International Journal of Management

Reviews, Vol. 13, 153–176 (2011)

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00290.x
Pluralism in Project Management: Navigating the Crossroads of

Specialization and Fragmentationijmr_290 153..176

Jonas Söderlund

Department of Leadership and Management, BI Norwegian School of Management, 0442 Oslo,

Norway Corresponding author email: jonas.soderlund@liu.se
Project management is a rapidly expanding subfield of management and organization studies. This
paper seeks to make sense of this development and the current state of project management
research. It reviews the literature published over the last five decades in 30 leading management
and organization journals. In total, 305 articles were included in the data set. The paper proposes
a categorization of the published articles into seven ‘schools of thought’: Optimization School,
Factor School, Contingency School, Behaviour School, Governance School, Relationship School
and Decision School. The schools vary in terms of their main focus and use of the project concept,
major research questions, methodological approaches and type of theorizing. It is suggested that a
better awareness on how to make use of the schools and the identified perspectives would stimulate
cross-fertilization, unification and thus enhance a pluralistic understanding of projects and project
management at the same time as it would prepare research to frame more accurately the problems
of contemporary projects. In that respect, the paper offers ideas on how to navigate at the
crossroads between specialization and fragmentation, between the search for novel topics and
improvements of existing knowledge.

Making sense of fifty years of project management research

There is a strong relationship between scientific progress and pluralism, especially if the goal is to
‘get a reasonably adequate picture of the complex reality’ (Knudsen 2003, p. 271). Similarly,
pluralism could be viewed in light of Popper’s (1945) argument that the more open a scientific
field is towards new ideas, the tougher the competition and, consequently, the better the chances
for scientific breakthroughs. However, scientific fields, like project management, struggle with the
balance between exploration and exploitation, between unification and focus and plu-
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Academy of Management Conference in
Anaheim in 2008. The paper has benefited from comments and help from workshop and
conference participants and numerous colleagues in Scandinavia, the UK and the US. In particular,
I am grateful for the valuable support and constructive comments from Erling S. Andersen, Karlos
Artto, Elliot Bendoly, Floortje Blindenbach-Driesen, Mats Engwall, Lars Lindkvist, Rolf A.
Lundin, Peter Morris, Ralf Müller, Johann Packendorff, Jeff Pinto, Anders Söderholm and Graham
Winch. I also acknowledge the suggestions from the Associate Editor and four anonymous
reviewers. Ralism, diversity and openness, between the search for new topics, methods, and the
capitalization and improvement of existing knowledge (March 1996). As Knudsen (2003, p. 263,
emphasis in original) put it: ‘fields with too little pluralism run the risk of being caught in a
specialization trap, while fields with too much pluralism run the risk of being caught in a
fragmentation trap’. Over the years, this challenge has been an often-debated topic in management
and organization studies (e.g. Pfeffer 1993;Van Maanen 1995) and is, perhaps, particularly
pressing
© 2010 The Author

International Journal of Management Reviews © 2010 British Academy of Management and

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford
OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

For project management, given its recent fast-paced development and its historic origin within
such diverse areas as engineering, operations research and organization theory (Johnson 1997;
Levene 1996). In project management, as Morris (1994) clearly demonstrates, there is a long and
strong tradition of research with a firm grounding in operations research and management science
which dates back to the early 1950s. Since then, project management research has developed
considerably and moved into other knowledge and application areas responding to the wider
spectrum of the use of projects as organizational forms (cf. Ekstedt et al. 1999; Whittington et al.
1999). On this development route, it has made use of a number of related disciplines: marketing;
organization theory; strategic management; and political science, to name a few.
Inspired by debates and studies in other subfields of management and organization studies, this
paper suggests that an analysis and discussion of the ‘schools of thought’ might be a promising
path to bring together unification and pluralism. Accordingly, it is an approach to avoid the
aforementioned traps of specialization and fragmentation (cf. Daft and Buenger 1990; Fredrickson
1990; Nag et al. 2007). To a certain extent, a categorization of research traditions may contribute
to the sophistication and further elaborations of existing knowledge and theories. It would also, if
properly done, draw attention to new and evolving perspectives and analytical frameworks. In
other words, a categorization of contributions could lead the way to a healthy ‘creative
tension’within the field of project management research (cf. Poole andVan deVen 1989), and thus
be essential for improving the linkages between project management and its related subfields in
management and organization studies. These linkages are imperative, given the extensive scholarly
interest in projects as cornerstones for new organizational forms (Castells 1996; Whittington et al.
1999), loci for entrepreneurial and strategy formation processes (Whittington et al. 2006) and
organizational devices to deliver increasingly complex integrated customer solutions (Davies and
Hobday 2005). Indeed, the wide adoption of project-based structures makes project management,
as Postrel (2007) comments, an important area of inquiry for management and organization studies
in general. Theoretical pluralism is, however, not only essential to research, but may well also
advance managerial and organizational practice. An awareness of multiple perspectives provides
contrasting explanations and thereby stimulates managerial and organizational creativity.The
combination of multiple perspectives and informed practice would then in the next step hopefully
infuse a more insightful and penetrating research agenda (see Van de Ven 2007, p. 9).
The main purpose of this paper is to present a categorization of the schools of thought which gives
an account of the present state of theorizing in project management. Dividing a scientific field into
different schools of thought would make us categorize contributions with strong similarity into
one group (e.g. similar conception of phenomenon, key concepts and issues, base discipline,
research methodologies), thus separating them from other groups. The prime reasons for using the
school concept are twofold. First, so-called ‘schools overviews’ have offered instrumental and
powerful analysis of research in related fields, such as that by Mintzberg (1990) on strategic
management (see also Mintzberg et al. 1998). Second, the idea of school categorization has also
recently gained considerable popularity within the project management community (Bredillet
2007; Kwak and Anbari 2008; Söderlund 2002). Using this idea thereby facilitates a comparative
analysis of the development of project management research relative to other management and
organization subfields as well as to current debates among project management scholars. In
relation to earlier school categorizations in project management, the present review relies on a
more rigorous methodology and elaborate journal coverage (cf. Söderlund 2002) and, most
importantly, has a specific focus on studies addressing the project level (cf. Bredillet 2007; Kwak
and Anbari 2008).
The paper is structured in the following way. The next section presents the methodology and data
used for the literature review. Thereafter follows an account of the identified schools of thought
that focus on a selected number of contributions and trajectories. The paper ends with comparisons,
conclusions and implications.

Methodology
The paper focuses on articles published in highranked management and organization journals
outside the conventional project management publications such as the International Journal of
Project Management and Project Management Journal. Overviews of work published in these
journals already exist, although they tend to centre on narrow project management topics, such as
risk management, project manager competencies, and planning techniques (see e.g. Betts and
Lansley 1995; Crawford et al. 2006; Kloppenborg and Opfer 2002; Pollack 2007; Themistocleous
and Wearne 2000; Urli and Urli 2000; Zobel and Wearne 2000). In line with Leybourne (2007, p.
70), the review presented here instead addresses overall management and organization topics in
projects and project management – a focus that the author believes is important for readers both
within and outside the project management domain.
The paper builds on a series of prior literature reviews and database investigations (e.g. Crawford
et al. 2006; Engwall 1998; Ford and Randolph 1992; Packendorff 1995; Shenhar and Dvir 2007;
Söderlund 2002, 2004a,b). These reviews were analysed as a starting point for the study presented
here. Based on panel discussions with leading scholars in project management, previously
published literature reviews, and journal ranking lists (Collin et al. 1996; ISI Web of Science), it
was decided to focus on 30 journals that were likely to publish empirical and theoretical work on
project management, thus leaving out methodology, teaching and pure review journals from the
sample (e.g. International Journal of Management Reviews, Organizational Research Methods and
Academy of Management Learning & Education). Besides mainstream management and
organization journals, a selection of journals in related areas, such as technology management,
innovation, operations management and product development, were added. A separate search for
special issues on project management and adjacent areas was also made to identify those journals
that publish project management work. Table 1 presents the journals included in the sample and
documents a few patterns in the sample of articles from each journal.
Papers were selected based on the following criteria: (1) published in one of the preferred journals;
(2) focused on governance, management and organization of single projects (following Morris’s
(1994) advice, articles dealing with early and/or implementation phases of projects were included);
and (3) positioned within the realm of project management and/or project organization. Such
positioning would normally be stated in the abstract, the introductory parts of the paper or in the
conclusion section, often as a problem or challenge in terms of the management and organization
of single projects. The abstracts were read and combined with keyword investigations and, to
ensure the accuracy of the literature search, related research reports were used to match the data
set (Kwak and Anbari 2008; Packendorff 1995). This search created a total data set of 312 papers.
After a preliminary analysis of the papers, it was decided to leave out seven papers, since the
theoretical underpinnings were unclear or because the papers, after a more detailed analysis, did
not match the initial criteria, which resulted in a final data set of 305 journal articles.
In the subsequent phase, a brief summary was produced and between five and ten keywords were
identified from each paper. The summary included the paper’s key ideas of project management,
its base discipline and primary focus. Thereafter, the author analysed across the data set, which
incorporated the different traditions and the diversity among the papers. The analysis started with
an inductive examination of the papers based on key concepts and keywords. The first list of
categories contained both categories that were relatively small (with two to three articles each) and
larger categories (approximately 20 papers). Based on methodological recommendations, the
number of categories was reduced through a deductive approach. The intention, based on Miller’s
(1956) well-known idea, was to end up with approximately five to nine categories (see also
Mintzberg et al. 1998; Morgan 1986). For purposes of presentation, the study has relied on
compilations of keywords and citation analysis. The keywords are used primarily to identify
similarities and differences across the schools, whereas the citation analysis is intended to identify
examples of influential contributions within each school of thought.
Every categorization effort needs to be based on a selected number of dimensions and variables.
To fit the journal format, the scope was narrowed and focused on a limited number of dimensions,
namely: influential contributions, sources of inspiration, primary ideas of projects and project
management, empirical focus, key issues/questions, keywords and main research methodologies
(cf. Mintzberg 1990). Bearing in mind that the idea in this paper is to advance theory development,
the author believes that these dimensions are sufficient to identify and analyse pluralism within
project management research. The study is dealing here with a delicate balancing act: the
categorization scheme must provide room for a certain breadth of aspects and contributions, and,
at the same time, be bounded to make it comprehensible and coherent. New schools will evolve,
merge with existing ones, and old ones.
Table 1. Selected journals: patterns and comments (305 articles)

Journal No. Of Articles Patterns and comments

1. Academy of Management Journal 20 In AMJ there is a wide array of publications ranging
from studies of decision-making in complex projects, communication in R&D projects, to
studies of project team evolution. A few shorter research notes were excluded from the
sample.
2. Academy of Management Review 4 Most of the articles in the sample from AMR are
relatively old. Two themes seem to have attracted special attention: planning and matrix
organization
3. Administrative Science Quarterly 8 No common theme was identified in the articles in the
sample published in ASQ. However, a set of themes have attracted a lot of attention from
other scholars on topics such as craft administration, product development processes,
escalating commitment, group longevity and project performance, and temporary systems.
4. British Journal of Management 5 The papers published in BJM do not have a strong
common theme, although the papers in various ways seem to take an interest in the
processes and behaviour of projects. The articles are also all based on qualitative research,
case studies being the most common approach.
5. California Management Review 12 In CMR are found some of the classics in project
management and the main inspiration for the notion of projects as temporary organizations.
Many of the early articles on programme management, temporary systems and matrix
management were published in this journal.
6. Creativity and Innovation Management 8 CIM is a rather new journal that has published
several articles on subjects of relevance to project management. However, many of the
articles focus on aspects of individual work, including creativity and motivation.
Accordingly, these papers were not included in the data set. The papers included in the data
set discuss creativity and control in projects, and the impact of temporal contexts on
management.
7. European Management Journal 9 In the EMJ, one finds a set of articles on project success.
Several short articles and empirical reports were excluded from the sample. Also excluded
were a few articles on project-based firms that primarily dealt with company-wide issues.
Of the papers included in the data set, several have a governance orientation.
8. European Management Review 1 Given the success of the EURAM track on project
management, it was expected that more articles would be published in EMR dealing with
project management/organization. However, in the end, only one of the articles matched
the selection criteria.
9. Harvard BusinessReview 9 Papers are primarily about two topics, either practical
approaches to the management of projects (including rugby approaches, overlapping
approaches, planning techniques, PERT), or as reports from failed projects (false
economies, lessons learned). A number of practice-oriented papers and short notes were
excluded from the sample. Some of the articles in the data set were also difficult to analyse
because the theoretical foundation was not really made explicit (e.g., Gaddis 1959), and
hence excluded from the sample.
10. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 14 The bulk of papers in IEEE-EM deal
with either critical success factors of projects and project management or methods for
 optimizing project implementation. The papers have a rather strong engineering or
mathematical orientation. The author was only able to search issues between 1987 and
2007.
11. Industrial Marketing Management 7 The papers could be divided into two groups: one
dealing with supplier–client relationships in complex projects, the other dealing with
project performance and project success. IMM has published a special issue that addresses
project management issues.
12. International Business Review 10 The papers published in IBR generally look at the
relationship aspects of projects, covering topics such as owner involvement, network
development, systems selling and project marketing. IBR has published a special issue on
project marketing and systems selling in which several of the papers included were
published.
13. International Journal of Innovation Management 2 The two papers in IJIM that have a
project-centric focus deal with global innovation projects and the importance of ‘project
vision’. Both papers generally address the management challenges of innovation projects.
14. International Journal of Technology Management 6 In IJTM, a wide range of topics were
found related to project management, from planning, cross-functional integration to the
practice of project management. It was difficult to identify a common theme among the
papers. However, the majority of papers deal with project management in new product
development.
15. International Studies of Management & Organization 7 Most papers have an organization
theory orientation dealing with either cultural diversity or complex decision-making.
16. Journal of Management 3 In JM, only three papers were found. No common theme could
be identified, one paper deals with cross-functional structures, one with critical success
factors, and one with pacing and deadlines in projects. All papers identified have a high
citation rate (89, 86, 27 respectively).

Table 1. Continued
Journal No. Of Articles Patterns and comments
17. Journal of Management Studies 14 In JMS, the first paper on project management was
found, published in 1970. The papers published have a fairly strong organization theory
perspective and cover a wide range of topics, including papers on critical success factors,
matrix organization, political perspectives on projects, and critical perspectives on project
management.
18. Journal of Operations Management 18 In JOM the first 15 volumes contained ten papers
focusing on scheduling, forecasting and priority rules. The most recent ten volumes have
focused to a greater extent on critical success factors. Two papers had high citation scores
(112 and 81).
19. Journal of Product Innovation Management 6 Three of the papers have a focus on project
success/product success and project management. The remaining papers address
organizational structures and complexity. A few articles that only focused on success
factors for product development without a specific focus on projects were excluded from
the sample.
20. Long Range Planning 2 One paper deals with project success, the other deals with planning
approaches and work breakdown structures. Five practice-oriented papers were excluded
from the sample.
21. Management Science 58 In MS, several papers on project management and project
planning were identified. These papers have a strong operations research orientation,
dealing with project scheduling, solving resource conflicts, project planning methods, etc.
Several papers were excluded either because of a too narrow focus or due to mismatch in
the level of analysis, including project portfolio management, multi-project scheduling, or
a focus on project selection.
22. Organization 3 The papers in Organization have a critical orientation and a strong
organization theory background, carried out within a qualitative research paradigm.
23. Organization Science 11 The papers published in Organization Science have a strong
organization theory origin. Papers are produced within two different traditions: one
quantitative tradition and one case-study based/qualitative tradition. Several papers have
touched upon inter-team co-ordination/ inter-departmental co-ordination.
24. Organization Studies 9 Learning and knowledge processes seem to be recurring themes in
the papers published in Organization Studies. Several of the papers are published in the
same special issue covering knowledge, learning and project organizing.
25. R&D Management 15 A number of the papers deal with success factors in different types
of development projects. Some papers cover relational aspects, including stakeholder
management, governance, and collaboration. A number of papers were excluded from the
sample because they were considered to be outside the scope of the present review,
including project portfolio, and project valuation. The author had access to issues only
between 1997 and 2007.
26. Research Policy 14 In RP, several influential papers were identified, ranging from success
factors in projects and innovation projects to contextual analyses of projects.
27. Scandinavian Journal of Management 11 The papers in SJM have a strong organization
theory orientation. Many of the papers are published in a special issue of selected papers
from a project management conference. The theme of this special issue was ‘project
management and temporary organization’.
28. Sloan Management Review 7 Two papers are clearly within the line of success factors and
project management; the other papers deal with managing uncertainty and models for
project management. Several papers were not included because they primarily dealt with
the firm-level, e.g. project portfolio and strategy.
29. Strategic Management Journal 2 Two papers were included in the data set: one dealing
with critical success factors, one focusing on knowledge integration in projects. Several
papers were left out because they dealt primarily with company-wide issues, including
multi-project strategies.
30. Technovation 10 The majority of publications deal with project success, how to evaluate
successful projects, and critical factors in projects. Most of the papers deal with innovation
and new product development projects.
Will possibly cease to exist. Hence, the categorization presented here is by no means final and
complete; it is to be seen as a tentative framework intended to stimulate discussion about the
importance, purview and problems of research on projects and project management. Its meaning
is also to relate project management research better to the study of management and organization
in general.
A few delimitations had to be made.As mentioned earlier, the focus of attention is on project-
centric studies. In the literature search carried out in 2008 covering papers published from 1954 to
2007, there were many hits on ‘project’ and ‘project management’. Several articles were excluded
from the data set because they dealt mainly with a different level of analysis (individuals or firms)
or because they, for other reasons, did not specifically address the management and organization
of projects. This generally implied that studies of the management of projectbased firms (e.g.
management of multiple projects, selection of projects, project portfolio management, project
capabilities/competence) were not considered relevant for the present study (e.g. Cooper et al.
2001; Nobeoka and Cusumano 1997). Papers addressing narrow topics of project-based
organizations, including innovation (Keegan and Turner 2002), human resource management
(Bredin and Söderlund 2006) and knowledge transfer (Prencipe and Tell 2001), were also
excluded, since their intention was principally to understand another domain of management than
the management of projects. The prime focus of this review is accordingly on studies and articles
that analyse single projects from a holistic and organizational point of view, which means that the
literature review covers papers on governance, management and organizational structures and
processes of single projects. Revisiting the so-called ‘fundamental questions of project
management’ discussed in Söderlund (2004a), the selected articles above all contribute to the
understanding of why projects exist, how they differ, how they behave, the role of project
management, and the determinants of success and failure of projects.
In the following, it is suggested that the articles can be divided into seven distinct schools of
thought: (1) Optimization School (logic-based, prescriptive research drawing on management
science, optimization techniques and systems analysis); (2) Factor School (empirical research
relying on descriptive statistics on the criteria and factors of project success and failure); (3)
Contingency School (empirical research, case-study-based and surveybased research on the
differences between projects, characteristics of projects and contextual dimensions); (4) Behaviour
School (interpretative and descriptive research on organizational behaviour, processes and learning
in projects); (5) Governance School (prescriptive research on governance and contract problems
in projects); (6) Relationship School (descriptive case-study research on relations between actors
in projects); and (7) Decision School (descriptive and interpretative research on politics and
decision-making in projects). Below, the paper offers an overview of each of the schools and
summarizes their respective developments and main findings. Thereafter, it turns to a comparative
analysis eliciting the differences among the schools.

Optimization School
In this category of research, such diverse fields as network planning research and systems analysis
are found, of which the majority of papers have been published in Management Science and in
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management (for a detailed overview, see Tavares 2002). The
contributions generally address the optimization of project implementation using mathematics,
optimization theory and management science. The author has therefore chosen to label it the
Optimization School (alternatives could have been Management Science, Planning or Systems
Analysis).
Judging from the 73 publications in the data set, this line of research was introduced quite early in
the top-tier journals. Management Science published articles on project management and network
planning in the early 1960s, and a range of papers were published in the 1960s on topics exploring
PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique) and critical path planning, which also gained
some interest in practitioner journals (for instance King and Wilson 1967; Miller 1962). Since the
early publications on project activity networks, PERT and CPM (Critical Path Method) (Klingel
1966; Levy et al. 1963; Parikh and Jewell 1965), more advanced methods and analyses followed.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, papers dealt with parallel strategies in development projects
(Abernathy and Rosenbloom 1969), project cost control, and different planning and programming
solutions to the problem of optimal resource use and cost–time trade-offs (e.g. Cooper 1976).
Subsequent articles contribute to the understanding of more complex problems and the
management of yet more difficult projects by introducing dynamic situations involving multi-pass,
heuristic decomposition procedures for project scheduling (Holloway et al. 1979) and project
scheduling with continuously divisible constrained resources (Weglarz 1981). Some contributions
also extend the original PERT ideas by elaborating on Q-GERT modelling and simulation models
(Taylor and Moore 1980).
Gutierrez and Kouvelis (1991) use a stochastic activity completion time model to examine the
effects of information release policies on subcontractors of project activities. Similar contributions
are presented in Dumond and Mabert (1988), Drexl (1991), Elmaghraby and Kamburowski (1992)
and Demeulemeester and Herroelen (1992). A set of related papers were published in Management
Science around this time (1988–95), with the overarching idea of developing techniques and
models for formalized project management approaches, including network planning and PERT.
The contributions within the research in the Optimization School share a common view on projects
as complex activities to be planned by, more or less, advanced management-science techniques
and models. The contributions tend to advocate an analytic view of projects and project
management. Writers also typically adopt a prescriptive and normative stance, rather than a
descriptive one (cf. Lucas 1971). Consequently, project management is largely defined as the
application of the techniques to approach the complex scheduling/co-ordination problem of
executing a project (e.g. Bailetti et al. 1994; Eppinger 2001). For instance, Liberatore and
Titus (1983, p. 962) define project management as ‘the activities of screening, selecting,
evaluating, budgeting, scheduling and controlling . . . projects’.
Many of the papers refer to the history of project management found in the early days of
management science and, in particular, the development of advanced project planning techniques
and various structuring and breakdown methods (Lanford and McCann 1983). A common
assumption is that ‘successful management of . . . projects requires a careful planning, scheduling
. . . of activities’ (Granot and Zuckerman 1991, p. 140). A great deal of attention is devoted to
modelling and evaluation of projects combined with improvements in network models for project
management (generalized networks, logical networks, overlapping activities and hammock
activities). In recent years, research into this area has also focused on the limitations of the tools
and techniques to deal with the growing complexity and speed of change.
Factor School
A considerable body of project management research reflects the investigation of the criteria for
project success and, naturally, also the factors that lead to either success or failure in projects and
project management. Hence, a common interest revolves around the matters of how to determine
what a successful project is and what seems to cause project (management) success. The author
has chosen to label this particular tradition of project management research the Factor School
(alternatives could be Success School, Critical Success Factor School, see e.g. Jugdev and Müller
2005; Söderlund 2002).
In total, there were 64 papers included in the data set grouped within the Factor School. The
research published in journals dates back to the late 1960s and early 1970s with a small number of
articles in journals such as California Management Review (Avots 1969) and Academy of
Management Journal (Thamhain and Gemmill 1974). The majority of the publications were,
however, published in the 1980s.
The importance of examining the critical success factors is justified by the overwhelming failure
of projects and the belief that the identification of these factors would profoundly improve project
implementation in practice (Pinto and Prescott 1990). This seems also to be the typical starting
point for many articles within this tradition: e.g. why projects fail and what separates the low
performers from the high performers (see, for instance, Avots 1969).
During the late 1980s, research developed rapidly, with a series of important publications in both
practitioner-oriented journals, such as Sloan Management Review (Randolph and Posner 1988;
Slevin and Pinto 1987) and well-known scholarly journals, such as the Academy of Management
Journal (Katz and Allen 1985), Administrative Science Quarterly (Katz 1982), Journal of
Management (Pinto and Prescott 1988), Journal of Management Studies (Pinto and Prescott 1990),
Journal of Product
Innovation Management (Larson and Gobeli 1988), Management Science (Clark 1989) and
Strategic Management Journal (Bryson and Bromiley 1993).
A number of interesting developments are worth noting. One line of development encompasses an
increasingly detailed empirical focus on particular types of projects and empirical contexts, most
notably geographical regions, sectors and industries. Hence, research also becomes more fine-
grained with regard to organizational conditions and task features. In addition, research covers a
wider range of sectors and industries, such as pharmaceutical, electrical equipment manufacturing,
IT, and oil and gas, sometimes in conjunction with a particular focus on geographical regions
and/or nations.
The second expansion relates to the nature of analysis with regard to its dynamics and specificity.
Even though the majority of publications have a static orientation, in some publications one sees
attempts to provide a dynamic view on projects and the variations in success factors across the
project life cycle (e.g. Hoegl and Weinkauf 2005; Pinto and Prescott 1988). These studies typically
span the early stages (Ericksen and Dyer 2004), from the planning phases to the implementation
and conclusion phases. In addition, some studies deal with the overall success factors, similar to
the factors presented by DeCotiis and Dyer (1977), while others focus on a particular issue or
problem, such as teamwork and team location (Grewal et al. 2006), decision-making influence
(Katz and Allen 1985; Müller and Turner 2007; Thamhain and Gemmill 1974), group longevity
(Katz 1982) and cross-functional co-operation (Pinto et al. 1993), yet still framing it as a problem
relating to the management and organization of projects.
For many years, research within the Factor School had a strict and narrow definition of success in
terms of efficiency with regard to time, cost and quality dimensions. Over the years, however, this
was broadened and led to an increased interest in value creation, long-term perspectives, and
capabilitybuilding (Shenhar et al. 2001), which generally signals a concern for separating
efficiency from effectiveness measurements. Advancements pertaining to research methodologies
are also discerned. The early studies generally rely on a limited data set or author experience with
primarily anecdotal evidence. Over time, there has been more rigorous survey research, with large
cross-sectional samples and a few in-depth case studies.

Contingency School
For several decades, project management research struggled to strike a balance between the
elaborations of a theory of project management that was generic and general yet allowed for
applications to different types of projects. One important stream of research tied to this involved
contingency approaches and comparative analyses of projects and project management. The author
has labelled it the Contingency School; primarily because it draws on contingency-inspired
organization theory developed by Galbraith (1973), Burns and Stalker (1961) and Lawrence and
Lorsch (1967) (alternative labels could have been structural school, design school or situational
school). In total, 42 papers were grouped as pertaining to the Contingency School.
The first paper in the sample is by Middleton (1967) on different kinds of project organization.The
author discusses the advantages and disadvantages of organizing by projects and identifies the
various forms of project organization ranging from individual project organization, staff project
organization, intermix project organization to aggregate organization. He argues that the
establishment of a project organization should rest on an examination of the nature of the ‘job and
its requirements’ and ‘scope of the project’. Several of the early contributions within the
Contingency School continue on this line of thinking by addressing matrix organizations and
matrix management, typically in R&D settings (e.g. Kolodny 1979; Tushman 1978).
Some of the papers concentrate on the identification and comparison of different ‘project
environments’ and how these different environments require alternative approaches to project
management, project control and project planning (see e.g. Griffiths and Pearson 1973; Nutt 1982,
1983). Nutt (1983), for instance, identifies 16 different environments and analyses how they relate
to internal project attributes. The author typifies the identified environments based on the
organization’s tendency to be centralized, cost conscious, qualitatively oriented and their mix of
skills. A project management approach is proposed to meet the unique demands in each
environment. Other papers adopt a more finegrained approach by detailing the contingency factors
for the design of project organization and project management, using task certainty and task
interdependence (e.g. Dailey 1978), sometimes in combination with analyses of specific kinds of
projects (e.g. Debrabander and Edström 1977). This trajectory is also evident in papers throughout
the 1980s and the 1990s, adding yet more contingency dimensions and more elaborate types of
projects. For instance, Løwendahl (1995) gives prominence to ‘project task uncertainty’ and
‘parent organization embeddedness’ in her study of an Olympic Games project, and Shenhar and
colleagues published a series of papers in top-ranked journals on a ‘typological theory’ (initially
based on ‘technological uncertainty’ and ‘system scope’) of project management where
contingency theory constitutes the prime theoretical foundation (see e.g. Dvir et al. 1998; Shenhar
1998, 2001; Shenhar and Dvir 1996). Sommer and Loch (2004), Pich et al. (2002) and De Meyer
et al. (2002) follow a similar path and suggest a categorization of four fundamental types of project
uncertainties: variation, foreseen, unforeseen and chaos. To this end, they outline a
contingencyinfluenced framework which contrasts types of project management logics and roles
of project management (see De Meyer et al. 2002). Lindkvist et al. (1998) consider the significance
of type of complexity in conjunction with ‘error problematic’ (as either ‘error detection’or ‘error
diagnostics’) to make sense of project management in time-compressed, largescale product
development projects.A similar, muchcited contribution is by Eisenhardt andTabrizi (1995, p.
108), who contrast two models for achieving fast adaptation: the ‘compression model’ and the
‘experiential model’ with regard to different assumptions about certainty. Their paper contributes
to the analysis and understanding of project management in ‘competitive, fast-paced situations’.
Several other papers augment the progress of detailed analysis of contingency dimensions,
especially with regard to further investigations of different types of projects (e.g. Chiesa 2000;
Coombs et al. 1998; Lundqvist et al. 1996).
In sum, research within the Contingency School draws on a long and strong tradition in
organization theory relating to a variety of contingency dimensions affecting organizational design
and structure. In particular, papers illustrate the role of technological uncertainty, complexity and
embeddedness for the design of project management and project organizations. Over time, papers
have detailed the analysis with regard to the differences across types of projects as well as deeper
investigations into specific contingency dimensions.

Behaviour School
In the Behaviour School is found a diverse group of organization-theory inspired research on
project organization, organizational behaviour and organization processes. The term ‘behaviour’
is chosen here to accommodate publications with an explicit focus on the organizational behaviour
of projects, the processes of organizing, and the nature and organization of social interaction in
projects. Accordingly, alternative labels could have been Process, Interaction, Learning or
Organizing. In total, 64 papers were classified as being part of Behaviour School research.
The first publications in the sample date back to the late 1960s and early 1970s. Here are found
Wilemon and Cicero (1970), Gemmill and Wilemon (1970), Wilemon and Gemmill (1971) and
Wilemon (1973) on the ‘ambiguities’ and ‘conflicts’ in project management. Among the first
publications are also Reeser (1969), Hammerton (1970), Melcher and Kayser (1970) and Butler
(1973). Reeser (1969) examines the human problems in the ‘project form of organization’ and
zeroes in on the ‘anxieties and frustrations’ of people working in a ‘projectized organization’,
including the issues of phase-out and temporary relationships. Hammerton (1970) discusses the
difficulties in projects associated with interdisciplinarity and motivation. Melcher and Kayser
(1970) analyse an intensive case study of project management action and the troubles of building
a team spirit and commitment in project settings. Butler (1973) continues along these lines in his
study of what he frames as ‘dysfunctional conflicts’ in project management.
A number of articles within the Behaviour School consider the challenges and problems of
‘temporary organization’, inspired by the early work of Goodman and Goodman (1972, 1976).
For example, Lundin and Söderholm (1995) argue that projects have definite characteristics and
thus a unique way of life and behaviour compared with permanent organizations. Several authors
have adopted a similar dynamic view on projects and project organization. Gersick (1988, 1989)
provides an interpretation of project teams working under deadline pressure. This research has also
informed subsequent studies into the dynamics of projects, particularly regarding the effects of
deadlines (e.g. Chang et al. 2003; Engwall and Westling 2004; Seers and Woodruff 1997). A
number of other studies share a similar processoriented scrutiny of projects as emerging
phenomena that inherently change their direction and scope (Kreiner 1995). Kreiner (1992)
suggests that project behaviour follows the idea of a ‘theatre of passion’, where the unpredictability
of human behaviour is an essential element of project management. Engwall (2003), although
pointing out the importance of institutions and environments, focuses to a great extent on the
‘interior process’ of projects to establish an evolutionary and process interpretation of project
organization.
Other studies are also found sharing the interest of enhancing the dynamic and behavioural
interpretation of projects as organizational forms and processes. Some authors focus on the
learning processes in projects (Bourgeon 2002; Brady and Davies 2004; Grabher 2004; Ibert 2004;
Kim and Wilemon 2007; Scarbrough et al. 2004); others analyse the processes of knowledge
sharing and knowledge integration (Hoopes and Postrel 1999; Ivory et al. 2007; Newell et al.
2004). Here are also found studies dealing with the role of ‘boundary objects’ in projects (Boland
et al. 2007; Sapsed and Salter 2004; Yakura 2002) and the development of trust in interdisciplinary
and geographically dispersed projects (Bechky 2006; Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999). In addition,
some studies discuss human behaviour and culture in projects (Dadfar and Gustavsson 1992;
Milosevic 2002), whereas other studies centre on the processes of creativity in projects (Bech
2001; Ekvall 1993; Holmquist 2007).
An important feature of Behaviour School research is the general critique of the project form as
an organizational solution and the dominant static and system-focused view of project
management. This is apparent already in the first papers in the data set, and continues to be an
important topic in the research published in the 1990s and the 2000s. For instance, some papers
focus on particular problems in specific types of projects (e.g. Berggren 2004; Hedlund and
Ridderstråle 1995; O’Mahony 2003) and others offer a more general critique of the project form
of organization (Hodgson 2002, 2004, 2005; Joyce 1986; Lindgren and Packendorff 2006).
Research within the Behaviour School typically acknowledges the process and dynamic nature of
projects, and investigates time pressure, trustbuilding, problem-solving, sense-making and
learning dimensions to accommodate an analysis of the nature and process of the behaviour of
projects.

Governance School
In the Governance School, contributions are found that use an economics approach on projects and
project management. The majority of papers include applications of either agency theory or
transaction cost theory. Alternative labels for this school could be the Economics School or the
Contract School. In total, 19 papers were grouped as belonging to the Governance School.
Two of the first and most influential references in the Governance School discuss the problems of
contracting and governance in the construction industry. The first paper in the data set is written
by Stinchcombe (1959), who presents a comparative analysis of bureaucratic and craft
administration for production. His study centres on market contracting versus bureaucratic control
and the effects of variability in construction projects. Eccles (1981), another and related influential
paper, extends Stinchcombe’s investigation with a partial critique of his main finding. He examines
subcontracting, and argues that subcontracting is better explained with reference to complexity,
size and market extent. In both papers, the authority and administrative problems of projects are
essential. The authors connect their analyses to the market–bureaucracy dichotomy and thereby
touch upon contracting and transaction cost frameworks.
Other papers in this research tradition similarly discuss problems pertaining to contracting and
governance in projects. Early examples of contributions are four papers published in the Academy
of Management Journal, namely Roman (1964), Goodman (1967), Meinhart and Delionback
(1968) and Hodgetts (1969). Roman (1964) discusses the problems of audit and performance
evaluation in R&D project management. Goodman (1967) and Hodgetts (1969) zero in on the
‘authority problems’ of project organizations and, in view of that, examine the general question of
why projects exist. Relying on a game theoretic interpretation, Meinhart and Delionback (1968)
focus on the role of contracts and, in particular, the role of incentive contracts in project
management.
Recent contributions discuss the governance problems observed in projects in strategic alliances
(Gerwin and Ferris 2004), project alliances (Clegg et al. 2002), project-based international joint
ventures (Hung et al. 2002), mutual organizations (Koenig and Thietart 1988) and complex
consortia (Winch et al. 2000). Starting from a primary interest in the nature and particularities of
construction projects as a case of craft administration, research within this line of research has
developed to cover other types of projects, such as research projects (Croisier 1998) and service
development projects (van den Ende 2003).
The transaction-cost-inspired research reflects an application of the Williamson theory in
particularly complex empirical settings (Williamson 1975), e.g. large-scale construction or
offshore projects. The impact of transaction cost economics on the development of management
theory is well documented, and hence it is perhaps no surprise that it has also been applied and
used in project settings. A key theme revolves around the alternative forms of contracting and
governance modes (Lorenzen and Frederiksen 2005; Turner and Keegan 2001). Some of the
research focuses on the relationship between project owners and project executers/administrators
(see e.g. Turner and Müller 2004). Typically, these papers rely on agency theory to explore the
difficulties in arranging for well-functioning interplay between projects and its external
environment, including clients and project owners. Accordingly, there is an interest in
understanding the differences in goal preferences and information asymmetry among the actors
involved.
The Governance School aims to analyse why projects exist and define the appropriate governing
mechanisms of projects as a particular kind of administrative problem and complex transaction. In
depicting project management largely as a macrolevel concern and a strategic management issue
(Paul 1984), Governance School research investigates the overall and contractual aspects, the
choice of project contracts and the forms of bilateral or trilateral governance to handle large-scale
projects.
Relationship School

The research within the Relationship School has several similarities to both the Governance School
and the Behaviour School. However, research within this school draws on alternative theories
taken primarily from the fields of inter-organizational relations and marketing. The majority of
papers are published in Industrial Marketing Management and the International Business Review,
i.e. journals that historically have had, for obvious reasons, a strong marketing origin. Recurrent
themes in the papers are network formation and development (Welch et al. 1996), stakeholder
interaction (Elias et al. 2002; Welch 2005), project networks (Hellgren and Stjernberg 1995),
project marketing (Cova and Hoskins 1997) and relational interaction (Larson and Wikström
2007). In total, 19 papers were sorted into the Relationship School.
Marketing research contributes to the field of project management by explaining how companies
sell and market their projects, how clients buy projects, and how the early stages of a project can
be seen as the management and organization of interactions between clients and the contractors.
Important to this analysis is the observation of a lack of longterm relationships between the
interacting partners, leading authors to discuss the ‘management of discontinuity’ and its related
co-operation problems (Hadjikhani 1996). Even though several studies adopt a process-oriented
approach and analyse the formation of networks and relationships between actors, they foremost
address projects as complex networks of multiple actors. Studies emphasize, for instance, the high
degree of uncertainty, the complex buying process, the long transaction duration and the double
fragmentation of buying and selling centres (e.g. Owusu and Welch 2007). Several articles address
the importance of the early phases of projects as a means of understanding how projects are
organized during the implementation phase, what rulesof-the-game are set and what characterizes
good co-operation and co-ordination in complex, interorganizational projects (Cova and Hoskins
1997). For instance, Cova et al. (1996) use sociograms to examine institutional and individual
actors in the project environment, especially in order to identify the significant actors that are likely
to have high influence on the progress of the project. Researchers, for that reason, highlight the
complex negotiations and multipart sales processes (Lemaire 1996; Millman 1996) and the
importance of forming supplier and buyer alliances (Bansard et al. 1993). Similar types of network
approaches are seen in studies on ‘project networks’, building on the paper by Hellgren and
Stjernberg (1995). In these publications, projects are viewed as dynamic networks of multiple
actors and firms crossing organizational boundaries (Staber 2004).
Overall, managing the early phases of projects is typically addressed as a problem of organization
and networking which requires appropriate managerial strategies, together with considerable time
and resources (Bansard et al. 1993). Accordingly, papers within this tradition typically emphasize
the dynamic and social nature of projects. Authors document how firms can formulate projects in
various ways, and how they work to influence the perception of projects. The Relationship School
gives an alternative to the conventional static view of projects and stresses the relational
embeddedness of projects and its social construction (see e.g. Skaates et al. 2002; Starkey et al.
2000). Recent literature on project marketing appears to be as much an attempt to combine
knowledge from different areas as it is a means of augmenting the understanding of the conduct in
which projects are instigated, how they are built and how they are structured (Cova and Hoskins
1997). In summary, the Relationship School is largely devoted to research in the management of
the early phases of projects, the identification of client needs, the dynamics of project networks,
the formulation and formation of projects. Many of the studies rely on single case methodology,
principally investigating complex, industrial, international and inter-organizational projects.

Decision School
The Decision School is characterized by its principal interest in the early phases of projects. Here,
scholars are generally occupied with two leading questions: Why are projects instigated, and why
are certain decisions made that affect the termination or continuation of a project? In sum, 25
journal articles were grouped as belonging to the Decision School.
One major interest in the Decision School is the efforts to explain why projects (or individual
actors) that do not follow a rational (decision-making) model work successfully and why some
projects that seem to be unwise get implemented despite objective information on ‘bad economies’
(Davis 1985). Thus, research examines the use of various strategies and actions during project
realization, including ‘rapid-results’ (Matta and Ashkenas 2003) and ‘outside views’ to deal with
‘over-optimism’ in project decisions (Lovallo and Kahneman 2003). In several ways, these
strategies relate to ‘escalating commitment’ (Ross and Staw 1993; Staw and Ross 1978) and the
difficulties of terminating ongoing projects (Balachandra et al. 1996; Green et al. 2003).
The most influential publications are by Staw and Ross, published in Administrative Science
Quarterly and in the Academy of Management Journal (Ross and Staw 1986, 1993; Staw and Ross
1978). The analysis revolves primarily around the early decision processes in complex projects.
Their notion of escalated commitment is an endeavour to understand the countervailing forces that
make it difficult to withdraw from a project despite a poor economic result (Ross and Staw 1993,
p. 703). Ross and Staw (1993, p. 701) ask the basic questions: ‘how do we get organizations
moving, and how do we get them stopped once they are moving in a particular direction?’ The
authors argue that the escalation in complex projects/programmes involves the interplay of four
sets of determinants: project, psychological, social and organizational determinants. It is also
shown that ‘the more ambiguous and changing the economics of a project, the more difficult it
will be for an organization to extricate itself from the selected course of action’ (p. 723). In other
words, the studies by Staw and Ross bring to light the nature of projects by investigating the role
of selfjustification and biased information processing in politicized environments.
Several studies investigate the difficulties of decision-making in complex projects, including the
use of economic calculations (Jansson 1989), the adverse selection on evaluation decisions
(Harrison and Harrell 1993), and the politics surrounding projects (Dehler 2003; Gasper 1989).
One important matter is how to make sense of risky projects that get out of control (Charalambos
and Dexter 2004). Important in this line of research is the idea of ‘risk tolerance’in project-driven
organizations (Kwak and Scott LaPlace 2005) and the relevance of options thinking to understand
decision-making in complex projects (Lint et al. 2001). Others examine the role of decision-
support systems for the management of projects (e.g. Asrilhant et al. 2004), while other studies
concentrate on the political aspects of complex projects. These latter studies normally build further
on the original ideas presented in Staw and Ross (1978). For instance, several papers address the
reasons why software projects escalate and the associated problems with information flows
(Conlon and Garland 1993; Keil et al. 2003), whereas others zoom in on the troubles of reporting
‘bad news’ in complex, multi-actor projects (Tan et al. 2003). Drawing on the notion of ‘future
perfect thinking’, a few recent studies bring about the political aspects of public projects (e.g. Pitsis
et al. 2003) and the idea of projects as ‘political hybrids’(Clegg and Courpasson 2004).
Decision School research focuses primarily on the early stages of projects and underlines the value
of in-depth analysis of single cases. Studies typically elicit the political processes inherent in public
projects involving a great number of actors, encouraging the analysis of the information flows, the
escalation processes in projects, and the investigation of why good projects die and bad projects
survive. Studies within this tradition tend to draw on classic research within psychology and
organization theory, in particular, decision-making theories that contrast the rationalistic model of
decision-making.

Embracing pluralism
Based on the above review of research on project management, a framework is suggested
consisting of seven schools of thought that represent different traditions of research. The
identification and categorization of schools of thought in project management research lends
support to the idea of theoretical pluralism. It also substantiates the observation that the study of
projects and project management has gained increased attention from a wide range of disciplines,
including operations research, organization theory, economics, psychology and industrial
marketing (Söderlund 2002). In the following, the seven schools of thought are compared.To give
more detail to the main attention of each school and their respective major influences, Table 2
presents examples of contributions based on citation analysis and selected keywords taken from
the summary documents.
Table 3 presents an initial summary of the differences between the schools in terms of main focus
and research approach and methodologies. As this table shows, project management research
differs considerably, covering various topics with a focus on planning and scheduling of complex
tasks, investigations of success factors to achieve project success, organizational structures,
organization processes, governance of complex project transactions, formation of project networks
and project investment decisions. Some disparity is also observed across the schools concerning
their foci of analysis along the stages of the project life cycle. Some schools, such as the Decision
School and Relationship School, tend to address the early stages and formation phases of projects,
while other schools primarily examine the implementation phase, which, for instance, is the
tendency among the bulk of studies in the Factor School and the Contingency School.
Drawing on Hambrick (1990), one can also distinguish differences in terms of the scholarly interest
in the dynamic aspects of projects. Some schools treat projects primarily as a static phenomenon
(Contingency School), while others adopt a more dynamic view on the development of projects
(Behaviour School, Relationship School, Decision School). The former often presents projects
from a snapshot view without giving details of its history and evolution. The latter, in contrast,
seeks to elicit some of the dynamics involved in projects. Such interest is often seen in the use of
longitudinal data or authors’ formulating explicit critique of conventional static interpretations of
projects.
Some diversity is also noted as to the respective schools’ interest in describing or prescribing, and
whether the published papers are primarily based on inductive or deductive research approaches
(Thomas 2006). For instance, most papers in the Factor School have a strong deductive approach,
testing a particular hypothesis, and a prescriptive orientation since ‘performance is a dependent
construct’(Hambrick 1990, 247), while Behaviour School research to a much greater extent reports
on inductive and descriptive research with limited interest in formulating and testing hypotheses.
Typically, a number of these studies embark on a longitudinal research agenda.
Now turning to a comparison of how the schools have treated the idea of projects and project
management, a few observations should be brought to the fore. First, one might say that a simple
and clear-cut definition of projects and project management would be a difficult feat. Like other
subfields of management, for instance strategic management (see, e.g. Cheaffee 1985; Nag et al.
2007), project management has its share of challenges, problems and opportunities. Looking at the
seven schools, some overlap and shared ideas are discerned regarding project definitions, such as
temporary, complex or interdisciplinary; at the same time, some interesting divergences are also
discovered. In the analysis of the primary definitions of projects and the ideas of project
management frequently adhered to, one has definitions of projects as complex sets of activities,
complex tasks, organizational structures, organization processes, transactions, networks and
largescale investments. As a consequence, the schools give somewhat different explanations to the
role and practice of project management, whether, for instance, the focus primarily is on planning,
decision-making, design or network formation. From a theory-development standpoint, the
schools hence have various foci and seek to answer, to some extent, different fundamental
questions (Söderlund 2004a), ranging from the existence of projects, the variation among projects,
how they behave, the role of project management, to, finally, the determinants of success and
failure of projects. These questions are essential if one is to develop theories of projects and project
management, and they are important for each of the schools to develop further, but also for the
schools and the emerging perspectives to complement each other in future empirical investigations.
Table 4 presents a comparison of the key questions and the diverse project ideas. It also adds a
summarizing ‘project management maxim’ to capture the role and function of project management
portrayed in each of the identified schools.
As documented in the categorization and analysis, the study elaborates on the polysemic nature of
projects and thus acknowledges that projects come in different forms and have multiple meanings
(cf. Bre-

Table 3. Schools of project management research: main focus and research approach
Main focus of analysis Primary research approach and methodologies Empirical context

Optimization
School Planning, breakdown techniques and scheduling of complex tasks Logic-based,
modeling, simulation, experiments, static/dynamic Engineering, R&D
Factor School Success factors and project outcomes/project performance Surveys, quantitative
cross-sectional analysis, regression analysis, deductive, static R&D
Contingency
School Project organization design/structure Surveys, multiple case studies, single case studies,
deductive/inductive, static R&D

Behaviour
School Project organization processes Case studies, experiments, inductive, longitudinal, dynamic
Change, development

Governance
School Governance of project organizations/ transactions Case studies, deductive, static
Construction

Relationship
School Management of the formation and development phase of projects Case studies, inductive,
longitudinal, dynamic Engineering, construction
Decision The interplay among decision-makers in the Case studies, longitudinal,
deductive/inductive, School (mainly) early stages of projects dynamic Public sector, IT

Table 4. Schools of project management research: key questions, ideas and maxims
Key questions/issues investigated Dominant project idea Project management maxim
Optimization School
How to manage/plan a project? Complex set of activities ‘Optimizing project implementation by
planning’
Factor School
What determines project success? Complex task ‘Targeting project management by factors’
Contingency School
Why do projects differ? Organizational structure ‘Adapting project organization to contingencies’
Behaviour School
How do projects behave? Organizational process ‘Shaping processes of project organization’
Governance School
How are projects governed? Complex transaction ‘Governing project organization/ transactions’
Relationship School
How are the early stages of projects managed and how are projects formed? Multi-actor network
‘Developing relationships and projects’

Decision School
Why are projects instigated, why do they continue to live? Large-scale investment ‘Politicking
and influencing decision-making processes’
Dillet 2005a,b). Its polysemic nature probably stems from the empirical reality of contemporary
projects where they are often, at the same time, considerable public investments and multifaceted
organizational processes involving learning, emotions and tangled knowledge integration. Such
complexities, one would assume, require a number of theoretical perspectives and research
methodologies to be possible to grasp and understand. Hence, Table 4 offers some substance to a
critique of common descriptions of project management research to be discussed further below.

Rethinking or taking stock

Authors have stated that there is an ‘extraordinary silence’ on the theoretical side of project
management and that ‘an explicit theory is the crucial and single most important issue for the
future’ (Koskela and Howell 2002, p. 1). Similar opinions have been voiced by others in the
domain of project management, who emphasize the need to decide on standardized definitions and
that project management research must develop an overarching unifying theory to be recognized
as a ‘proper academic discipline’ (Turner 2006a, p. 1; see also, e.g. Shenhar and Dvir 1996, Turner
2006a,b,c,d). A number of scholars even argue for the pressing need to ‘rethink project
management’ (e.g. Winter et al. 2006, p. 642). The present paper provides additional insights into
and partial support for this rethinking agenda (Winter et al. 2006, p. 642). The paper has shown
that (1) pluralism offers various ‘theories of project management’ and alternative views on projects
and their complexity; (2) research has, for several years, been interested in projects as social
processes, organizational processes and decision-making processes; (3) part of project
management research has addressed a wide array of success criteria and value creation
measurements; (4) there is an evolving pluralistic understanding of projects, which offers broad
conceptualizations of projects and project management; and (5) theorists and reflective
practitioners need to embrace this pluralism, and learn to live with multiple and sometimes
competing explorations and explanations.
In sum, based on this review, project management research today offers at least a minimum level
of pluralism and multiple perspectives to illuminate the complex actuality of projects and project
management practice (Cicmil et al. 2006; Sauer and Reich 2007; Williams 2005).The message is
about embracing pluralism and learning to live with contradictions without losing focus and
commonality. In that respect, project management as a scientific field needs to strike a balance
between pluralist and unification strategies (Knudsen 2003). However, the primary role of the
unification strategy is to set the agenda for research, to identify the important topics and questions,
and to open up the arenas for sharing research results. Relating to the polysemic nature and
multiple meanings of projects, this paper elicits a variety of conceptions and ideas of projects and
project management. To some extent, these alternatives are competing; nevertheless, the existence
of contrasting versions and definitions of projects are positive signs that are to be welcomed, and
which, in the end, might facilitate the progress of research to the level of complexity almost
matching that of projects themselves. Different ideas about projects can activate creative thinking
about project management and aid fruitful knowledge exchanges with other subfields in
management and organization studies. A few noteworthy examples already exist among the papers
in the data set. For instance, Shenhar and Dvir (1996) introduced a contingency theory and
extended this idea in subsequent papers to test the theory on a larger sample in an attempt to explore
successes and failures in project management (Dvir et al. 1998). Katz (1982) began with a study
similar to other research in the Factor School, but his ideas later influenced follow-up studies in
the Behaviour School and investigations into the salient features of projects as temporary
organizations. These developments and school-crossings seem critical to producing theories that
are sensitive to context yet still build on findings presented in earlier research.
Schools are static, but schools develop; so do subfields. Although this paper offers a categorization
of project management research, it warns against narrow Balkanization both of the subfield, as
such, becoming too distant from the study of management and organization, and schools locking
themselves in to develop their own research agenda far from other scholars sharing the interest to
develop knowledge about projects and project management. Building on what is known –
‘exploitation’ – is an important act of knowledge development; so is ‘exploration’. Exploitation
can, however, be done in several ways: by elaborating further on the research carried out within a
particular school; or by crossing schools and combining existing ideas developed in adjacent areas.
In the author’s view, this is the best way to handle the balance of exploration and exploitation –
between pluralism and unification – within management and organization, and the best way to
strengthen the field of project management even further.

Putting the schools to work

Projects are becoming increasingly multifaceted, involving stakeholders with diverse interests,
fastchanging technologies and distributed knowledge bases. As a result, they need to be examined
from a number of different perspectives and theoretical lenses to frame accurately the problems
facing their initiators, owners, designers and managers. At the same time, projects are vehicles for
strategy development and implementation, regional development and places for work. Hence, the
spectrum of problems confronting research becomes broader, which emphasizes the importance of
connecting project management with other disciplines, such as strategy, economic geography and
human resource management.
To aid the world of practice, project management scholars would arguably have to provide
solutions on how best to design structures which correspond to many challenges facing present-
day projects, so that the relevant processes are initiated to take projects to fruition – be that
behavioural, social or technical processes. The schools, however, suggest quite contrasting
resolutions. Consider the determinants of success and failure – a popular theme in research on
project management. Common in the explanations of failed projects in the Optimization School is
the flawed use of plans and formalized planning techniques (Liberatore and Titus 1983), while in
the Factor School the reasons are addressed in a wider management context, including top
management attention, communication modes, teamwork, project manager skills, monitoring and
feedback measures (Pinto and Prescott 1990). In the Contingency School, the explanations are first
and foremost sought in the design of the organization and its adaptability to particular
contingencies, most notably the technical and environmental complexity and uncertainty. For the
Decision School and the Behaviour School, the explanations are chiefly traced in human capacities
to deal with information and the underlying reasons for commitments to particular courses of
action and decision-making. Decision School research, conversely, tends to position the problem
with regard to over-optimism and unrealistic expectations, making it nearly impossible for projects
to succeed according to conventional success criteria. Finally, the Governance School and the
Relationship School view failures predominantly in light of the institutional and inter-
organizational environments, fragile governance mechanisms (Governance School) and/or the lack
of important relationships with partners and other significant stakeholders (Relationship School).
Determining which of the schools offer the best account depends on the focal situation, timing and
the person conducting the analysis. Still, the schools and their different ideas of project
management play an important role in enhancing understanding of the yet more complex projects
of our time.
Authors who claim that project management researchers should become a homogeneous group
with a shared interest and view of reality with a common epistemology are not only downplaying
the contributions of previous and recent research, but may, in fact, be hindering the advancement
of ingenious thinking and creative tensions. By following the unification strategy too strongly, the
project management community may run the risk of losing the important linkages between the
field of project management and related management and organization studies. Thus,
specialization wins at the expense of new findings, new ideas and relevance. By embracing
pluralism, project management research may be better equipped to explore and explain the
difficulties of generating, forming, managing and even killing projects – such analysis would
benefit from a comprehensive view on project processes and the use of multiple theories. As
argued, embracing pluralism might lead us forward – to truly acknowledge the many exciting
contributions within this fast-growing area of research. However, the schools, in conjunction with
the fundamental questions, discussed earlier, are central to being able to navigate in this land of
research opportunities: to know where to start and where to head, what to build on and what to
criticize. The schools of project management research presented here could play a part in turning
the fragmentation trap where too many theories are produced at too high a speed into a focused
creative tension among explanations with the capacity to provide complementary understandings
and robust alternative models of project management.
References
Abernathy, W.J. and Rosenbloom, R.S. (1969). Parallel strategies in development projects.
Management Science, 15, pp. 486–505.
Adler, P.S. (1995). Interdepartmental interdependence and coordination: the case of the
design/manufacturing interface. Organization Science, 6(2), pp. 147–167.
Adler, P.S. and Mandelbaum, A. (1995). From project to process management: an empirically-
based framework for analyzing product development time. Management Science, 41, pp. 458–
485.Alter, S. And Ginzberg, M. (1978). Managing uncertainty in MIS implementation. Sloan
Management Review, 20(1), pp. 23–31.
Asrilhant, B., Meadows, M. And Dyson, R. (2004). Exploring decision support and strategic
project management in the oil and gas sector. European Management Journal, 22, pp. 63–73.
Avots, I. (1969). Why does project management fail? California Management Review, 12, pp. 77–
82.
Bailetti, A., Callahan, J. And DiPietro, F. (1994). A coordination structure approach to the
management of projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 41, pp. 394–403.
Balachandra, R., Brockhoff, K.K. and Pearson, A.W. (1996). R&D project termination decisions:
processes, communication, and personnel changes. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
13, pp. 245–256.
Bansard, D., Cova, B. And Salle, R. (1993). Project marketing: beyond competitive bidding
strategies. International Business Review, 2, pp. 125–141.
Bech, N. (2001). Doors to leading projects: your new chance to understand and perform project
leadership. Creativity and Innovation Management, 10, pp. 96–101.
Bechky, B.A. (2006). Gaffers, gofers, and grips: role-based coordination in temporary
organizations. Organization Science, 17, pp. 3–21.
Berggren, C. (2004). Global dreams – Local teams: rhetoric and realities of transnational
innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 8, pp. 115–145.
Betts, M. And Lansley, P. (1995). International Journal of Project Management: a review of the
first ten years.
International Journal of Project Management, 13, pp. 207–217.
Boland, R.J., Lyytinen, K. And Yoo, Y. (2007). Wakes of innovation in project networks: the case
of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering, and construction. Organization Science,
18, pp. 631–647.
Bonner, J.M., Ruekert, R.W., Walker, O.C. Jr (2002). Upper management control of new product
development projects and project performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19,
pp. 233–245.
Bourgeon, L. (2002). Temporal context of organizational learning in new product development
projects. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11, pp. 175–183.
Brady, T. And Davies, A. (2004). Building project capabilities: from exploratory to exploitative
learning. Organization Studies, 25, pp. 1601–1621.
Bredillet, C. (2005a). From the editor: Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we
going? Project Management Journal, 36, pp. 3–4.
Bredillet, C. (2005b). From the editor. Project Management Journal, 36, pp. 3–4.
Bredillet, C. (2007). Exploring research in project management: nine schools of project
management research (Part 1). Project Management Journal, 38, pp. 2–6.
Bredin, K. And Söderlund, J. (2006). HRM and project intensification in R&D-based companies:
a study of Volvo Car Corporation and AstraZeneca. R&D Management, 36, pp. 467–485.
Bryson, J.M. and Bromiley, P. (1993). Critical factors affecting the planning and implementation
of major projects. Strategic Management Journal, 14, pp. 319–337. Burns, T. And Stalker, G.M.
(1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.
Butler, A.G. (1973). Project management: a study of organizational conflict. Academy of
Management Journal, 16, pp. 84–101.
Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chang, A., Bordia, P. And Duck, J. (2003). Punctuated equilibrium and linear progression: toward
a new understanding of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 46, pp. 106–117.
Charalambos, L.I. and Dexter, A.S. (2004). Turning around runaway information technology
projects. California Management Review, 46, pp. 68–88. Cheaffee, E.F. (1985). Three models of
strategy. Academy of Management Review, 10, pp. 89–98.
Chiesa, V. (2000). Global R&D project management and organization: a taxonomy. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 17, pp. 341–359.
Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thomas, J. And Hodgson, D. (2006). Rethinking project management
research: researching the actuality of projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24,
pp. 675–686.
Clark, K.B. (1989). Project scope and project performance: the effect of parts strategy and supplier
involvement on product development. Management Science, 35, pp. 1247–1263.
Clark, K.B. and Wheelwright, S.C. (1992). Organizing and leading ‘heavyweight’ development
teams. California Management Review, 34, pp. 9–28.
Clegg, S. And Courpasson, D. (2004). Political hybrids: Tocquevillean views on project
organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 41, pp. 525–547.
Clegg, S.R., Pitsis, T.S., Rura-Polley, T. And Marosszeky, M. (2002). Governmentality matters:
designing an alliance culture of inter-organizational collaboration for managing projects.
Organization Studies, 23, pp. 317–337.
Collin, S.-O., Johansson, U., Svensson, K. And Ulvenblad, P.-O. (1996). Market segmentation in
scientific publications: research patterns in American vs European management journals. British
Journal of Management, 7, pp. 141–154.
Conlon, D.E. and Garland, H. (1993). The role of project completion information in resource
allocation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, pp. 402–413.
Coombs, R., McKeekin, A. And Pybus, R. (1998). Toward the development of benchmarking tools
for R&D project management. R&D Management, 28, pp. 175–186.
Cooper, D.F. (1976). Heuristics for scheduling resourceconstrained projects: an experimental
investigation. Management Science, 22, pp. 1186–1194.
Cooper, R., Edgett, S. And Kleinschmidt, E. (2001). Portfolio management for new product
development: results of an industry practices study. R&D Management, 31, pp. 361– 380.
Cova, B. And Hoskins, S. (1997). A twin-track networking approach to project marketing.
European Management Journal, 15, pp. 546–556.
Cova, B., Mazet, F. And Salle, R. (1996). Milieu as a pertinent unit of analysis in project
marketing. International Business Review, 5, pp. 647–664.
Crawford, L., Pollack, J. And England, D. (2006). Uncovering the trends in project management:
Journal emphases over the last 10 years. International Journal of Project Management, 24, pp. 175–
184.
Croisier, B. (1998). The governance of external research: empirical test of some transaction-cost
related factors. R&D Management, 28, pp. 289–298.
Dadfar, H. And Gustavsson, P. (1992). Competition by effective management of cultural diversity.
International Studies of Management & Organization, 22, pp. 81–92.
Daft, R.L. and Buenger, V. (1990). Hitching a ride on a fast train to nowhere: the past and future
of strategic management research. In Fredrickson, J. (ed.), Perspectives on Strategic Management.
New York: Harper, pp. 81–103.
Dailey, R.C. (1978). The role of team and task characteristics in R&D team collaborative problem
solving and productivity. Management Science, 24, pp. 1579–1588.
Davies, A. And Hobday, M. (2005). The Business of Projects. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Davis, D. (1985). New projects: beware of false economies. Harvard Business Review, 63, pp. 95–
101.
Davis, E.W. and Heidorn, G. (1971). An algorithm for optimal project scheduling under multiple
resource constraints. Management Science, 17, pp. 803–816.
Davis, E.W. and Patterson, J. (1975). A comparison of heuristic and optimum solutions in
resource-constrained project scheduling. Management Science, 21, pp. 944– 955.
De Meyer, A., Loch, C. And Pich, M. (2002). Managing project uncertainty: from variation to
chaos. Sloan Management Review, 43, pp. 60–67.
Debrabander, B. And Edström, A. (1977). Successful information system development projects.
Management Science, 24, pp. 191–199.
DeCotiis, T.A. and Dyer, L. (1977). The dimensions and determinants of project performance.
Industrial Marketing Management, 6, pp. 370–378.
DeFillippi, R. And Arthur, M. (1998). Paradox in projectbased enterprise: the case of film making.
California Management Review, 40, pp. 186–191.
Dehler, G.E. (2003). Advocacy, performance, and threshold influences on decision to terminate
new product development. Academy of Management Journal, 46, pp. 419–434. Demeulemeester,
E. And Herroelen, W. (1992). A branchand-bound procedure for the multiple resourceconstrained
project scheduling problem. Management Science, 38, pp. 1803–1818.
Drexl, A. (1991). Scheduling of project networks by job assignment. Management Science, 37,
pp. 1590–1602.
Dumond, J. And Mabert, V. (1988). Evaluating project scheduling and due date assignment
procedures: an experimental analysis. Management Science, 34, pp. 101–118.
Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S., Shenhar, A. And Tishler, A. (1998). In search of project classification: a
non-universal approach to project success factors. Research Policy, 27, pp. 915–935.
Eccles, R. (1981). Bureaucratic versus craft administration: the relationship of market structure to
the construction firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, pp. 449–469.
Eisenhardt, K. And Tabrizi, B. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes: product innovation in the
global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, pp. 84–110.
Ekstedt, E., Lundin, R.A., Söderholm, A. And Wirdenius, H. (1999). Neo-Industrial Organising:
Renewal by Action and Knowledge Formation in a Project-Intensive Economy. London:
Routledge.
Ekvall, G. (1993). Work: a longitudinal study of a product development project. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 2, pp. 17–26.
Elias, A., Cavana, R. And Jackson, L.S. (2002). Stakeholder analysis for R&D project
management. R&D Management, 32, pp. 301–310.
Elmaghraby, S.E. and Kamburowski, J. (1992). The analysis of activity networks under
generalized precedence relations (GPRs). Management Science, 38, pp. 1245– 1263.
Van den Ende, J. (2003). Modes of governance of new service development for mobile networks:
a life cycle perspective. Research Policy, 32, pp. 1501–1518.
Engwall, M. (1998). The ambiguous project concept(s). In Lundin, R.A. and Midler, C. (eds),
Projects as Arenas for Renewal and Learning Processes. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, pp. 25–36.
Engwall, M. (2003). No project is an island: linking projects to history and context. Research
Policy, 32, pp. 789–808. Engwall, M. And Westling, G. (2004). Peripety in an R&D drama:
capturing a turnaround in project dynamics. Organization Studies, 25, pp. 1557–1578.
Eppinger, S.D. (2001). Innovation at the speed of information. Harvard Business Review, 79(1),
pp. 149–158.
Ericksen, J. And Dyer, L. (2004). Right from the start: exploring the effects of early team events
on subsequent project team development and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49,
pp. 438–471.
Ford, R. And Randolph, A. (1992). Cross-functional structures: a review and integration of matrix
organization and project management. Journal of Management, 18, pp. 267–294.
Fredrickson, J. (1990). Introduction: the need for perspectives. In Fredrickson, J. (ed.),
Perspectives on Strategic Management. New York: Harper, pp. 1–8.
Fulkerson, D.R. (1961). A network flow computation for project cost curves. Management
Science, 7, pp. 167–178.
Gaddis, P.O. (1959). The project manager. Harvard Business Review, 37, pp. 89–97.
Galbraith, J.R. (1973). Designing Complex Organizations. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.
Gasper, D.R. (1989). Toward a sociology of project assessment. International Studies of
Management & Organization, 19, pp. 28–52.
Gemmill, G. And Wilemon, D.L. (1970). The power spectrum in project management. Sloan
Management Review, 12, pp. 15–25.
Gersick, C. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group development.
Academy of Management Journal, 31, pp. 9–41.
Gersick, C. (1989). Marking time: predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management
Journal, 32, pp. 274–309.
Gerwin, D. And Ferris, J.S. (2004). Organizing new product development projects in strategic
alliances. Organization Science, 15, pp. 22–37.
Goodman, R.A. (1967). Ambiguous authority definition in project management. Academy of
Management Journal, 10, pp. 395–407.
Goodman, L.P. and Goodman, R.A. (1972). Theater as a temporary system. California
Management Review, 15, pp. 103–108.
Goodman, R.A. and Goodman, L.P. (1976). Some management issues in temporary systems: a
study of professional development and manpower: the theater case. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 21, pp. 494–501.
Grabher, G. (2004). Temporary architectures of learning: knowledge governance in project
ecologies. Organization Studies, 25, pp. 1491–1514.
Granot, D. And Zuckerman, D. (1991). Optimal sequencing and resource allocation in research
and development projects. Management Science, 37, pp. 140–156.
Green, S.G., Welsh, M.A. and Dehler, G.E. (2003). Advocacy, performance, and threshold
influences on decision to terminate new product development. Academy of Management Journal,
46, pp. 419–434.
Grewal, R., Lilien, G. And Mallapragada, G. (2006). Location, location, location: how network
embeddedness affects project success in open source systems. Management Science, 52, pp. 1043–
1056.
Griffiths, D. And Pearson, A.W. (1973). Planning, control and organizational structure in research
and development. Journal of Management Studies, 10, pp. 256–274.
Gutierrez, G.J. and Kouvelis, P. (1991). Parkinson’s law and its implications for project
management. Management Science, 37, pp. 990–1001.
Hadjikhani, A. (1996). Project marketing and the management of discontinuity. International
Business Review, 4, pp. 319–336.
Hambrick, D.C. (1990). The adolescence of strategic management, 1980–1985: critical
perceptions and reality. In Fredrickson, J. (ed.), Perspectives on Strategic Management.
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 237–253.
Hammerton, J.C. (1970). Management and motivation. California Management Review, 12, pp.
51–56.
Harrison, P.D. and Harrell, A. (1993). Impact of ‘adverse selection’ on managers’ project
evaluation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, pp. 635–642.
Hedlund, G. And Ridderstråle, J. (1995). International development projects: key to
competitiveness, impossible or mismanaged? International Studies of Management &
Organization, 25, pp. 158–184.
Hellgren, B. And Stjernberg, T. (1995). Design and implementation in major investments: a project
network approach. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11, pp. 377–394.
Henderson, J.C. and Lee, S. (1992). Managing I/S design teams: a control theories perspective.
Management Science, 38, pp. 757–777.
Hobday, M. (2000). The project-based organization: an ideal form for management of complex
products and systems? Research Policy, 29, pp. 871–893.
Hodgetts, R.M. (1969). Leadership techniques in project organization. Academy of Management
Journal, 11, pp. 211–219.
Hodgson, D. (2002). Disciplining the professional: the case of project management. Journal of
Management Studies, 39, pp. 803–821.
Hodgson, D. (2004). Project work: the legacy of bureaucratic control in the post-bureaucratic
organization. Organization, 11, pp. 81–100.
Hodgson, D. (2005). Putting on a professional performance: performativity, subversion and project
management. Organization, 12, pp. 51–68.
Hoegl, M. And Gemeunden, H.G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative
projects: a theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12, pp. 435–449.
Hoegl, M. And Weinkauf, K. (2005). Managing task interdependencies in multi-team projects: a
longitudinal study. Journal of Management Studies, 42, pp. 1287–1308.
Holloway, C.A., Nelson, R. And Suraphongschai, V. (1979). Comparison of a multi-pass heuristic
decomposition procedure with other resource-constrained project scheduling procedures.
Management Science, 25, pp. 862–872.
Holmquist, M. (2007). Managing project transformation in a complex context. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 16, pp. 46–62.
Hoopes, D. And Postrel, S. (1999). Shared knowledge, ‘glitches,’ and product development
performance. Strategic Management Journal, 20, pp. 837–865.
Huchzermeier, A. And Loch, C.H. (2001). Project management under risk: using the real options
approach to evaluate flexibility in R&D. Management Science, 47, pp. 85–101.
Hung, A., Naidu, G., Cavusgil, S. And Yam, R.C. (2002). An exploratory study of project based
international joint ventures: the case of Chek Lap Kok Airport in Hong Kong. International
Business Review, 11, pp. 505–522.
Iansiti, M. (1995). Shooting the rapids: managing product development in turbulent environments.
California Management Review, 38(1), pp. 37–58.
Ibert, O. (2004). Projects and firms as discordant complements: organisational learning in the
Munich software ecology. Research Policy, 33, pp. 1529–1546.
Ivory, C.J., Alderman, N., Thwaites, A., McLoughlin, I. And Vaughan, R. (2007). Working around
the barriers to creating and sharing knowledge in capital goods projects: the client’s perspective.
British Journal of Management, 18, pp. 224–240.
Jansson, D. (1989). The pragmatic uses of what is taken for granted: project leaders’ applications
of investment calculations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 19, pp. 49–63.
Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Leidner, T.E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams.
Organization Science, 10, pp. 791–815.
Johnson, S.B. (1997). Three approaches to big technology: operations research, systems
engineering and project management. Technology and Culture, 38, pp. 891–919.
Joyce, W.F. (1986). Matrix organization: a social experiment. Academy of Management Journal,
29, pp. 536–561.
Jugdev, K. And Müller, R. (2005). A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project
success. Project Management Journal, 36, pp. 19–31.
Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, pp. 81–104.
Katz, R. And Allen, T.J. (1985). Project performance and the locus of influence in the R&D matrix.
Academy of Management Journal, 28, pp. 67–87.
Keegan, A. And Turner, J.R. (2002). The management of innovation in project-based firms. Long
Range Planning, 35, pp. 367–388.
Keil, M., Rai, A., Cheney Mann, J.E. and Zhang, G.P. (2003). Why software projects escalate: the
importance of project management constructs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
50, pp. 251–261.
Kim, J. And Wilemon, D. (2007). The learning organization as facilitator of complex NPD
projects. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16, pp. 176–191.
King, W.R. and Wilson, T. (1967). Subjective time estimates in Critical Path planning: a
preliminary analysis. Management Science, 13, pp. 307–320.
Kirsch, L.J. (1996). The management of complex tasks in organizations: controlling the systems
development process. Organization Science, 7(1), p. 121.
Klingel, A. (1966). Bias in PERT project completion time calculations for a real network.
Management Science, 13, pp. 194–201.
Kloppenborg, T.J. and Opfer, W.A. (2002). The current state of project management research:
trends, interpretations, and predictions. Project Management Journal, 33, pp. 5–18.
Knudsen, K. (2003). Pluralism, scientific progress, and the structure of organization theory. In
Tsoukas, H. And Knudsen, C. (eds), Oxford University Press Handbook on Organization Theory.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 262–288.
Koenig, C. And Thietart, R.-A. (1988). Technology and organization: the mutual organization in
the European aerospace industry. International Studies of Management & Organization, 17, pp. 6-
30.
Kolisch, R. (1996). Efficient priority rules for the resourceconstrained project scheduling problem.
Journal of Operations Management, 14, pp. 179–192.
Kolodny, H.F. (1979). Evolution to a matrix organization. Academy of Management Review, 4,
pp. 543–553.
Koskela, L. And Howell, G. (2002). The underlying theory of project management is obsolete.
Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference, Philadelphia: Project Management Institute.
Kreiner, K. (1992). The postmodern epoch of organization theory. International Studies of
Management & Organization, 22, pp. 37–52.
Kreiner, K. (1995). In search of relevance: project management in drifting environments.
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11, pp. 335–346.
Kwak, Y.H. and Anbari, F. (2008). Impact on Project Management of Allied Disciplines: Trends
and Future of Project Management Practices and Research. Atlanta, GA: PMI.
Kwak, Y.H. and Scott LaPlace, K. (2005). Examining risk tolerance in project-driven organization.
Technovation, 25, pp. 691–695.
Lanford, H.W. and McCann, T.M. (1983). Effective planning and control of large projects: using
workbreakdown structure. Long Range Planning, 16, pp. 38–50.
Larson, E. And Gobeli, D. (1987). Matrix management: contradictions and insights. California
Management Review, 29, pp. 126–138.
Larson, E.W. and Gobeli, D. (1988). Organizing for product development projects. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 5, pp. 180–190.
Larson, E.W. and Gobeli, D.H. (1989). Significance of project management structure on
development success. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 36, pp. 119–125.
Larson, M. And Wikström, E. (2007). Relational interaction processes in project networks: the
consent and negotiation perspectives. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 23, pp. 327–352.
Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 13, pp. 1–47.
Lemaire, J.-P. (1996). International projects’ changing patterns: sales engineers’ changing role.
International Business Review, 5, pp. 603–629.
Levene, R. (1996). The Origins of Project Management. International Encyclopedia of Business
and Management, Vol. 5. London: Thomson Business Press.
Levitt, R.E., Thomsen, J., Christiansen, T.R., Kunz, J.C., Jin, Y. And Nass, C. (1999). Simulating
project work processes and organizations. Management Science, 45, pp. 1479– 1495.
Levy, F.L., Thompson, G.L. and Weist, J.D. (1963). The ABCs of the Critical Path Method.
Harvard Business Review, 41(5), pp. 98–108.
Leybourne, S. (2007). The changing bias of project management research: a consideration of the
literatures and an application of extant theory. Project Management Journal, 38, pp. 61–73.
Liberatore, M. And Titus, G. (1983). The practice of management science in R&D project
management. Management Science, 29, pp. 962–974.
Lindgren, M. And Packendorff, J. (2006). What’s new in new forms of organizing? On the
construction of gender in project-based work. Journal of Management Studies, 43, pp. 841–866.
Lindkvist, L., Söderlund, J. And Tell, F. (1998). Managing product development projects: on the
significance of fountains and deadlines. Organization Studies, 19, pp. 931–951.
Lint, O., Lint, O. And Pennings, E. (2001). An option approach to the new product development
process: a case study at Philips Electronics. Preview. R&D Management, 31(2), pp. 163–172.
Lorenzen, M. And Frederiksen, L. (2005). The management of projects and product
experimentation: examples from the music industry. European Management Review, 2, pp. 198
211.
Lovallo, D. And Kahneman, D. (2003). Delusions of success: how optimism undermines
executives’ decisions. Harvard Business Review, 81, pp. 56–63.
Løwendahl, B. (1995). Organizing the Lillehammer Olympic winter games. Scandinavian Journal
of Management, 11, pp. 347–362.

Lucas, R. (1971). Optimal management of a research and development project. Management

Science, 17, pp. 679– 697.
Lundin, R.A. and Söderholm, A. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 11, pp. 437–455.
Lundqvist, M., Sundgren, N. And Trygg, L. (1996). Remodularization of a product line: adding
complexity to project management. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, pp. 311–324.
MacCormack, A., Verganti, R. And Iansiti, M. (2001). Developing products on ‘Internet Time’:
the anatomy of a flexible development process. Management Science, 47, pp. 133–150.
March, J.G. (1996). Continuity and change in theories of organizational action. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 41, pp. 278–287.
Matta, N. And Ashkenas, R.N. (2003). Why good projects fail anyway. Harvard Business Review,
81, pp. 109– 114.
Meinhart, W.A. and Delionback, L.M. (1968). Project management: an incentive contracting
decision model. Academy of Management Journal, 11, pp. 427–434.
Melcher, A.J. and Kayser, T.A. (1970). Leadership without formal authority: the project group.
California Management Review, 13, pp. 57–64.
Middleton, C.J. (1967). How to set up a project organization. Harvard Business Review, 45, pp.
73–82.
Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity
for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, pp. 81–107.
Miller, R.W. (1962). How to plan and control with PERT. Harvard Business Review, 40(2), pp.
93–104.
Millman, T.F. (1996). Global key account management and systems selling. International Business
Review, 5, pp. 631–645.
Milosevic, D.Z. (2002). Selecting a culturally responsive project management strategy.
Technovation, 22, pp. 493– 508.
Mintzberg, H. (1990). Strategy formation: schools of thought. In Fredrickson, J. (ed.), Perspectives
on Strategic Management. New York: Harper, pp. 105–236.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. And Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy Safari:The Complete Guide through
theWilds of Strategic Management. London: Prentice Hall.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization. London: Sage. Morris, P.W.G. (1994). The
Management of Projects. London: Thomas Telford.
Müller, R. And Turner, R. (2007). The influence of project managers on project success criteria
and project success by type of project. European Management Journal, 25, pp. 298–309.
Nag, R., Hambrick, D. And Chen, M. (2007). What is strategic management, really? Inductive
derivation of a consensus definition of the field. Strategic Management Journal, 28, pp. 935–955.
Newell, S., Tansley, C. And Huang, J. (2004). Social capital and knowledge integration in an ERP
project team: the importance of bridging and bonding. British Journal of Management, 15, pp. 43–
57.
Nobeoka, K. And Cusumano, M.A. (1997). Multiproject strategy and sales growth: the benefits of
rapid design transfer in new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 18, pp. 169-
186.
Northcraft, G.B. and Wolf, G. (1984). Dollars, sense, and sunk costs: a life cycle model of resource
allocation decisions. Academy of Management Review, 9, pp. 225–234. Nutt, P.C. (1982). Hybrid
planning methods. Academy of Management Review, 7, pp. 442–454.
Nutt, P.C. (1983). Implementation approaches for project planning. Academy of Management
Review, 8, pp. 600– 611.
O’Mahony, S. (2003). Guarding the commons: how community managed software projects protect
their work. Research Policy, 32, pp. 1179–1198.
Owusu, R.A. and Welch, C. (2007). The buying network in international project business: a
comparative case study of development projects. Industrial Marketing Management, 36, pp. 147–
161.
Packendorff, J. (1995). Inquiring into the temporary organization: new directions for project
management research. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11, pp. 319–334.
Parikh, S. And Jewell, W. (1965). Decomposition of project networks. Management Science, 11,
pp. 444–459.
Paul, S. (1984). The strategic management of development programs: evidence from an
international study. International Studies of Management & Organization, 14, pp. 133–166.
Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: paradigm development as a
dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18, pp. 599–620.
Pich, M.T., Loch, C.H. and De Meyer, A. (2002). On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in
project management. Management Science, 8, pp. 1008–1023.
Pinto, J.K. and Mantel, S.J. (1990). The causes of project failure. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 37, pp. 269–276.
Pinto, J.K. and Prescott, J.E. (1988). Variations in critical success over the stages of in the project
life cycle. Journal of Management, 14, pp. 5–18.
Pinto, J.K. and Prescott, J.E. (1990). Planning and tactical factors in the project implementation
process. Journal of Management Studies, 27, pp. 305–327.
Pinto, M.B., Pinto, J.K. and Prescott, J.E. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of project team
cross-functional cooperation. Management Science, 39, pp. 1281–1297.
Pitsis, T.S., Clegg, S., Marosszeky, M. And Rura-Polley, T. (2003). Constructing the Olympic
dream: a future perfect strategy of project management. Organization Science, 14, pp. 574–590.
Pollack, J. (2007). The changing paradigms of project management. International Journal of
Project Management, 25, pp. 266–274.
Poole, M.S. and Van de Ven, A. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization
theories. Academy of Management Review, 14, pp. 542–578.
Popper, K.R. (1945). The Open Societies and Its Enemies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Postrel, S. (2007). Do we need a project project? Blog post on the value of project management
for strategy research, posted 6 June, 2007, http://www.organizationsandmarkets.org
Prencipe, A. And Tell, F. (2001). Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge
codification in project-based firms. Research Policy, 30, pp. 1373– 1394.
Randolph, W.A. and Posner, B.Z. (1988). What every manager needs to know about project
management. Sloan Management Review, 29, pp. 65–73.
Reeser, C. (1969). Some potential human problems of the project form of organization. Academy
of Management Journal, 11, pp. 459–467.
Roman, D. (1964). Project management recognizes R&D performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 7, pp. 7–20.
Ross, J. And Staw, B.M. (1986). Expo 86: an escalation prototype. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 31, pp. 274– 297.
Ross, J. And Staw, B. (1993). Organizational escalation and exit: lessons from the Shoreham
nuclear power plant. Academy of Management Journal, 36, pp. 701–732.
Sapsed, J. And Salter, A. (2004). Postcards from the edge: local communities, global programs
and boundary objects. Organization Studies, 25, pp. 1515–1534.
Sauer, C. And Reich, B.H. (2007). What do we want from a theory of project management? A
response to Rodney Turner. International Journal of Project Management, 25, pp. 1–2.
Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., Laurent, S., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L. And Newell, S. (2004). Project-
based learning and the role of learning boundaries. Organization Studies, 25, pp. 1579–1600.
Seers, A. And Woodruff, S. (1997). Temporal pacing in task forces: group development or
deadline pressure? Journal of Management, 23, pp. 169–187.
Shenhar, A.J. (1998). From theory to practice: toward a typology of project-management styles.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 45, pp. 33–48.
Shenhar, A. (2001). One size does not fit all projects: exploring classical contingency domains.
Management Science, 47, pp. 394–414.
Shenhar, A. And Dvir, D. (1996). Toward a typological theory of project management. Research
Policy, 25, pp. 607–632. Shenhar, A. And Dvir, D. (2007). Project management research: the
challenge and opportunity. Project Management Journal, 38, pp. 93–99.
Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Levy, O. And Maltz, A.C. (2001). Project success: a multidimensional
strategic concept. Long Range Planning, 34, pp. 699–725.

Skaates, M.A., Tikkanen, H. And Alajoutsijärvi, K. (2002). Social and cultural capital in project
marketing service firms: Danish architectural firms on the German market. Scandinavian Journal
of Management, 18, pp. 589–609.
Slevin, D.P. and Pinto, J.K. (1987). Balancing strategy and tactics in project implementation. Sloan
Management Review, 29, pp. 33–41.
Söderlund, J. (2002). On the development of project management research: schools of thought and
critique. International Project Management Journal, 6, pp. 20–31.
Söderlund, J. (2004a). Building theories of project management: past research, questions for the
future. International Journal of Project Management, 22, pp. 183–191.
Söderlund, J. (2004b). On the broadening scope of the research on projects: a review and a model
for analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 22, pp. 655–667.
Sommer, S. And Loch, C. (2004). Selectionism and learning in projects with complexity and
unforeseeable uncertainty. Management Science, 50, pp. 1334–1347.
Staber, U. (2004). Networking beyond organizational boundaries: the case of project
organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13, pp. 30–40.
Starkey, K., Barnatt, C. And Tempest, S. (2000). Beyond networks and hierarchies: latent
organizations in the UK television industry. Organization Science, 11, pp. 299– 305.
Staw, B.M. and Ross, J. (1978). Commitment to a policy decision: a multi-theoretical perspective.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, pp. 40–64.
Stinchcombe, A.L. (1959). Bureaucratic and craft administration of production. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 4, pp. 168–187.
Takeuchi, H. And Nonaka, I. (1986). The new new product development game. Harvard Business
Review, 64, pp. 137–146.
Talbot, F.B. (1982). Resource-constrained project scheduling with time-resource tradeoffs: the
nonpreemptive case. Management Science, 29, pp. 1197–1210.
Tan, B., Smith, H.J., Keil, M. And Montealegre, R. (2003). Reporting bad news about software
projects: impact of organizational climate and information asymmetry in an individualistic and a
collectivistic culture. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50, pp. 64– 77.
Tatikonda, M.V. and Rosenthal, S.R. (2000). Successful execution of product development
projects: balancing firmness and flexibility in the innovation process. Journal of Operations
Management, 18(4), pp. 401–425.
Tavares, L.V. (2002). A review of the contribution of operational research to project management.
European Journal of Operational Research, 136, pp. 1–18.
Taylor, B.W. and Moore, L. (1980). R&D project planning with Q-GERT network modeling and
simulation. Management Science, 26, pp. 44–59.
Thamhain, H.J. and Gemmill, G.R. (1974). Influence styles of project managers: some project
performance correlates. Academy of Management Journal, 17, pp. 216– 224.
Themistocleous, G. And Wearne, S.H. (2000). Project management topic coverage in journals.
International Journal of Project Management, 18, pp. 7–11.
Thomas, J. (2006). Problematising project management. In Hodgson, D. And Cicmil, S. (eds),
Making Projects Critical. London: Palgrave, pp. 90–107.
Turner, J.R. (2006a). Towards a theory of project management: the nature of the project.
International Journal of Project Management, 24, pp. 1–3.
Turner, J.R. (2006b). Towards a theory of project management: the nature of project governance
and project management. International Journal of Project Management, 24, pp. 93–95.
Turner, J.R. (2006c). Towards a theory of project management: the functions of project
management. International Journal of Project Management, 24, pp. 187–189.
Turner, J.R. (2006d). Towards a theory of project management: the functions of project
management. International Journal of Project Management, 24, pp. 277–279.
Turner, J.R. and Keegan, A. (2001). Mechanisms of governanceintheproject-
basedorganization:rolesofthebroker and steward. European Management Journal, 19, pp. 254–
267.
Turner, J.R. and Müller, R. (2004). Communication and co-operation on projects between the
project owner as principal and the project manager as agent. European Management Journal, 22,
pp. 327–336.
Tushman, M.L. (1978). Technical communication in R&D laboratories: the impact of project work
characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 21, pp. 624–645.
Urli, B. And Urli, D. (2000). Project management in North America, stability of the concepts.
Project Management Journal, 31, pp. 33–43.
Vaaland, T.I. and Håkansson, H. (2003). Exploring interorganizational conflict in complex
projects. Industrial Marketing Management, 32, pp. 127–138.
Van de Ven, A. (2007). Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Van Maanen, J. (1995). Style as theory. Organization Science, 6, pp. 133–143.
Weglarz, J. (1981). Project scheduling with continuously divisible, doubly constrained resources.
Management Science, 27, pp. 1040–1053.
Welch, C. (2005). Multilateral organizations and international project marketing. International
Business Review, 14, pp. 289–305.
Welch, D., Welch, L. And Young, L. (1996). Network development in international project
marketing and the impact of external facilitation. International Business Review, 5, pp. 579–602.
Wiest, J.D. (1981). Precedence diagramming method: some unusual characteristics and their
implications for project managers. Journal of Operations Management, 1(3), pp. 121–130.
Whittington, R.A., Molloy, E., Mayer, M. And Smith, A. (2006). Practices of
strategizing/organizing: broadening strategy work and skills. Long Range Planning, 39, pp. 615–
629.
Whittington, R., Pettigrew, A., Peck, S., Fenton, E. And Conyon, M. (1999). Change and
complementarities in the new competitive landscape: a European panel study, 1992–1996.
Organization Science, 10, pp. 583–600.
Wilemon, D.L. (1973). Managing conflict in temporary
systems.JournalofManagementStudies,10,pp.282–296. Wilemon, D.L. and Cicero, J.P. (1970).
Project manager: anomalies and ambiguities. Academy of Management Journal, 13, pp. 269–282.

Wilemon, D.L. and Gemmill, G.R. (1971). Interpersonal power in temporary system. Journal of
Management Studies, 8, pp. 315–328.

Williams, T. (2005). Assessing and moving on from the dominant project management discourse
in the light of project overruns. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52, pp. 497–508.

Williamson, O.E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies. New York: Free Press.

Winch, G., Clifton, N. And Millar, C. (2000). Organization and management in anAnglo-French
consortium: the case ofTransmanche link. Journal of Management Studies, 37, pp. 663–685.
Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P. And Cicmil, S. (2006). Directions for future research in project
management: the main findings of a UK government-funded research network. International
Journal of Project Management, 24, pp. 638–649.

Yakura, E.K. (2002). Charting time: timelines as temporal boundary objects. Academy of
Management Journal, 45, pp. 956–970.

Zobel, A.M. and Wearne, S. (2000). Project management topic coverage in recent conferences.
Project Management Journal, 31, pp. 32–37.