Archive for the ‘Literature Review’ Category

What’s up with Project Management Research?

Dienstag, Oktober 21st, 2008

One of my other interests is data visualisation. When I started my work on this project, I wanted to get a quick overlook of what Project Management Research really is about. After I collected all author-given keywords from all articles in the International Journal of Project Management and the Journal of Project Management of the last 5 years (2003 and onwards) I created these Tag Clouds.This morning I stumbled across about a blog entry on information aestehetics written by Martin Wattenberg, the group manager of IBM Visual Communication lab. After some more random klicks I landed on Wordle.net, Wordle is the aestethically more pleasing cousin of the cloud tag and I started redoing my earlier excercise to generate some sleek new summaries:

International Journal of Project Management 2003-2008

Wordle I - IJPM Wordle Keywords International Journal of Project Management 2003-2008

Journal of Project Management 2003-2007

Wordle of Keywords from the Journal of Project Management 2003-2007  Wordle of Keywords from the Journal of Project Management 2003-2007

Keywords published in International Journal of Project Management and Journal of Project Management 2003-2008

Wordle of all keywords published in International Journal of Project Management and Journal of Project Management 2003-2008 Wordle of all keywords published in International Journal of Project Management and Journal of Project Management 2003-2008

These are the links to the original graphics in the Wordle gallery – these are licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA:



Investigating the use of the stakeholder notion in project management literature, a meta-analysis (Vos & Achterkamp, in press)

Dienstag, September 30th, 2008

 Investigating the use of the stakeholder notion in project management literature, a meta-analysis (Vos & Achterkamp, in press)

Achterkamp, Marjolein C.; Vos, Janita F.J.: Investigating the use of the stakeholder notion in project management literature, a meta-analysis; in: International Journal of Project Management, Article in Press, Corrected Proof.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.10.001

Managing the stakeholders is an, if not the most, important part of the project manager’s job. Previously Vos & Achterkamp published articles focussed on the identification of stakeholders, which is a crucial and not so simple task.“Basic, but not trivial“, as one of my Economics professors always used to say.

In this article, however, Vos & Achterkamp reviewed 42 articles in terms of

  • Definition of stakeholders
  • Purpose of stakeholder notion
  • Identification issues
  • Role of stakeholders

Analysing the commonly used definitions of stakeholders the authors identify two key theoretically based definitions – stakeholders could either be persons with an interest in the project, or persons who can or are affected by the project. One or both of these two definitions are used in only 16.6% of articles reviewed, the remaining articles mainly deal with this topic without defining the object stakeholder at all.

Why look at stakeholders? The purpose of the stakeholder notion is first and foremost to sense-making and defining success. Further purposes of stakeholder management are risk management, use as source of information, and using stakeholders as a management instrument.

The review of the identification issue, a topic close to the authors, shows that most articles only recognise the issue, or explain it partly. Only a minority of 4 articles (out of 42) recognises and explains the issue.

Lastly Vos & Achterkamp review the roles of stakeholders. For reasons of not only simplifying complexity down to a managable level, but also for overcoming issues of stakeholder identification stakeholders the authors suggest an explicit, structured, role-based identificiation procedure. Whilst they acknowledge that stakeholder salience model, as discussed in this earlier post, is the leading theoretical model of identifying stakeholder; the authors argue that the role-based stakeholder classification model for innovative projects is more promising.

„Considering stakeholders in terms of roles of involvement in the context of projects then raises the question of whether there is anything new. Indeed, thinking in terms of roles is not new in project management. Could project roles perhaps be used for stakeholder identification?“ (p. 4)

Vos & Achterkamp review three articles in detail, which use a role-based stakeholder classification model. These three articles define the following roles

  • Callan et al. (2008)
    • Controller
    • Executer
    • Constraining advisor
    • Discretionary advisor
  • Turner (2008)
    • Manager
    • Steward
    • Owner
    • User
    • Sponsor
    • Broker
    • Resources
  • Vos & Achterkamp (2006)
    • Client
    • Decision maker
    • Designer
    • Passively involved

Directions for future research in project management: The main findings of a UK government-funded research network (Winter et al. 2006)

Montag, August 11th, 2008

Directions of future research in project management

Winter, Mark; Smith, Charles; Morris, Peter; Cicmil, Svetlana: Directions for future research in project management – The main findings of a UK government-funded research network; in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 (2006), No. 8, pp. 638-649.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.009 

To start with Winter et al. give a short overview of the research history. In their conceptualisation of project management’s history research started as a hard systems model forked afterwards into two different foci (1) execution and (2) organisational design. The organisational design stream developed into research of ad hoc & temporary organisations. This stream forked into 4 different streams a) subsequently focussed on major projects and lately on a management of project’s framework, b) analysed strategic decisions, c) viewed projects as information processing entities, and d) researched critical management.

Winter et al. outline 3 distinctive directions for future research – Theory ABOUT, FOR, and IN practice. Theory about practice should focus on complexity theory. The theory for practice on social processes, value creation, and a broad concept of project management. The theory in practice should create practitioners who are reflective practitioners and not merely trained technicians.

Toward a typological theory of project management (Shenhar & Dvir, 1996)

Donnerstag, Juli 17th, 2008

Typological Theory of PM

Shenhar, Aaron J.; Dvir, Dov: Toward a typological theory of project management; in: Research Policy, Vol. 25 (1996), No. 4, pp. 607-632.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(95)00877-2

Basing their text on the metaphor of incremental vs. radical innovations Shenhar & Dvir develop a typological framework for projects. In their model the two factors System Scope (assembly, system, array) and Technological Uncertainty (low, medium, high, and super high tech) distinguish projects. Furthermore the authors give some example and characterise each of the 12 types of projects.

The changing paradigms of project management (Pollack, 2007)

Dienstag, Juli 15th, 2008

Changing Paradigm

Pollack, Julien: The changing paradigms of project management; in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 (2007), No. 3., pp. 266-247.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.002

This article is closely related to the 2006 article by Atkinson et al., which are all based on the hard-soft-framework first published in

Crawford, Lynn; Pollack, Julien: Hard and soft projects – a framework for analysis, in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22 (2004), No. 8, pp. 645-653.

In this article Pollack analyses project management literature in order to identify paradigms associated with project management research. He uses the concept of the paradigm as defined by Kuhn in 1962 as a „commonly shared set of assumptions, values and concepts within a community, which constitutes a way of viewing reality. Individuals within the community may embody these assumptions in different ways, and so paradigm is used in his context to refer to a general tendency for thought“ (Pollack 2007, p. 266).

Pollack then describes the hard and soft paradigm he helped establishing with research on best practice organisational change projects. The hard paradigm is characterised by

  • Predefined project goals
  • Positivist and Realist philosophies
  • Emphasis on control
  • Quantitative measures
  • Reductionist techniques
  • Emphasis on structure
  • No need for participation
  • Project Manager as Expert

Whereas the soft paradigm is characterised by

  • Ill-defined and ambiguous goals
  • Qualitative measures
  • Emphasis on learning
  • Need for participation
  • Interpretivist philosophies
  • Emphasis on social processes
  • Project Manager as Facilitator

Furthermore Pollack argues that most of the current research is deeply rooted in the hard paradigm, although the literature on the soft paradigm is growing significantly. He then argues that a paradigmatic expansion could provide increased opportunity for practitioners and researchers. Since choosing a paradigm automatically defines certain assumptions for the research and thus limiting it. Nevertheless he points out that neither one perspective is appropriate to all situations.

Beyond the Gantt chart: Project management moving on (Maylor, 2001)

Montag, Juli 14th, 2008

 beyond the gannt chart

Maylor, Harvey: Beyond the Gantt chart – Project management moving on; in: European Managment Journal, Vol. 19 (2001), No. 1, pp. 92-100.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(00)00074-8

Maylor argues that project management practice and research [which he analyses by it’s standard texts and bodies of knowledge] are stuck in a large-scale engineering mind set. He uses the advances in operations to show that knowledge in the project management realm is lacking behind. Maylor covers several key areas and challenges typical project management assumptions:

  • Project definition – projects are not a one-off effort; project managers need to be viewed as integrators of theories and knowledge and not as managers of plans
  • Manufacturing vs. Service – project management has no answer on the intangibility of service projects, thus expectation management and customer orientation are under represented; a SERVQUAL like paradigm change is needed
  • Project Management – the predominant focus on management activities and planning systems dilutes the importance of execution
  • Planning Process – Planning is somehow synonymous with network diagrams, freezes and baselines; Maylor encourages to make planning more visible, adopting lean tools from operations such as whiteboards and post-its
  • Conformance vs. Performance – Project management currently focuses on the conformance with budget, scope, and cost baselines; as operations did with TQM project should focus on delivering as soon as possible and as cheap as possible the maximal customer delight
  • Role of Strategy – Maylor cites Deming’s famous „defects are caused by the system“, to outline how argues that projects should not only be reactions to a company’s strategy but they need to contribute to and form part of the organisation’s strategy

IJPM vs. JPM

Montag, Juli 7th, 2008

After I read the paper
Crawford, Lynn; Pollack, Julien; England, David: How Standards are Standards – An Examination of Language Emphasis in Project Management Standards; in: Journal of Project Management, Vol. 38 (2007), No. 3, pp. 6-21.

I thought about visualising the different foci of the European International Journal of Project Management and the American Journal of Project Management [besides the more than obvious ‚International‘ in the title].

I compiled a list of all keywords which have been submitted by authors between 2003 and 2008. Afterwards I ran this list through the CloudTag Generator at tagcrowd.com which I set to generate 100 Meta-Keywords. This is the result for the International Journal of Project Management:

IJPM Keywords 2003-2008 (100 Tags)

And this is the result for the Journal of Project Management:

JPM 100 Tags Cloud of all Keywords 2003-2008

It’s quite interesting to spot the differences, the easiest difference to make out are the mentions of construction projects. However this also nicely shows the JPM’s focus on ‚Best Practice Research‘.