INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 354–359
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Six key points to merge project marketing into project management

a,* b,1
Bernard Cova , Robert Salle
a
ESCP-EAP, European School of Management & Euromed Marseilles, 79 Av. de la République, 75011 Paris, France
b
E.M. LYON, Lyon Graduate School of Business, 23 Av. Guy de Collongue, BP 174, 69132 Lyon Ecully Cedex, France

Abstract

From a conceptual point of view, project marketing and project management have existed for years as separate disciplines, each
having developed independently from the other. In the nineties, evolutions in project management edged the project out of its strict
time frame in order to re-position it within a strategic, long-term and customer-oriented approach. In doing so, such developments
concur with progress made in project marketing over the last decade. This article proposes to bridge the gap between the two dis-
ciplines on six key points, thus structuring a conceptual time frame common to project marketing and project management.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Project management; Project marketing; Customer-oriented approach

1. Introduction Things have evolved and widened approaches to pro-

In the large amount of the literature on project man-
agement, the issue of marketing the project appears to
be of marginal interest [1,2]. Two main reasons can be
given. The first reason is that many projects are devel-
oped within firms, that is to say they do not or may
not need to be marketed. The second reason is that pro-
jects are bound in time and the vast majority of project
management methods are mobilised once the go-ahead
has been given to the project team. A recent survey [3]
confirms this marginal interest for marketing. Based
on an analysis of the relative frequency of attention gi-
ven to body of knowledge topics of project management
(44 topics were selected), in papers published between
1990 and 1998 in the International Journal of Project
Management (IJPM) and in the Project Management
Journal (PMJ), this survey showed that very limited
attention is dedicated to marketing and sales topics:
respectively, 0% in IJPM and 2% in PMJ.
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 149232164.
E-mail addresses: bcova@escp-eap.net (B. Cova), salle@em-lyon.
com (R. Salle).
1
Tel.: +33478337773.
ject management have appeared [4]. These approaches
led to refocusing the goals of project management to
make them customer- and stakeholder-based, whether
or not these groups of actors happen to be internal or
external to the company. However, these widened ap-
proaches to project management began to take shape
[1] without any interaction or cross-referencing with
the emerging trend of project marketing [5] in busi-
ness-to-business marketing. The same applies to the lat-
ter: project marketing researchers never attempted to
take into account project management concepts and
methods [6]. The European Network for Project Mar-
keting, also known as the International Network for
Project Marketing (INPM), a research community
loosely affiliated with the Industrial Marketing and Pur-
chasing Group (IMP Group), has only recently taken
steps to establish a dialogue with project management
researchers. This dialogue is more of a monologue, how-
ever, as it entails a review of the INPMÕs possible contri-
butions to project management [7].
This article proposes to bridge the gap between the
two disciplines – project marketing and project manage-
ment – using a meta-theoretical approach organised
around six key points: the project, characteristics of

0263-7863/$30.00 Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.01.006
 B. Cova, R. Salle / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 354–359
projects, project cycle, focus of the approach, stakehold-
ers, project origin.
2. What is a project?
According to Turner and Müller [8], ‘‘a project is a
temporary organization to which resources are assigned
to undertake a unique, novel and transient endeavour
managing the inherent uncertainty and need for integra-
tion in order to deliver beneficial objectives of change’’.
To be compared with Cova et al.Õs project marketing ap-
proach [6], where project is defined as ‘‘a complex trans-
action covering a package of products, services and
work, specifically designed to create capital assets that
produce benefits for a buyer over an extended period
of time’’. Whereas the field of project management
emphasises the temporary organization, project market-
ing emphasises the transaction. In fact, here we can
point out the different viewpoints as exemplified in
French by the couple projet/affaire; the customerÕs pro-
ject (projet) is perceived as a transaction for the supplier
(affaire). Consequently, in project marketing there is
only a project if the owner has decided to externalise
an entire project or part of one. Taking this stance, some
marketing approaches aim at driving the owner towards
an outsourcing choice in order to create the transaction.
Both are aimed at creating something unique or spe-
cific, but whereas project management focuses on the
temporary endeavour that takes place after signing of
the contract, project marketing focuses on the long-term
consequences (an extended period of time) of the project
for the buyer. This is where, recent work of a strategic
nature in project management [9] bridges the gap in rela-
tion to the project marketingÕs definition by taking into
account the long-term effects of the project on the cus-
tomerÕs business. Thus, there is a tendency to reconsider
the particular risks and rewards of each project within
the wider context of the organization involved, in order
to bear in mind the impact on the supplierÕs
competitiveness.
3. What are the characteristics of projects?
From the vast amount of literature available on pro-
ject management, it is possible to distinguish four com-
mon characteristics of a project: Finite budget and
schedule constraints/Complex and interrelated activi-
ties/Clearly defined objectives/Uniqueness. These char-
acteristics have to be compared with the DUC model
in project marketing [10], where the major characteris-
tics of project transactions are defined as: Discontinu-
ity/Uniqueness/Complexity.
Complexity and Uniqueness are both presented as
major features in the two bodies of literature. Whereas
355
the customer-based project management approach
emphasises the specific time frame and objectives of a gi-
ven project, the project marketing approach emphasises
the discontinuity between one project and another [11],
which means that many buyer–seller project-related re-
source and activity ties are terminated at the end of each
individual project. One approach focuses on an existing
project, the other focuses on project business. Even cus-
tomer-based project management sees the world
through the eye of a Project Manager (PM) who is in
charge of a unique project which must be developed suc-
cessfully in order to achieve the highest level of customer
satisfaction. Project marketing sees the world through
the eye of a marketer in charge of successfully managing
a strategic business unit in order to achieve best perfor-
mance. Actually, the whole development of project mar-
keting over the last three decades [6] illustrates the move
from focusing on a specific project through a competi-
tive bidding strategy, to multi-project focusing with
the same customer (follow-up projects). A similar evolu-
tion appeared recently in project management: from
the management of single projects to project portfolio
management [12].
Crucially, project management must be able to co-
ordinate complex activities in a limited (often too short!)
period of time, for a customer between the two bound-
aries of a project (beginning and end). What is critical
for project marketing, however, is the unlimited period
of time (often too long!) between the end of one project
and the beginning of the next one for the same customer;
a time frame that is known in project marketing ap-
proach as the independent of any project phase [6]. Lim-
itation is central for project management; discontinuity
is central for project marketing [11]. Herein lies the pos-
sible major discrepancy between these two visions of the
world and thus between the two disciplines and their
possible articulation. ‘‘The International Network on
Project Marketing (INPM) argument for studying pro-
ject marketing rests on the assertion that it is not enough
to regard a project delivered by one firm/a group of
firms to another organization/group of organizations
as a set of managerial actions taken by the supplier(s),
i.e., mere project management . . . From an INPM per-
spective, project marketing is the broader term; it always
implicitly includes project management but not (neces-
sarily) vice versa’’ [7]. Thus, project marketing re-
embeds the project in the wider context of project
business. Some attempts at this kind of re-embedment
can be found in the abundant literature dealing with
projects in the construction industry [13].
4. What is the project cycle?
Project management in its modern form began to
take root in the sixties with major military space
356 B. Cova, R. Salle / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 354–359
programmes and large-scale development work. The
Project Management Institute (PMI) was the first to
introduce an organizational model and standardised
tools based on a model of reality as seen through the
eyes of project managers and project teams. From this
standpoint, the transaction which constitutes the invi-
tation to bid is part of the overall process without
being considered as a significant stage of the project
life cycle (conceptualization/planning/execution/termi-
nation). From the supplierÕs point of view, however,
the invitation to tender has long acted as a trigger
for action on a particular project. Once the contract
has been won, the supplier takes over project
management.
It is the role of project marketing to probe beyond
the invitation to bid in order to help the supplier foster
competitive advantage. In doing so, by taking the sup-
plierÕs point of view, project marketing has broken
away from the PMIÕs unique and encapsulating model.
Initially, project marketing defined itself as a set of
processes enabling suppliers selling projects-to-order
to identify customer projects long before the invitation
to tender, in order to better prepare for them. At the
time, the project was conceived of as a specific type
of offer, not falling under the umbrella of products
and industrial services; this included, for instance, the
sale of huge systems in such industries as Aerospace,
Construction, Energy, Telecommunications, etc. The
immediate consequence was to put the emphasis on
everything occurring before and after the project, and
modelling the project marketing cycle from there [14]
into six phases: search/preparation/bidding/negotia-
tion/implementation/transition.
Although this approach broadens the time frame
usually taken into account during project activities, it
only considers the point of view of one of the projectÕs
players: the supplier. On the other hand, some studies
influenced by the Interaction Model developed by the
IMP Group [15] have sought to align the supplierÕs
project marketing cycle with the clientÕs project buying
cycle [5]. The theory of industrial networks [16], which
views markets as networks, has enabled project mar-
keting to go beyond the operational approach of
achieving project sales based on identifying project
opportunities (the search phase, [14]). Project market-
ing has thus been able to develop a strategic approach
based on anticipating projects when there are not any
projects on the horizon through relationships with
key players, e.g., clients and stakeholders. This has al-
lowed Cova et al. [6] to extend the project cycle up-
stream with development of the ‘‘independent of any
project’’ or ‘‘outside any project opportunity’’ phases.
They bear in mind three main phases:
 Independent of any project. The project does not yet
exist for the supplier.
 Pre-tender. The supplier has identified a project and
chooses whether or not to invest resources in the
development of an offer and in contacts.
 Tender preparation. The project officially exists in the
form of a market consultation by the customer (invi-
tation to tender), calling for an offer by the supplier.
Over the same period (80s and 90s), project manage-
ment underwent huge expansion, prompting it to cover
more and more diverse industries. In doing so, it consol-
idated its operational anchorage and time framework
limited to carrying out a project (performance) within
a given time with a given budget. Hence, project man-
agement only began to follow project marketingÕs exam-
ple and open up to the idea of broader time frames in the
project life cycle in the late nineties. Artto [12] stated
that ‘‘the project concept must be redefined to include
the activities from the very early pre-project phases to
very late post-project phases. Such view suggests that
the project must be managed already before the project
is formally established, and then that the project must be
managed after completing the execution and dissolving
the formal project team. This approach to the extended
project process widens the scope of project management
outside the traditional planning/execution centered
view.’’ These broader time frames have diverse origins:
the customer-based approach to project management
[4]; supply chain management [17]; projects strategic
orientation [9].
5. What is the focus of the approach?
‘‘Having a customer focus means shifting from a goal
of maximizing our profits in one project by optimising
the utilization of our resources to a goal of superior ser-
vice to the customer to maximize the value of the cus-
tomerÕs project by meeting the jointly agreed project
goals’’ [4]. Here it would seem that customer-based pro-
ject management approach is close to project marketing
as regards its focus, e.g., building and maintaining long-
lasting relationships with key clients and stakeholders [6]
and, in doing so, avoiding any form of short-term
opportunism. Although the focus appears to be similar,
the means are actually different. Whereas project mar-
keting conceptual development aims to build and main-
tain relationships in-between two projects with key
customers and stakeholders, customer-based project
management development aims to enhance the relation-
ship with the customer inside one project, between the
sales phase and the delivery phase, through customer
satisfaction. Infact, everything must be done to avoid
uncertainty which could lead to adversarial relationships
during the project life cycle.
The major implication of discontinuity in project
business is a potential lack of buyer–seller bonding,
 B. Cova, R. Salle / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 354–359
interdependence and mutual orientation beyond the sin-
gle project, although there will be substantial buyer–
seller interaction during the delivery of an individual
project [17]. Thus, project marketing approach supports
the idea [6] that suppliers need to concentrate on three
separate dimensions of relationships. The first dimen-
sion (buying network or temporary network) is manag-
ing networks and relationships relating to an individual
project, from the call for tender to the end, as developed
in the project management approach. The second (pro-
ject network) is managing the network in and around
the customer, from the identification of an emerging
project (pre-tender phase) to the call for tender. The
third is managing networks of players and relationships
independent of any project; it encompasses the possibil-
ity (or lack) of relationships during a longer period of
multiple project activity, including possible ‘‘sleeping
relationships’’ [11], periods during which there are no
projects. This latter network encapsulates all the busi-
ness and non-business players that may play a role out-
side a given opportunity and is called a ÔmilieuÕ [6],
Ôproject horizonÕ [7] or Ôpermanent networkÕ [17].
The project marketing approach brings a wider per-
spective to project management regarding the focus of
developing and maintaining relationships. On the other
hand, project management forces project marketing to
remember that the ‘‘project’’ is more than a single epi-
sode in the relationship; it is in fact a long succession
of different episodes with highs and lows that need to
be carefully managed inside the project phase in order
to avoid negative effects on the tone of the relationship.
Once again, convergence of the two theories leads to
construction of a more integrated time frame as far as
relationship management is concerned: independent of
any project/pre-tender/during tender preparation/during
project completion. In conclusion, this means develop-
ing the relational dimension both in-between projects
and during the project.
6. Who are the stakeholders?
The management of internal and external project
stakeholders represents a challenge that most project
managers are only just beginning to acknowledge.
According to Turner [2], ‘‘it is only since the late
1960s, that investors in projects have begun to consider
the stakeholders in a project, and it is not only over the
last decade, since the 1980s, that truly adequate notice
has been given to their requirements’’. In fact, little is
known about the nature of the various project stake-
holders: ‘‘Who they are, what their drivers and separate
agendas are, and how to understand the nature of pro-
ject stakeholder trade-offs’’ [4]. Thus, for project man-
agement, the main focus is on the players themselves
without taking into account relationships between them.
357
Indeed, project management considers stakeholders as a
group of people who do not interact or form
relationships.
Conversely, project marketing [6] thinks of stake-
holders from the standpoint of ‘‘markets as networks’’,
i.e., stressing the relationships between them rather than
the players themselves. Project marketing describes the
collective body of relevant players in a companyÕs pro-
ject marketing activities. It is termed the ÔmilieuÕ and is
characterised by four elements:
 a territory;
 a network of heterogeneous players (e.g., business
people, governmental bodies, civil society organiza-
tions, etc.), related to each other within this territory;
 a model constructed and shared by these groups;
 a set of rules and norms (‘‘the law of the milieu’’) reg-
ulating interaction between these groups.
When choosing to enter a targeted segment (an activ-
ity on a geographical area), the supplier enters a ÔmilieuÕ
which can be defined [6] as a socio-spatial entity that is
geographically bound and in which, through the fre-
quency of socio-economic exchanges, business and
non-business players are intertwined. They share a com-
mon vision of business and a set of tacit rules – the ‘‘law
of the milieu’’. This ÔmilieuÕ represents a kind of collec-
tive group that cannot be categorised or defined as with
the segmentation approach. The relevant independent of
any project entity becomes the ÔmilieuÕ. The marketing
approach involves understanding this ÔmilieuÕ to develop
a position for identifying client projects and securing
relationship with stakeholders long before the appear-
ance of a possible project. For project marketing, the
milieu includes all players, rather than just customers
and suppliers:
 Business actors: Consultants, financial backers,
agents, engineering companies, sub-contractors, etc.
 Non-business actors: Governments, syndicates, lob-
bies, unions, pressure groups, activists, etc.
In project marketing [6], there is a direct link between
the three-phase model and the network of stakeholders
to be considered:
 Independent of any project. There is a ÔmilieuÕ of
stakeholders.
 In pre-tender. There is a Ôproject networkÕ of
stakeholders;
 During tender preparation. The Ôbuying networkÕ of
stakeholders is key.
In this case, we can say that project management lim-
its the network of stakeholders to the so-called Ôbuying
networkÕ, adding the Ôimplementation networkÕ, but that
358 B. Cova, R. Salle / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 354–359
it fails to take the broader view of the ÔmilieuÕ into ac-
count. In doing so, it does not give the company the pos-
sibility of anticipating stakeholder interplay or
capitalising on network knowledge gained on a specific
project. However, in order to remain consistent with
the relationship management time frame proposed ear-
lier, we can integrate the following to the three networks
previously described by project marketing:
 During project completion. The Ôimplementation net-
workÕ is key.
7. The project: given or jointly constructed?
Pinto and Rouhiainen [4], maintain that ‘‘successful
projects may require product and client modification . . .
The process of developing greater acceptance of innova-
tive projects involves a process mutual adaptation be-
tween the project itself and the customer. Significant
prework is required from the project manager and team
members as they scan the client and objectively assess
attitudes and needs regarding a project. If the team deter-
mines that it is not feasible to introduce a project within
the current organizational or environmental context,
they need to begin formulating plans for how to create
a more supportive environment’’. The notion of prework
posited by Pinto and Rouhiainen [4] can be defined as co-
creation or co-construction, as seen with project manage-
ment in Knowledge Intensive Business-Services, KIBS
[18], ‘‘because service delivery activities among KIBS
firms are complex, unstructured, and highly customized
to meet a particular clientÕs unique needs, clients must
effectively perform a variety of roles as they serve as
co-creators or co-producers of the knowledge-based
solution’’. The project marketing approach is totally in
tune with the possibility of modifying the project and
proposes to go even further in creating the project by
promoting a joint construction approach.
In terms of demand and supply, the field of project
marketing [6] may represent an extreme case of busi-
ness-to-business marketing, radically opposed to the tra-
ditional model of business-to-consumer marketing. The
Table 1
A Comparison between project management and project marketing
Disciplines Project management
Key Points
The project Temporary organization
Characteristics of projects Specific time frame and objectives
Project cycle Begins with request for proposal
Focus of the approach Resources are dedicated to enhance the relationship
inside one project
Stakeholders Internal and external actors that can have a positive or
detrimental effect on the projectÕs development
Project origin Mostly given
customer buying the project is generally at the origin of
the project: s/he has carried out a feasibility study, writ-
ten specifications, defined a budget and launched a call
for tender. S/he is a protagonist of her or his project.
On the other hand, the project supplier, e.g., the bidder,
is naturally placed in a submissive position, s/he is the
stooge. However, the reality of project marketing is far
more subtle. The usual strategy of such project suppliers
is to try to influence the project before the call for tender
is issued, so as to avoid the passive situation of a stooge.
Interaction with the customer and the stakeholders in
the ÔmilieuÕ takes place long before the call for tender
and forms the basis of the marketing strategies of pro-
ject suppliers attempting to anticipate and create pro-
jects. Current marketing strategies in project business
mostly aim to construct or deconstruct demand with
the customer, chiefly relying on the very long definition,
implementation and completion process of the project
(three years on average). Rather than preparing a pro-
posal in response to a particular bid, it is creating de-
mand for the project, i.e., the invitation to bid and its
specifications, that comes across as central to project
marketing tactics:
 Independent of any project. The aim is to create the
demand.
 Pre-tender. The approach seeks to define the specifi-
cations in conjunction with the customer.
 During tender preparation. The aim is to deconstruct
and recreate the project.
Once again, in keeping with the relationship manage-
ment time frame, it is useful to add the following:
 During project completion: Which involves drawing
up creative value-added proposals regarding specific
aspects of the project.
8. Conclusion
During the last decade, achieving convergence
between the two disciplines of project marketing and
Project marketing
Transaction
Discontinuity between one project and another
Begins outside any project opportunity
Resources are dedicated to maintain the relationship
between two projects
Relationships between business and non-business
actors in the milieu embedding the project
Given or jointly constructed
 B. Cova, R. Salle / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 354–359
project management seemed rather difficult. Neverthe-
less, thanks to recent developments in the field of project
management, the new century should pave the way for
constructive dialogue. Table 1 summarizes the major
points of convergence and divergence between the two
disciplines and provides a basis for new and innovative
avenue for research and managerial developments.
References
[1] Pinto JK, Covin JG. Project marketing: detailing the project
managerÕs hidden responsibility. Proj Manag J 1992;22(3):29–34.
[2] Turner JR. The commercial project manager. London: McGraw
Hill; 1995.
[3] Themistocleous G, Wearne SH. Project management top coverage
in journals. Int J Proj Manag 2000;18(1):7–11.
[4] Pinto JK, Rouhiainen PK. Building customer-based project
organizations. New York: John Wiley; 2001.
[5] Cova B, Holstius K. How to create competitive advantage in
project business. J Market Manag 1993;9(2):105–21.
[6] Cova B, Ghauri PN, Salle R. Project marketing: beyond
competitive bidding. Chichester: John Wiley; 2002.
[7] Skaates MA, Tikkanen H. International project marketing: an
introduction to the INPM approach. Int J Proj Manag
2003;21(7):503–10.
[8] Turner JR, Müller R. On the nature of the project as a temporary
organization. Int J Proj Manag 2003;21(1):1–8.
359
[9] Shenhar AJ, Dvir D, Levy D, Maltz AC. Project success: a
multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Plann
2001;34(6):699–725.
[10] Mandjak T, Veres Z. The D–U–C Model and the stages of the
project marketing process. In: Halinen A, Nummela N, editors.
Proceedings of the 14th IMP annual conference, Turku, Finland;
1998. p. 471–90.
[11] Hadjikhani A. Project marketing and the management of
discontinuity. Int Bus Rev 1996;5(3):319–36.
[12] Artto K. Management of projects as portfolios. Proj Manag
2001;7(1):4–5.
[13] Dubois A, Gadde LE. Supply strategy and network effects –
purchasing behaviour in the construction industry. Eur J Purchas
Supp Chain Manag 2000;6(3-4):207–15.
[14] Holstius K. Project Export. Research Report No. 1. Finland:
Lappeenranta University of Technology; 1987.
[15] Hakansson H. Industrial marketing and purchasing of industrial
goods: an interaction approach. Chichester: John Wiley; 1982.
[16] Mattsson LG. An application of network approach to marketing:
defending and changing market position. In: Dholakia N, Arndt
J, editors. Changing the course of marketing: alternative para-
digms for widening marketing theory, Research in Marketing 2,
Greenwich: JAI Press; 1985. p. 263–88.
[17] Dubois A, Gadde LE. The construction industry as a loosely
coupled system – implications for productivity and innovativity.
In: Hakansson H, editor. Proceedings of the 17th IMP conference,
Oslo, Norway; 2001.
[18] Bettencourt LA, Ostrom AL, Brown SW, Roundtree RI. Client
co-production in knowledge-intensive business services. Calif
Manag Rev 2002;44(4):100–28.