserade organisationer. Avhandlingen
undersöker tre särskilda faktorer som påverkar organisering av
projektbaserade operationer: (1) verksamhetsinnehållet, (2) verksamhetens
sammanhang och (3) de sociala processerna på en operativ nivå. Strukturellt
består avhandlingen av en kappa och fyra bifogade papper (tre av dem
publicerade i internationella peer-review journaler).
Forskningen är av induktiv natur och avhandlingen bygger på två studier. Den
första studien representerar en fördjupad fallstudie av den projektbaserade
verksamheten i ett stort läkemedelsföretag. Den studien har genomförts med
hjälp av en kombination av datainsamlingsmetoder, till exempel semi-
strukturerade intervjuer, deltagande observationer och dokumentanalys. Den
vi
andra studien representerar en strukturerad ramverksbaserad litteraturstudie.
För att erkänna vikten av projektens organisatoriska egenskaper i PBOs
baseras avhandlingen på flera olika litteraturområden inom både
organisationsteori och empirisk dataanalys. Resultaten utvecklar hur
organiseringen av projektbaserade verksamheter i PBOs formas av samspelet
mellan projektens innehåll, intraorganisatoriska och bredare institutionella
sammanhang samt endogena sociala processer.
Avhandlingen bidrar till litteraturen kring projektbaserade organisationer
genom att utveckla en institutionell, såväl som att utöka contingency
perspektivet, när det gäller organiseringen av projektbaserade verksamheter.
Vidare så påkallar resultaten ett behov att återgå till konceptualiseringen av
PBO genom att ifrågasätta uppfattningen att projekt är atomära och
homogena enheter. Slutligen bidrar avhandlingen också till litteraturen genom
att utveckla ett organisationsdesign perspektiv för projektbaserade
organisationer.
Vad gäller det praktiska bidraget så erbjuder avhandlingen några ramverk som
kan användas för att stödja beslutsprocessen i en PBO. Speciellt i papper I så
utvecklas en beredskapsmodell för programledningskompetens (3C-
modellen). I papper II skapas ett ramverk som kan hjälpa PBO-chefer att
utvärdera källorna till isomorft tryck på enskilda projekt och program, medan
Paper IV presenterar en modell för organisationsdesign av projektbaserade
organisationer. På en mer generell nivå diskuterar papper II också hur de
identifierade isomorfa processerna inom en PBO kan begränsa flexibilitet,
innovation och effektivitet. Slutligen diskuterar kappan de viktiga faktorer
som behöver granskas för att bedöma organiseringen av projektbaserade
verksamheter, såsom det tekniska innehållet, projektlandskapet och det
sociala landskapet eller påverkan av institutionaliserade metoder och
modeller..
Nyckelord: projektbaserade verksamhet; projektbaserade organisation; PBO;
contingency (“situationsanpassad”) teori; nyinstitutionell teori;
organisationsteori; organisationsdesign.
vii
Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been possible without the support of many people.
The first words of appreciation come to my supervisors Mats Engwall (KTH), Anna Jerbrant (KTH) and Mauro Mancini (POLIMI). Mats Engwall, my principal supervisor at KTH, has been the most important person in the development of this thesis. Mats, I have felt your support throughout this journey. You taught me to look beyond buzzwords, to be more critical, to consider different perspectives, to set the bar of academic writing and research integrity high, to think more clearly, and more. Despite being incredibly busy, you always managed to find time to discuss my progress and to thoroughly comment on various manuscripts. You have had a strong influence on me as a researcher and as a person. Thank you.
Anna Jerbrant, my co-supervisor at KTH, has also been a very important person for this thesis. Anna, you have been a great source of stimulating academic discussions and friendly encouragement. You always offered me all possible means of support I could think of (and more) and stood up on my behalf. You were always there for me to provide continuous feedback and guidance on academic and administrative issues. Thank you for believing in me throughout the journey.
Mauro Mancini, my supervisor at POLIMI, has created the best possible work environment for me during the year spent in Milan. Mauro, you helped me to stay organized and focused, and opened up great opportunities. You were also the person who told me about the EDIM program back in 2011, and encouraged me to apply. Without you, I would have never joined this PhD program at all.
Rodney Turner has contributed to this thesis as a co-author of two appended papers. Rodney, thank you for providing invaluable contribution to the papers. I learned a lot from you through our collaboration, and by assisting you in a Master course at POLIMI. I enjoyed our lunch time conversations on the topics ranging from the implications of Machiavelli’s views for the stability of matrix organizations to bidding at coin auctions.
I am indebted to many senior academics who have provided me with a great feedback during the PhD journey. At the mandatory thesis seminars at KTH, I was very lucky to get thorough discussions of the thesis by some of the top scholars in the field - Fredrik Tell, Jonas Söderlund, and Johann Packendorff. Your comments were instrumental for the development of this thesis, thank you! Alessandro Brun, my internal POLIMI discussant, has provided me with a number of excellent suggestions during the four years of annual evaluations. Paolo Trucco, my tutor at POLIMI, thank you for providing many academic advices and sharing productivity tips. By attending a number of international conferences, EDIM workshops, research seminars and through personal communication, I received valuable feedback from Niklas Arvidsson, Raffaella Cagliano, Paul Nightingale, Joaquin Ordieres, Ralf Müller, Christian Berggren, Anette Hallin, Rolf Lundin, Ole Jonny Klakegg, Miia Martinsuo, Tuomas Ahola, Kirsi Aaltonen, Janice Thomas, Sergio Pellegrinelli, Carla Messikomer, and Guido Micheli among others. Your kind support is deeply appreciated!
viii
I am also thankful to all my senior colleagues at INDEK, KTH and DIG, POLIMI. Thanks Matti, Anna, and Johann, for giving me an opportunity to teach in your courses; Andreas, for involving me in the High Capacity Transport program; Niklas, for many helpful conversations about my research; Cali, for continuous feedback on my work. Thanks also Jannis, Lars, Bosse, Mohammad, Anders, Ali, Tomas, Pernilla, Eric, Vladimir, Staffan, Monica, Esmail, Thomas, Pontus, Hans and Jan, for being engaged and inspirational colleagues.
I would like to thank my fellow PhD students in KTH and POLIMI for making the PhD process unforgettable. Thanks Rami, for being a great source of advice and inspiration; Emrah, for your integrity, optimism and sincere support; Jonatan, for being a great office-mate and friend; Andres, for your great sense of humor and kindness; Seyoum, for our tea breaks, sharing research tips and being both very smart and very humble; Simon, Sudipa, Yury, Milan, Anna D, Andra, Yasmin, Yasmine, Matt, Marin, Vikash, Richard, Gisela, Anna S, Charlotta, Stefan, Caroline, Serdar, Maria M, Maria L, Fabian, Michael, Frano, Nidal, Monia, Gulzat, Petter, Aziza, and others for helping me enjoy PhD life.
I would like to acknowledge the great administrative support I received from INDEK, DIG, and EDIM administrators: Martina Sani, Kristin Lohse, Caroline Ahlstedt, Elisabeth Stolt Wahlman, and Elisabeth Lampen. Martina Sani deserves a very special mention. Martina, you lifted the process of smoothing bureaucratic procedures into an art form. You also supported me and my family with issues that were way beyond your formal responsibilities. Thank you!
I would like to thank Kirsti G. and Karin L.-H., who helped me to get access to the case study, and all respondents who participated in the interviews. Without your participation this thesis would not have been possible.
I am thankful to the European Commission for financing my PhD. Moreover, I thank the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, the International Project Management Association, and the Institute for Management of Innovation and Technology for additional financial support in form of travel grants and research awards.
My family has been the source of unconditional support and love for me. My father Alexander, thank you for being a great role model of lifelong learning and true passion for knowledge. My mother Olga, thank you for teaching me by example how to stay organized, responsible and dedicated during challenging times. My brother Sergey, thank you for being a person that many would believe could exist only in novels. My grandparents Nikolai (rest in peace), Liza, Nina, Yuri, thank you for being the best grandparents in the world.
My wife Nadia, thank you for selflessly staying by my side throughout this journey. I know that it was not easy for you and that your life was tougher than mine. I want you to know that I treasure all the emotional support you gave me. My lovely daughter Sofia, you have contributed to this thesis too; one smile was often enough to relieve the stress.
Maxim Miterev, Stockholm, the 1st of May, 2017
ix
List of appended papers
This thesis is based on four papers that are enclosed at the end.
Paper I
Miterev, M., Engwall, M. & Jerbrant, A. (2016). Exploring program
management competences for various program types. International Journal of
Project Management, 34 (3), 545557. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.07.006
Paper II
Miterev, M. (2016). Mechanisms of isomorphism in project-based
organizations. Presented at the 4th ScAIEM Conference on Industrial Engineering
and Management, Luleå, Sweden, November, 28-30, 2016.
Paper III
Miterev, M., Turner, J.R. & Mancini, M. (2017). The organization design
perspective on the project-based organization: A structured review.
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10 (3), in press.
doi: 10.1108/IJMPB-06-2016-0048
Paper IV
Miterev, M., Mancini, M. & Turner, J.R. (2017). Towards a design for the
project-based organization. International Journal of Project Management, 35 (3),
479-491. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.12.007
x
List of selected additional publications (not appended)
Miterev, M. (2015). A systematic literature review on governance in project-based organizations: Conceptualization, underlying assumptions and research agenda, 2nd EDIM PhD Conference, Milan, Italy, June 9-12.
Jerbrant, A., Miterev, M. & Engwall, M. (2014), Integrating strategic
aspects with project portfolio management: Exploring different ways to deal
with organizational dependencies, 1st EDIM PhD Conference, Milan, Italy,
June, 11-12.
xi
Index
Abstract ................................................................................................ iii
Sammanfattning ................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ............................................................................ vii
List of appended papers ...................................................................... ix
List of Figures and List of Tables ..................................................... xiii
1. Introduction ................................................................................... 1 1.1. Setting the stage: The project-based organization and its importance as a research area ..................................................................................................1 1.2. Where are projects in the discussion of project-based organizations? 3 1.3. Research purpose and research questions ................................................6 1.4. Structure of the thesis ..................................................................................7
2. Theoretical background ................................................................ 9 2.1. Project-based organization ..........................................................................9 2.2. Projects in the PBO discourse................................................................. 11 2.3. Factors shaping project-based operations ............................................. 13
3. Research approach and methodology .......................................... 17 3.1. Overall research design ............................................................................. 17 3.2. Study A: “Insider” case study .................................................................. 19 3.3. Limitations of Study A ............................................................................. 25 3.4. Study B: Structured literature review ...................................................... 26 3.5. Limitations of Study B .............................................................................. 31
4. Summary of the appended papers ............................................... 33 Paper I ............................................................................................................... 34 Paper II ............................................................................................................. 36 Paper III ............................................................................................................ 38 Paper IV ............................................................................................................ 40
xii
5. Synthesis of the results ................................................................. 43 5.1. Content ........................................................................................................ 44 5.2. Context ........................................................................................................ 47 5.3. Social processes .......................................................................................... 50 5.4. The interplay of the factors ...................................................................... 52
6. Implications ................................................................................. 57 6.1. Implications for theory ............................................................................. 57 6.2. Implications for practice ........................................................................... 60
7. Conclusion.................................................................................... 63 7.1. Contribution ............................................................................................... 63
References ........................................................................................... 65
xiii
List of Figures and List of Tables
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of methods in the appended papers…………………...20
Table 2. Summary of data collection in the case study……………………23
Table 3. Authors' contributions to the appended papers……………….....33
Table 4. Correspondence between the appended papers and thesis research
questions……………………...………………………………...…….…..43
List of Figures
Figure 1. Structure of the thesis……………………………………...……8
Figure 2. Summary of the findings……………………………………..…55
1
1. Introduction
1.1. Setting the stage: The project-based organization and its importance as a research area
This thesis addresses the issue of organizing project-based operations in the
context of the project-based organization. The focus is on project-based
organizations as lasting organizational entities that use projects and project
constellations, such as programs and portfolios, as the main principle for
organizing work (see Hobday, 2000; Lindkvist, 2004), rather than one-off
project-based enterprises representing project-specific legal entities that
dissolve after the project completion (see DeFillippi and Arthur, 1998), or
project networks based on alliances between multiple organizations and
individuals (Sydow and Staber, 2002; Windeler and Sydow, 2001).
Management of such project-based organizations is an important research
topic due to the wide dissemination of this organizational form and its
idiosyncratic challenges. First, project-based organizations are becoming
increasingly widespread and important for the modern economy and society
(Cattani et al., 2011; Lundin et al., 2015; Whittington et al., 1999). Project-
based organizations are the dominant form of organizing production across
a number of industries, such as construction (Bresnen et al., 2004; Kadefors,
1995), media and entertainment (DeFillippi and Arthur, 1998; Windeler and
Sydow, 2001), as well as engineering and production of complex products and
systems (Davies and Brady, 2000; Eriksson et al., 2002; Prencipe and Tell,
2001). Additionally, projects and project-based units often play a role of
organizational devices for product development, R&D, and organizational
renewal, and for this reason seem indispensable even within the industries
that have not traditionally relied on projects, such as the automotive
(Cusumano and Nobeoka, 1998; Midler, 2013, 1995), healthcare (Aubry et al.,
2014), telecommunication (Jerbrant, 2013; Lindkvist et al., 1998), logistics
(Söderlund, 2008), packaging (Lindkvist, 2004), pharmaceutical (Freilich,
2015), and computer technologies (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997; Loufrani-
Fedida and Saglietto, 2016), to name a few.
2
Second, a number of studies emphasized the differences between project-
based and more traditional forms of organizations (Söderlund and Tell, 2011;
Sydow et al., 2004) which complicate the direct transfer of assumptions and
conclusions established for other types of organizations to the project-based
context (Blindenbach-Driessen and Van den Ende, 2010; Bredin, 2008;
Maylor et al., 2015). For example, the success factors and best practices for
development projects differ between project-based and functionally
organized firms (Blindenbach-Driessen and Van den Ende, 2010, 2006). Also,
the structural separation between work carried out in projects and evaluation
procedures performed by line functions creates challenges for matching
compensation to performance (Bredin and Söderlund, 2006). Along the same
lines, the traditional ways of designing reward systems and motivating
employees do not apply in the project-based context, since many project-
oriented engineers are not interested in traditional management and technical
career ladders (Allen and Katz, 1995). To conclude, a number of studies have
indicated that a lack of attention to the idiosyncrasies of project-based settings
can negatively affect such important areas as innovation, operations, and
long-term organizational learning (e.g., Ekstedt et al., 1999; DeFillippi, 2001;
Keegan and Turner, 2002, 2001; Maylor et al., 2015). Consequently, relying
on traditional management and organization theories can hinder designing
well-functioning systems, if one omits to take the aforementioned differences
into account.
Overall, the ongoing burgeoning of the form combined with a number of the
intrinsic challenges makes project-based organizations an interesting and
important phenomenon to study. When addressing these challenges,
researchers should be cautious in relying on existing theories of management
and organization, since the form is associated with a number of important
idiosyncrasies (Söderlund and Tell, 2011).
3
1.2. Where are projects in the discussion of project-based
organizations?
During the past decade, project-based organizations have attracted significant
scholarly attention (Cattani et al., 2011). Major research themes within the
topic include the distinctions of the project-based organization from more
traditional types of organization (Söderlund and Tell, 2011), the implications
of temporary character of projects for innovation (Gann and Salter, 2000;
Keegan and Turner, 2002), organizational learning and knowledge
management (Grabher, 2004; Keegan and Turner, 2001; Marshall and Brady,
2001; Prencipe and Tell, 2001; Söderlund, 2008), and organizational
capabilities (Brady and Davies, 2004; Davies and Brady, 2016, 2000;
Nightingale et al., 2011), as well as typologies of project-based organizations
(Hobday, 2000; Whitley, 2006).
The unit of analysis employed by many of the studies is the project-based
organization as a whole. The locus of attention stays at the organizational
level, whereas project-related effects are discussed in terms of aggregate
properties, such as decentralization, short-term performance orientation and
distributed work practices (e.g., Bresnen et al., 2004). With very few
exceptions, projects as distinct entities do not feature prominently in the
discussion of project-based organizations. Most commonly, they are either
neglected or implicitly assumed to be homogeneous, interchangeable atomic
units without internal structure or dynamics, obediently following orders of
the parent organization.
This observation creates an interesting paradox in regard to conceptualization
of projects, which is reflected in the duality of assumptions about project
behavior, factors determining project-related dynamics, and appropriate
theoretical lens. In particular, when projects are discussed as separate units of
analysis, among the most salient loci of attention are their organizational
dynamics (Engwall and Westling, 2004; Lundin and Söderholm, 1995;
Packendorff, 1995), idiosyncrasies (Dvir et al., 1998; Lechler and Dvir, 2010;
Shenhar, 2001; Shenhar and Dvir, 1996), and institutional embeddedness
(Ferriani et al., 2009; Ruuska et al., 2011). Projects are shown to be different
4
from each other, as a result of either some intrinsic properties (Shenhar and
Dvir, 1996) or influences of organizational history and context (Engwall,
2003). They are also embedded in multi-layer social structures that affect
learning, management structures and dissemination of practices (Bechky,
2006; Ferriani et al., 2009, 2005; Grabher, 2004; Windeler and Sydow, 2001),
and experience wider institutional pressure (Engwall, 2003; Kadefors, 1995;
Lampel, 2011).
However, when projects and project collections are discussed within the
context of PBO, the very same factors tend to be overlooked or downplayed
by the aforementioned assumptions. The focus shifts to standardized
solutions (Ahola et al., 2014) applied to identical and interchangeable projects
within the PBO. Projects are often depicted as obedient servants of the parent
organization, representing tactical means to execute organizational strategy
(Artto et al., 2008). Their internal dynamics are overlooked and the individual-
level variables are assumed to have little or no influence on the project
outcomes.
Two lines of reasoning could potentially justify the latter approach. Either
these assumptions about projects in the PBO are universally valid, or the
project operations level of analysis is not relevant for the discussion of the
phenomena at the organizational level.
Neither of the options appear to be well justified. There are few empirical
studies that address internal dynamics of multiple projects in the PBO, rather
the literature rests on a set of implicit assumptions. Regarding the
homogeneity assumption, a number of studies documented the existence of
project-based organizations comprising a heterogeneous set of projects, for
example, in terms of scale, importance, technical content etc. (Elonen and
Artto, 2003; Engwall, 2003; Engwall and Jerbrant, 2003; Freilich, 2015;
Geraldi, 2009; Jerbrant, 2009). A typical example might include a Project
Management Office (PMO) carrying out a wide range of organizational
renewal initiatives. Thus, the homogeneity assumption of the literature on
PBOs is not universally valid.
5
On the second point, the literature does contain some examples where the
inclusion of projects as a unit of analysis and/or questioning some of the
assumptions outlined above provided novel insights for the dynamics of the
project-based operations as a whole. Indeed, the contextual differences
between projects executed within the same PBO can explain the effectiveness
of different management approaches (Engwall, 2003). The existence of
different types of complexity in projects (Geraldi et al., 2011; Geraldi and
Adlbrecht, 2007) as well as different types of projects in the portfolio affect
organizational design of the project-based firm since “such heterogeneity
demands structures with different degrees of flexibility” (Geraldi, 2008, p.
349). Heterogeneity of projects can also be instrumental in explaining failures
of introduction of new management practices in the PBO context (Bresnen
et al., 2004). Moreover, the multi-level perspective informs our understanding
of learning within the PBO (Prencipe and Tell, 2001). At a higher level of
abstraction, there is a growing trend of explaining phenomena in the fields of
strategic management and organization theory by utilizing constructs at a
lower level of analysis and/or building upon methodological individualism
(Felin et al., 2015).
Therefore, the importance of understanding project operations dynamics and
its implications in the context of the PBO is supported by theoretical and
methodological arguments. Persistence in neglecting factors that shape
project-based operations might lead to building theories of the project-based
organization upon contestable assumptions and having a number of negative
consequences, such as poor design choices, challenges in introducing new
management practices (Bresnen et al., 2004) or misfits in management
approaches (Engwall, 2003).
To conclude, in spite of some scholars positing that project-based
organization has to be studied as a multi-dimensional and multi-level
phenomenon (Söderlund et al., 2014; Sydow et al., 2004), the operational level
(i.e., the level of projects and groups of projects) is not sufficiently addressed
within the scholarly discussion of project-based organizations. This appears
to be both unjustified and detrimental to understanding of project-based
organization dynamics.
6
1.3. Research purpose and research questions
The overall purpose of this thesis is to explore how project-based operations
are shaped in the setting of the PBO.
Management scholars have long recognized the importance of content,
context and social processes for understanding organizational dynamics
(Pettigrew, 1987). Along the same lines, a number of studies corroborated the
importance of these aspects within the realm of projects and project-based
management (cf. Blomquist and Packendorff, 1998). In particular, the
intrinsic characteristics of projects (i.e., project content) play an important
role as explanatory variables within the contingency stream of project
management (Hanisch and Wald, 2012; Sauser et al., 2009; Shenhar, 2001;
Shenhar and Dvir, 1996). At the same time, projects are embedded in their
organizational and wider institutional contexts (Engwall, 2003; Grabher,
2004; Morris and Geraldi, 2011). Within the contextual stream of the
literature, a number of studies have shown the influence of such
embeddedness on interior project processes and project outcomes (Bakker,
2010). Along the same vein, context has also been recognized as an important
determinant of practices at the level of project collections, such as programs
and portfolios (Martinsuo, 2013; Pellegrinelli et al., 2007). Finally, project
researchers are increasingly cognizant of the importance of intra-
organizational social interactions and their effects on organizational outcomes
of project-based organizations, such as those of learning and performance
(Bartsch et al., 2013; Di Vincenzo and Mascia, 2012; Prencipe and Tell, 2001).
7
Building on these threads in the literature, this study investigates three
particular dimensions: the content, context, and social processes. Specifically,
it aims to answer three research questions (RQs) within the setting of the
project-based organization:
RQ1: How are project-based operations shaped by their content?
RQ2: How are project-based operations shaped by their context?
RQ3: How are project-based operations shaped by the social processes?
1.4. Structure of the thesis
Following the Introduction, Chapter 2 presents the theoretical background of
the study. In particular, it commences by discussing the state-of-the art of
research on project-based organizations and the underlying premises of the
literature. It highlights contestable assumptions about projects in the
discussion of project-based operations, and reviews studies which benefited
from a multi-level inquiry. Finally, it briefly discusses factors that could affect
the operational level of the PBO based on extant literature. Chapter 3
discusses the overall research design of the thesis and describes the data
collection and analysis. Chapter 4 summarizes the four appended papers and
provides an overview of the author’s contribution to each of the papers.
Chapter 5 synthesizes the paper results to answer the research questions
outlined in the Introduction. In Chapter 6, the thesis results are put in a
broader context by discussing the theoretical and managerial implications of
the findings. Chapter 7 recapitulates the thesis and restates its theoretical
contribution. Finally, the appended papers comprise an integral part of the
compilation thesis. The structure of the thesis is summarized in Figure 1.
8
Figure 1. Structure of the thesis
*OTD – Organization Theory and Design
9
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Project-based organization
The project-based organization has become an indispensable organizational
form in the present-day economy (Lundin et al., 2015; Whittington et al.,
1999). Specific factors that determine the wide dissemination of project-based
organizational logic include its suitability for customized operations (Hobday,
2000), ability to integrate diverse knowledge and skill sets (Hedlund, 1994),
its adaptation, exploration and experimentation capacity (Brown and
Eisenhardt, 1997; Lindkvist, 2008; Siggelkow and Levinthal, 2003), the time-
based nature of competition in many markets, and the existence of strong
performance incentives in smaller, “molecular” organizational units (Zenger
and Hesterly, 1997). Moreover, project-based organizations provide an
opportunity for infusing market elements of governance into hierarchies and
vice versa (Lindkvist, 2004; Zenger and Hesterly, 1997), exploiting advantages
of both traditional modes of governance. Accordingly, introduction of
project-based management as an organizational innovation is driven both by
internal complexity of operations and external competitive and institutional
pressure (Martinsuo et al., 2006).
The project-based form of organizing is not a panacea though, as it entails a
number of distinct challenges. Specifically, the temporal character of projects
poses strong challenges to long-term organizational learning, knowledge
management and innovation (Davies and Hobday, 2005; DeFillippi, 2001;
Keegan and Turner, 2002; Prencipe and Tell, 2001; Sydow et al., 2004).
Additionally, a multi-project environment creates conditions for a fierce
competition over limited organizational resources (Engwall and Jerbrant,
2003), tensions with line functions due to incompatibility of the permanent
and temporary organizational logics and principles (Arvidsson, 2009), and
psychologically stressful work conditions (Palm and Lindahl, 2015; Zika-
Viktorsson et al., 2006). On top of it, the complex political landscape of a
project-based organization can jeopardize implementation of new
management practices and thus hinder organizational renewal (Bresnen et al.,
2004).
10
To complicate the matter further, project-based forms of organization are
examined in the literature under various conceptual terms, such as project-
based organization (Hobday, 2000; Turner and Keegan, 2001; Lundin et al.,
2015), multi-project organization (Canonico and Söderlund, 2010), multi-
project firm (Geraldi, 2009, 2008), projectified matrix organization
(Arvidsson, 2009), project-based firm (Artto and Kujala, 2008; Lindkvist,
2004; Whitley, 2006), multi-project environment (Eskerod, 1996), and
project-oriented company (Gareis, 1991), to name a few.
The differences are not solely linguistic, as project-based organizational
structures exist in a rich variety of forms and configurations (Cattani et al.,
2011; Hobday, 2000; Whitley, 2006). Probably the most common approach is
to draw a distinction between the organizational forms based on the
distribution of decision-making authority among projects and functional units
(Galbraith, 1971; Larson and Gobeli, 1988; Wheelwright and Clark, 1992).
For example, Hobday (2000) distinguishes between project-led and project-
based organizations based on the role played by projects. While in project-
based organizations most internal and external activities are structured as
projects, in project-led organizations they play an important supporting role
in largely non-project-based productive activities. Similarly, the degree to
which projects represent key organizational activities is central to many
classifications. Arvidsson (2009) differentiates between project-based
organizations, relying on projects as sources of revenues, and project-oriented
organizations, where revenues are generated by permanent structures and
processes that are supported by projects. Along the same line, Turner and
Keegan (2001) make a distinction between the project-based organizations
where projects are used to supply bespoke products and services to external
customers (Type 1), and the ones where they play a supporting role to a
mainly routine core business (Type 2). In another typology, Whitley (2006)
proposes four distinct project-based forms of organization, differentiating
between them based on the singularity of goals and outputs and the separation
and stability of work roles. Recently, by conducting a comprehensive review
of these and other sources, Lundin et al. (2015) have introduced project-based
organizations (PBOs) as the ones delivering projects as their business, and
contrasted them with project-supported organizations (PSOs) which
11
increasingly rely on projects in the traditional, internal parts of their
organization.
While acknowledging this diversity, this thesis follows more inclusive
definitions by Lindkvist (2004) and Canonico and Söderlund (2010). Thus,
this thesis defines the project-based organization as one which organizes most
of its activities by projects. It can represent either a firm delivering projects
to external customers or a project-based organizational unit within a larger
firm (e.g., Canonico & Söderlund, 2010; Fricke & Shenhar, 2000).
2.2. Projects in the PBO discourse
Somewhat counterintuitively, projects receive limited attention in the
literature on project-based organizations. On one hand, projects are often
included in conceptual or empirical analysis by the scholars emphasizing the
multi-level nature of the project-based organization (Biesenthal and Wilden,
2014; Loufrani-Fedida and Saglietto, 2016; Müller, 2016; Pemsel et al., 2016;
Prencipe and Tell, 2001). On the other hand, the literature carries a number
of implicit questionable assumptions about the nature of projects populating
a PBO, with important consequences for the range of theories utilized by
researchers to explore the intra-organizational processes and the validity of
the resulting models of the PBO.
Specifically, the PBO literature predominantly views projects as
homogeneous, interchangeable atomic units without internal structure or
dynamics, obediently following orders of the parent organizations. They are
viewed as localized practices or specific processes or devices to deliver tasks,
rather than temporary organizations (cf. Lundin and Söderholm, 1995;
Packendorff, 1995). Consequently, organizational properties of projects are
neglected in the discourse. The lack of attention to the organizational
properties of projects has three important implications for extant theorizing
on the PBO.
First, it contributes to a narrower range of theories utilized to explain intra-
organizational dynamics of the PBO. For example, the emphasis is often on
theories such as agency and Transaction Cost Economics (Müller, 2009) in
12
order to explain organization-project interaction, whereas organization
theories, including contingency and institutional theory, are rarely applied to
explain phenomena at the operational level within the PBO (for some
exceptions, see Bergman et al., 2013; Engwall, 2003).
Second, it leads to an implicit assumption of the homogeneity of projects
within a single PBO. Indeed, if projects are atomic units, they can then be
more readily viewed as similar and interchangeable. This consideration, in
turn, results in the focus on standardized management approaches and
arrangements within the PBO (Ahola et al., 2014).
Third, it is conductive to the view that projects are obedient servants of the
parent organization (Artto et al., 2008). In particular, PBOs are often
conceptualized as rational systems set up for making decisions at the level of
the parent organization and ensuring that they are fulfilled at the level of
project-based operations, with the overarching aim of achieving efficiency
and strategic alignment (Morris & Jamieson, 2005).
There are, however, important exceptions to this view that pay attention to
the organizational properties of projects or reject some of the assumptions
summarized above. Specifically, the assumption of homogeneity of projects
has been challenged in the literature. For example, by distinguishing between
vanguard and subsequent exploitation projects, Brady and Davies (2004)
provided important insights into project capability building when moving into
a new technological or market base. In a similar vein, heterogeneity of projects
can be instrumental in explaining failures of introduction of new management
practices in the PBO context (Bresnen et al., 2004). Accordingly, zooming in
on projects as organizational entities can help in explaining the effectiveness
of different management approaches in terms of organizational context and
history (Engwall, 2003), or in suggesting a novel conceptualization of the
PBO as a loosely-coupled system with important implications for
understanding the organizational dynamics of the PBO (Bergman et al., 2013).
In line with the discussion presented above, this thesis builds on studies that
acknowledge heterogeneity of projects within the PBO and treat them as
13
organizations (Bergman et al., 2013; Lundin and Söderholm, 1995), rather
than a distinct type of operational processes.
2.3. Factors shaping project-based operations
Project-based operations is a term which is commonly used yet rarely defined.
Recently, it has been defined as a type of operations characterized by low-
medium volume and medium-high variety (Maylor et al., 2015, p.106), or
simply described in terms of the steps constituting a typical process from
winning the customer’s order to maintaining support after delivery (Turner
and Keegan, 2000). In this thesis, the concept of project-based operations is
defined more broadly as operational activities that are deliberately structured
in projects and their collections, and managed by applying PM tools. In that
sense, project-based operations do not represent an objective reality inevitably
stemming from the nature of the output and process of operations, but rather
they reflect the framing of the phenomenon by managers and researchers.
For two decades now, the contingency stream within the project management
literature has recognized the importance of addressing project characteristics
and their influence on appropriate management approaches (Engwall, 2003;
Dvir et al., 1998; Howell et al., 2010; Lindkvist et al., 1998; Pich et al., 2002;
Sauser et al., 2009; Shenhar, 2001; Shenhar and Dvir, 1996). In a recent study,
Howell et al. (2010) identified five groups of project contingency factors in
the literature: uncertainty, complexity (as “the degree of differentiation and
interdependence of project elements” (ibid, p. 258)), team empowerment,
criticality, and urgency. Even though the contingency perspective at the multi-
project level is less developed (Howell et al., 2010), some relevant
contributions come from contingency studies of management control in
multi-project organizations (Canonico and Söderlund, 2010), portfolio
management (Martinsuo, 2013), as well as studies highlighting specific aspects
of project governance, such as its relation to knowledge integration
(Lindkvist, 2011).
Furthermore, within the project contingency research, scholars of the
environmental stream, such as Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), Mintzberg
(1979), and Thompson (1967), provide a theoretical foundation for the
14
studies (Hanisch and Wald, 2012). As a result, “the contingency factors
environmental uncertainty and the organization surrounding the temporary
organization attract the most attention” (ibid, p. 12). In the same vein, the
complexity and dynamism of project environment has been identified as an
important factor for adopting appropriate governance approaches and
management tools (Locatelli et al., 2014; Taxén and Lilliesköld, 2008). With
many important exceptions (Lindkvist et al., 1998; Shenhar and Dvir, 2007;
Turner and Cochrane, 1993), intrinsic factors, such as those related to
characteristics of the project task, are less explored as possible contingency
variables. For example, the factors identified by Howell et al. (2010) are in
line with the environmental orientation of project contingency theory and
show some neglect for the technology perspective and the ways in which
actual project work is done. It should be noted though, that the overlooking
of actual work is not a unique feature of the project management research
(Barley and Kunda, 2001).
At the same time, history along with organizational and wider institutional
contexts has strong effects on management of projects within the PBO
(Engwall, 2003; Grabher, 2004). Besides the influence of such embeddedness
on interior project processes and project outcomes (Bakker, 2010), it is also
related to long-term learning and knowledge management at the level of
parent organization (Cacciatori, 2008; Grabher, 2004; Grabher and Ibert,
2011; Prencipe and Tell, 2001). Such embeddedness also results in continuity
of project roles across subsequent projects (Bechky, 2006). Along the same
lines, the organizational context has also been recognized as an important
factor affecting project collections, such as programs and portfolios
(Martinsuo, 2013; Pellegrinelli et al., 2007).
Finally, project researchers are increasingly cognizant of the importance of
intra- and inter-organizational social interactions and their role as
determinants of project outcomes. For example, Ferriani et al. (2009)
identified that the degree of centrality in the social network is positively
associated with the performance of project-entrepreneurs. Moreover, the
social capital reflected in intra-organizational social ties of project team
members has been positively associated with learning (Bartsch et al., 2013), as
15
well as knowledge integration and performance (Di Vincenzo and Mascia,
2012; Prencipe and Tell, 2001).
To summarize, the extant literature, when focusing on projects as separate
units of analysis, indicates the importance of project characteristics, context
embeddedness, and social interactions as the determinants of project
management arrangements. Taking this as a point of departure, the thesis
investigates how these three dimensions affect project-based operations, and
discusses the implications for management of the PBO.
17
3. Research approach and methodology
This chapter addresses the methodology followed to answer the research
questions and discusses the related research design choices. Upon introducing
the overall research design in the first section, the chapter provides details of
two research studies constituting the backbone of the thesis in two following
sections. In particular, it provides a discussion of the research design, data
collection and analysis, measures taken to support reliability and validity of
the results, and limitations of each of the studies.
3.1. Overall research design
The nature of the compilation PhD thesis has a bearing on methodological
issues. Each appended paper follows its own research method to answer
paper-specific research questions. Table 1 provides a summary of methods
employed in the appended papers, including the details of research
methodology, the theoretical perspective taken, and the correspondence
between the papers’ research questions and the research questions of the
thesis. This section discusses overall research approach of the thesis as a
whole at a more aggregate level, without delving into particular issues of data
collection and analysis pertinent to the separate papers.
It is important to conceive and study the project-based organization as a
multi-level and multi-dimensional phenomenon (Hällgren and Lindahl, 2012;
Pemsel et al., 2016; Söderlund et al., 2014). Following this call, the papers
included in the compilation thesis focused on two different levels of analysis.
While some papers focused on the level of a project or a collection of projects,
others focused on the level of the parent organization as a whole. The
approach spanning several levels within the PBO allowed assessing both the
higher-level intentions behind the arrangements utilized in order to organize
certain activities, and the work content affecting the efficacy of the
arrangements. Moreover, this approach allowed comparing the perspectives
of the actors at different levels in the PBO with regard to the arrangements.
The papers included in the thesis employed different specific units of analysis,
such as management competence areas or isomorphic mechanisms. At the
18
same time, the overall unit of analysis for the thesis is project-based
operations within the project-based organization.
The overall research approach of the thesis had a significant inductive
component and can be viewed as “abductive” (Dubois and Gadde, 2002),
which means that no specific hypotheses were formulated based on extant
literature prior to commencing data collection. Instead, the initial intention
was to gain an in-depth understanding of project-based operations and factors
affecting various intra-organizational governance arrangements (in a broad
sense). The explorative character of research is in line with the identified
theoretical problem of overlooking projects as organizational entities in the
discourse on PBOs. However, the research was not purely inductive. First,
the PhD candidate has brought various preconceptions based on prior
professional experience, as well as ideas from the initial review of the
literature, into the research process (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2009).
Additionally, the research process involved iterative interactions between
theory and the data (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007).
In line with the multi-level and abductive nature of the research, the thesis
builds on two principal research studies: an in-depth ethnography-inspired
case study (Study A), and a structured literature review (Study B). As shown
in Table 1, Study A resulted in Paper I and Paper II, while Paper III and Paper
IV were based on the data collected in Study B.
The case study strategy employed in Study A was particularly suitable for
pursuing an in-depth understanding of complex social phenomena
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Siggelkow, 2007; Yin, 2009). The data was collected using
multiple techniques and analyzed qualitatively. Each paper followed its own
process of data categorization. The data was not used for generalization in the
statistical sense, rather for understanding and theory-building (Eisenhardt and
Graebner, 2007; Flyvbjerg, 2006; Yin, 2009). The two following sections
provide more details about the research studies.
Another feature of the research design is theory triangulation (Denzin, 2006).
The appended papers highlighted different aspects of the empirical
phenomenon borrowing from a range of perspectives within organization
19
theory and design, with an emphasis on contingency and new institutionalism
in organizational analysis. Using various theoretical lenses to explore the
phenomenon strengthened the validity of the findings (Yin, 2009), since
tensions and contradictions between rival explanations provide a more
complete view of a phenomenon (Brady and Maylor, 2010; Poole and Van de
Ven, 1989).
3.2. Study A: “Insider” case study
Research design
Study A had an insider-outsider design (Bartunek and Louis, 1996). The PhD
candidate was acting as an insider, closely following the company managers
in accordance with the ethnographically inspired approach (Fetterman, 2010).
The case study lasted from September 2013 to July 2014. The most intense
data collection period occurred over four months (October 2013 – January
2014), with additional sporadic interactions both before and after the active
phase. During the active phase, the PhD candidate had a desk at the company
office and access to the facilities, permitting him to observe employees in their
work environment and interact freely with them. In turn, the supervisors
contributed with external observations from a distance, acting as outsiders
(Bartunek and Louis, 1996). The insider and the outsiders held a number of
meetings to discuss their observations, ideas and plans for further empirical
work.
The rationale for a single case study in this research is the representative or
typical case (Yin, 2009). In particular, the case organization needed to fulfil
two criteria to be selected: (1) to execute a major part of its activities by
projects (either a project business (Davies and Hobday, 2005) or a project-
based unit of a large company (Canonico & Söderlund, 2010)), (2) to be large
enough to run many projects and allow variation in their characteristics.
Further, the study employed an embedded case study design (Yin, 2009), as it
addressed several units of analysis within the PBO.
20
Table 1. Summary of methods in the appended papers
Paper I Paper II Paper III Paper IV
Topic Exploring program management
competences for different programs
Exploring isomorphic mechanisms within the
PBO
Evaluating the state-of-the-art of research on PBOs by applying an organization design perspective
Developing a model for the PBO design
Level of analysis
Project-based operations
Parent organization & project-based operations
Parent organization Parent organization & project-based operations
Unit of analysis
Management competence areas
Isomorphic mechanisms Organization design dimensions Organization design dimensions
Research study
Study A: Case study
Study B: Structured literature review
Specific research approach
In-depth ethnography-inspired single case
study
In-depth ethnography-inspired single case study
Framework-based literature review
Conceptual reasoning & Framework-based literature review
Theoretical perspective
Contingency Institutional Org. theory and design (several research streams)
Org. theory and design (several research streams)
Research Questions (RQs) in the papers
Q1. How are various competence areas associated with successful program management for different program types?
Q1. How are various aspects of project organization design shaped in the PBO?
Q1. What are the key dimensions of the design of the PBO in the PM literature? Q2. Which dimensions and research themes receive most and least attention in the PM literature? Q3. To what extent does the literature consider interdependencies of separate organization design dimensions?
Q1. What design choices are available for the design of the PBO? Q2. What factors influence the selection of design choices?
Related RQs of the thesis
RQ1, RQ2 RQ2, RQ3 RQ1, RQ2 RQ1, RQ2
21
A brief overview of the empirical setting
The study was conducted as an in-depth case study at the Operations division
of a major pharmaceutical company. The project work in the division was
managed separately in different organizational units. While the company as a
whole can be best described as a project-supported organization (see Lundin
et al., 2015), these organizational units were clearly project-based. The units
covered by the study included the ones connected to the areas of new product
development, manufacturing, and supply chain. Most of the interviews were
conducted in relation to the latter unit, while the data on new product
development and manufacturing units provided a wider overview of the
organizational setting, allowing for cross-unit comparisons. Within the supply
chain unit, program management approach had been used for a range of
change initiatives within the company. Consequently, the study mainly
concentrated on the program level with some additional insights coming from
other relevant sources such as project or portfolio managers, as well as
program sponsors.
The case covered a range of different projects and programs. The set of
initiatives included supply chain reconfiguration, regulatory compliance, ERP
implementation, establishing alliances with other pharmaceutical companies,
and new market entry (including building new large-scale plants). The broad
geographical coverage of the projects and programs (including Asia, North
America, Europe, and North Africa) represented a distinct feature of the
operations.
Data collection
Throughout the study, the data on a range of management and governance
arrangements was collected, including structures, such as steering committees,
and the way they work; control mechanisms, such as special audit groups;
rules and policies, such as the program prioritization framework, program
management guide, and integrated framework of project and program
assurance; roles, for example, division of the decision-making authority
between project managers, program manager, and the steering group; and
22
practices, for example, project management methodologies applied, and to
what extent they were followed.
In order to acquire a comprehensive view on the subject and to enhance the
study’s validity (Yin, 2009), several data collection methods were utilized,
namely, semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and participant
observations. The data collected during the study is summarized in Table 2.
The study incorporated extensive participant observations of the
organization’s everyday routines, management meetings and informal
communication. The PhD candidate spent 30 full working days of participant
observations at the company’s head office during the four most active months
of the study (in total around 240 hours of participant observations). Every
day spent on site resulted in field notes, with one to four pages of bullet point
quotes and notes on informal interactions with the staff and subsequent
related reflections. The participant observation comprised seven management
meetings lasting between 1.5 and 4 hours, including two ordinary work
meetings for two programs and five division-wide meetings on the
development of program management capability. Additionally, the
introductory meetings with the managers where the scope of research
activities was discussed provided additional data. The findings drawn from
this extensive data were confirmed by the Company’s managers during several
interim presentations and two worldwide webinars conducted by the PhD
Candidate.
Semi-structured interviews also represented an important source of data. The
initial set of programs and respective interviewees was identified together with
the Company representatives, ensuring representation of a wide range of
programs in terms of types of missions and geographical locations. Later on
in the process, the interviewees were asked to provide further contacts to
reduce the initial selection bias. In total, 19 semi-structured interviews were
conducted with program managers, program sponsors, project and portfolio
managers, and other actors. The interviews lasted on average slightly over one
hour, with the exception of the interviews at the executive level, which lasted
between 30 and 40 minutes.
23
The interviews were complemented with the analysis of two broad document
categories: program-specific and general. The first category included internal
audit reports, overview presentations, internal organization and escalation
matrices, lessons learned and program management tools, such as risk logs.
The second category included the internal guidelines and frameworks for the
project, program and portfolio management within the unit and across the
Company.
Table 2. Summary of data collection in the case study
Data collection method
Data collected
Semi-structured interviews
19 interviews with program managers and other relevant actors (e.g., program sponsors, portfolio managers, project managers). Average duration was slightly over one hour.
Participant observations
The PhD student spent 2-3 days per week at the company office conducting participant observations:
30 days (approx. 240 hours) of participant observations
7 formal management meetings (lasting between 1.5 and 4 hours each)
Extensive informal communication
Field notes for each of the days spent on site
Documents analysis In total, more than 30 documents:
Internal program documents (internal audit reports, overview presentations, internal organization and escalation matrices, lessons learned, and program management tools)
Organization-wide guidelines and frameworks for project, program and portfolio management
Other 7 research-related meetings with managers:
Two kick-off meetings
Three interim presentation and feedback meetings
Two global webinars with Q&A sessions on the research results
24
Data analysis
The data analysis for both papers that emerged from Study A followed the
overall logic of a process which could be metaphorically labeled as an
application of a method theory to a domain theory (Lukka and Vinnari, 2014).
A domain theory here refers to a certain set of knowledge on a specific topic,
while a method theory corresponds to a “meta-level conceptual system,”
which is useful to study the domain theory (ibid, p. 1309). In Paper I the
domain theory represented the literature on program management
competences, while the method theory was the contingency perspective. In
Paper II, the domain theory represented the literature addressing organization
design choices at the project level within the PBO, while the new
institutionalism within organizational analysis played the role of the method
theory.
The collected data was analyzed qualitatively through pattern matching,
allowing the relating of concepts from the domain theory and method theory.
Each paper followed its own process of data categorization, which is
described in the respective papers in more detail. The data was not used for
the generalization in the statistical sense at this stage, rather for understanding
and theory-building (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007; Flyvbjerg, 2006).
The validity and reliability of the findings were corroborated by several means,
which are discussed in the appended papers in more detail. First, the data
allowed for triangulation, using various sources and data collection techniques
(Yin, 2009). Second, the conclusions drawn from the data were validated with
the company’s managers during several workshops and worldwide webinars
at the company. Minor corrections were made based on the comments
received during these meetings. However, the papers’ coauthors assumed the
responsibility for the final interpretation.
25
3.3. Limitations of Study A
The main limitation of the study is related to the extent of generalizability of
its findings. In particular, the empirical foundation of the thesis represents an
in-depth insider embedded case study. This might potentially represent a
challenge to the generalizability, as the differences in the organizational
context have been found to have significant effects on the project-based
operations (Martinsuo, 2013; Müller et al., 2008; Pellegrinelli et al., 2007).
Some scholars even hold a view that such contextual differences, for example,
based on the industrial sector, might justify a different set of appropriate
approaches to theorizing about PM phenomena (Artto et al., 2017). While
such concerns should be taken seriously, they do not undermine the
importance of an in-depth qualitative investigation of a social phenomenon,
and the theory-building opportunities that it provides (Barley, 2006;
Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2009).
Thus, the thesis does not claim generalizability of the findings in any statistical
sense. However, it does aim to achieve analytic generalization, that is “to
expand and generalize theories… and not to enumerate frequencies” (Yin,
2009, p. 15). Nonetheless, there are reasons to believe that the conclusions
established in the case might be valid for other PBOs. For example, the
projects and programs investigated within the embedded case study
represented a diverse sample in terms of the technical content and cultural
context (see Paper I), supporting the validity of the findings. Further, the
highly regulated context of the pharmaceutical industry and the culture of
compliance might have amplified the strength of isomorphic processes (see
Paper II). However, there are no reasons to believe that the identified
relationships would be absent in a different PBO. On the contrary, the diverse
set of investigated entities makes us expect even stronger isomorphism in
more homogeneous PBOs, such as within a construction company or a
consulting company. Indeed, existing empirical studies carried out in the
construction industry seem to support this view (Ekstedt et al., 1992;
Kadefors, 1995).
Nevertheless, the thesis propositions need to be validated in further empirical
studies to achieve generalizability. In particular, it would be promising to use
26
a multiple case study or a survey methodology across various industrial
sectors.
Another limitation of the study is related to its relatively short duration, with
the most intensive data collection being carried out within four months. This
time span allowed observation of certain changes in organizing project-based
operations, such as the introduction of new management arrangements.
However, it was not enough to evaluate the long-term effects of the changes.
Additionally, the social structure remained relatively stable over the
observation period. This has limited the ability to investigate the explanatory
power of social processes as a determinant of the project-based operations’
arrangements. Thus, future studies on the topic might benefit from a
longitudinal approach.
3.4. Study B: Structured literature review
Overall approach
Study B was based on a specific structured literature review approach that has
been defined as a framework-based review for understanding (Rowe, 2014),
which is similar to a perspectival literature review (Schryen et al., 2015). The
approach rests on utilizing a conceptual framework to conduct literature
selection and analysis (e.g., Kappos and Rivard, 2008). By adopting a new
perspective as a synthesizing tool, the approach aims to contribute to a
knowledge domain with a novel interpretation of an extant literature (Schryen
et al., 2015). This is achieved “by applying new angles or different macro-
concepts that enable a view which has not previously been explicated”
(Schryen et al., 2015, p. 4). The application of this structured framework-
based approach is becoming popular in various areas of management research
(Besson and Rowe, 2012; Brown and Grant, 2005; Burgess et al., 2006;
Jasperson et al., 2002; Welch and Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, 2014).
The framework-based literature review has a number of distinct features.
First, it emphasizes the role of a conceptual framework and its elements for
identifying knowledge gaps and various preconceptions in the literature
(Besson and Rowe, 2012; Rowe, 2014). Suggesting a novel interpretation of
27
the literature often represents an important outcome of the approach
(Schryen et al., 2015). In particular, applying a conceptual framework enables
synthesizing literature via “abstracting in order to classify and make sense of
sets of research pieces within broad categories, which deal with similar
problems at a certain level” (Rowe, 2014, p. 248). Consequently, instead of
providing a detailed account of individual contributions, the approach puts
an emphasis on the analytical categories and their interrelationship. For that
reason, the framework-based approach is often based on a systematic
literature review (Rowe, 2014).
Second, the approach aims to make a distinct contribution to the literature by
externalizing existing knowledge and by explicitly framing it as a different
theoretical problem (Schryen et al., 2015). Specifically, in case of Study B,
such novelty is related to discussing a theoretical problem of the design of the
project-based organization. Therefore, the study goes beyond reviewing and
recapitulating the literature. In addition to the adoption of a new perspective
itself, framework-based reviews can also contribute to the literature by
identifying research gaps or by a suggesting a research agenda (Schryen et al.,
2015).
Finally, the framework-based review aiming at theoretical understanding
required medium level of systematicity in terms of the inclusion criteria and
quality assessment (Rowe, 2014). Since in this case the focus was on
suggesting a new interpretation, rather than on presenting a detailed account
of separate contributions in the literature, the review entailed a reasonable
rather than a comprehensive coverage, without compromising its
contribution (Rowe, 2014). Moreover, in the case of a multi-faceted research
topic, where the key concepts and research themes are not known upfront, a
keywords-based systematic literature review could have resulted in omitting
important research themes.
The following two sub-sections describe the steps that were taken to identify
and analyze the papers.
28
Literature sample
This section presents a rationale for the methodological choices made in order
to reach the final sample of papers for the analysis. These choices were related
to the choice of journals, the approach to identify individual papers from the
journals, and the time horizon.
In order to select journals for the analysis, the existing literature reviews in
the field of PM were consulted. Three journals, i.e., International Journal of
Project Management, Project Management Journal and International Journal
of Managing Projects in Business, appeared to hold leading positions as
specialized PM journals. According to Ahola et al. (2014, p. 1322), “these
three journals are widely recognized as leading outlets for publishing project-
specific academic research.” Similarly, Turner et al. (2011) suggested
International Journal of Project Management, Project Management Journal
and the IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management as the three major
journals in the field, while the International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business was new when they were writing. The inclusion of the IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management as an important journal for the
sample is also justified by the fact that it has been an outlet for influential
papers on PM for the past 30 years (Larson and Gobeli, 1989; Lechler and
Dvir, 2010; Müller et al., 2012; Pinto and Mantel, 1990; Shenhar, 1998;
Williams, 2008). Combining the two lists, four peer-reviewed academic
journals in the project management field were selected for the study:
The International Journal of Project Management, (IJPM)
The Project Management Journal, (PMJ)
The project management division of the IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, (IEEE TEM)
The International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,
(IJMPiB)
29
While limiting the sample to four journals excluded some important
contributions, it is believed to fit the purpose of the study. First, it allowed
characterizing the specialized project-specific literature, which is useful per se.
Second, it was aligned with the chosen approach of selecting individual papers
as explained below.
The approach of identifying individual papers for the sample was designed
taking into account the multifaceted character of the research on the topic of
the design of the project-based organization. In particular, since a rich variety
of concepts are being used to discuss, for example, organizational
arrangements in the realm of PBOs, employing a literature search based on a
(limited) predefined set of keywords was considered inappropriate.
Consequently, in order to identify an inclusive sample of papers, all issues
published in the journals were examined one by one.
In order to define the time horizon for the study, it was taken into account
that Artto and Kujala (2008) published a comprehensive review of the current
state of project business research in 2008, which focused on the management
of a project-based firm as a key research area. Thus, in order to review the
most recent literature on the topic to allow for comparisons, the time horizon
for the review included eight years between 2008 and 2015 (Study B was
conducted in the end of 2015).
To summarize, Study B reviewed project management literature dating from
2008, in order to identify papers related to the design of the project-based
organization. The journal sample included four leading peer-reviewed
academic journals on PM, for which the coauthors of Papers III & IV selected
all articles that were considered relevant to the topic of the management
and/or design of PBOs. The final sample of papers was formed by merging
the lists of papers collected individually by the researchers. As a result, 177
papers were identified for further review and analysis.
30
Literature review and analysis
Paper analysis comprised four steps. First, simultaneously with the paper
selection process, the coauthors assessed the papers independently. For each
paper, the bibliographic data, major results, key dimensions or mechanisms
studied, which organization design dimensions of the conceptual framework
the paper considered, and the research focus regarding the dimensions were
recorded. The entries were organized as a concept matrix (Webster and
Watson, 2002). In particular, the list of the sampled papers was put in the first
column, while the selected organization design dimensions represented the
headings of the remaining columns. In order to fill out the concept matrix,
the coauthors recorded the specific research themes for each of the
organization design dimensions addressed in the papers. At this stage, the
themes were formulated by the coauthors idiosyncratically, in their own
words.
Second, four working sessions were organized. At these sessions, the
coauthors jointly scrutinized the combined list of papers in order to: (1)
discuss all issues and finalize the sample, (2) discuss the initial categorization
of the papers based on the dimensions they addressed, and (3) develop a
common set of research themes covered in the papers. The process was
iterative in nature and aimed at reducing the effect of individual biases.
Overall, this step resulted in a table of 177 articles classified according to a set
of the identified 35 research themes. Based on the table the coauthors mapped
most common research themes into the organization design framework.
Third, the coauthors carried out a descriptive analysis of the sample. In
particular, they identified the number of appearances of each organization
design dimension and research theme in the paper sample as a proxy for
relative development of the research direction. Then, the coauthors analyzed
the sample based on the number of design dimensions covered by the papers
in order to determine how holistic the papers were. Finally, an in-depth
qualitative analysis of the most holistic papers was performed. Overall, the
analysis achieved the purpose of identifying organization design dimensions
for the PBO.
31
3.5. Limitations of Study B
The most important limitation of Study B is related to the choice of the
academic outlets for the analysis. As it can be seen from the Introduction and
the Theoretical background chapters of this thesis, many relevant
contributions related to the management of the PBO as a whole appeared in
general management, innovation and organization theory journals. Some
examples of reputed journals which occasionally publish papers on the topic
of PBO include Research Policy, Organization Studies, Long Range Planning,
and Scandinavian Journal of Management, among others. It is understood
that an inclusion of contributions from these journals in the sample would
result in a more comprehensive coverage. Nevertheless, it is believed that the
chosen sample allowed for covering most of the relevant contributions, since
project-related publications in general management journals are still relatively
scarce (Bakker, 2010). Also, the choice of specialized PM journals for the
study allowed for characterizing the research done in the community of PM
scholars, rather than organization theory scholars interested in the project-
based form as an empirical setting.
In addition, the study involved certain subjective choices made by the
coauthors. These include choosing the Galbraith’s Star model as the analytical
framework for the analysis and classifying the papers according to the
organization design dimensions they covered. In particular, the classification
process included a subjective evaluation of whether a paper is addressing a
dimension in-depth or just referring to it. While, as discussed in the previous
section, certain steps were taken to reduce such bias, the final set of identified
research themes still represents the outcome of an interpretative process.
Nevertheless, the implications of the study are believed to be robust, since
they were drawn from the analysis of a large sample of the papers, and
changes in the classification of the individual papers are unlikely to affect the
general conclusions.
33
4. Summary of the appended papers
This chapter briefly presents the summaries of the four appended papers. The
distribution of work among the authors for each paper is described in Table
3.
Table 3. Authors’ contributions to the appended papers
Paper Order of authors
Authors’ contribution
I Miterev, Engwall, Jerbrant
The study design was carried out by Miterev and Jerbrant. Miterev collected and analyzed the data, while Engwall and Jerbrant contributed with their reflections. The paper was mainly co-written by Miterev and Engwall, with Miterev as the main contributor. Jerbrant contributed valuable ideas during the discussions.
II Miterev As a single author, Miterev conceived the study, collected and analyzed the data and wrote the paper. The work was carried out under supervision of Engwall and Jerbrant, who contributed valuable ideas.
III Miterev, Turner, Mancini
Planning was carried out by all authors based on an idea proposed by Miterev. Turner and Miterev equally contributed to the data collection and analysis. The paper was mainly co-written by Miterev and Turner, with Miterev as the main contributor. Mancini contributed valuable ideas during the discussions.
IV Miterev, Mancini, Turner
Planning was carried out by all authors based on an idea proposed by Miterev. Turner and Miterev equally contributed to the data collection and analysis. The paper was mainly co-written by Miterev and Turner. Mancini contributed valuable ideas during the discussions.
34
Paper I
Purpose – The purpose of this paper was to explore how various program
management competences are associated with successful program
management.
Methodology – Overall, the study built on the results of an in-depth case
study (Study A). The study had an insider-outsider design (Bartunek and
Louis, 1996), with one of the authors acting as insider who closely followed
the program managers using an ethnographically inspired approach
(Fetterman, 2010). Several data collection methods and multiple data sources
were used (Yin, 2009), such as participant observations, semi-structured
interviews, and document analysis. The data analysis included several steps.
In the first step, the programs were classified into three categories according
to Pellegrinelli's (1997) typology, based on the type of benefits arising from
the coordinated management of projects. In the second step, the distinct
program management competence areas for each of the program types were
identified. In line with our inductive approach, we chose to derive
competence areas directly from the empirical data and not limit the analysis
by applying a single competence framework from the literature. Finally, after
reviewing the resulting sets of individual competence areas, we
conceptualized them into three distinct core management roles for each of
the program types.
Findings – The findings suggested that various program settings place
distinctively different demands on program managers, thus requiring different
competence profiles to cope with them. Building on Pellegrinelli's (1997)
typology, the study developed a contingency competence model that links
specific competence profiles to the program types. The conceptual
framework represents the 3C model, comprising the Coordinator,
Commander and Convincer management roles, each with its own set of
attributes that are linked to successful management of particular program
types.
35
Research implications – By establishing the link between the program
typologies literature and program management competence literature, the
paper showed that programs should not be treated as a generic and
homogeneous category in discussions on program management competences.
In addition, the findings highlighted program content as a salient contingency
variable for understanding program management dynamics.
Originality/value – The paper provided a rare empirical example of the
contingency approach to program management generally, and to program
management competence in particular. Additionally, it also covered a wide
range of geographical settings and inductively explored microfoundations of
successful management in a research area dominated by quantitative studies.
Contribution to the thesis – The paper contributed to the understanding of
the contingency logic at the level of project-based operations.
36
Paper II
Purpose – The purpose of this paper was to explore how the project-level
organizational arrangements is shaped by institutional forces within project-
based organizations.
Methodology – Overall, the study built on the results of an in-depth case
study (Study A). The study had an insider-outsider design (Bartunek and
Louis, 1996), with the paper author acting as an insider who closely followed
the program managers using an ethnographically inspired approach
(Fetterman, 2010). Several data collection methods and multiple data sources
were used (Yin, 2009), such as participant observations, semi-structured
interviews, and document analysis. The data analysis started with the
development of a theoretical framework, which built on the developed
conceptualization of project organization design as comprising strategy,
structure, processes, and people, on one hand, and on the other hand, on
three isomorphic processes: coercive, mimetic and normative. By analyzing
rich empirical data, the study explicated specific mechanisms that are
responsible for the isomorphic pressure for each of the aspects of temporary
organization design.
Findings – The findings suggested that projects tend to imitate each other’s
structures, strategies and practices with little consideration of the potential
performance effects. Different mechanisms were found to be at play for
different elements of organization design. In turn, the institutions were not
permanent rules of the game. The study also briefly discussed ways in which
project managers shape institutions around them. Thus, it showed how
individual-level attributes of organizational actors and idiosyncrasies of
relational structure affect institutional set-up and isomorphic processes.
37
Research implications – The paper challenged the dominant yet implicit
assumption of goal rationality behind the design of temporary organizations
within project-based organizations. It also provided important implications
for the conceptualization of the project-based organization. Finally, it
extended application of the institutional theory to intra-organizational aspects
by focusing on the organizational fields of multiple temporary organizations
within the project-based organization.
Originality/value – To the best of my knowledge, this was one of the first
attempts to apply institutional logic to project organization arrangements (or
design dimensions) within a parent project-based organization.
Contribution to the thesis – The paper added an institutional explanation
to the factors shaping project-based operations. It also contributed to the
notion of the organizational context by clarifying the roles played by other
projects as well as the parent organization as explanans of project
arrangements.
38
Paper III
Purpose – The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the state-of-the-art of
research on project-based organizations by applying an organization design
lens.
Methodology – The paper followed a structured framework-based literature
review approach (Rowe, 2014). It built upon an analytical framework from
the organization design literature in order to analyze 177 papers that were
published in four leading PM journals between 2008 and 2015, and are
relevant to the design of the project-based organization. The analysis includes
four stages. During the first stage, the authors reviewed the papers
individually while focusing on the organizational design dimensions and
research themes covered by the papers. The second stage comprised four
joint working sessions, where the authors reviewed and reconciled their
individual results in order to iteratively arrive at a common set of research
themes. Then, the themes were used to propose a framework mapping the
research themes into an organization design framework. During the third
stage, the authors conducted a quantitative analysis of the sample to evaluate
the extent of holistic orientation of the papers. Finally, they qualitatively
analyzed the more holistic papers.
Findings – The paper illustrates how the organization design lens can
provide a valuable research perspective on the project-based organization.
The results showed that the literature on project-based organizations
downplays broader organizational issues, such as organizational strategy,
incentive schemes, and performance management systems, while
emphasizing research agenda inherited from research on single-project
management, such as individual management competences, governance
structures, and management processes. In addition, the study highlighted
limited attention in the literature to the interdependence between separate
design choices. This finding contrasts with the importance attached to design
interdependencies within the general management literature. Finally, the study
developed a research framework to map current themes in the literature and
their relative importance, as well as discussed a prospective research agenda.
39
Research implications – Academic implications stemmed from looking at
the project management literature from a fresh theoretical perspective and
putting the project-based organization as a whole in focus. There is great
research potential in studying organization-wide aspects and
interdependencies between various organization design choices in project-
based organizations.
Originality/value – The paper offered a novel way of conceptualizing
research on project-based organizations by linking it to an established stream
within the field of organization theory and design.
Contribution to the thesis – The paper illustrated the capacity of the
organization design lens. It also identified various organization design choices
relevant for project-based organizations, and contributed to the
understanding of multi-level interactions within a PBO.
40
Paper IV
Purpose – The purpose of this conceptual paper was to develop a holistic
model for the design of the project-based organization.
Methodology – As a conceptual paper, this paper combined conceptual
reasoning with the analysis of extant literature. It identified and discussed
concepts and perspectives that are useful for developing a model, in
particular, contingency, configuration and complementarity, holistic models
of organization design and conceptualization of the firm as a web of
temporary organizations. It further reviewed the literature on organization
design to choose a design model as an analytical framework providing the
basis for literature analysis. Then, it discussed distinct characteristics of the
project-based context and argued for a contingency approach to the design
of the project-based organization. Finally, it reviewed what has been written
in the project management literature since 2008 about the management of
project-based organizations, and categorized the topics in the papers
according to a modified version of the Galbraith’s Star Model.
Findings – The paper found that many researchers have written about
individual elements of the Star Model, but very few have written about their
interdependency and the holistic design of project-based organizations. We
also identified contingency factors that affect project-based organization
design, and adapted the Star Model to reflect those.
Research implications – The organization design research stream can
provide a fresh, yet almost unexplored potential to enhance the studies of
organizational aspects of project-based organizations.
Originality/value – To the best of our knowledge, this was one of the first
attempts to treat the design of the project-based organization holistically. It
also provided an overview of how various sub-streams of organization theory
and design could be helpful in developing knowledge about the design of the
project-based organization.
41
Contribution to the thesis – The paper conceptualized the project-based
organization as a web of temporary organizations, and thus countered the
literature on PBOs viewing projects merely as distinct business processes, and
therefore neglecting their organizational properties. It also provided
arguments for a contingency approach as an important foundation for
understanding PBOs, as well as called attention to interdependencies among
various design dimensions and levels in the PBO.
43
5. Synthesis of the results
The aim of the thesis is to explore how project-based operations are shaped
in the setting of the PBO. In order to address this question, this chapter
synthesizes the thesis findings to answer the research questions.
Consequently, it is structured along the three themes introduced in
Chapter 1, i.e., (1) content, (2) context, and (3) social processes. In order to
facilitate the reading, the correspondence between the research questions and
the appended papers is presented in Table 4. Finally, the findings are
summarized in Figure 2 in the end of the chapter.
Table 4. Correspondence between the appended papers and thesis research questions
Research themes
Paper I
Paper II
Paper III
Paper IV
Synthesis (cover essay)
The role of content in shaping project-based operations (RQ1)
Project-based operations’ arrangements are influenced by three complementary effects of content of task and activities, intra-organizational and institutional context, and endogenous social dynamics.
The role of context in shaping project-based operations (RQ2)
The role of social processes in shaping project-based operations (RQ3)
44
5.1. Content
RQ1: How are project-based operations shaped by their content?
The findings identify two ways in which the content shaped the project-based
operations: (1) by influencing appropriate management approaches of
individual projects and programs and (2) by affecting organization-wide
arrangements.
First, at the case company, the intrinsic characteristics of activities that needed
to be completed during a project or a program determined appropriate
management arrangements. In particular, Paper I showed that different
program types required distinct sets of management competences to manage
them successfully. For example, programs aiming to exploit a common theme
(e.g., common knowledge, resources, or infrastructure) among relatively
independent projects required effective coordination of distributed activities.
That put stronger demands on the managers to be able to create transparency
of the issues within the program through informal influencing, distilling key
information, structuring information flow across projects, and exercising
flexibility. In comparison, programs pursuing creation of one-off outcomes
outside standard organizational routines (e.g., a new product or a plant)
required managers to be effective in decision making, directing, planning,
controlling, staffing and team building, as well as in providing technical
expertise based on their experience. Finally, programs seeking to improve
existing systems or processes asked for the ability to navigate complex
political context, master scenario planning, act as the program ambassador,
and to influence decisions through a wide personal network. As suggested by
Paper I, a misfit between program type and manager competence profile led
to tensions and challenges, while alignment facilitated successful program
delivery. Consequently, the findings show that the intrinsic program
properties, which are referred to here as program content, affected
appropriate management arrangements.
Similarly, the case study findings show that the projects’ arrangements were
influenced by the content. In particular, in some programs, the program
managers had different requirements for different projects in terms of
45
following the company’s project management guidelines. This flexibility was
exercised unofficially, as all projects were supposed to follow the same
process and prepare the same set of documents and reports. However, for
smaller projects, or when the project manager did not have enough project
management experience (e.g., being recruited from a functional unit), some
program managers made an exception. Hence, the size of the project, as well
as its resource base, influenced the way the operations were managed. In
addition, the differences among projects in terms of level of risk, degree of
interdependency with other projects as well as the level of complexity led to
differences in governance arrangements, both in terms of existence of formal
structures and level of attention from program managers. This was reflected
for instance in differences in frequency of the project steering group meetings
for different projects, and even in the absence of separate steering groups for
some minor projects. Furthermore, while only limited managerial attention
was paid to some projects, other projects required the program manager to
be deeply involved in active risk tracking and resolving issues. Consequently,
the variation in the projects’ contents had significant effects on how they were
managed.
In turn, Papers III & IV discussed the contingency perspective at the level of
projects, project collections, and the parent organization itself, as an
important foundation of project-based organization design. Within
organization theory, technology (which is often understood as the nature of
operational activities) represents a classic contingency variable (Perrow, 1967;
Thompson, 1967; Woodward, 1965). Consequently, Papers III & IV also
indirectly emphasize the importance of the content of project-based
operations.
Overall, these findings are in line with management studies emphasizing
intrinsic properties of an activity as a determinant of its management
structures and approaches (e.g., Birkinshaw et al., 2002; Nickerson et al., 2012;
Sanchez and Mahoney, 1996). Similarly, the project management researchers
have investigated such intrinsic determinants as the project type (Shenhar and
Dvir, 1996), key knowledge integration challenge (Enberg, 2007), complexity
of the problem (Ahern et al., 2014), and uncertainty in goals and methods
(Turner and Cochrane, 1993).
46
Consequently, the results indicate that project or program content represents
an important determinant of project-based operations. In particular, building
on the empirical findings and previous research, the thesis highlights the
characteristics of the task as a determinant of project and program management
arrangements.
Second, besides the influence of the content on the management
arrangements of separate projects and programs, the heterogeneity of the
portfolio, which consisted of various projects and programs, had important
implications for managing the project-based operations. In particular, evident
tensions between the diversity of project/program content and standardized
management structures and procedures had two consequences for the
project-based operations. During the case study, the growing awareness of
the management team about the differences among program types resulted in
the establishment of a new organizational unit responsible for running goal-
oriented programs. This organizational measure aimed at achieving structural
separation of more homogeneous sub-portfolios of projects to help resolve
the tensions between the customized demands of project-based operations
and the standardized organization-wide guidelines. In addition, there were
active discussions on possible further changes to the program management
guidelines in order to acknowledge the diverse nature of the programs.
Furthermore, as the findings showed, in cases when the standardized
guidelines did not fit the nature of the project task, this led to a decoupling of
actual operations from the prescribed formal procedures. Consequently,
differences in the content led to avoidance of the standardized formal
procedures and guidelines.
The findings indicate that uniform solutions and guidelines will, ceteris
paribus, result in lower performance if applied on a non-homogeneous set of
projects and programs (Bresnen et al., 2004). More flexible approaches should
be preferable in case of such heterogeneous portfolios, either in terms of a
higher flexibility of organization-wide guidelines and frameworks, or in terms
of a higher degree of discretion for managers that allows improvising
(Jerbrant and Gustavsson, 2013).
47
To summarize, the findings showed how, when considering projects or
programs in isolation, the efficiency pressure determines the way in which
project-based operations need to be organized in order to achieve the fit
between the content of projects and programs and their management
arrangements.
5.2. Context
RQ2: How are project-based operations shaped by their context?
The influence of the context on project-based operations is discussed in two
layers: the intra-organizational context and the wider institutional context.
Intra-organizational context
The current findings suggest that project-based operations are strongly
affected by the organizational arrangements at the level of the PBO. As Paper
II showed, coercive mechanisms in the case had significant effects on the
project-based operations. In particular, the superior entities affected project-
based operations in two ways: (1) by prescribing formal management
structures and approaches for project, program, and portfolio management,
such as the program capability guide or project portfolio prioritization
framework, and (2) by creating informal expectations about the expected
outcomes and the process by which they should be reached (Paper II). As
shown in Paper II, these prescriptions, in combination with a multi-level
assurance system, put pressure on projects and programs to follow the
procedures. Along the same lines, Papers III & IV emphasized the
importance of fit between organizational design choices made at the level of
the parent organization and at the level of projects. That means, for example,
that a need to contribute to a declared organizational strategy puts a limit on
the range of the decisions a project manager is considering while devising the
project strategy. Taken together, these findings showed how various aspects
of management of project-based operations were shaped by the top-down
pressure from superior organizational structures.
48
At the same time, in the case study, the relationship between operational and
organizational levels was reciprocal. Specifically, some project and program
managers were successful in getting their approaches enacted as formalized
best practices (Paper II). These formalized structures, in turn, affected the
subsequent project-based operations. Moreover, some program managers
were very skillful in navigating the political context in order to influence
decisions made at the organizational level as, for instance, by orchestrating
the steering group composition for their programs (Paper I). Consequently,
besides the identification of direct top-down influences on the project-based
operations, the findings indicate how these effects were mediated by the
actions of some managers.
In addition to these hierarchical influences, horizontal linkages also played an
important role in shaping the project-based operations. In particular, non-
project based functional units affected the operations directly, for example,
due to the HR department’s involvement in hiring, assessment, and
promotion decisions and via participation in the steering groups (Papers I &
II). Besides, the functional units also affected the operations indirectly by
putting requirements on the technical content of the work (Paper II). As an
example, the marketing department’s decision on packaging solutions for
various markets had implications on how the work was structured within the
product development projects (Papers I & II). Consequently, the project-
based operations were shaped by the functional units through the supply of
key resources (such as personnel) while retaining a partial control over them,
by direct participation in key decisions, as well as by controlling the technical
content.
Wider institutional context
The approaches and arrangements utilized within the studied project-based
operations were also influenced by the wider institutional context at the
societal and industry levels. As discussed in Paper II, the studied project-based
operations were shaped by a number of institutional forces. For example, the
management toolbox of the project and program managers was mainly
formed by popular models, frameworks, and approaches, such as the
Ishikawa diagram and the A3 problem-solving approach (Paper II). Thus,
49
availability and legitimacy of popular management models affected the
operations. In addition, accepted societal norms and priorities also affected
the way programs were managed. Particularly, the issues of sustainability were
included in many of the program documents and discussed during the
meetings (Paper II). Besides, the tradition of heavy regulations in the
pharmaceutical industry led to heavy documentation and prescriptions being
viewed as a norm, thus affecting the amount of paperwork a program team
had to fulfil (Paper II). On top of it, project and program managers
represented a relatively homogeneous group in terms of educational
background, professional experience, and personality traits (Paper II). Finally,
even though the managers were rarely members of the professional PM
associations, they widely consulted material such as the Project Management
Institute’s Project Management Body of Knowledge while developing their
own guidelines and frameworks (Paper II). Consequently, the wider
institutional context had significant effects on processes, structures and
strategies of the projects and programs.
To summarize, the findings identified two layers of context for the project-
based operations and illustrated their effects on the management
arrangements. The first layer represents the intra-organizational context and
comprises both superior entities which overlook the project-based operations
and non-project based units within the company. The second layer represents
the wider institutional environment of the company. It shapes project-based
operations by the availability of popular management models, influence of
professional associations and consulting companies, existence of shared
industry-specific norms and practices, and influence of common societal
values and norms on decision-making. Taken together, the two contextual
layers had a strong impact on how project-based operations were carried out.
50
5.3. Social processes
RQ3: How are project-based operations shaped by the social processes?
The final element which emerged from the study is related to social processes
at the level of project-based operations. This element is endogenous to
project-based operations and takes into account the internal social structure
at the levels of projects and individuals.
“Project landscape”
The findings indicated the existence of imitation among various projects and
programs (Paper II). Despite the differences in goals, scale, and technical
content of operations (Papers I & II), it was common to copy structures,
frameworks, approaches and even configuration of the steering groups.
Findings of Paper II discussed the existence of an informal hierarchy among
projects which affected the legitimacy and appeal of their project management
practices. As a result, some projects and programs functioned as role models
for others.
Two factors appear to be of significant importance in determining the status
of a project or program. First, the perception of success was one of the key
factors shaping the process. Individuals engaged in projects and programs
tended to imitate approaches utilized by initiatives which were perceived to
be success stories. For example, program managers of successful programs
were approached both directly and through competence networks to provide
advice on how a program could be structured, or to share a certain framework
or tool. Another factor conducive to being the role model was related to the
scale and complexity of projects and programs. Large initiatives gained higher
visibility and credibility within the organization, and their approaches and
structures were imitated more often. These processes were facilitated by the
mandatory lessons learned sessions, and dissemination of brief reports after
program completion. Overall, these considerations highlight the role of
legitimacy and availability in the dissemination of management models. To
that end, project-based operations are influenced by the configuration (or
landscape) of projects and programs (Paper II). These findings relate to the
51
importance of prestige, legitimacy, and uniqueness of projects as explanans
of their internal dynamics (cf. Engwall, 2003). However, the distinct feature
of the current study is that it associates the perceived characteristics of
projects with their role as objects of imitation by other projects (Paper II).
“Social landscape”
At the level of individuals, the social landscape played an important role in
the mimetic processes. Similar to the project status discussed above, the
empirical findings indicate the existence of an informal hierarchy of managers
related to their perceived successfulness and expertise (Paper II). As the
findings indicate, management structures, frameworks, tools and approaches
were disseminated through formal and informal competence networks from
the “champion” managers to all others. Additionally, individual-level
proximity, including connections arising from, for instance, friendship, co-
location, experience of working together and commonality of interests in
organizational politics, played important roles in this process. In particular,
such proximity enabled more frequent communication and a deeper level of
trust between the managers belonging to the same group. As a result,
management approaches were commonly copied from the leaders of these
groups. Consequently, the findings suggest three factors as important
determinants of the position in the informal hierarchy of managers:
experience, perceived successfulness, and centrality in certain groups of
managers.
The informal hierarchy in the case organization was dynamic, as several
program managers exerted efforts to promote themselves as the most
experienced and legitimate role models (Paper II). This was achieved by
establishing connections with superiors, active participation in the intra-
organizational competence networks, and disseminating their own
approaches as best practices. Overall, the informal social configuration
mediated the effects of context and content, and thus shaped the project-
based operations. These findings are in agreement with and elaborate on prior
studies highlighting the importance of intra-organizational social ties for
explaining dissemination of project practices (cf. Bartsch et al., 2013; Di
Vincenzo and Mascia, 2012; Prencipe and Tell, 2001).
52
To summarize, the findings identified endogenous social processes as an
important determinant of project-based operations. In particular, individuals
engaged in various projects in the PBO tended to imitate each other’s
management structures and approaches. This imitation was conditioned by
three main social processes: (1) sharing of tools and approaches by managers
via formal and informal competence networks within the company, (2)
interpretation of organization-level arrangements and guidelines within
groups of managers, and (3) promotion and institutionalization of best
practices as formal guidelines by the most ambitious managers. These
processes were profoundly affected by the informal hierarchies of projects
and individuals, determining the direction of dissemination of project and
program management arrangements.
5.4. The interplay of the factors
Based on the findings of the appended papers, the role of content, context
and social processes in shaping project-based operations could be
summarized as depicted in Figure 2. Firstly, the figure acknowledges the
diversity of content of projects and programs (shown with different shapes
for symbols depicting the temporary organizations), and illustrates its
implications for managing the project-based operations. As the findings
suggest, the characteristics of the task that a project or program is set to
accomplish affect the way the operations need to be managed in order to
achieve success (shown with green color). In addition, awareness about the
diversity of content can lead to structural adjustments, such as creation of a
new organizational unit to run a sub-portfolio of particular types of projects
or programs (see Figure 2). Secondly, the figure shows the reciprocal
influences between the operations and their context. In particular, the figure
depicts how the wider institutional context affects the operations, by
providing a management toolbox and creating a normative pressure on
project participants (shown in the upper part of Figure 2). Moreover, the
intra-organizational context affects the operations in two ways. Superior
organizational entities impose various frameworks and guidelines on the
temporary organizations, as well as form informal expectations about how
they ought to be managed. In addition, non-project based organizational units
53
affect the operations by exercising control over various technical aspects of
the projects and by providing project participants and steering group
members who retain their connections to the units. In turn, the operations
influence the intra-organizational context in three ways: by the emergence and
institutionalization of best practices, by affecting organizational politics, and
by leading structural adjustments. Finally, the figure highlights the role of
endogenous social processes in shaping project-based operations. In
particular, it depicts the imitation processes as borrowing of structures and
approaches among projects and individuals (shown with small black arrows
in Figure 2). The project landscape and social landscape play an important role in
these processes by determining which projects and individuals become role
models for others. As shown in the figure, the position in the informal
hierarchy is related to the level of successfulness, visibility, and centrality to
certain groups or coalitions.
There is a complex interplay between the identified factors and the way
project-based operations are managed. For example, the present findings
indicate that the various functional departments of the organization – related
to the context dimension – indirectly influence the project-based operations
by exercising control over the technical content and providing project
participants. Similarly, the institutionalization of organizational best practices
– as an outcome of the endogenous social processes – defines parts of the
intra-organizational context for subsequent operations. Consequently, the
identified factors are not independent and should be seen as complementary
in explanation of the phenomenon.
Despite being a static representation of the PBO, the diagram implies a
dynamic nature of these processes. In particular, it depicts reciprocal
influences between the temporary and permanent organizational structures
which unfold in time. For example, the institutionalized best practices emerge
from their application in some projects and programs, depend on the past
social landscape (connection to the past), and are imposed on the subsequent
projects as formal guidelines (connection to the future). Similarly, the
structural adjustments arise from the tensions between uniform guidelines
and customized demands of projects (connection to the past), thus resulting
in a new intra-organizational context for future projects in the PBO
54
(connection to the future). Finally, the social structure itself is dynamic as
individuals get promoted, transferred into other units, get assigned to
more/less successful projects, leave the company, establish new connections,
and so forth. Thus, the findings support the importance of the organizational
history and path dependency in explaining project-based phenomena
(Engwall, 2003; Leonard-Barton, 1992).
55
Figure 2. Summary of the findings
57
6. Implications
The previous chapter synthesized the findings of the appended papers in
answering the research questions. Derived primarily from a single, embedded
case study, these findings have some obvious limitations (discussed in
Chapter 3). Consequently, further research is needed to rectify the identified
concepts and relationships and to validate the findings in other contexts
before they can be claimed to have general validity in a statistical sense.
However, assuming that the findings are generally valid, the present chapter
discusses some of the findings’ most significant implications for theory and
practice.
6.1. Implications for theory
First, the present findings challenge the view of the project-based
organization (PBO) as a rational, vertically aligned system of project
deliveries. While much of the previous literature emphasizes top-down
mechanisms and intentionality behind the arrangements of the project-based
organizations (Hobday, 2000; Loufrani-Fedida and Saglietto, 2016), the
findings suggest that lateral processes and wider institutional norms have a
strong effect on the dynamics of the PBO. This means that while the findings
confirm the importance of the institutional context for projects (cf. Lindkvist,
2004; Morris and Geraldi, 2011), they go beyond that by questioning the
extent to which it could be proactively managed. Consequently, future
research should recognize and further investigate the role of these
institutional processes as determinants of the PBO’s management structures
and approaches along with their implications for organizational performance.
Second, while past research has introduced the view of the PBO as a loosely-
coupled system (Bergman et al., 2013) by building on the notion of project as
a temporary organization (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995), the present findings
indicate the significance of lateral couplings among projects and individuals.
Thus, while studies building on the notion of project as a temporary
organization typically emphasize project boundaries (Scarbrough et al., 2004)
and decoupling (Bergman et al., 2013), the current findings show that
58
management models permeate these boundaries through mechanisms of
imitation and informal sharing of information, experiences, as well as
management techniques, via formal and informal competence networks.
Consequently, there is a need to revisit the view of the PBO as a loosely-
coupled system of autonomous temporary organizations. Instead, future
research needs to investigate the antecedents, emergence and consequences
of the lateral couplings within the PBO.
Third, the findings raise questions about the validity of some traditionally
claimed advantages of the PBO as an organizational form. While extant
literature praises the PBO form for its flexibility, innovation, and efficiency
(cf. Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997), the identified isomorphic processes can
hinder these characteristics. In addition, the identified mechanisms can offer
alternative explanations for several empirical phenomena reported in the
literature. For example, the “improvement paradox” (Brady and Maylor,
2010), that is, the situation in which obvious improvements are not
implemented in a project setting, has been explained in terms of a complicity
of actors involved in the project (ibid). However, the isomorphic mechanisms
identified in this thesis suggest instead that this phenomenon can be due to
intra-organizational institutional pressures from the parent organization and
other projects. The same reasoning applies to the “renewal paradox” (Ekstedt
et al., 1992), that is, the fact that project-based companies are often not
innovative despite having excellent conditions for introducing innovative
solutions when new projects are started from scratch. Similarly, while past
research has noted that PBOs that operate many uncertain projects
simultaneously are likely to end up in a less profitable zone of the
“bureaucratization of chaos” (Geraldi, 2008), and has suggested the dictate of
inflexible structures as the explanation of the phenomenon (ibid), the present
findings suggest that these constraints appear as a combined effect of
different isomorphic mechanisms rather than due to coercive forces alone.
Consequently, this means that future research will need to include the intra-
organizational institutional forces as a rival explanation of empirical
phenomena.
Furthermore, while past research has pointed out that the literature often
treats projects in PBOs as homogeneous units which are subject to top-down
59
standardized governance mechanisms (Ahola et al., 2014), the present
findings suggest that heterogeneity of project-based operations and the
characteristics of the social structure have important implications for the
management of the PBO. In particular, these aspects are crucial for
understanding the (lack of) effectiveness of homogeneous solutions (Bresnen
et al., 2004) despite common attempts to standardize operations in PBOs
(Ahola et al., 2014; Bergman et al., 2013). Consequently, the findings also call
for a more nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between the
heterogeneous operations and the structures and approaches which are used
to manage them in the project-based organization.
In addition, the thesis calls attention to refining the concept of project context
within the PBO by specifying the role played by other projects and PBO
structures in relation to the focal project. While it has long been
acknowledged that projects in PBOs affect each other by being a part of the
organizational context (Engwall, 2003; Engwall and Jerbrant, 2003; Prencipe
and Tell, 2001), the present findings provide a more detailed understanding
of the inter-project processes by identifying the effects separate projects have
on each other. These findings seem promising and call for further research
inquiring into the characteristics of project landscapes, identifying their
configurations and patterns of inter-project dynamics, as well as
understanding their implications for the management of PBOs.
Finally, while past research mainly focuses on organizational-level variables
to discuss PBOs (Söderlund and Tell, 2011), this thesis highlights the
importance of individual-level variables as explanans of the PBO dynamics.
In particular, the present findings suggest that informal social hierarchy is
important for understanding intra-organizational dissemination of
management structures and approaches. In addition, the findings illustrate the
role of project actors as “institutional entrepreneurs” (Battilana et al., 2009),
who exert their expert power to influence the institutions of the PBO. Thus,
building on similar research trends in other streams of management, such as
the “humanization of strategic management” (Pettigrew, 2012), and the
microfoundations movement within organization theory (Felin, 2005; Felin
et al., 2015), the thesis highlights the importance of a deeper understanding
of the role of social landscape in shaping PBO’s management arrangements.
60
Consequently, more research needs to be done to understand the role of
individuals and their actions in structuring projects within the PBO (cf.
Hällgren and Lindahl, 2012, 2017), as well as their interactions with the
arrangements at the PBO level.
6.2. Implications for practice
In terms of managerial implications, this thesis offers two kinds of
contributions. First, the papers included in the thesis put forth a few
frameworks and models that can be utilized to support managerial decisions
in a PBO. In particular, Paper I develops a contingency model of program
management competences (the 3C model) that can be useful for a range of
HRM decisions, such as the appointment and promotion of program
managers. In particular, managers can determine the type of program at hand
and appoint a manager whose competences match the competence areas
identified by the model. In addition, they can analyze the portfolio of
programs in their organization and, depending on the prevalence of a
particular program type, develop tailored training, development workshops
and hiring and promotion criteria which will target the competence areas
necessary for the program type. Consequently, the 3C model provides a
refined HRM tool useful for managing a diverse set of programs.
Similarly, Paper II results in a framework that can help PBO managers
evaluate the sources of isomorphic pressure on individual projects and
programs by providing a list of ten isomorphic mechanisms within PBOs.
This list can be used as a checklist in management discussions, where
managers will subsequently reflect on the strength of each of the mechanisms
in their organization and analyze its consequences. In addition, by connecting
the mechanisms to specific organization design choices, the framework can
assist managers in organizational redesign efforts. In particular, when a certain
change is deemed necessary, the managers can use the framework to assess
which specific isomorphic mechanisms can hinder the change and respond
accordingly. For example, if the aim is to change project strategy, the
managers need to make sure that coercive forces, such as formal frameworks
and guidelines, as well as the expectations of steering group members, are
aligned with the desired outcome.
61
In turn, Paper III and Paper IV put forth models and frameworks related to
the organization design of the PBO. These models can be used as both
checklists and the starting point of discussion in order to identify the
organization design choices at hand. In addition, they can also be used to
discuss whether there is a fit between various organization design dimensions
in the PBO and, in the case of a misfit between certain dimensions, which
changes need to take place to achieve a proper fit.
Second, the results also suggest more general implications for the
management and organization of PBOs by drawing attention to the aspects
and ideas that might otherwise be overlooked. In particular, Paper I supports
the view that “one-size-fits-all” solutions for projects and programs is
detrimental. Consequently, practitioners should carefully examine the content
of their project-based operations when selecting management arrangements.
In addition, Paper II discusses how the identified isomorphic processes might
limit such important PBO properties as flexibility, innovation, and efficiency.
Practitioners can benefit from this idea in several ways. For example, they
need to be vigilant about the fact that even though particular projects might
require certain management approaches and arrangements due to their
intrinsic character, their managers can copy practices from each other. As
discussed above, in cases when the copied approaches will not fit the nature
of the follower projects, this can result in lower efficiency. Additionally, for
the projects that require a significant degree of innovation either in content
or structures, it can be beneficial to use structural and spatial separation to
insulate the projects from the intra-organizational institutional forces, as in
the case of the “skunkworks projects” (Rich and Janos, 1994) or “tiger
projects” (Clark & Wheelwright, 1992).
Furthermore, Paper III and Paper IV call attention to the fit between the
project-level and PBO-level arrangements as well as between various
organization design dimensions. Hence, PBO managers need to scrutinize the
fit in organizational design choices across organizational levels, for instance,
by investigating whether the project strategies are aligned with the
organizational strategy.
62
Finally, the cover essay discusses the important factors that need to be
scrutinized in order to assess organizing of the project-based operations, such
as the technical content, the project landscape and social landscape, or the
influence of institutionalized practices and models. One of the important
implications of these findings is that PBO managers need to analyze the project
and social landscapes when they want to introduce new management approaches
and structures. The findings suggest that the most legitimate projects are the
ones which are characterized by high scale/visibility and are perceived to be
successful. Similarly, there are informal leaders among project and program
managers who often serve as role models for others. The findings indicate
that their high status is often manifested in perceived expertise,
successfulness, and centrality in certain groups of managers. Consequently,
PBO managers need to identify these “star” projects and “champion” project
and program managers, and start introducing new management practices
beginning with them, in order to ensure legitimacy and broad acceptance of
the new approaches.
63
7. Conclusion
This thesis aimed to explore how project-based operations are shaped in the
setting of the project-based organization. It started by highlighting a number
of common yet questionable assumptions about projects in the literature on
PBOs, and discussed the implications of these assumptions. Building on two
research studies, that is, an insider case study of project-based operations in
the Operations division of a large pharmaceutical company, and a structured
framework-based literature review, the thesis investigated three particular
dimensions which affect project-based operations: (1) the content of
operations; (2) the context of operations; and (3) the social processes at the
operational level. The present results elaborated on how the organizing of
project-based operations in the PBO is shaped by the complex interplay
between these three dimensions, and put forth novel concepts, such as intra-
organizational isomorphic processes and project and social landscapes, which are helpful
for understanding the PBO dynamics. Upon answering the research
questions, the thesis discussed a number of specific implications of the
findings for theory and practice.
7.1. Contribution
The contribution of this thesis lies in exploring the factors that shape project-
based operations in the PBO context. Overall, the thesis can generally be
viewed as an example of what Geraldi and Söderlund (2016) called a Type 2
of project studies, i.e. the type which recognizes projects as temporary
organizations, acknowledges the diversity of projects, builds on general
management and organization theories and aims to offer some implications
for practice. Nevertheless, it also contributes to the identified important
research directions of Type 3 research, which subscribes to an even more
reflexive view on projects, namely by addressing the interplay between the
technical core and social processes in project-based operations, as well as by
going “beyond projects” in the investigation of a particular setting of the
PBO.
64
More specifically, the thesis makes the following inter-related theoretical
contributions. First, it extends the contingency perspective on management
of project-based operations by investigating the relationship between
program content and program management competences.
Second, it develops the institutional perspective on organizing project-based
operations by identifying and explicating pertinent isomorphic processes and
by contributing to the understanding of the intra-organizational institutional
set-up. It discusses the powerful mechanism of imitation, and identifies
factors that play an important role in this process, such as the personal
proximity, reputation, and perception of prior results.
Third, it refines the concept of project context within the PBO by specifying
the role played by other projects and PBO structures in relation to the focal
project. The results contribute to a better understanding of the inter-project
processes by singling out the effects of separate projects.
Fourth, it broadens the conceptualization of the PBO by analyzing the effects
of individual- and project-level influences on the arrangement at the PBO
level. The results show how project and program managers exert their expert
power to institutionalize their management approaches as best practices,
acting as institutional entrepreneurs.
Fifth, it revisits the view of projects as atomic homogeneous units within the
PBO by recognizing their organizational properties. Drawing upon the rich
literature of organization theory and design, the thesis makes a contribution
to the literature by applying an organizational lens to projects in order to
explain the internal dynamics of the PBO.
Finally, it develops an organization design perspective on the PBO. The
contribution is achieved by integrating several streams within organization
theory and design literature to propose an organization design model of the
PBO, by identifying specific organization design dimensions and factors
affecting the dimensions in the PBO context, by emphasizing a multi-level
character of the PBO, as well as by proposing a future research agenda.
65
References
Ahern, T., Leavy, B., Byrne, P.J., 2014. Complex project management as complex problem solving: A distributed knowledge management perspective. International Journal of Project Management 32, 1371–1381. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.06.007
Ahola, T., Ruuska, I., Artto, K., Kujala, J., 2014. What is project governance and what are its origins? International Journal of Project Management 32, 1321–1332. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.09.005
Allen, T.J., Katz, R., 1995. The project-oriented engineer: A dilemma for human resource management. R&D Management 25, 129–140. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.1995.tb00906.x
Alvesson, M., Sköldberg, K., 2009. Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research, 2nd ed. SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Artto, K.A., Gemünden, H.G., Walker, D., Peippo-Lavikka, P., 2017. Is there only one way of project management theorizing, or are there multiple sector-specific project management domains? International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 10, 203-240. doi:10.1108/IJMPB-07-2016-0057
Artto, K., Kujala, J., 2008. Project business as a research field. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 1, 469–497. doi:10.1108/17538370810906219
Artto, K., Kujala, J., Dietrich, P., Martinsuo, M., 2008. What is project strategy? International Journal of Project Management 26, 4–12. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.07.006
Arvidsson, N., 2009. Exploring tensions in projectified matrix organisations. Scandinavian Journal of Management 25, 97–107. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2008.09.002
Aubry, M., Richer, M.C., Lavoie-Tremblay, M., 2014. Governance performance in complex environment: The case of a major transformation in a university hospital. International Journal of Project Management 32, 1333–1345. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.07.008
Bakker, R.M., 2010. Taking Stock of Temporary Organizational Forms: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 12, 466–486. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00281.x
Barley, S.R., 2006. When I write My Masterpiece:Thoughts on what Makes a Paper Interesting. Academy of Management Journal 49, 16–20. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785495
Barley, S.R., Kunda, G., 2001. Bringing work back in. Organization Science 12, 76–95. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.1.76.10122
66
Bartsch, V., Ebers, M., Maurer, I., 2013. Learning in project-based organizations: The role of project teams’ social capital for overcoming barriers to learning. International Journal of Project Management 31, 239–251. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.06.009
Bartunek, J.M., Louis, M.R., 1996. Insider/outsider team research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Battilana, J., Leca, B., Boxenbaum, E., 2009. How Actors Change Institutions: Towards a Theory of Institutional Entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Annals 3, 65–107. doi:10.1080/19416520903053598
Bechky, B.A., 2006. Gaffers, Gofers, and Grips: Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations. Organization Science 17, 3–21. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0149
Bergman, I., Gunnarson, S., Räisänen, C., 2013. Decoupling and standardization in the projectification of a company. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 6, 106–128. doi:10.1108/17538371311291053
Besson, P., Rowe, F., 2012. Strategizing information systems-enabled organizational transformation: A transdisciplinary review and new directions. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 21, 103–124. doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2012.05.001
Biesenthal, C., Wilden, R., 2014. Multi-level project governance: Trends and opportunities. International Journal of Project Management 32, 1291–1308. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.005
Birkinshaw, J., Nobel, R., Ridderstrale, J., 2002. Knowledge as a contingency variable: Do the characteristics of knowledge predict organization structure? Organization Science 13, 274–289. doi:10.1287/orsc.13.3.274.2778
Blindenbach-Driessen, F., Van den Ende, J., 2010. Innovation management practices compared: The example of project-based firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27, 705–724. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00746.x
Blindenbach-Driessen, F., Van den Ende, J., 2006. Innovation in project-based firms: The context dependency of success factors. Research Policy 35, 545–561. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.02.005
Blomquist, T., Packendorff, J., 1998. Learning from Renewal Projects: Content, Context and Embeddedness, in: Lundin, R.A., Midler, C. (Eds.), Projects as Arenas for Renewal and Learning Processes. Kluwer, Norwell, MA, pp. 37–46. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-5691-6
Brady, T., Davies, A., 2004. Building Project Capabilities: From Exploratory to Exploitative Learning. Organization Studies 25, 1601–1621. doi:10.1177/0170840604048002
67
Brady, T., Maylor, H., 2010. The improvement paradox in project contexts: A clue to the way forward? International Journal of Project Management 28, 787–795. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.08.001
Bredin, K., 2008. People capability of project-based organisations: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Project Management 26, 566–576. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.002
Bredin, K., Söderlund, J., 2006. HRM and project intensification in R&D-based companies: a study of Volvo Car Corporation and AstraZeneca. R&D Management 36, 467–485. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00448.x
Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A., Swan, J., 2004. Embedding New Management Knowledge in Project-Based Organizations. Organization Studies 25, 1535–1555. doi:10.1177/0170840604047999
Brown, A.E., Grant, G.G., 2005. Framing the frameworks: A review of IT governance research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 15, 696–712.
Brown, S.L., Eisenhardt, K.M., 1997. The Art of Continuous Change: Linking Complexity Theory and Time-paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 42, 1–34. doi:10.2307/2393807
Burgess, K., Singh, P.J., Koroglu, R., 2006. Supply chain management: a structured literature review and implications for future research. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 26, 703–729. doi:10.1108/01443570610672202
Cacciatori, E., 2008. Memory objects in project environments: Storing, retrieving and adapting learning in project-based firms. Research Policy 37, 1591–1601. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.028
Canonico, P., Söderlund, J., 2010. Getting control of multi-project organizations: Combining contingent control mechanisms. International Journal of Project Management 28, 796–806. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.05.005
Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., Frederiksen, L., Täube, F., 2011. Project-Based Organizing and Strategic Management: A Long-Term Research Agenda on Temporary Organizational Forms (Editorial). Advances in Strategic Management 28, xv–xxxix.
Clark, K. B., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1992). Organizing and leading “heavyweight” development teams. California Management Review 34, 9–28.
Cusumano, M.A., Nobeoka, K., 1998. Thinking beyond lean: How multi-project management is transforming product development at Toyota and other companies. Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
68
Davies, A., Brady, T., 2016. Explicating the dynamics of project capabilities. International Journal of Project Management 34, 314–327. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.04.006
Davies, A., Brady, T., 2000. Organisational capabilities and learning in complex product systems: Towards repeatable solutions. Research Policy 29, 931–953. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00113-X
Davies, A., Hobday, M., 2005. The Business of Projects: Managing Innovation in Complex Products and Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
DeFillippi, R.J., 2001. Introduction: Project-Based Learning, Reflective Practices and Learning. Management Learning 32, 5–10. doi:10.1177/1350507601321001
DeFillippi, R.J., Arthur, M.B., 1998. Paradox in project-based enterprise: The case of film making. California Management Review 40, 124–139. doi:10.2307/41165936
Denzin, N.K., 2006. Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook, 5th ed. Transaction Publishers, Chicago, US.
Di Vincenzo, F., Mascia, D., 2012. Social capital in project-based organizations: Its role, structure, and impact on project performance. International Journal of Project Management 30, 5–14. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.03.006
Dubois, A., Gadde, L.-E., 2002. Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research 55, 553–560. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-8
Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S., Shenhar, A.J., Tishler, A., 1998. In search of project classification: a non-universal approach to project success factors. Research Policy 27, 915–935. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00085-7
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review 14, 532–550. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4308385
Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E., 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal 50, 25–32.
Ekstedt, E., Lundin, R. A., Söderholm, A., & Wirdenius, H. (1999). Neo-industrial organizing: action, knowledge formation and renewal in a project-intensive economy. London, UK: Routledge.
Ekstedt, E., Lundin, R. A., & Wirdenius, H. (1992). Conceptions and renewal in Swedish construction companies. European Management Journal, 10(2), 202–209. http://doi.org/10.1016/0263-2373(92)90070-K
Elonen, S., Artto, K., 2003. Problems in managing internal development projects in multi-project environments. International Journal of Project Management 21, 395–402. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00097-2
69
Enberg, C., 2007. Knowledge Integration in Product Development Projects. Linköping University.
Engwall, M., 2003. No project is an island: Linking projects to history and context. Research Policy 32, 789–808. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00088-4
Engwall, M., Jerbrant, A., 2003. The resource allocation syndrome: The prime challenge of multi-project management? International Journal of Project Management 21, 403–409. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00113-8
Engwall, M., Westling, G., 2004. Peripety in an R&D Drama: Capturing a Turnaround in Project Dynamics. Organization Studies 25, 1557–1578. doi:10.1177/0170840604048000
Eriksson, M., Lilliesköld, J., Jonsson, N., Novosel, D., 2002. How to Manage complex, multinational R&D project successfully. Engineering Management Journal 14, 53–60.
Eskerod, P., 1996. Meaning and action in a multi-project environment. Understanding a multi-project environment by means of metaphors and basic assumptions. International Journal of Project Management 14, 61–65. doi:10.1016/0263-7863(95)00038-0
Felin, T., 2005. Strategic organization: a field in search of micro-foundations. Strategic Organization 3, 441–455. doi: 10.1177/1476127005055796
Felin, T., Foss, N.J., Ployhart, R.E., 2015. The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. Academy of Management Annals 9, 575–632. doi:10.1080/19416520.2015.1007651
Ferriani, S., Cattani, G., Baden-Fuller, C., 2009. The relational antecedents of project-entrepreneurship: Network centrality, team composition and project performance. Research Policy 38, 1545–1558. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.001
Ferriani, S., Corrado, R., Boschetti, C., 2005. Organizational Learning under Organizational Impermanence: Collaborative Ties in Film Project Firms. Journal of Management & Governance 9, 257–285. doi:10.1007/s10997-005-7422-2
Fetterman, D.M., 2010. Ethnography: Step-by-step, 3rd ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry 12, 219–245. doi:10.1177/1077800405284363
Freilich, J., 2015. When Innovation Is Not Enough. The Managerial Challenges of Technology Change in Pharmaceutical R&D. KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
Fricke, S. E., & Shenhar, A. J. (2000). Managing Multiple Engineering Projects in a Manufacturing Support Environment. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 47, 258–268.
70
Galbraith, J.R., 1971. Matrix organization designs. How to combine functional and project forms. Business Horizons 14, 29–40. doi:10.1016/0007-6813(71)90037-1
Gann, D.M., Salter, A.J., 2000. Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: the construction of complex products and systems. Research Policy 29, 955–972. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00114-1
Gareis, R., 1991. Management by projects: the management strategy of the “new” project-oriented company. International Journal of Project Management 9, 71–76. doi:10.1016/0263-7863(91)90062-Z
Geraldi, J.G., 2009. Reconciling order and chaos in multi-project firms. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 2, 149–158. doi:10.1108/17538370910930572
Geraldi, J.G., 2008. The balance between order and chaos in multi-project firms: A conceptual model. International Journal of Project Management 26, 348–356. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.08.013
Geraldi, J.G., Adlbrecht, G., 2007. On faith, fact and interaction in projects. Project Management Journal 38, 32–43.
Geraldi, J.G., Maylor, H., Williams, T., 2011. Now, let’s make it really complex (complicated). International Journal of Operations & Production Management 31, 966–990. doi:10.1108/01443571111165848
Geraldi, J.G., Söderlund, J., 2016. Project studies and engaged scholarship. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 9, 767–797. doi:10.1108/IJMPB-02-2016-0016
Grabher, G., 2004. Temporary Architectures of Learning: Knowledge Governance in Project Ecologies. Organization Studies 25, 1491–1514. doi:10.1177/0170840604047996
Grabher, G., Ibert, O., 2011. Project Ecologies: A contextual view on termporary organizations, in: Morris, P.W.G., Pinto, J.K., Söderlund, J. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Project Management. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 175–200. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199563142.003.0008
Hällgren, M., Lindahl, M., 2012. How do you do? On situating old project sites through practice-based studies. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 5, 335–344. doi:10.1108/17538371211235362
Hällgren, M., Lindahl, M., 2017. Coping with lack of authority: Extending research on project governance with a practice approach. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 10, 244–262. doi:10.1108/IJMPIB-04-2016-0036
Hanisch, B., Wald, A., 2012. A bibliometric view on the use of contingency theory in project management research. Project Management Journal 43, 4–23. doi:10.1002/pmj.21267
71
Hedlund, G., 1994. A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation. Strategic Management Journal 15, 73–90. doi:10.1016/0024-6301(95)92214-8
Hobday, M., 2000. The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing complex products and systems? Research Policy 29, 871–893. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00110-4
Howell, D., Windahl, C., Seidel, R., 2010. A project contingency framework based on uncertainty and its consequences. International Journal of Project Management 28, 256–264. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.06.002
Jasperson, J., Carte, T., Saunders, C., Butler, B., Croes, H., Zheng, W., 2002. Power and Information Technology Research: A Metatriangulation Review. MIS Quarterly 26, 397–459. doi:10.2307/4132315
Jerbrant, A., 2013. Organising project-based companies: Management, control and execution of project-based industrial operations. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 6, 365–378. doi:10.1108/17538371311319070
Jerbrant, A., 2009. Organisering av projektbaserade företag: Ledning, styrning och genomförande av projektbaserad industriell verksamhet. KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
Jerbrant, A., Gustavsson, T.K., 2013. Managing project portfolios: balancing flexibility and structure by improvising. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 6, 152–172. doi:10.1108/17538371311291071
Kadefors, A., 1995. Institutions in building projects: Implications for flexibility and change. Scandinavian Journal of Management 11, 395–408. doi:10.1016/0956-5221(95)00017-P
Kappos, A., Rivard, S., 2008. A three-perspective model of culture, information systems, and their development and use. MIS Quarterly 32, 601–634. doi:10.2307/25148858
Keegan, A., Turner, J.R., 2002. The management of innovation in project-based firms. Long Range Planning 35, 367–388. doi:10.1016/S0024-6301(02)00069-9
Keegan, A., Turner, J.R., 2001. Quantity versus Quality in Project-Based Learning Practices. Management Learning 32, 77–98. doi:10.1177/1350507601321006
Lampel, J., 2011. Institutional Dynamics of Project-Based Creative Organizations: Irving Thalberg and the Hollywood Studio System, in: Project-Based Organizing and Strategic Management. pp. 445–466. doi:10.1108/S0742-3322(2011)0000028020
Larson, E.W., Gobeli, D.H., 1989. Significance of Project Management Structure on Development Success. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 36, 119–125.
72
Larson, E.W., Gobeli, D.H., 1988. Organizing for product development projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management 5, 180–190. doi:10.1016/0737-6782(88)90021-5
Lawrence, P.R., Lorsch, J.W., 1967. Organization and Environment. Harvard Business School, Division of Research, Boston, MA.
Lechler, T.G., Dvir, D., 2010. An alternative taxonomy of project management structures: Linking project management structures and project success. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 57, 198–210. doi:10.1109/TEM.2010.2044441
Leonard-Barton, D., 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal 13, 111–125. doi:10.1002/smj.4250131009
Lindkvist, L., 2011. Knowledge Integration in Product Development Projects: A Contingency Framework, in: Morris, P.W.G., Pinto, J.K., Söderlund, J. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Project Management. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 463–482. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199563142.003.0020
Lindkvist, L., 2008. Project organization: Exploring its adaptation properties. International Journal of Project Management 26, 13–20. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.08.011
Lindkvist, L., 2004. Governing project-based firms: Promoting market-like processes within hierarchies. Journal of Management and Governance 8, 3–25. doi:10.1023/B:MAGO.0000015392.75507.ad
Lindkvist, L., Söderlund, J., Tell, F., 1998. Managing Product Development Projects: On the Significance of Fountains and Deadlines. Organization Studies 19, 931–951. doi:10.1177/017084069801900602
Locatelli, G., Mancini, M., Romano, E., 2014. Systems Engineering to improve the governance in complex project environments. International Journal of Project Management 32, 1395–1410. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.007
Loufrani-Fedida, S., Saglietto, L., 2016. Mechanisms for Managing Competencies in Project-Based Organizations: An Integrative Multilevel Analysis. Long Range Planning 49, 72–89. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2014.09.001
Lukka, K., Vinnari, E., 2014. Domain theory and method theory in management accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 27, 1308–1338. doi:10.1108/AAAJ-03-2013-1265
Lundin, R.A., Arvidsson, N., Brady, T., Ekstedt, E., Midler, C., Sydow, J., 2015. Managing and Working in Project Society: Institutional Challenges of Temporary Organizations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. doi:10.1007/9781139939454
73
Lundin, R.A., Söderholm, A., 1995. A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management 11, 437–455. doi:10.1016/0956-5221(95)00036-U
Marshall, N., Brady, T., 2001. Knowledge management and the politics of knowledge: illustrations from complex products and systems. European Journal of Information Systems 10, 99–112. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000398
Martinsuo, M., 2013. Project portfolio management in practice and in context. International Journal of Project Management 31, 794–803. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.10.013
Martinsuo, M., Hensman, N., Artto, K., Kujala, J., Jaafari, A., 2006. Project-based management as an organizational innovation: drivers, changes, and benefits of adopting project-based management. Project Management Journal 36, 87–97.
Maylor, H., Turner, N., Murray-Webster, R., 2015. “It worked for manufacturing. . .!”. Operations strategy in project-based operations. International Journal of Project Management 33, 103–115. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.009
Midler, C., 2013. Implementing a Low-End disruption strategy through multiproject lineage management: The Logan case. Project Management Journal 44, 24–35. doi:10.1002/pmj.21367
Midler, C., 1995. “Projectification” of the firm: The Renault case. Scandinavian Journal of Management 11, 363–375. doi:10.1016/0956-5221(95)00035-T
Mintzberg, H., 1979. The structuring of organizations. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Morris, P.W.G., Geraldi, J.G., 2011. Managing the institutional context for projects. Project Management Journal 42, 20–32. doi:10.1002/pmj.20271
Morris, P.W.G., & Jamieson, A. (2005). Moving From Corporate Strategy to Project Strategy. Project Management Journal, 36(4), 5–18.
Müller, R., 2009. Project Governance. Gower Publishing, Aldershot, UK.
Müller, R., 2016. Governance and Governmentality for Projects: Enablers, Practices, and Consequences. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
Müller, R., Geraldi, J.G., Turner, J.R., 2012. Relationships between leadership and success in different types of project complexities. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 59, 77–90. doi:10.1109/TEM.2011.2114350
Müller, R., Martinsuo, M., Blomquist, T., 2008. Project portfolio control and portfolio management performance in different contexts. Project Management Journal 39, 28–42. doi:10.1002/pmj
74
Nickerson, J., Yen, C.J., Mahoney, J.T., 2012. Exploring the Problem-Finding and Problem-Solving Approach for Designing Organizations. The Academy of Management Perspectives (AMP) 26, 52–72. doi:10.5465/amp.2011.0106
Nightingale, P., Baden-Fuller, C., Hopkins, M.M., 2011. Projects, Project Capabilities and Project Organisations, in: Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., Frederiksen, L., Täube, F. (Eds.), Project-Based Organizing and Strategic Management. pp. 215–234. doi:10.1108/S0742-3322(2011)0000028012
Packendorff, J., 1995. Inquiring into the temporary organization: New directions for project management research. Scandinavian Journal of Management 11, 319–333. doi:10.1016/0956-5221(95)00018-Q
Palm, K., Lindahl, M., 2015. A project as a workplace Observations from project managers in four R&D and project-intensive companies. International Journal of Project Management 33, 828–838. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.10.002
Pellegrinelli, S., 1997. Programme management: organising project-based change. International Journal of Project Management 15, 141–149. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(96)00063-4
Pellegrinelli, S., Partington, D., Hemingway, C., Mohdzain, Z., Shah, M., 2007. The importance of context in programme management: An empirical review of programme practices. International Journal of Project Management 25, 41–55. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.06.002
Pemsel, S., Müller, R., Söderlund, J., 2016. Knowledge Governance Strategies in Project-based Organizations. Long Range Planning 49, 648–660. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2016.01.001
Perrow, C., 1967. A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review 32, 194–208. doi:10.2307/2091811
Pettigrew, A.M., 2012. Context and Action in the Transformation of the Firm: A Reprise. Journal of Management Studies 49, 1304–1328. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01054.x
Pettigrew, A.M., 1987. Context and action in the transformation of the firm. Journal of Management Studies 24, 649–670.
Pich, M.T., Loch, C.H., De Meyer, A., 2002. On Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Complexity in Project Management. Management Science 48, 1008–1023. doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.8.1008.163
Pinto, J.K., Mantel, S.J., 1990. The Causes of Project Failure. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 37, 269–276. doi:10.1109/17.62322
Poole, M.S., Van de Ven, A.H., 1989. Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories. Academy of Management Review 14, 562–578. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4308389
75
Prencipe, A., Tell, F., 2001. Inter-project learning: Processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms. Research Policy 30, 1373–1394. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00157-3
Rich, B., Janos, L., 1994. Skunk works: A Personal Memoir of my Years at Lockheed. Little, Brown & Co, Boston, MA.
Rowe, F., 2014. What Literature Review is Not: Diversity, Boundaries and Recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems 23, 241–255. doi:10.1057/ejis.2014.7
Ruuska, I., Ahola, T., Artto, K., Locatelli, G., Mancini, M., 2011. A new governance approach for multi-firm projects: lessons from Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3 nuclear power plant projects. International Journal of Project Management 29, 647–660.
Sanchez, R., Mahoney, J.T., 1996. Modularity, Flexibility, and Knowledge Management in Product and Organization Design. Strategic Management Journal 17, 63–76. doi:10.2307/2486991
Sauser, B.J., Reilly, R.R., Shenhar, A.J., 2009. Why projects fail? How contingency theory can provide new insights – A comparative analysis of NASA’s Mars Climate Orbiter loss. International Journal of Project Management 27, 665–679. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.01.004
Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., Laurent, S., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., 2004. Project-based learning and the role of learning boundaries. Organization Studies 25, 1579–1600. doi:10.1177/0170840604048001
Schryen, G., Wagner, G., Benlian, A., 2015. Theory of Knowledge for Literature Reviews: An Epistemological Model, Taxonomy and Empirical Analysis of IS Literature. Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2015) 1–22.
Shenhar, A.J., 2001. One Size Does Not Fit All Projects: Exploring Classical Contingency Domains. Management Science 47, 394–414. doi:10.1287/mnsc.47.3.394.9772
Shenhar, A.J., 1998. From theory to practice: Toward a typology of project management styles. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 45, 33–48. doi:10.1109/17.658659
Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., 2007. Reinventing project management: the diamond approach to successful growth and innovation. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA.
Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., 1996. Toward a typological theory of project management. Research Policy 25, 607–632. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(95)00877-2
76
Siggelkow, N., 2007. Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal 50, 20–24. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160882
Siggelkow, N., Levinthal, D.A., 2003. Temporarily Divide to Conquer: Centralized, Decentralized, and Reintegrated Organizational Approaches to Exploration and Adaptation. Organization Science 14, 650–669.
Söderlund, J., 2008. Competence Dynamics and Learning Processes in Project-Based Firms: Shifting, Adapting and Leveraging. International Journal of Innovation Management 12, 41–67. doi:10.1142/S1363919608001911
Söderlund, J., Hobbs, B., Ahola, T., 2014. Project-based and temporary organizing: Reconnecting and rediscovering. International Journal of Project Management 32, 1085–1090. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.008
Söderlund, J., Tell, F., 2011. The P-Form Corporation: Contingencies, Characteristics and Challenges, in: Morris, P.W.G., Pinto, J.K., Söderlund, J. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Project Management. Oxford, UK, pp. 201–223. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199563142.003.0009
Sydow, J., Lindkvist, L., DeFillippi, R., 2004. Project-Based Organizations, Embeddedness and Repositories of Knowledge: Editorial. Organization Studies 25, 1475–1489. doi:10.1177/0170840604048162
Sydow, J., Staber, U., 2002. The Institutional Embeddedness of Project Networks: The Case of Content Production in German Television. Regional Studies 36, 215–227. doi:10.1080/00343400220122034
Taxén, L., Lilliesköld, J., 2008. Images as action instruments in complex projects. International Journal of Project Management 26, 527–536. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.009
Thompson, J.D., 1967. Organizations in action. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Turner, J.R., Cochrane, R.A., 1993. Goals-and-methods matrix: coping with projects with ill defined goals and/or methods of achieving them. International Journal of Project Management 11, 93–102.
Turner, J.R., Keegan, A., 2001. Mechanisms of governance in the project-based organization: Roles of the broker and steward. European Management Journal 19, 254–267. doi:10.1016/S0263-2373(01)00022-6
Turner, J.R., Keegan, A., 2000. The management of operations in the project-based organisation. Journal of Change Management 1, 131–148. doi:10.1080/714042464
Turner, R., Pinto, J., Bredillet, C., 2011. The evolution of project management research, in: Morris, P.W.G., Pinto, J.K., Söderlund, J. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Project Management. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 65–106.
77
Webster, J., Watson, R.T., 2002. Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly 26, xiii–xxiii. doi:10.1.1.104.6570
Welch, C., Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E., 2014. Putting Process (Back) In: Research on the Internationalization Process of the Firm. International Journal of Management Reviews 16, 2–23. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12006
Wheelwright, S.C., Clark, K.B., 1992. Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality. Free press, New York.
Whitley, R., 2006. Project-based firms: New organizational form or variations on a theme? Industrial and Corporate Change 15, 77–99. doi:10.1093/icc/dtj003
Whittington, R., Pettigrew, A., Peck, S., Fenton, E., Conyon, M., 1999. Change and Complementarities in the New Competitive Landscape: A European Panel Study, 1992-1996. Organization Science 10, 583–600.
Williams, T., 2008. How do organizations learn lessons from projects - and do they? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 55, 248–266. doi:10.1109/TEM.2007.912920
Windeler, A., Sydow, J., 2001. Project Networks and Changing Industry Practices Collaborative Content Production in the German Television Industry. Organization Studies 22, 1035–1060. doi:10.1177/0170840601226006
Woodward, J., 1965. Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
Yin, R.K., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zenger, T., Hesterly, W.S., 1997. The disaggregation of corporations: Selective intervention, high-powered incentives, and molecular units. Organization Science 8, 209–222. doi:10.1287/orsc.8.3.209
Zika-Viktorsson, A., Sundström, P., Engwall, M., 2006. Project overload: An exploratory study of work and management in multi-project settings. International Journal of Project Management 24, 385–394. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.02.010