INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 655–667
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

On the broadening scope of the research on projects: a review

and a model for analysis
€derlund
Jonas So *

oping University, SE-58183 Link€

School of Management, Link€ oping, Sweden

Received 29 April 2003; received in revised form 24 February 2004; accepted 27 May 2004

Abstract

In recent years, we have witnessed an increased interest in the research on projects and project management. The aim of this
article is to review, classify and analyze the recent contributions within the field. This paper is based on two sets of data: (1) project-
related research published in major management and organization scientific journals, and (2) articles published between 1993 and
2002 in the International Journal of Project Management. The article offers a framework suitable for analyzing the developments
made and the different perspectives launched. It is submitted that ‘‘project research’’ instead of project management research might
be a better concept for capturing the current state of the field. We also show that papers in the International Journal of Project
Management have devoted little attention to research on contexts of multi-projects and multi-firms, a context that is considered to be
of great importance for the future of project studies. The recent developments illustrate the need to better integrate project man-
agement with the general developments in management and organization. Of special importance, we conclude, is the one that we
label project ecologies. We also believe that this concept, and research focus, might be of value for practitioners as it describes the
way many modern industries work. The paper contributes to the internal debate about the content and identity of project research.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Project management; Temporary organizations; Project research; Project ecologies; Literature review; Project ecologies; International
Journal of Project Management

1. The broadening scope of project management
The present article elaborates on a framework for the
analysis of project-related research. Several recent
studies have documented the development of the use of
project-based structures in a number of industries. An
important contribution here is the study of Whittington
et al. [111] published in Organization Science. The study
gives evidence of a tremendous increase in the applica-
tion of project-based structures in many industries. In
addition, this growth has been observed in research of a
wide range of sectors [24,67,68].
The research on projects today has likewise expanded
considerably. Initially, a management and organiza-
tional concern, focusing exclusively on the implemen-
tation of a single project, project research, in general,
now spans a variety of levels of analysis. Concepts such
*
Tel.: +46-13-28-40-65; fax: +46-13-28-18-73.
E-mail address: jonso@eki.liu.se (J. S€
oderlund).
as the management of projects [72,74] and the manage-
ment by projects [31,96] clearly point to the current
devotion of project research to the management of
project-based firms. In the present article, we review the
recent expansion within the currently broadening area of
project management research.
As presented in his well-known treatise, Mintzberg
[70] states that most of the emergent industries since the
World-war II are project-intensive. Traditional man-
agement and organizational theorists have historically,
however, paid limited attention to ‘‘projects’’ as im-
portant for understanding the modern firm. Only re-
cently, a more concentrated effort to cover projects has
been observed in traditional journals on management
and organization. Papers that center especially on pro-
ject management, project-based organizations, etc., have
been published in Research Policy, Organization Studies
and Scandinavian Journal of Management. An important
factor here is that the researchers suggest project man-
agement to be at the core of understanding the modern

0263-7863/$30.00 Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.05.011
656 oderlund / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 655–667
J. S€
firm. This is one of the trends that will be discussed and
analyzed in this paper.
The broadening scope of project management re-
search is also observed in the articles of its leading trade
journal International Journal of Project Management
(IJPM). Of course, the major stream is still focusing on
traditional project management issues, such as planning
and organization of the single project. It is possible, for
instance, to see a widening of interest also to the politics,
stakeholders and environment of projects. More im-
portantly, for the present review, are the articles taking
notice in aspects outside the single project. Conse-
quently, the present paper zeros in on the work on inter-
firm projects, multi-project organizations and project-
based industries. In a separate analysis of recent publi-
cations in the IJPM (1993–2002), we observe an in-
creasingly large number of publications taking special
interest in the relationships between firms (i.e., inter-firm
projects) and the relationships between projects in a
single firm (i.e., multi-project organizations).
One trend observed is thus that: traditional project
management researchers become increasingly more in-
terested in issues related to traditional management,
organization and inter-firm cooperation. Another trend
is that researchers in other disciplines show greater
awareness of the importance of projects in understand-
ing the functioning of markets and firms. We welcome
this expansion, but also identify some problems in terms
of the identity of project-related research and relation-
ships to other fields of inquiry.
A few literature reviews have been presented within
the area of project management. Betts and Lansley [6]
gave an important account of the first ten years of
publications in the IJPM. The review gives a good view
of the articles published, but does not cover literature
published after 1992. We argue that several important
contributions have been made in the recent 10 years. We
also believe that it is not sufficient to only look at a
single journal, although it might be the leading one, to
identify important developments of a research field. We
thus take a somewhat broader look than Betts &
Lansley. The study by Evaristo and van Fenema [28]
proposes a classification of project management re-
search. The authors explicitly acknowledge the impor-
tance of the inter-organizational dimensions of projects,
but do not include it in their analysis. Instead, they focus
on the importance of ‘‘multiple sites’’; an aspect that we,
in the present review, will not focus upon. Our paper
thus seeks to contribute to the typology and reasoning
submitted by Evaristo and van Fenema.
The review by Packendorff [75] has received much
attention for outlining two major streams of project
management research: ‘‘projects as tools’’ and ‘‘projects
as temporary organizations’’. The review is, however,
somewhat dated and does not acknowledge the devel-
opment and broadening of the scope of project man-
agement research. Finally, the recent review by Pinto
[83] should be mentioned. The author focuses on the
‘‘within-disciplinary’’ project-management contribu-
tions, such as planning, risk management and team
management. Pinto’s analysis is limited in the same way
as the one by Packendorff; it does not acknowledge in-
ter-firm and multi-project issues. We would argue that
the review presented in the present paper contributes to
our understanding of the present state of project theo-
rizing, especially by pointing to and analyzing the
broadening scope of project research.
In this paper, we suggest that it might be more rele-
vant to talk about ‘‘project research’’ instead of ‘‘project
management research’’. Project research is here sug-
gested as a concept capturing much of the recent de-
velopment within the field, e.g., project-based
companies, project-based industries and cooperation in
inter-firm projects. Our literature review focuses on the
time period after 1992. In several ways, this article thus
furthers the ideas put forward in the earlier literature
reviews. Researchers currently occupied with the devel-
opment of knowledge about projects come from such
diverse disciplines as sociology, economic geography,
organization theory, organization behavior and strategic
management. The presented framework might also
stimulate and smooth the progress of such cross-disci-
plinary debates.
2. A brief history of project management research
Levene [56] traced the history of project management
to the 1950s with the rapid expansion and development
of various types of project scheduling and planning
techniques. For project management researchers, the
work of Gantt in creating the Gantt-chart and Adam-
iecki’s work on harmonograms are also important in
understanding the history of the subject (e.g., [115]).
Levene argues that the common viewpoint of project
management is still very much orientated towards
techniques for the management of time to enable the
planning and scheduling of activities in a single project.
The prime interest in much of the early work was on
various types of progress and performance charts that
could be applied to increase the efficiency of certain type
of work. This later on led to the development of CPM
and PERT [72]. To a large extent these methods were
associated with the military development projects. The
early knowledge development in project management
was thus, which is true also for other management dis-
ciplines, based in the engineering department of indus-
trial companies that tried to improve their management
skills (cf. [94]).
In management research journals, Gaddis’ article in
the late 1950s is probably the first one that truly pointed
to the general management interest of project manage-
 oderlund / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 655–667
J. S€
ment ([29]). This work led several authors during the
1960s and 1970s to expand the knowledge about how to
manage and organize a single project (e.g., [66]). In the
late 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, we also see a
number of references to project management in other
scholarly journals (e.g., [35]) The focus was primarily on
the management tasks in R&D and construction pro-
jects (see e.g., [101]). The perspective was clearly project-
centric and the authority system normally inside the
single firm. In this tradition the contribution of the re-
search on temporary organizations, especially promoted
by the IRNOP conferences (International Research
Network on Organizing by Projects) should also be ac-
knowledged ([60]). Still, the focus here was largely pro-
ject-centric (e.g., [62,75]). It is thus clear that the
traditional perspective of the research on projects is
project-centric, focusing on the responsibilities of one
actor, normally the single firm.
The observed problems of cooperation and coordi-
nation between project actors spun researchers to fur-
ther our understanding of the role of contracts,
relationships and cooperation (see e.g., [21]). The in-
creased role of projects as turnkey deliveries, as pointed
out by researchers on industrial marketing, led re-
searchers to focus on the relationship between sub-
contractors and clients (see e.g., [13]). The role of con-
tracts, development of relationships, etc., were consid-
ered to be of importance in understanding the
management and organization of projects. The focus
was still project-centric but directed interest much more
clearly to the interrelationships between firms. This
is thus one important expansion of the research on
projects.
As companies adopted project-based structures, the
relationship between projects entered the stage of pro-
ject management research. Mintzberg [70], for instance,
furthered our understanding of ‘‘adhocracies’’ as an
organizational configuration constituted by projects.
Inspired by the many writings on matrix management
and the role of organizational structure, project man-
agement researchers became aware of the organizational
context to explain project management success and
failure (e.g., [34]). The contributions of Clark and Fu-
jimoto [9] and Clark and Wheelwright [10] also con-
tributed to this knowledge domain, pointing to the
importance of the project dimension when configuring
organizational structures.
In recent years, the scope of project-oriented research
has become even wider. The focus was put on projects in
multi-firm, multi-project settings. As it seems, re-
searchers suggest that the focus on projects could be a
way of increasing the understanding how industries
evolve, how industrial networks change, how the eco-
nomic geography is shaped and how firms develop
project strategies (cf. [61]). Projects were also looked
upon as empirical entities for the analysis of social and
657
personal networks, career development and trust be-
tween professionals (cf. [18,65]).
These four developments could be viewed upon as the
evolution of the research on projects. The first devel-
opment could be seen as a broadening of project man-
agement to take on wider organizational problematics,
such as organizational processes and politics. The sec-
ond development is an extension of research to include
the inter-organizational aspects and authority-system
issues, such as contracting and cooperation. The third
development focuses on the level of analysis, including
company-wide issues, such as organizational structures,
matrix organization and project-based structures. A
fourth development has to do with the broadening of
research to industry-wide matters, such as the coopera-
tion between firms, networks between individuals, etc.,
in project-intensive industries.
Much research on projects today is thus actually not
dealing with single projects and their management, as
the standard definition of project management discussed
by Levene [56] indicates. We thus suggest project re-
search as a better concept for capturing the current state
of the field. The above historical account has given ev-
idence of a continuing development within the research
on projects. Where do we stand today? Where are the
boundaries of our discipline? These are the questions to
which we intend to contribute.
3. Methodology: literature search and categorization
The following journals were included in the review:
Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, Academy of Management Review, British
Journal of Management, International Studies of Man-
agement and Organization, Journal of Management,
Journal of Management Studies, Management Science,
Organization, Organization Science, Organization Stud-
ies, Research Policy, Scandinavian Journal of Manage-
ment, Strategic Management Journal. We also searched
for special issues in other journals. We found special
issues in International Business Review (Project market-
ing and systems selling), Management Learning (Project-
based learning), Regional Studies (Project organization
and temporary collaboration).
For the time period prior to 1993, the work by
Packendorff [75] was heavily relied upon. The review has
also benefited greatly from previous overviews (such as
[25,72,74,75]). The work by Packendorff [75] is based on
a literature search carried out almost ten years ago and
is partly biased toward ‘‘organization-theory’’ view-
points (see [74]) and a special focus on the project-cen-
tric level. We would argue that in the last decade, a
number of contributions have been made that are not
easily subsumable under ‘‘project-centric’’ approaches.
Furthermore, we believe that the review by Packendorff
658 oderlund / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 655–667
J. S€
[75] does not acknowledge the research on inter-firm
projects. For instance, the work by Eccles [21,22] and
Cova and Holstius [13] is not part of his review. This
makes our review even more important.
In addition, we did a literature search in the IJPM for
the time period 1993–2002. We categorized the research
in our four categories to be discussed later on. For ob-
vious reasons, most of the work was found in the re-
search on project management and project organization
(Category I).
Our intention is thus to suggest a categorization of
the development of project management research that
might not only function as an account of the present
stage of theorizing, but also open up the discourse for
new developments and new combinations of perspec-
tives. Some limitations are necessary in order to fulfill
this task. First, the attention is given to research that has
broadened the perspective of project management and
project research. This means that we give modest at-
tention to the breakthroughs and contributions within
traditional project management, such as project risk
management, project planning, project teams, etc. For a
review on the development within this area, we suggest
Pinto [83]. This also means that studies on specific
topics, such as multi-cultural project teams (e.g., [50]),
project leadership and project teams (e.g., [32,33]) have
been considered to be beyond the scope of this article.
The focus of attention here is on studies and articles
that analyze projects from various theoretical perspec-
tives. Our work was carried out in five different steps:
1. Analysis of previous reviews,
2. Literature search in the above mentioned journals,
3. Search for special issues in other journals,
4. Preliminary analysis and collection of key cited
articles,
5. Search for other published work by author.
The keywords used were ‘‘projects’’, ‘‘project man-
agement’’, ‘‘project organization’’, ‘‘project collabora-
tion’’, and ‘‘temporary organization’’. The literature
reviewed in this paper shows major differences in terms
of the focus of the empirical studies, the methodologies
used, and the key questions posed. If possible, we have
also searched for each of the authors’ other work in
order to obtain references that might be included in
the present study. Of course, this might also lead to
a dominance of very few researchers in each of the
categories.
During the course of research a specific ‘‘tracking
methodology’’ has been adopted in order to trace the
theoretical inspiration of each of the articles. This means
that for a certain article, the references have been
scanned in order to find the most important reference of
the paper. This was made based on either the author’s
clear positioning towards certain articles, or the most
frequently cited references. Based on this information,
the articles were ordered and abstracts were read. In the
cases where the article met the requirements of the
present study, the entire article was read. This process
could go on for several stages. For instance, Lundin and
S€oderholm [62] refer to Bryman et al. [8] as a key ref-
erence, who in turn cite Goodman and Goodman [36].
Moreover, by using the Social Sciences Citation Index,
we were able to search for articles that have been re-
ferred to in the studies covered by our literature search.
In some cases, additional information was gathered
from scholarly books in order to support the categori-
zation made in this study. The intention was primarily
to support and improve the information of each of the
categories and to use existing knowledge on project
management literature as far as possible despite the
limited scope of the literature search.
4. A first analysis of the literature
The following section presents a model for the cate-
gorization of different lines of project research. The
notions of ‘‘management of projects’’ and ‘‘management
by projects’’ have expanded the focus of project man-
agement research. This is one dimension in our model,
i.e., from a focus on single projects (project-centric) to a
focus on multiple projects. The other development has
to do with the widening in terms of the authority system
of projects. It is suggested that inter-firm project re-
search is another example of the widening of project
research. This gives us our second dimension, i.e., from
a focus on single firms (firm-centric) to a focus on
multiple firms. In sum, we thus have two dimensions,
projects and firms. In combining these we are able to
present the model in Fig. 1.
In the following sections we will discuss each category
of research. We will present some of the key contribu-
tions and some lines of development in each category.
We will also identify some differences between the re-
search reported in traditional management and organi-
Fig. 1. A framework for the analysis of project research.
 oderlund / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 655–667
J. S€
zational journals and compare this with the research
reported in the IJPM.
5. Project management: planning, organization and suc-
cess factors
In the project-centric research, it is possible to iden-
tify some important differences. In terms of the empiri-
cal work, most studies address the management of
industrial projects (cf. [72]). These studies investigate
primarily R&D and implementation projects in indus-
tries such as construction, automotive, power generation
and transmission, aerospace, and defense. A similar
conclusion is made by Betts and Lansley [6] and Pack-
endorff [75]. The articles vary in terms of their focus
along the project lifecycle in directing their attention to
the early phases of projects or the actual implementation
of projects (see also [101]).
Packendorff [75] states that much project manage-
ment research has a normative touch. S€ oderlund [100]
developed this further and pointed to two major streams
of literature within traditional project management re-
search, namely the ‘‘optimization school’’ and the
‘‘critical success factor school’’. The former deals pri-
marily with the development of various ‘‘work break-
down techniques’’ for the division of labor and network
planning for integrating the tasks. A typical assumption
found in the articles is that ‘‘successful management
of. . .projects requires a careful planning, scheduling. . .of
activities’’ [40, p. 140]. In recent years, much research
into this area has revolved around the limitations of
PERT and CPM. However, contributions have not
questioned the basic rationale behind these techniques,
but instead, furthered and complemented this particular
strand of research. One example here would be the work
by Gutierrez and Kouvelis [43, p. 990] who state that the
fundamental problem with these methods is that they
continuously underestimate the time required for com-
pleting a project. More sophisticated (planning) meth-
ods, the authors argue, are required for handling these
problems. The amount of research reported in the IJPM
with similar interest is extensive. A plethora of articles
that focus on work breakdown structures, planning,
scheduling and risk management have been identified
(see also [6]). This should come as no surprise as this is
what traditionally is considered to be the core of project
management knowledge (cf. [56]).
The research on ‘‘critical success factors’’ emphasizes
the generic factors determining project success. The re-
search method is normally quantitative, large sample
surveys. A number of references are found within this
area, such as Baker et al. [4], Morris [71], Pinto and
Kharbanda [84], Pinto and Slevin [86], Pinto and Slevin
[87], Pinto and Mantel (1990) [81], and Pinto and Pres-
659
cott [85]. A number of references in the same tradition
are also found in the IJPM (e.g., [12,110]).
This stream of research has, according to Shenhar
[97], devoted little effort to create a ‘‘contingency the-
ory’’ but instead focused on the general aspects of pro-
ject management. However, since the early 1990s, a few
important contingency studies have been reported in
traditional management and organization journals, such
as Research Policy and Management Science (see
[20,98,99]). These studies build on a long tradition of
contingency reasoning in organization theory and in-
novation research. In a similar vein, Lindkvist et al. [58]
analyze different project logics suitable for various
situations. In addition, Engwall (2003) [26] points to
the importance of broadening the classic contingency
dimensions.
Possibly stimulated by the inception of the IRNOP
conferences in 1994, the use of the concept of ‘‘tempo-
rary organization’’ has increased in project management
writings (cf. [60]). In the publication from the first IR-
NOP conference (cf. [60]), several authors made explicit
reference to ‘‘temporary organization’’ (see e.g.,
[59,62,67,75]). As it seems, much effort has been put into
extending the interpretations of project management
within organization theory. This type of research is not
interested in planning techniques or critical success
factors, but, instead, the various behavioral dimensions
of projects. This particular research stream has, how-
ever, attracted only limited interest from researchers
publishing in the IJPM.
The research reported in the IJPM has, however,
broadened the scope in other ways. For instance, work
has revolved around politics [82], complexity [112],
change [76], time [90], and learning [3]. As it seems, this
research clearly acknowledges the perspective that
Packendorff [75] labels temporary organizations without
giving reference to research published in other areas on
similar topics.
In sum, a strong tradition within project management
research focuses on the management and organization
of single projects. The perspective is, for obvious rea-
sons, project-centric. The perspective is also largely
normative and rationalistic. The perspective of ‘‘projects
as temporary organizations’’, for sure, attracted much
interest in traditional management and organization
journals. Table 1 summarizes the review of the research
on project management.
6. Inter-firm projects: transaction costs, contracts and
client relationships
Based on transaction cost economics [113], several
authors have taken interest in the importance and role
of long-term relationships between firms (e.g.,
[107,114]). The research with a more or less contractual
660 oderlund / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 655–667
J. S€

Table 1
Project management research: a summary
Characteristics Project management research (project-centric, single firm centric)
Keywords Project management, temporary organization, project organization, project planning, project scheduling
Research focus Theoretical themes that have been focused are primarily the planning and scheduling of ‘‘project
implementation’’, critical success factors of project management, management and organization of single
projects, processes of temporary organization. Main area of study has been R&D and construction
Key contributions (examples) Gaddis [27], Cleland and King [11] Goodman and Goodman [33], Pinto and Prescott [79], Shenhar and Dvir
[93] Lundin and S€ oderholm [57]
Description of development ‘‘From project planning to temporary organizations’’

approach centers on issues such as contracting type and
governance structures. A classic piece in the literature
focusing on projects carried out under several authority
systems is the work by Stinchcombe [104] (see also re-
lated references by [21,22,103]). Stinchcombe [104] sug-
gests the importance of contracts as ‘‘hierarchical
documents’’ in inter-firm projects. A recent contribution
within this area is the book by Kolltveit and Reve [54]
who also subscribes to the transaction cost approach.
The work by Stinchcombe [104] seems to have been
important for research published in traditional man-
agement and organization journals, but only limitedly
important for the work published in the IJPM (see e.g.,
[45,59]).
Moreover, within the research on project marketing,
a group of researchers commenced studying the mar-
keting activities preceding large-scale industrial projects
[64]. The article by Cova and Holstius [13] has probably
played a key role in this development (see special issue
on project marketing, [42]). Whilst the researchers on
project marketing are mainly inspired by industrial
marketing, their focus is of importance for project-ori-
ented research in general. For instance, they stress the
importance of project management in the early stages
and a ‘‘proactive approach’’ in the marketing of projects
(e.g., [14–16]).
As a critique against many rational decision-making
and project management models, several studies of the
decision processes preceding project implementation
have been reported (e.g., [45,93]). The research is driven
by an interest to understand the formation of large
projects and their political decision-making processes .
The research here typically centers on large, complex
single projects where a number of companies and gov-
ernment agencies are involved.
Dahlgren and S€ oderlund (2001) [17] suggests the
concepts of ‘‘pacing’’ and ‘‘matching hierarchies’’ in
order to understand inter-firm projects. The authors
stress the limited role of contracts in inter-firm projects
and instead turn to analyze the role of management
hierarchies and time processes between contractor and
client, and the effect of other complementary players,
e.g., consultants. They stress the hazards of lack of long-
term relationships between the interacting parties. The
lack of long-term relationship has also been explained as
an important factor for the failure of inter-firm projects
(e.g., [102]).
In sum, it seems possible to identify two major
streams of research within this area. One takes an in-
terest in aspects related to the transaction costs and the
role and limits of contracts and opportunistic behavior.
The other one focuses on the ‘‘project deal’’ and the
network aspects of projects, e.g., the building of rela-
tionships between the actors and the pooling of re-
sources. This particular stream of research has its
intellectual origin in the research on industrial market-
ing. A special issue of the International Business Review
is here a key contribution. The focus on the long-term
relationships between players in project-based industries
was probably also significant for the development of
research of our fourth category of research, to be dis-
cussed in later sections of the paper.
The following table is limited to articles that take an
interest in the governance and organizational aspects of
inter-firm projects. Hence articles focusing only on
procurement and supplier selection are left out. The
table also centers on work that is explicitly based on
empirical research. One important theme in these arti-
cles is their special interest in how to manage and or-
ganize projects that cross firm boundaries (see Tables 2
and 3).
7. Multi-project firms: coordination, resource allocation,
portfolios and programs
The increased use of project-based structures and the
awareness of project management as a task carried out
in contexts of other projects, were probably of impor-
tance in the development of the research on the multi-
project firm. The focus here has been on the manage-
ment and organizational issues of firms operating by
projects. Important issues concern alternatives to func-
tional structures, processes of ‘‘projectification’’, han-
dling the temporary-permanent organizational dilemma
and innovation (see e.g., [53]). Important areas concern
various alternatives to the functional structure. Here the
research on Complex Products and Systems seems to be
important. Project-led organizations, is one example, as
coined by Hobday (2001) [47]. Other issues might also
 oderlund / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 655–667
J. S€ 661

Table 2
Articles in IJPM on ‘‘inter-firm projects’’ (1993–2002)
Article Focus of analysis
Halman and Braks [41] Structure, culture and principles of project alliancing
Tam [100] Successful and filing cases of build-operate-transfer infrastructure projects
Barends [5] The contractual relationship between owner and engineering contractor in capital
investment projects
Hobbs and Andersen [43] Different models for alliance relationships in the design and execution phases in large
engineering projects
Turner and Simister [101] Selection of contract type on infrastructure projects
Bresnen and Marshall [7] Comparative analysis of the cooperative mechanism of partnership and the processes
involved in the development and maintenance of partnership relationships

Table 3
Research on inter-firm projects: a summary
Characteristics Inter-firm project research (project-centric, multi-firm context)
Keywords Contracts, negotiation, relationships, cooperation, transaction costs, networks
Research focus The theoretical issues concern the role of contracts, the establishment of inter-firm relationships,
the development of project networks. The empirical work has been performed primarily in the
construction industry and various types of large engineering projects, e.g., offshore projects
Key contributions (examples) Stinchcombe [98], Cova and Holstius [13], Sahlin-Andersson [87]; Hellgren and Stjernberg [42]
Description of development ‘‘From contracts to relationships’’

relate to knowledge management processes, inter-pro-
ject learning, multi-project management as termed and
discussed by Nobeoka and Cusumano [73]. Several ar-
ticles in the recent two years have focused on learning
and innovation problems in the project-based firm, e.g.,
Gann and Salter (2000) [30] and Keegan and Turner
[53]. For obvious reasons, the background of much of
the research reported in traditional management jour-
nals is a critique towards the traditional view of the firm
as more or less ignoring the role of projects in designing
and governing firms.
The research published in the IJPM on the theme of
‘‘multi-project firms’’ is extensive. The articles cover a
wide range of topics, including portfolio management,
program management, project-based management and
multi-project environments. The following table points
to the increased interest in aspects with connections to
traditional management and organizational issues. One
important theme in these article is, as expressed by Ev-
aristo and van Fenema 28, p. 276], their ‘‘interest in
multiple project management’’. The following table
summarizes the articles that we have considered in the
present review (see Table 4).
As it seems, researchers that publish in the IJPM are
more interested in the managerial problems related to
running projects simultaneously. Some of the articles
center on the modifications of planning techniques, the
role of program management, etc., in order to test the
limits of project-based approaches and the required
changes of project management in order to match
company-wide problematics. The research reported in
traditional management and organization journals has
somewhat a different background. It views project-based
structure as one of several organizational structures and
organizational forms, a form that research has paid only
limited interest to, it is argued, and a form that ques-
tions much of previous theorizing about organizing and
management in the modern firm. Table 5 presents some
of the work reported here.
8. Project ecologies: the sociology and economic geogra-
phy of projects
The special issue in Regional Studies is one example
of researchers from other fields taking greater interest
into the role and functioning of projects. Furthermore,
in organizational behavior, we have seen researchers of
career development taking notice of projects as creators
of the careers of professional workers. Others have
documented the problems of trust in project-intensive
industries. We suggest the term ‘‘project ecologies’’ for
this research’s interest in the links between projects and
actors (e.g., firms), the sociology of projects, in the
economics of projects and in the links between project
participation and company development. Research on
project ecologies thus takes interest in the study of the
interrelationships between projects and their environ-
ments. Lundin and S€ oderholm [63], for instance, stress
the importance of macro descriptors of projects in order
to analyze the ‘‘projectified society’’. We submit that
much research in traditional management and organi-
zation journals have especially considered research on
project ecologies. However, our review shows that a
similar interest is not observed in the leading trade
journal of project management. We will here briefly
662 oderlund / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 655–667
J. S€

Table 4
Articles in IJPM on ‘‘multi-project firms’’ (1993–2002)
Article Focus of analysis
Robins [86] Responsibility and delegation in the management of projects
Platje and Seidel [82] Delegation and communication in multi-project management
Platje et al. [83] Simultaneous management of the throughput times, resource allocation and costs in portfolio management
Scheinberg and Stretton [89] Multi-project planning
Payne [72] Complexity aspects in the management of multi-projects
Eskerod [25] Multi-project issues, such as resources and attention, in turbulent environments
Levene and Braganza [52] Programs of related change projects
Gray [38] Preconditions for the implementation of a program management model
Pellegrinelli [74] The nature and key facets of programs and program working
Van Der Merwe [102] The relationship between organizational structure and control in multi-project management
Payne and Turner [73] The need for a common project management approach
Archer and Ghasemzadeh [2] The selection process of the project portfolio
Alsene [1] Types of project management and the effectiveness of project structures in carrying out internal change
Van Der Merwe [103] Business development, strategy and structure and their relationships to project management

Table 5
Research on multi-project firms: a summary
Characteristics Multi-project firm research (multi-project context, single-firm centric)
Keywords Matrix management, Multi-project environments, project portfolios, project-based organiza-
tions, management of projects, management by projects
Research focus The theoretical issues concern the resource allocation between projects, priorities between
projects, coordination among projects, the role of project directors, the projectification of the
firm, the problems of learning and innovation in project-based organizations. The empirical
work has been conducted in primarily in R&D and consulting firms, e.g., the automotive
industry
Key contributions (examples) Sharad [90], Clark and Wheelwright [10], Midler [62], Nobeoka and Cusumano [68], Hobday
(2000), Gann and Salter (2000), Keegan and Turner [47]
Description of development ‘‘From matrix organizations to innovation and learning in project-based firms’’

comment upon some of the major publications within
the area of project ecologies.
DeFillippi and Arthur [18] challenge several tenets of
strategic management theory (see also [80]). For in-
stance, the authors stress the need for understanding the
market and social processes that facilitate the assembly
of human capital; its identification, evaluation and se-
lection for project-based activity. They emphasize mar-
ket uncertainty and volatility of many project-based
industries. They also argue that more research has to
take ‘‘temporary enterprises’’ (cf. projects) into account.
This, the authors say, would contribute to our under-
standing of the temporary nature of the enterprise and
of career investments within it (see also [51]). The au-
thors see the project as a learning episode for each
participant and for their respective industry and occu-
pational community [19, 190]. In this sense, the authors
acknowledge the role of projects to sustain, a large,
permanent group, and thus to some stabilizing aspects
of the relationships between projects.
DeFillippi and Arthur refer to the work of Eccles [21]
as one piece of research that has especially focused on
project-based industries. The article by Eccles focuses on
the various types of contracting firms observed in pro-
ject-intensive industries. In Eccles’ case the industry is
construction. Eccles suggests the notion of ‘‘quasi-
firms’’ to expand the knowledge about the forms of
governance instrumentality. His analysis centers on the
role of projects and firms in understanding the gover-
nance and the operative logics in focal projects.
Another contribution is found in the work of Mey-
erson et al. [65]. The work is much cited in the articles in
the special issue on projects published in Regional
Studies. The paper centers on similar topics as DeFil-
lippi and Arthur, however, the focus is more clearly
oriented towards the single project. The authors stress
the importance of role structures in creating swift trust
in project-intensive environments. They also point to the
importance of reputation in governing much of the ac-
tivities in project-based industries. Reputation is thus
put at the fore for understanding project ecologies.
The articles published in the special issue of Regional
Studies, for obvious reasons, focus on the economic
geography of project-intensive industries. Grabher [38]
stresses the importance of long-term relationships for
the generation of trust (see also [37,39,105]). However,
he also stresses that the core problem of much project
activity is the frequent lack of long-term relationships.
The author states that this might be viewed as the par-
adox of project-based organizing, i.e., the safeguards are
 oderlund / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 655–667
J. S€ 663

Table 6
Research on project ecologies: a summary
Characteristics Project ecologies (multi-firm contexts, multi-projects)
Keywords Project-based industries, project-based careers, project ecologies, networks, reputation and trust
Research focus Building of networks in project-industries, development of project-based careers, the role of trust
in project-intensive industries. Studies have been performed of various types of project-based
industries, such as film-making, advertising and IT
Key contributions (examples) Meyerson et al. [60], DeFillippi and Arthur[17], Grabher [34]
Description of development ‘‘From projects to the interrelationships between projects and their environments’’

missing in situations when they are most needed.
Ekinsmyth [23, 231], in the same issue, claims that the
understanding of projects must be built on an analysis of
the latent networks of project actors, their constitution
and characteristics. The author suggests that ‘‘boun-
daryless careers’’, ‘‘free agents’’ and ‘‘projects’’ are inter-
firm phenomena that force us to reframe our under-
standing of both careers and organizations. In sum,
Grabher and Ekinsmyth point to the importance of the
study of the interrelationships between projects and
their environments, and the possibilities of the research
on projects to generate an understanding about the way
industries work.
Much research on project ecologies stresses the im-
portance of the study of networks (industrial, profes-
sional, social, etc.) and various types of projects (action
localities) in order to understand today’s corporate ac-
tivity. Important questions here would be networks,
reputation, role structures and reputation. The research
on project ecologies would also contribute to the un-
derstanding of management and organization of single
projects and also suggest a path to increase our under-
standing of the context of projects (see Table 6).
Our literature review points to the fact that research
on project ecologies has only been given modest interest
in the articles in the IJPM. We have found only one
article that centers on industry characteristics. The arti-
cle is very macro-oriented, focusing on the inflation and
recession cycles of the UK construction industry ([91]).
9. Discussion
Our review has pointed out some important differ-
ences between research on projects in traditional man-
agement and organization journals and research
published in the IJPM. One such difference was the
notion of ‘‘temporary organizations’’ which positions
the research on projects in an organization-theory
framework. However, the concept has only attracted
limited attention by scholars that publish in the IJPM.
The research within this area has developed rapidly both
in traditional management journals and in the leading
trade journal of project management. The research has
continuously reported on new ways of organizing pro-
jects, e.g., geographically dispersed projects, concurrent
projects, and other flexible approaches to project man-
agement, but also reported on more critical approaches
on project management (e.g., [49]). The research in this
category has also pointed to the temporary aspects of
organizing and managing, e.g., the role of deadlines and
milestones (e.g., [101]).
The framework presented in this paper might be used
to discuss various types of research on projects. It might
also be useful for the analyze of the differences between
project management research and other types of project-
related research. Furthermore, the argument is that
traditional project management research with its focus
on single projects might contribute to our understanding
of the modern firm by looking at the ‘‘organizational
meso-level’’, i.e., a level that standard organization
theory not normally focuses upon and to which team or
group research does not pay greater attention. Fur-
thermore, the development towards ‘‘multi-project
management’’ might be a fruitful contribution to the
understanding of the modern firm. Although, it should
be kept in mind that this research normally falls quite
close to much of the research on organization theory,
especially the research on matrix management and
adhocracies (cf. [55,69]). In any case, the research here
has furthered our understanding of the modern firm and
the management and organization of project-intensive
companies. Important questions for the future would
include project management as a core competence and
the building of project capabilities. The research should
also continue to acknowledge the various functions of
project directors, program managers and portfolio
managers in managing these companies.
The research categorized in the cell on single projects
in a multi-firm context contributes not only to partner-
ing issues and inter-organizational projects, but also to
the research on the dynamics of industrial networks (cf.
[13]). The cooperation and coordination issues are
brought to the fore in these multi-actor settings. Re-
search here should continue to develop our under-
standing of cooperation and coordination problems,
governance structures and the role and limits of con-
tracts. Research should also acknowledge organiza-
tional problematics, such as knowledge sharing, trust
and cultural aspects of inter-firm projects.
664 oderlund / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 655–667
J. S€
Our review pointed to a difference between research
reported in traditional and organizational journals and
research reported in the IJPM. We labeled this the re-
search on project ecologies. It was stated that much of
this research has been published outside the major
journal of project management. It was also stated that
this research might add a new perspective to our un-
derstanding of the role of projects for industries, firms
and knowledge work. Future research within this area
might help us understand the new project-intensive in-
dustries, the relationship between the permanent (firms,
institutions, networks) and the temporary (projects).
This research might also shed some light on the role of
projects for the development of industries, firms and
professional careers, and in a sense contribute to our
understanding of various types of networks by focusing
on a compressed period of action, i.e., the project. The
research might also illuminate how projects are brought
about, how they are governed (e.g., reputation, net-
works) and where key competencies of a single project
reside (e.g., in networks, individuals, institutions). We
suggest this research has potentials of contributing both
to the research on project management and the research
on industrial development. Hence, we might here find a
new avenue for future cross-disciplinary research and an
additional academic platform for the research on pro-
jects. The understanding of project ecologies, the inter-
relationships between projects and their environment,
would also be central for practitioners. This emphasizes
the task of the firm in bringing about challenging pro-
jects, in handling the reputation processes and in de-
veloping and nurturing the networks that are key for
successful projects.
10. Concluding remarks
This paper has discussed the development of project
management research. It was suggested that much of the
development and the widening of research on projects
could better be captured by the concept of project re-
search. Much of the recent developments outside the
IJPM revolve around projects as temporary organiza-
tions. This particular research has however received
limited attention by publications in the IJPM. We also
argue that much of the recent developments are not
especially focusing on the management of single pro-
jects, but instead broader managerial and organizational
issues. A framework was presented that explains the
various steps of development. It was shown that the
various stages of research are associated with some
practical developments and ‘‘organizational innova-
tions’’. Important innovations were the turnkey deliv-
eries, the project-based firms and the free agents.
The publications in the IJPM have widened the scope
of project-related research in primarily two ways. First,
it was suggested the research has focused on inter-firm
or inter-organizational projects. This particular research
puts greater attention to contracts, transaction costs and
alliances. A number of references that have expanded
the knowledge were presented, published in the IJPM
and elsewhere. Second, the literature on multi-project
management was reviewed. A number of articles have
been published that especially focus on the management
of multi-projects, project-based organizations, etc. The
work has been published in the IJPM but also in several
traditional management journals, such as Research
Policy and Scandinavian Journal of Management. The
cross-references between publications in the IJPM and
other management and organization journals are, how-
ever, rare.
A ‘‘blind spot’’ for the research published in IJPM
was identified. Research reported elsewhere has shown
interest in what was labeled ‘‘project ecologies’’. How-
ever, it was concluded that this particular field of re-
search has been given modest attention in the work
published in IJPM. A call for research into this area was
proposed. A call was also made for researchers of
project management to pay more attention to the
work reported in other management and organization
journals.
The paper also identified variations and differences
within each category of project research. The research
on temporary organizations, for sure, has given new
insights to the management of the single project. The
concept of temporary organization has, however, been
given scant attention by the publications in IJPM.
Further, the research on the relationships between firms,
has expanded our knowledge about project management
in inter-firm contexts. The increased use of project-based
structures has led to some practical problems at the firm
level, inspiring researchers to look deeper into the
problems of the relationship between projects, the re-
source allocation problems, the innovation and knowl-
edge management issues of firms operating to a large
extent on a project basis. Finally, we suggest that project
ecologies might be a term that describes research into
this area. Here projects are important as empirical en-
tities that shape and change important aspects of in-
dustries, firms and individual careers. Scholars should
pay closer attention to the relationships between pro-
jects and their environments.
Acknowledgements
The research reported here has received financial
support from Handelsbankens forskningsstiftelser. The
author is grateful for their trust and support. The paper
was written while the author was a visiting Professor at
the Centre de Recherche en Gestion (CRG), l’Ecole
Polytechnique, Paris. Comments from three anonymous
 oderlund / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 655–667
J. S€
referees are acknowledged. Any omissions and errors, of
course, rest with the author.
References
[1] Alsene E. Internal changes and project management structures
within enterprises. Int J Project Manage 1999;17(6):367–76.
[2] Archer N, Ghasemzadeh F. An integrated framework for project
portfolio selection. Int J Project Manage 1999;17(4):207–16.
[3] Ayas K. Professional project management: a shift towards
learning and a knowledge creating structure. Int J Project
Manage 1996;14(3):131–6.
[4] Baker BN, Murphy DD, Fisher D. Factors affecting project
success. In: Cleland D, King W, editors. Project management
handbook. New York: Van Nostrand; 1983.
[5] Barends TC. Cost plus incentive fee contracting: experiences and
structuring. Int J Project Manage 2000;18(3):165–71.
[6] Betts M, Lansley P. International Journal of Project Manage-
ment: a review of the first ten years. Int J Project Manage
1995;13(4):207–17.
[7] Bresnen M, Marshall N. The engineering and evolution of co-
operation: a tale of two partnering projects. Int J Project Manage
2002;20(7):497–505.
[8] Bryman A, Bresnen M, Beardsworth AD, Ford J, Keil ET. The
concept of the temporary system: the case of the construction
project. Res Sociol Organ 1987;5:253–83.
[9] Clark K, Fujimoto T. Product development performance:
strategy, organization and management in the world auto
industry. Boston: Harvard Business School; 1991.
[10] Clark K, Wheelwright S. Organizing and leading ‘heavyweight’
development teams. Calif Manage Rev 1992;34(3):9–28.
[11] Cleland DI, King WR. Systems analysis and project manage-
ment. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1968.
[12] Cooke-Davies T. The ‘real’ success factors on projects. Int J
Project Manage 2002;20(3):185–90.
[13] Cova B, Holstius K. How to create competitive advantage in
project business. J Market Manage 1993;9(2):105–21.
[14] Cova B, Hoskins S. A twin-track networking approach to project
marketing. Eur Manage J 1997;15(5):546–56.
[15] Cova B, Mazet F, Salle R. From competitive tendering to
strategic marketing: an inductive approach. J Strategic Market
1994;2:1–19.
[16] Cova B, Mazet F, Salle R. Milieu as a pertinent unit of analysis
in project marketing. Int Bus Rev 1996;5(6):647–64.
[17] Dahlgren J, S€ oderlund J. Managing inter-firm projects – on
pacing and matching hierarchies. International Business Review
2001;10:305–22.
[18] DeFillippi R, Arthur M. Paradox in project-based enter-
prise: the case of film making. Calif Manage Rev 1998;
40(1):186–91.
[19] DeFillippi R, Arthur M. Paradox revisited: a reply to Phelan and
Lewis. Calif Manage Rev 1999;42(1):186–91.
[20] Dvir D, Lipovetsky S, Shenhar A, Tishler A. In search of project
classification: a non-unversal approach to project success factors.
Res Policy 1998;27:915–35.
[21] Eccles R. The quasifirm in the construction industry. J Econ
Behav Organ 1981;2:335–57.
[22] Eccles R. Bureaucratic versus craft administration: the relation-
ship of market structure of the construction firm. Admin Sci
Quart 1981;26:449–69.
[23] Ekinsmyth C. Project organization, embeddedness and risk in
magazine publishing. Reg Stud 2002;36(3):229–43.
[24] Ekstedt E, Lundin RA, S€ oderholm A, Wirdenius H. Neo-
industrial organising: renewal by action and knowledge forma-
tion in a project-intensive economy. London: Routledge; 1999.
665
[25] Engwall M. The ambiguous project concept(s). In: Lundin RA,
Midler C, editors. Projects as arenas for renewal and learning
processes. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1998.
[26] Engwall M. No project is an island: linking projects to history
and context. Research Policy 2003;32:789–808.
[27] Eskerod P. Meaning and action in a multi-project environment:
understanding a multi-project environment by means of meta-
phors and basic assumptions. Int J Project Manage
1996;14(2):61–5.
[28] Evaristo R, van Fenema P. A typology of project management:
emergence and evolution of new forms. Int Project Manage J
1999;17(5):275–81.
[29] Gaddis PO. The project manager. Harvard Bus Rev 1959;(May–
June).
[30] Gann D, Salter A. Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced
firms: the construction of complex products and systems.
Research Policy 2000;29:955–72.
[31] Gareis R. Management by projects: the management approach
for the future. Int J Project Manage 1989;7(4):243–52.
[32] Gersick C. Time and transition in work teams: toward a
new model of group development. Acad Manage J 1988;
31(1):9–41.
[33] Gersick C. Marking time: predictable transitions in task groups.
Acad Manage J 1989;32(2):274–309.
[34] Gobeli D, Larson EW. Relative effectiveness of different project
structures. Project Manage J 1987;18(2):81–5.
[35] Goodman LP, Goodman RA. Theater as a temporary system.
Calif Manage Rev 1972;15(2):103–8.
[36] Goodman RA, Goodman LP. Some management issues in
temporary systems: a study of professional development and
manpower – the theater case. Admin Sci Quart 1976;21(3):494–
501.
[37] Grabher G. Ecologies of creativity: the village, the group, and
the heterarchic organisation of the British advertising industry.
Environ Plann 2001;33:351–74.
[38] Grabher G. Cool projects, boring institutions: temporary
collaboration in social context. Reg Stud 2002;36(3):205–14.
[39] Grabher G. The project ecology of advertising: tasks, talents and
teams. Reg Stud 2002;36(3):245–62.
[40] Granot D, Zuckerman D. Optimal sequencing and resource
allocation in research and development projects. Manage Sci
1991;37(2):140–56.
[41] Gray RJ. Alternative approaches to programme management.
Int J Project Manage 1997;15(1):5–9.
[42] G€unter B, Bonaccorsi A, editors. Project marketing and systems
selling. Int. Business Rev. 1996; 5(6) [Special issue].
[43] Gutierrez GJ, Kouvelis P. Parkinson’s law and its implications
for project management. Manage Sci 1991;37(8):990–1001.
[44] Halman J, Braks B. Project alliancing in the offshore industry.
Int J Project Manage 1999;17(2):71–6.
[45] Hellgren B, Stjernberg T. Design and implementation in major
investments: a project network approach. Scand J Manage
1995;11(4):377–94.
[46] Hobbs B, Andersen B. Different alliance relationships for project
design and execution. Int J Project Manage 2001;19(8):465–9.
[47] Hobday M. Product complexity, innovation and industrial
organisation. Research Policy 1998;26:689–710.
[48] Hobday M. The project-based organization: an ideal form for
management of complex products and systems? Research Policy
2000;29:871–93.
[49] Hodgson D. Disciplining the professional: the case of project
management. J Manage Stud 2002;39(6):803–20.
[50] Hofstede G. Cultural dimensions for project management. Int J
Project Manage 1983;1(1):41–8.
[51] Jones C, DeFillippi R. Back to the future in film: meeting
industry and self-knowledge to meet the career challenges. Acad
Manage Exec 1996;10(4):89–103.
666 oderlund / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 655–667
J. S€
[52] Keegan A, Turner JR. Quantity versus quality in project-based
learning practices. Manage Learn 2001;32(1):77–98.
[53] Keegan A, Turner JR. The management of innovation in project-
based firms. Long Range Plann 2002;35(4):367–94.
[54] Kolltveit BJ, Reve T. Prosjekt – organisering, ledelse og
gjennomforing, Oslo: Tano Aschehoug (In Norwegian, Projects
– organizing, managing and implementing); 1998.
[55] Knight K. Matrix organization: a review. J Manage Stud
1976;13(2):111–30.
[56] Levene R. The origins of project management. In: International
encyclopedia of business and management, vol. 5. London:
Thomson Business Press; 1996.
[57] Levene R, Braganza A. Controlling the scope in organisational
transformation: a programme management approach. Int J
Project Manage 1996;14(6):331–9.
[58] Lindkvist L, S€ oderlund J, Tell F. Managing product develop-
ment projects: on the significance of fountains and deadlines.
Organ Stud 1998;19(6):931–51.
[59] Lowendahl BR. Organizing the Lillehammer Olympic winter
games. Scand J Manage 1995;11(4):347–62.
[60] Lundin RA. Editorial: temporary organizations and project
management. Scand J Manage 1995;11(4):315–8.
[61] Lundin RA, Midler C, editors. Projects as arenas for learning
and renewal. Boston: Kluwer; 1998.
[62] Lundin RA, S€ oderholm A. A theory of the temporary organi-
zation. Scand J Manage 1995;11(4):437–55.
[63] Lundin RA, S€ oderholm A. Conceptualizing a projectified society:
discussion of an eco-institutional approach to a theory on
temporary organizations. In: Lundin RA, Midler C, editors.
Projects as arenas for learning and renewal. Boston: Kluwer; 1998.
[64] Mattsson L-G. Systems selling as a strategy on industrial
markets. Ind Market Manage 1973;3:107–20.
[65] Meyerson D, Weick KE, Kramer RM. Swift trust and temporary
groups. In: Kramer RM, Tyler TR, editors. Trust in organiza-
tions. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1996.
[66] Middleton CJ. How to set up a project organization. Harvard
Bus Rev 1967;45(2):73–82.
[67] Midler C. ‘Projectification’ of the firm: the Renault case. Scand J
Manage 1995;11(4):363–76.
[68] Miller R, Lessard D, editors. The strategic management of large
engineering projects. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2000.
[69] Mintzberg H. Structuring organizations. New York: Prentice-
Hall; 1979.
[70] Mintzberg H. Structure in fives. New York: Prentice-Hall; 1983.
[71] Morris PWG. Managing project interfaces: key points for project
success. In: Cleland D, King W, editors. Project management
handbook. New York: Van Nostrand; 1983.
[72] Morris PWG. The management of projects. London: Thomas
Telford; 1994.
[73] Nobeoka K, Cusumano M. Multiproject strategy and sales
growth: the benefits of rapid design transfer in new product
development. Strategic Manage J 1997;18(3):169–86.
[74] Packendorff J. Projektorganisation och projektorganisering,
Licentiate Thesis, Handelsh€ ogskolan vid Ume a Universitet (in
Swedish, Project organization and project organizing); 1993.
[75] Packendorff J. Inquiring into the temporary organization: new
directions for project management research. Scand J Manage
1995;11(4):319–34.
[76] Partington D. The project management of organizational
change. Int J Project Manage 1996;14(1):13–21.
[77] Payne J. Management of multiple simultaneous projects: a state-
of-the-art review. Int J Project Manage 1995;13(3):163–8.
[78] Payne J, Turner R. Company-wide project management: the
planning and control of programmes and projects of different
type. Int J Project Manage 1999;17(1):55–9.
[79] Pellegrinelli S. Programme management: organising project-
based change. Int J Project Manage 1997;15(3):141–9.
[80] Phelan SE, Lewin P. Paradox in project-based enterprises: what
paradox? Calif Manage Rev 1999;42(1):180–6.
[81] Pinto JK, Mantel SJ. The causes of project failure. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management 1990;37:269–76.
[82] Pinto J, editor. Project management handbook. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass; 1998.
[83] Pinto JK. Project management 2002. Res Technol Manage
2002;(2):22–37.
[84] Pinto JK, Kharbanda OP. Successful project managers: leading
your team to success. New York: Van Nostrand; 1995.
[85] Pinto JK, Prescott JE. Planning and tactical factors in the project
implementation process. J Manage Stud 1990;27(3):305–27.
[86] Pinto JK, Slevin DP. Critical factors in successful project
implementation. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 1987;34:22–7.
[87] Pinto JK, Slevin DP. Critical success factors across the project
life cycle. Project Manage J 1988;19(3):67–75.
[88] Platje A, Seidel H. ’’Breakthrough in multiproject management:
how to escape the vicious circle of planning and control. Int J
Project Manage 1993;11(4):209–13.
[89] Platje A, Seidel H, Wadman S. Project and portfolio planning
circle: project-based management for the multiproject challenge.
Int J Project Manage 1994;12(2):100–6.
[90] R€ am€o H. Doing things right and doing the right things: time and
timing in projects. Int J Project Manage 2002;20(7):569–74.
[91] Ren H, Lin SS. The UK construction industry under cyclical
high inflation, high interest rates and recession. Int J Project
Manage 1996;14(5):301–5.
[92] Robins MJ. Effective project management in a matrix-manage-
ment environment. Int J Project Manage 1993;11(1):11–4.
[93] Sahlin-Andersson K. The social construction of projects: a case
study of organizing an extraordinary building project – the
Stockholm Globe Arena. Scand Hous Plann Res 1992;9:65–78.
[94] Sapolsky H. The polaris system development. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press; 1972.
[95] Scheinberg M, Stretton A. Multiproject planning: tuning port-
folio indices. Int J Project Manage 1994;12(2):107–14.
[96] Sharad D. Management by projects: an ideological break-
through. Project Manage J 1986;(2):61–3.
[97] Shenhar A. From low to high-tech project management. R&D
Manage 1993;23(3):199–214.
[98] Shenhar A. One size does not fit all projects: exploring classical
contingency domains. Manage Sci 2001;47(3):394–414.
[99] Shenhar A, Dvir D. Toward a typological theory of project
management. Res Policy 1996;25:607–32.
[100] S€oderlund J. On the development of project management
research: schools of thought and critique. Int Project Manage J
2002;8(1):20–31.
[101] S€oderlund J. Managing complex development projects: arenas,
knowledge processes and time. R&D Manage 2002;32(5):419–30.
[102] S€oderlund J, Andersson N. A framework for the analysis of
project dyads: the case of discontinuity, uncertainty and trust. In:
Lundin RA, Midler C, editors. Projects as arenas for learning
and renewal. Boston: Kluwer; 1998.
[103] Stinchcombe AL. Bureaucratic and craft administration of
production. Admin Sci Quart 1959;4:168–87.
[104] Stinchcombe A. Project administration in the North Sea. In:
Stinchcombe A, Heimer C, editors. Organization theory and
project management. Oslo: Norwegian University Press; 1985.
[105] Sydow J, Staber U. The institutional embeddedness of project
networks: the case of content production in German television.
Reg Stud 2002;36(3):215–27.
[106] Tam CM. Build-operate-transfer model for infrastructure devel-
opments in Asia. Int J Project Manage 1999;17(6):372–7.
[107] Turner JR, Simister SJ. Project contract management and a
theory of organization. Int J Project Manage 2001;19(8):457–64.
[108] Van Der Merwe A. Multi-project management – organizational
structure and control. Int J Project Manage 1997;15(4):223–33.
 oderlund / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 655–667
J. S€
[109] Van Der Merwe A. Project management and business develop-
ment: integrating strategy, structure, processes and projects. Int J
Project Manage 2000;20(5):401–11.
[110] Wateridge JF. How can IS/IT projects be measured for success?
Int J Project Manage 1998;16(1):59–63.
[111] Whittington R, Pettigrew A, Peck S, Fenton E, Conyon M.
Change and complementarities in the new competitive
landscape: a European panel study, 1992–1996. Organ Sci
1999;10(5):583–600.
667
[112] Williams TM. The need for new paradigms for complex projects.
Int J Project Manage 1999;17(5):269–73.
[113] Williamson OE. Markets and hierarchies. New York: Free Press;
1975.
[114] Winch G. The construction firm and the construction project: a
transaction cost approach. Constr Manage Econ 1989;7(4):331–
45.
[115] Wren DA. The evolution of management thought. New York:
Wiley; 1979.